Giants, those Objectivists, Giants!
SANDRAMEND
Alan Greenspan, who met her at a resort.
They dated until it was discovered that she was *irrational.* This 19 year old
wunderkind who'd already been elected to Phi Beta Kappa had a photographic
memory (much like Bill Clinton has) but people with photographic memories don't
*think in concepts* (a bit of information that would have greatly empowered
Newt Gingrich in dealing with the hillbilly president). All of a sudden, this
young kid who had left home to join the Objectivists had lost all of her
friends. All except me. I taught her to think in concepts and we became very
close friends until out of cowardice she failed to defend me to a very pissed
off Ayn Rand who was in berserk how dare you criticize Nathan mode.
Vivian missed a menstrual period and became convinced she was pregnant.
Instead of taking her to see his ex-wife's husband , Alan Blumenthal, who was a
doctor, Alan Greenspan took her to an abortionist. She died on the table. She
hadn't been pregnant. She died of an air embolism. This abortionist butcher
couldn't even give an injection properly. Greenspan then turned state's
evidence, had his mother move in with him and someone broke into Vivian's
apartment and stole her journals. The story was splashed all over the front
page of the New York Daily News. Vivian's parents who were Russian peasants
who'd worked 6 days a week to give their angel everything and anything her
heart desired wanted to come after Greenspan with a baseball bat. I promised to
tell the whole story someday. Someday is now.
Sandra
dbco...@webinbox.com
> I promised to tell the whole story someday. Someday is now.
And a very interesting story it is. Thanks for sharing it with us.
Rand taught her disciples that ordinary mortals are mere puppets of
the ideas of Great Philosophers in just about every important aspect
of their lives, so the essence of self-interest allegedly was one's
absolute loyalty to the ideas of the greatest philosopher of all
times, namely herself.
Consequently, her so-called "egoism" is really just a thin
rationalization for a militant quasi-salvation religion based on the
ideological purification of both oneself and mankind in general. I
have already discussed at length how this leads to the monstrous
"nuke 'em all" nationalistic mentality that has been on display here
over the last year.
The evil of the Randroid death cult doesn't end with aspirations for
the mass murder of infidels and inferior cultures, however. Rand's
counterfeit egoism is extremely destructive at a personal level too.
This is especially evident in the behavior of herself and her circle
of friends in the early days of the cult; your story is yet another a
stark confirmation of what Objectivism is really all about.
Objectivists repress taboo thoughts and feelings, blaming their
existence on a lack of ideological purity. Objectivists
routinely stab their friends, lovers, and co-workers in
the back and throw away perfectly good relationships because their
counterparts aren't ideologically pure enough.
In intellectual exchanges, Objectivists don't really care about
discussing philosophical ideas, since Rand of course has already given
them The Truth (TM) and made any further discussion of philosophy
superfluous. Instead, Objectivists like to use intellectual forums to
satisfy their neurotic craving to show off their ideological purity,
personalities being more important than ideas.
To be fair, there are some reasonable people who have been attracted
by the egoistic window dressing of Objectivism who haven't really
understood the toxic core of Rand's thought well enough to have
grasped the subtext of collective ideological purification running
throughout Rand's writings. It is understandable that some
self-described Objectivists haven't quite grasped that the more
strident and loony orthodox cultists are the genuine article.
Still, when I hear stories like what happened to your friend, I can
only shake my head in amazement that these more "tolerant"
Objectivists still blame Dr. Peikoff for everything wrong with
Objectivism. Why do they have so much difficulty in understanding that
Rand herself was the malevolent founder of an evil personality cult,
and that Dr. Peikoff is merely a pathetic second-hander who is simply
perpetuating the evil seed planted by Rand? Are they totally ignorant
of Objectivism's early history? Or are they in deep denial about how
Rand's ideas translated into Rand's actual behavior?
-Coop
__________________________________________
Sent using WebInbox. "Your email gateway."
Check us out at http://www.webinbox.com
SANDRAMEND
<< Objectivists repress taboo thoughts and feelings, blaming their
existence on a lack of ideological purity. >>
Albert Ellis who built his psychological theories on the philosophy of the
stoics Epictetus the slave and the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, showed that it
wasn't what happened that upset us. They were A and C.
In between, *B* was what we said to ourselves about what had happened.
Then the cognitive psychologists took Ellis's ideas further and helped people
get in touch with ideas just below consciousness. In FEELING GOOD, David Burns
has the Aaron Beck Depression Inventory which you take. At the end of the book,
you take the test again and your score is different because of all the tools
you've learned about dealing problems which really plague and paralyze
Objectivists, such as perfectionism.
Sandra ;-)
Jesus 1DE7
>From: SANDRAMEND sandr...@aol.comsf
>Date: 4/13/01 9:20 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010413101933...@ng-mk1.aol.com>
> Vivian missed a menstrual period and became convinced she was pregnant.
>Instead of taking her to see his ex-wife's husband , Alan Blumenthal, who was
>a
>doctor, Alan Greenspan took her to an abortionist.
Aren't people who perform abortions usually doctors? This one was not an MD? I
am not familiar with the term "abortionist." Seems like something pro-life
people would call doctors who perform abortions.
