Online chat with Drs. Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate

[DavidV]

<h3 class="title">Online chat with Drs. Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate on April 23rd!</h3>

<span class="post"><p>I'm very pleased to announce an online chat that I have organized with <a href="http://ObjectivismOnline.com">ObjectivismOnline.NET</a>, the <a href="http://www.aynrand.org">Ayn Rand Institute</a> and the <a href="http://www.aynrandchat.com">#AynRand IRC channel</a>.</p>

<p><b>On April 23rd at 5:30 PM (Pacific) Drs. Yaron Brook and Onkar

Ghate will be guests of Objectivism Online for a one hour moderated

public chat. The purpose of the chat is to meet students interested in

Objectivism, The Ayn Rand Institute, or the Objectivist Academic

Center, and to answer their questions. Non-students are welcome as well.</b></p>

<p><i>Technical Details:</i><br>

The chat will be hosted at the #AynRand IRC channel on Undernet. It may be joined over the web at <a href="http://ObjectivismOnline.com/chat">www.objectivismonline.net/chat</a> or using any IRC client. </p>

<p>For more, read <a href="http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/online_chat_with_drs_yaron_brook_and_onkar_ghate_on_april_23rd_000115.html">the official announcement.</a>

[Capitalism Forever]

This is absolutely wonderful! Hope I can make it.

[DavidV]

By the way,

If you have a blog or website, I would greatly appreciate if you mention the chat on it.

You can link to the announcement at http://ObjectivismOnline.com/blog/archives/000115.html

[Invictus]

I'm not exactly sure what that time is in Australia but I think it's during my economics exam. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[Richard_Halley]

Great work setting that up, GC... I got an e-mail from ARI today about it.

Sadly I won't be around...

Hopefully I can catch the next one.

[EGO]

Great initiative! I have mentioned the event on my blog. It will be in middle of the night CET, but I am a "night watchman," so I will participate!

All the Best,

Martin Lindeskog - American in Spirit.

Gothenburg, Sweden (a.k.a. the socialist "paradise").

[WGD]

Tonight. 8:30 Est.

[gabrielpm]

When will we get a transcript of it? Someone must have kept the log!

thx

[MinorityOfOne]

Yeah, I'd like to see a transcript too. I barely made it back to my girlfriend's house in time after getting out of the gym, and for some reason couldn't get online until about 9:15...

I think in the future it'd be interesting to have topic-specific Q&As with Objectivist experts on particular subjects. Maybe we could get Brook for the Middle East, Bernstein for literature, Binswanger for epistemology, etc... I don't know if they'd be willing to do it in this sort of format, but they've all dealt with Q&As before, and if anything it's probably easier to write out the answers than to try to articulate them on one's feet.

[Capitalism Forever]

I didn't make it, unfortunately, so I'd love to see a transcript!

[oldsalt]

I am unable access the chat room -- probably because I'm on MSNTV, which blocks a lot of what I'd like to do. :~( Is there a possibility of a transcript? Please.

[DavidV]

The transcript is coming up as soon as ARI approves it.

The next chat will be a guided discussion in about three weeks. If you have ideas for a topic, I’d love to hear them.

[oldsalt]

David, even though I'm not able to access the chat room, would it be possible for me to submit a question?

[DavidV]

I'm confused - do you mean for the next discussion?

[AspiringObjectivist]

I have a personal and unaltered transcript, though I think it'd be inappropriate to post it publically without the sanction of GreedyCap - however, if anyone wants to see one now, I'll happily message it privately, as long as the receiver is aware that it is not authenticated nor approved by any administration.

[JRoberts]

GC, why does ARI have to approve it?

[oldsalt]

David: Sorry I wasn't more clear. If and when we you have another chat with ARI, may I submit a question through you? I.e., would you ask a question for me, since I'm not able to access the chat room?

Perhaps that's not a good idea after all. I wouldn't want to put you in the position of having to reject something you didn't like, etc. Never mind, and thanks anyway.

[DavidV]

Perhaps that's not a good idea after all.  I wouldn't want to put you in the position of having to reject something you didn't like, etc.  Never mind, and thanks anyway.

Ask away. If I were afraid of bad questions, I wouldn’t be running this gig.

GC, why does ARI have to approve it?

Because it was a condition of their agreeing to the chat.

[JRoberts]

So the board at ARI wanted to screen what their own employees say and possible "correct" things if need by?

I'm still confused about this.

[DavidV]

I don’t care to speculate on what their motives were (I can think of a number of reasonable ones) but your implication that they would lie about the transcript is ridiculous.

[Tryptonique]

If you use some basic logic, you wouldn't come to the conclusion that ARI had anything to hide.

1) Considering that a large purpose of the chat (if you were there you would know this) was devoted to the OAC....it would totally not be in ARI's best interest to screw with the transcript considering that there were 50 people who easily could have logged their own transcripts.

Unethical alterations of transcripts aren't really a viable way to attract Objectivist intellectuals to apply for your school.

2) Nothing was said at the chat that would in any way point to something that "needed to be corrected." If you weren't in the chat...why assume that there was anything to correct?

Sounds like some melevolent universe proponents are coming out of the woodwork.

[JRoberts]

I have nothing against ARI at all and do not think they would in any way 'lie' or tamper with the transcript. I do not see in fact any reason why they would want to review it, which is why I asked. Please refrain from making such rash judgements on me without even knowing who I am.

[MinorityOfOne]

I can think of a number of reasons. They might want to fact-check, which is always a good idea when people have to answer off the top of their heads. They may have been uncertain about the moderation, or they might have included the requirement in case the Q&A was full of trolls. Why is it suspicious? I'd think that in any situation where employees are communicating to the public in their official capacity, they'd want to exercise as much quality control as possible.

[Bearster]

So the board at ARI wanted to screen what their own employees say and possible "correct" things if need by?

When you begin a sentence in response to someone else with "so" and then speculate about something, it means that the speculation is the logical conclusion of what the other person said. I don't think that GC said or implied that ARI wants to modify the logs. People tend to get upset when they feel words are being put in their mouths.

Given that #AynRand is my channel, and that I also agreed that ARI would have final say over logs, it would not be inappropriate for me to publicly speculate on their motivations. However, I think MattBalin's post makes sense.

[y_feldblum]

Does any publishing house skip the editing phase, whether or no any revisions need to be made?

Does any organization attach its name to material provided by its employees without reviewing it first?