Anyway, perhaps your friend and Alan dicussed it and they decided that it'd be
best if she had an abortion. I can't see anything implying otherwise in your
story.
>This abortionist butcher
>couldn't even give an injection properly. Greenspan then turned state's
>evidence
Not sure what this phrase means.
>had his mother move in with him
Perhaps she was getting old and Alan was upset over his girlfriends death and
needed support. Perhaps they had been trying to find a place for her to live
and the death of Alan's gf just opened up an option. From your story I cannot
tell that this was not the case, though I'd be interested in hearing details
about why exactly this should reflect badly on Alan.
> and someone broke into Vivian's
>apartment and stole her journals.
Allegedly Greenspan was behind this? So in the journal would have been stuff
like "I want to have the baby but Alan won't let me and is focing me to have an
abortion"?
That might have reflected badly on him but I still don't see how he'd get in
any real trouble from it. Or are you implying that Greenspan intended for the
"accident" to happen? Murdered her? Seems bizarre.
-User
Betsy Speicher
> SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote:
>
> > I promised to tell the whole story someday. Someday is now.
>
> And a very interesting story it is. Thanks for sharing it with us.
The storyteller claims to have all kinds of inside information about the
early days of Objectivism and claims to have been an important person --
knowing the "insiders," being privy to Ayn Rand's thoughts, helping
Branden with his lectures, etc. I was there then and her accounts sound
extremely unlikely based on my experience.
She also recounts various physical and mental problems, depression lasting
for years, attention deficit disorder, an inability to support herself,
and past reliance on government mental health facilities. Just reading her
postings and her description of herself on her web site
<http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/wrldlywit/myhomepage/profile.html> the word
"delusional" definitely comes to mind.
It would not take her "stories" as fact.
Betsy Speicher
You'll know Objectivism is winning when ... you read the CyberNet -- the
most complete and comprehensive e-mail news source about Objectivists,
their activities, and their victories. Request a sample issue at
cybe...@speicher.com or visit http://www.stauffercom.com/cybernet/
Tom Robertson
<snip>
>Objectivists
>routinely stab their friends, lovers, and co-workers in
>the back and throw away perfectly good relationships because their
>counterparts aren't ideologically pure enough.
I once read, probably in this newsgroup 2 or 3 years ago, that a
certain Objectivist wouldn't take someone out on a second date if she
thanked him for the first, since her gratitude meant she didn't
understand his selfish motive for taking her on the date.
<snip>
Russell Hanneken
"SANDRAMEND" <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote in message
news:20010413101933...@ng-mk1.aol.com...
> My friend Vivian Grecska (Grant) was brought into the Objectivist circle
> by Alan Greenspan, who met her at a resort.
[. . .]
> Alan Greenspan took her to an abortionist. She died on the table. She
> hadn't been pregnant. She died of an air embolism. This abortionist
> butcher couldn't even give an injection properly. Greenspan then turned
> state's evidence, had his mother move in with him and someone broke into
> Vivian's apartment and stole her journals. The story was splashed all over
> the front page of the New York Daily News.
Could you provide a date?
--
Russell Hanneken
rhan...@pobox.com
SANDRAMEND
<< Could you provide a date?>>
1960 I think.
Russell Hanneken
"SANDRAMEND" <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote in message
> Russell Hanneken asked:
>
> << Could you provide a date?>>
>
> 1960 I think.
Okay, that helps a little. Do you remember the name of the abortion doctor?
--
Russell Hanneken
rhan...@pobox.com
SANDRAMEND
<< The storyteller claims to have all kinds of inside information about the
early days of Objectivism and claims to have been an important person --
Who claimed that???
I was there before ATLAS SHRUGGED was published but never read the book in
galleys. I was part of the Junior Collective sort of.
knowing the "insiders," being privy to Ayn Rand's thoughts, helping Branden
with his lectures, etc.
Branden's perfectionism played havoc with my typing. Several of us were typing
Chapter 1 of The Psychology of Self-Esteem endlessly, so he gave me the job of
outlining the basic lectures. I did. Then he wanted the outlines longer, then I
ended up completely reorganizing the lectures.
People who listened to the original tapes of The Psychology of Sex, taped in
his home, said it sounded more like a dialogue than a lecture. I was the other
person speaking.
<<I was there then>>
No, you weren't. But ask Barbara Branden, she remembers me.>>
She also recounts various physical and mental problems, depression lasting for
years, attention deficit disorder, an inability to support herself,
and past reliance on government mental health facilities. Just reading
herpostings and her description of herself on her web site
the word"delusional" definitely comes to mind.
It would not take her "stories" as fact.>>
If you were there, you knew Barbara and Leonard. Ask either one. I took the
first two courses Leonard taught at Hunter College. MaryAnn Rukavina gave one
of her lectures on aesthetics in my apartment. We discussed The Birth of Adam
by Michelangelo. You weren't there.
Who are you?????
Sandra
SANDRAMEND
<< Okay, that helps a little. Do you remember the name of the abortion
doctor?>>
God, no. I read about it in The New York Daily News. I was married and gone
from the group by then.
Sandra
WCalvin72
Mr. Robertson said:
>I once read, probably in this newsgroup 2 >or 3 years ago, that a
>certain Objectivist wouldn't take someone >out on a second date if she
>thanked him for the first, since her >gratitude meant she didn't
>understand his selfish motive for taking >her on the date.
Looks to me like he was doing her a favor. The smarmy altruist!!!
SANDRAMEND
had eaten it so I rewrote it repeating information I thought had gotten lost.
As to Attention Deficit Disorder: as defined by Thom Hartmann I don't regard it
as a disability. Actually, it's helped me understand why I wasn't more
successful and why men with ADD have an advantage. Male ADDers have wives and
secretaries to pick up after them. When I've paid for attendant services, and
had people clean for me and cook for me I've been able to turn my energies to
higher order projects such as the book I'm working on.
I was asked to give a speech to Mensa's monthly gathering last June. I decided
to speak either on Ayn Rand or on Attention Deficit Disorder. I came to the
conclusion that Ayn was also an ADDer and like me had self-medicated with
amphetamines (mentioned in Barbara's book, footnote, page 173n.)
I think the article is helpful to people who thrive during emergencies, who
need causes to energize them, who wilt in a 9 to 5 world. I will create another
mini-web page and post it.
Sandra
SANDRAMEND
You are my kind of gal!
Betsy's sniffy response to a profile i'd forgotten i'd written and didn't know
still existed suggests to me that she is probably a very efficient typist and a
bit hard on the eyes.
Sense of humor: none.
Pomposity level: astronomical
You're fun to read. Post more. Tell me everything.
Sandra ;-)
"Lord, grant me the senility to forget the people I don't like, the good luck
to run into those I do, and the eyesight to tell the difference"-variation of
The Serenity Prayer
Gaius Helen Mohiam
> <<I was there then>>
>
> No, you weren't. But ask Barbara Branden, she remembers me.>>
[In indignation and shock] Betsy!!!! You didn't!? Again!
> Who are you?????
Who? Well that's our beloved little Betsy, spouse of Stephen "Nuke-em-all"
Speicher. Don't worry, she has always had this habit of coming up with,
shall we say, her very own versions of reality.
Oh, and Betsy's a staunch ARIan, so asking her to even acknowledge the
existence of a human being called Branden, let alone talk to any of them is
entirely out of the question. Besides, Betsy never has to ask for anything,
she "just knows".
As an aside, I never quite understood why the ARIans hated Nat Branden so
much. Was it because he had slept with Rand, or was it because he had
stopped doing so? Or both, perhaps? At any rate, that sordid little affair
speaks volumes about Rand: We have this aging matron demanding sexual
services from a (relatively) youthful Branden, because "emotions are
expressions of our value-judgments", so, since Rand was the greatest
philosopher who ever lived in modern times, Branden naturally had to be
insanely in love with her. Unfortunately, Branden being not quite perverted
enough yet, he decides that he might have more fun with a supermodel. So the
old girl flies into a rage, essentially tearing up her movement in the
process (well, there's a reason for the old saying: "Hell hath no fury...").
Love -- Helen.
Gaius Helen Mohiam
> You're fun to read. Post more. Tell me everything.
Don't worry, I am known as one of the more prolific "trolls" in this group.
Thus, according to "objectivist" orthodoxy, you should not read anything I
write, lest you endanger your immortal soul... oops, sorry, different
religion. But I trust you get the idea.
Best -- Helen.
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
Tom Robertson <mdm...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:ga2fdtcae1uj4lell...@4ax.com...
> I once read, probably in this newsgroup 2 or 3 years ago, that a
> certain Objectivist wouldn't take someone out on a second date if she
> thanked him for the first, since her gratitude meant she didn't
> understand his selfish motive for taking her on the date.
Jeepers man, that isn't reasonable, and certainly not an example of
Objectivist thinking. Why wouldn't one let someone know they enjoyed
themselves?
There is such a thing as politeness, and thanking someone is letting them
know _you_ had a good time.
--
Arnold
SANDRAMEND
<< I am known as one of the more prolific "trolls" in this group. Thus,
according to "objectivist" orthodoxy, you should not read anything I
write, lest you endanger your immortal soul... oops, sorry, different religion.
But I trust you get the idea.>>
You too??? My philosophical twin!!! At last, I've found you.
On the film newsgroups, whenever I'd appear, rabid left wingers would
frantically post telling everyone not to read me because I was a Randian (not
since 1960) and a Republican (not since 1988).
Eventually, enough sane people told them to cut it out, but for a few years
there the Hollywood left was absolutely vicious towards me.
Luckily, I had enough sources to rebut them and point out the real blacklisting
in Hollywood was done by a communist cell run by Sam Jaffe whose purpose was to
see to it that only pro-commies got jobs of any kind.
When I went online and wrote that I thought GOOD WILL HUNTING was a terrific
movie, they went berserk. The thread ended up being 75 messages or so long.
Worse still, i admitted that I didn't care for DOCTOR STRANGELOVE. Much foaming
at the mouth. Luckily, I had film guru Pauline Kael on my side, otherwise there
would have been an online lynching.
Helen, does driving politically correct types nuts energize you as much as it
does me. i find boilerplate Objectivism ultimately funny. A bit sad but funny
too.
Best,
Sandra
fizz...@freedom.net
> Dearest Helen said:
>
> << [deleted - usual drivel] >>
>
> You too??? My philosophical twin!!! At last, I've found you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
At least you got that one right. More correct than you will ever
understand.
...The Fiz...
Brandon Berg
"SANDRAMEND" <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote in message
> My friend Vivian Grecska (Grant) was brought into the Objectivist circle
by
> Alan Greenspan, who met her at a resort.
>
> They dated until it was discovered that she was *irrational.* This 19 year
old
> wunderkind who'd already been elected to Phi Beta Kappa had a photographic
> memory (much like Bill Clinton has) but people with photographic memories
don't
> *think in concepts* (a bit of information that would have greatly
empowered
> Newt Gingrich in dealing with the hillbilly president). All of a sudden,
this
> young kid who had left home to join the Objectivists had lost all of her
> friends. All except me. I taught her to think in concepts and we became
very
> close friends until out of cowardice she failed to defend me to a very
pissed
> off Ayn Rand who was in berserk how dare you criticize Nathan mode.
1. Bill Clinton has a photographic memory.
2. Alan Greenspan is an objectivist.
3. You post this a day or two after denouncing the argumentum ad hominem.
This is a joke, right?
--
Live free and prosper.
Brandon Berg
Betsy Speicher
> Betsy Speicher said:
>
> << The storyteller claims to have all kinds of inside information about the
> early days of Objectivism and claims to have been an important person --
>
> Who claimed that???
You reorganized Branden's lectures?
> I was there before ATLAS SHRUGGED was published but never read the book in
> galleys. I was part of the Junior Collective sort of.
> knowing the "insiders," being privy to Ayn Rand's thoughts, helping Branden
> with his lectures, etc.
You made definitive statements about Ayn Rand's reading speed, motivation,
and thoughts during that period of time. How do you know?
> Branden's perfectionism played havoc with my typing. Several of us were t
> yping
> Chapter 1 of The Psychology of Self-Esteem endlessly, so he gave me the j
> ob of
> outlining the basic lectures. I did. Then he wanted the outlines longer,
> then I
> ended up completely reorganizing the lectures.
> People who listened to the original tapes of The Psychology of Sex, taped in
> his home, said it sounded more like a dialogue than a lecture. I was the
> other
> person speaking.
That's quite possible. I am not disputing that you were there. I am
questioning your assessments and judgements about Ayn Rand.
> <<I was there then>>
> No, you weren't.
I mean, during the NBI days.
> But ask Barbara Branden, she remembers me.>>
> She also recounts various physical and mental problems, depression lastin
> g for
> years, attention deficit disorder, an inability to support herself,
> and past reliance on government mental health facilities. Just reading
> herpostings and her description of herself on her web site
> the word "delusional" definitely comes to mind.
> It would not take her "stories" as fact.>>
You have had mental problems, haven't you?
> If you were there, you knew Barbara and Leonard. Ask either one. I took the
> first two courses Leonard taught at Hunter College. MaryAnn Rukavina gave one
> of her lectures on aesthetics in my apartment. We discussed The Birth of Adam
> by Michelangelo. You weren't there.
I took the courses in Philadelphia -- Basic principles, Greenspan's, and
Mary Ann's, etc. before I moved to NYC.
> Who are you?????
I was Betsy Biderman in those days.
> Sandra
And who are you?
SANDRAMEND
<< > Betsy Speicher said:
SM claims to have been an important person --
SM: Who claimed that???
BS: You reorganized Branden's lectures?
SM: I was a lousy typist. Branden gave me the job of outlining his lectures for
him, like the job I did and told me to expand the outlines. Eventually, it
just got easier to reorganize the lectures.
SM: I was there before ATLAS SHRUGGED was published but never read the book in
galleys. I was part of the Junior Collective sort of.
BS: knowing the "insiders," being privy to Ayn Rand's thoughts, helping
Branden with his lectures, etc.
SM: The lectures were fee the one condition being that you see Branden as a
therapist. Several of us paid for our therapy by typing Chapter One of THE
PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-ESTEEM. I was a lousy typist who couldn't get through a page
without making a typo. Branden gave me the job of outlining his lectures for
him as a way of my paying for my therapy. By the way, Ayn insisted that Frank
also see Nathan as a therapist. EVERYBODY had to see her wunderkind as a
therapist. That was one of the reasons she was so pissed off later. She HAD
handed him a career as a therapist.
BS: You made definitive statements about Ayn Rand's reading speed,
SM: which she had mentioned at one of the Saturday evening writing classes.
BS: motivation,and thoughts during that period of time. How do you know?
SM: I read Barbara Branden's THE PASSION OF AYN RAND very, very carefully. I
consider it such a valuable insight into a great mind that I have underlined,
post it taped and re-read it many times.
BS: I am not disputing that you were there. I am
questioning your assessments and judgements about Ayn Rand.
SM: By questioning my mental health.
BS: I was there then>>
SM: No, you weren't.
BS: I mean, during the NBI days.
SM: That was AFTER I left.
BS: She also recounts various physical and mental problems, depression lasting
for years, attention deficit disorder,
SM: all of which I share with Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand had ADD also, a discovery I
made while deciding whether to give a speech on Rand or on ADD. It's NOT a
mental illness, it's a different form of brain wiring shared by many geniuses.
BS: Just reading her postings and her description of herself on her web site
the word "delusional" definitely comes to mind.
SM: I'll hazard a guess. You're not very goodlooking and have never been too
attractive to men.
BS: You have had mental problems, haven't you?
SM: Jesus! You are a piece of work. My mental problems have been less severe
than those Ayn suffered during her years of depression and less severe than
Nathan suffered for a time. OK?
BS: I took the courses in Philadelphia -- Basic principles, Greenspan's, and
Mary Ann's, etc. before I moved to NYC.
SM: I was there BEFORE the lectures went public and out around the country.
SM: Who are you?????
BS: I was Betsy Biderman in those days.
SM: You arrived after I left. Thank God!!
Sandra
Sandra ;-)
*Appeasers believe that if you keep on throwing steaks to a tiger, the tiger
will turn vegetarian.* - Heywood Broun
Dave O'Hearn
> Vivian missed a menstrual period and became convinced she was pregnant.
> Instead of taking her to see his ex-wife's husband , Alan Blumenthal, who
> was a doctor, Alan Greenspan took her to an abortionist. She died on the
> abortionist butcher couldn't even give an injection properly.
You did a very poor job of fabricating this story!
First, you've made your imaginary friend look like a total idiot, because
someone "took her" to an abortion clinic. What did he do, knock her over the
head with a lamp and drag her there? Please!
Second, no abortionist would ever perform an operation without doing a
pregnancy test. Simply missing a mentral period is not enough, as any doctor
knows it can happen for a variety of reasons. If it actually happened the
way you said, the doctor would have gone to jail. Idiocty on that level goes
far beyond malpractice.
And finally, air embolisms never result from a simple injection. That's pure
science fiction.
--
Dave O'Hearn
SANDRAMEND
<< You did a very poor job of fabricating this story!>>
It was a front page story in the New York Daily News. It probably happened in
1960, and a search of their archives would yield the story since in those days
they wouldn't have written about Alan Greenspan, head of Townsend-Greenspan.
The girl's name was Vivian Greczka or Vivian Grant (we all changed our ethnic
names in those days).
First, you've made your imaginary friend look like a total idiot, because
someone "took her" to an abortion..
I think I said abortionist not abortion clinic. She was very young and very
scared or for all I know she hoped Greenspan would marry her. Vivian and I were
no longer talking at that point because she had failed to defend me during my 5
hour inquisition with Rand even though she knew the things Rand was saying
weren't true.
<<Second, no abortionist would ever perform an operation without doing a
pregnancy test.....If it actually happened the
way you said, the doctor would have gone to jail. Idiocty on that level goes
far beyond malpractice.>>
He did go to jail, you moron. THAT's why it appeared on the front page of THE
NEW YORK DAILY NEWS!! He had killed before and if what he wanted was money he
wouldn't have done a pregnancy test would he??
<<And finally, air embolisms never result from a simple injection. That's pure
science fiction.>>
In every medical show you've ever seen, they squirt some liquid before
inserting the needle into a person. They do that to get the air out. Yes, air
embolisms do kill people.
Sandra
Are you being intentionally offensive, or merely stupid?
Gaius Helen Mohiam
> SM: I'll hazard a guess. You're not very goodlooking and have never been
too
> attractive to men.
[Laughing] Sandra, you are a genius: http://www.speicher.com/betsys.html
--Helen.
Gaius Helen Mohiam
> Are you being intentionally offensive, or merely stupid?
No, but he is very young, and very, very naive, as you would expect. Give
him some time, and, who knows, he may actually grow up some day, and abandon
his youthful "objectivism". In his case, I'd venture the guess that there
is, in fact some hope.
--Helen.
Brandon Berg
"Dave O'Hearn" <dave...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:9ba05n$89oik$1...@ID-81982.news.dfncis.de...
> "SANDRAMEND" wrote:
> > Vivian missed a menstrual period and became convinced she was pregnant.
> > Instead of taking her to see his ex-wife's husband , Alan Blumenthal,
who
> > was a doctor, Alan Greenspan took her to an abortionist. She died on the
> > able. She hadn't been pregnant. She died of an air embolism. This
> > abortionist butcher couldn't even give an injection properly.
>
> You did a very poor job of fabricating this story!
The story is at least in part true. Vivian Grant died in 1961 during a
(presumably) botched abortion procedure.
http://prolife.about.com/newsissues/prolife/library/century/aahxpt3a.htm
> First, you've made your imaginary friend look like a total idiot, because
> someone "took her" to an abortion clinic. What did he do, knock her over
the
> head with a lamp and drag her there? Please!
It's quite possible that she decided the potential benefit outweighed the
risk, and made a rational, informed choice to go. It's also possible that
she was panicked and confused, and her lover took advantage of this fact to
convince her to have an abortion when she might not have done so in a fully
rational state. With her being dead, there's really no way to tell.
> Second, no abortionist would ever perform an operation without doing a
> pregnancy test. Simply missing a mentral period is not enough, as any
doctor
> knows it can happen for a variety of reasons. If it actually happened the
> way you said, the doctor would have gone to jail. Idiocty on that level
goes
> far beyond malpractice.
He was charged with homicide. Also, remember that this was before Roe v.
Wade, when most abortions were underground. While I am sure that there were
many abortion doctors who heroically did their best to provide safe
abortions at the risk of their lives and sacred honor, quite a few of them
were incompetent, dishonest, and dangerous.
> And finally, air embolisms never result from a simple injection. That's
pure
> science fiction.
As I understand it, it's very unlikely, but possible, for an injection to
result in a fatal air embolism. In any case, Friedman, the doctor, told the
undertaker that she had died from a heart ailment, which suggests that there
were no external wounds. An air embolism or misuse of anesthetics would seem
to be the most likely culprit.
Of course, none of this rules out the possibility that Greenspan's and Miss
Mendoza's involvement in the whole affair was nothing more than a
fabrication tacked on to a real news story. Personally, I don't care. I have
no great admiration for Greenspan anyway, and the story, true or not, does
not reflect upon objectivism.
Jim Klein
dbco...@webinbox.com wrote:
>Objectivists repress taboo thoughts and feelings, blaming their
>existence on a lack of ideological purity.
Oh, please. There's no such thing as a "taboo thought" to an
Objectivist, if he's defined as one consistent with Objectivism.
Objectivism is built on the exact opposite of repression; "bad" thoughts
and feelings would be eliminated by their irrationality.
>Objectivists routinely stab their friends, lovers, and co-workers in
>the back and throw away perfectly good relationships because their
>counterparts aren't ideologically pure enough.
Where do you get this stuff?
>In intellectual exchanges, Objectivists don't really care about
>discussing philosophical ideas, since Rand of course has already given
>them The Truth (TM) and made any further discussion of philosophy
>superfluous. Instead, Objectivists like to use intellectual forums to
>satisfy their neurotic craving to show off their ideological purity,
>personalities being more important than ideas.
Can we just reduce your theory? Specifically it's, "ARIanism is the real
manifestation of Objectivism."
>To be fair, there are some reasonable people who have been attracted
>by the egoistic window dressing of Objectivism who haven't really
>understood the toxic core of Rand's thought well enough to have
>grasped the subtext of collective ideological purification running
>throughout Rand's writings. It is understandable that some
>self-described Objectivists haven't quite grasped that the more
>strident and loony orthodox cultists are the genuine article.
Yep, I guess that's your hypothesis!
>Still, when I hear stories like what happened to your friend, I can
>only shake my head in amazement that these more "tolerant"
>Objectivists still blame Dr. Peikoff for everything wrong with
>Objectivism.
Personally, I credit him with what's most right with Objectivism...his
_Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy_ in ITOE. The rest of his bullshit isn't
Objectivism, mostly.
>Why do they have so much difficulty in understanding that
>Rand herself was the malevolent founder of an evil personality cult,
Maybe because they're not cultish, rendering this claim impossible. Or
put it this way...even if she did found such a cult, that has nothing to
do with the philosophy of Objectivism.
>and that Dr. Peikoff is merely a pathetic second-hander who is simply
>perpetuating the evil seed planted by Rand? Are they totally ignorant
>of Objectivism's early history?
What in the world could history have to do with philosophical principles?
It has exactly one thing to do with them...
>Or are they in deep denial about how Rand's ideas translated into Rand's
>actual behavior?
This is an important point IMO, and it's valid. To the degree any of
Rand's behavior was both irrational and an outgrowth of Objectivism, it
indicates an error in Objectivism. And yes, no person should be in
denial of them if he's really interested in the philosophy. Or really,
no person should ever be in denial of any fact; to me, THAT'S
Objectivism's most important ethical point.
And in my experience, most Objectivists didn't need Objectivism to
believe that; they already did.
Your gripe is a straw-man. There are exactly the same number of
philosophies in the world as there are people. Objectivism is just the
distillation of certain principles...the ones that are right should be
understood and the ones that are wrong should be corrected. Your
approach is no different than those whom you ostensively oppose; you
package-deal the whole thing until it's comical.
jk
Gaius Helen Mohiam
I decided that this post of yours actually deserves a second answer, because
it demonstrates much of what is wrong with "objectivism".
"Dave O'Hearn" <dave...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:9ba05n$89oik$1...@ID-81982.news.dfncis.de...
> You did a very poor job of fabricating this story!
>
> First, you've made your imaginary friend look like a total idiot, because
> someone "took her" to an abortion clinic. What did he do, knock her over
the
> head with a lamp and drag her there? Please!
See, Dave, you need to understand that Sandra is not talking about one of
those pathetic little cardboard figures that are stumbling about in Rand's
novels, having nothing else to worry about than spouting philosophical
nonsense. I shall tell you a secret, one that may save your life one day.
And, please, understand that I am very serious when I say this: the figures
in Rand's novels do not exist in reality. They are caricatures of human
beings that only existed in Rand's mind. They are an image of Rand's mental
deformations, not an image of reality in any sense of the word. If you try
to live your life according to what you "learned" from Rand's novels, you
will fail, miserably and terribly.
Now, the "idiot" we are talking about was a young woman, who was scared, and
who did not have anybody else to turn to at a time when abortion was a very
different matter from what it is today. We are also talking about a woman
who loved and trusted the person who took her to the butcher. Did she make a
wrong decision? Obviously. Was it all her fault? Obviously not. You might
want to think about this a while before you respond and object. You will
become more human, and less "objectivist", once you understand what I am
saying.
Helen.
SANDRAMEND
have never been
too attractive to men.
[Laughing] Sandra, you are a genius: http://www.speicher.com/betsys.html>>
Takes one to know one.
Sandra ;-)
SANDRAMEND
<< > Are you being intentionally offensive, or merely stupid? addressed to a
twit on this ng
<<No, but he is very young, and very, very naive, as you would expect. Give him
some time, and, who knows, he may actually grow up some day, and abandon his
youthful "objectivism". In his case, I'd venture the guess that there
is, in fact some hope.>>
The older people are when they encounter Objectivism the less likely they are
to turn into monsters. Frank O'Connor and my ex-husband both retained their
humanity and compassion and kindness. I, on the other hand, having read THE
FOUNTAINHEAD at the age of 15 and having read it 25 times had to release a lot
of obnoxious Objectivist traits such as arrogance and know-it-all-ness.
And still there's a way to go.
Sandra ;-)
Gaius Helen Mohiam
> You too??? My philosophical twin!!!
I should probably warn you that this is unlikely to be true, depending on
what you mean by "philosophical twin". I am a physicist, and therefore
likely to approach many things from a perspective that is different from
yours. Of course, that doesn't mean that we cannot agree on many
philosophical issues.
I just thought it would be fair to warn you. As I said, most people in here
absolutely hate my guts, on both sides of the ARIan fence.
--Helen.
Dave O'Hearn
"SANDRAMEND" wrote:
> Dave O'Hearn said:
>
> << You did a very poor job of fabricating this story!>>
>
> It was a front page story in the New York Daily News. It probably
> happened in 1960, and a search of their archives would yield the
> story since in those days they wouldn't have written about Alan
> Greenspan, head of Townsend-Greenspan. The girl's name was Vivian
> Greczka or Vivian Grant (we all changed our ethnic names in those
> days).
I don't care enough to look it up. However, if you actually want anyone to
believe your story, you should do the bookwork yourself and post the exact
date of the newspaper.
> <<Second, no abortionist would ever perform an operation without doing a
> pregnancy test.....If it actually happened the
> way you said, the doctor would have gone to jail. Idiocty on that level
goes
> far beyond malpractice.>>
>
> He did go to jail, you moron. THAT's why it appeared on the front
> page of THE NEW YORK DAILY NEWS!!
I'd assumed that the newspaper story had something to do with the apartment
being broken into. That's where you mentioned it in your post, and you
didn't mention the first time that it was the front page. If the newspaper
story was about the disasterously screwed up abortion attempt, then I find
your story plausible enough that I won't dismiss it out of hand. However,
you have still done a poor job of telling this story, true or not. It is
unclear what connection you make between certain Objectivists and this young
woman getting her abortion. Since she wasn't talking to you, any
"pressuring" is pure speculation. Also, I don't really see what the point
is. What do you hope people will conclude from it? That surgical operations
can be dangerous? Everyone already knew that. Without the rhetoric, your
story amounts to:
1. You knew this young woman.
2. She knew Objectivists.
3. She went to get an abortion.
4. She died.
Tragic, of course, but not very interesting.
> He had killed before and if what he wanted was money he wouldn't
> have done a pregnancy test would he??
Presumably, he wanted money and to stay out of jail. Most people want to
stay out of jail. Assuming your story is true, failing to run a pregnancy
test was a very bad idea.
> <<And finally, air embolisms never result from a simple injection.
> That's pure science fiction.>>
>
> In every medical show you've ever seen, they squirt some liquid before
> inserting the needle into a person. They do that to get the air out. Yes,
> air embolisms do kill people.
Not from injections they don't. That's enough air to make someone sick for a
few minutes or maybe collapse a vein, but not kill them. However, I did a
quick search and found out that abortions themselves sometimes cause air
embolisms. That's probably what happened. There are cases where heroin
addicts deliberately tried to give themselves air embolisms with needles and
failed. It isn't easy.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Gaius Helen Mohiam
> Not from injections they don't. That's enough air to make someone sick for
a
> few minutes or maybe collapse a vein, but not kill them. However, I did a
> quick search and found out that abortions themselves sometimes cause air
> embolisms. That's probably what happened.
That could be true.
> There are cases where heroin
> addicts deliberately tried to give themselves air embolisms with needles
and
> failed. It isn't easy.
As far as I know, the air volume injected needs to be of the order of the
volume of the prechambers of the heart. If that bubble reaches the heart,
the pumping cycle breaks down, and you die.
Helen.
Betsy Speicher
Thank you. Not bad for a 56 1/2 year old, is it?
OK Sandra and Helen, where are YOUR pictures?
SANDRAMEND
My pix will be up next week. I'm 66 and look younger than you do.
Sandra ;-)
SANDRAMEND
<< I don't care enough to look it up. However, if you actually want anyone to
believe your story, you should do the bookwork yourself and post the exact date
of the newspaper.>>
Someone on this newsgroup looked up and found a reference to Vivian Grant's
abortion death in 1961 and the name of the abortionist.
Sandra
SANDRAMEND
<< I should probably warn you that this is unlikely to be true, depending on
what you mean by "philosophical twin". I am a physicist, and therefore
likely to approach many things from a perspective that is different from
yours.
Hmmm. Tell me what you think of the final chapter of Michael Crichton's book
TRAVELS in which he writes down the speech he wanted to give at CalTech on the
*religion of science.*
<<Of course, that doesn't mean that we cannot agree on many philosophical
issues.>>
True.
<<I just thought it would be fair to warn you. As I said, most people in here
absolutely hate my guts, on both sides of the ARIan fence.>>
Poor Helen. Do you really think I give a flying f--- what these moral midgets
and epistemological effetes think about anything? ??>>
I like you. I really like you.
Sandra ;-)
Dave O'Hearn
> "Dave O'Hearn" wrote:
> > First, you've made your imaginary friend look like a total idiot,
> > because someone "took her" to an abortion clinic. What did he do,
> > knock her over the head with a lamp and drag her there? Please!
>
> See, Dave, you need to understand that Sandra is not talking about one of
> those pathetic little cardboard figures that are stumbling about in Rand's
> novels, having nothing else to worry about than spouting philosophical
> "learned" from Rand's novels, you will fail, miserably and terribly.
Where are you getting this characterization of me from? I am actually quite
upset by people that read Rand's novels and try to act out the roles of her
heroes like a script. That's bad theatrics, not philosophy. I've never seen
it in real life, but one or two posters from APO come to mind.
> Now, the "idiot" we are talking about was a young woman, who was
> scared, and who did not have anybody else to turn to at a time
> when abortion was a very different matter from what it is today.
I didn't call the young woman an idiot. That would have been horrible.
Rather, I pointed out that the way Sandra strung rhetoric together in her
story made the woman look like an idiot, specifically her being "taken to"
an abortionist. This was necessary to make the (purely rhetorical)
connection between the two parts of the story. In the first, she was treated
poorly by Objectivists because they didn't understand photographic memory.
In the second, she died from abortion complications. Presumably, the purpose
was to first establish that the Objectivists in question were rude, then to
hint, but not say outright because it's preposterous, that they had
something to do with her death.
> We are also talking about a woman who loved and trusted the person
> who took her to the butcher. Did she make a wrong decision? Obviously.
> Was it all her fault? Obviously not.
But are you hinting that any of the fault for her death lies on the "person
who took her to the butcher"? That would require that he had any reason to
believe she would die. It's pure speculation. We don't even know if he was
pressuring her.
> You might want to think about this a while before you respond and
> object. You will become more human, and less "objectivist", once you
> understand what I am saying.
Thinking about it isn't very necessary, since you seem to have misunderstood
me. I did not call the young woman an idiot. That would have been horrible.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Gaius Helen Mohiam
> Hmmm. Tell me what you think of the final chapter of Michael Crichton's
book
> TRAVELS in which he writes down the speech he wanted to give at CalTech on
the
> *religion of science.*
I haven't read the book. Is it worth reading?
> Poor Helen.
Don't worry, that bothers me about as much as it does you.
> Do you really think I give a flying f--- what these moral midgets
> and epistemological effetes think about anything? ??>>
No, that would be very un-ladylike, now, wouldn't it? ;-)
Helen.
Churl Beck
> I don't care enough to look it up.
Then why did you say that it wasn't true?
> However, if you actually want anyone to believe your story,
> you should do the bookwork yourself and post the exact
> date of the newspaper.
Are you saying that its her fault that you weren't convinced?
--CHuRL
Gaius Helen Mohiam
> Where are you getting this characterization of me from? I am actually
quite
> upset by people that read Rand's novels and try to act out the roles of
her
> heroes like a script. That's bad theatrics, not philosophy. I've never
seen
> it in real life, but one or two posters from APO come to mind.
Good.
> I didn't call the young woman an idiot. That would have been horrible.
> Rather, I pointed out that the way Sandra strung rhetoric together in her
> story made the woman look like an idiot, specifically her being "taken to"
> an abortionist.
I cannot see how that makes her "look like an idiot". I think you are
reading too much into this "taken to".
> This was necessary to make the (purely rhetorical)
> connection between the two parts of the story. In the first, she was
treated
> poorly by Objectivists because they didn't understand photographic memory.
> In the second, she died from abortion complications. Presumably, the
purpose
> was to first establish that the Objectivists in question were rude, then
to
> hint, but not say outright because it's preposterous, that they had
> something to do with her death.
Well, I didn't read her story that way. Again, I think you are reading
something in it that is not there.
> But are you hinting that any of the fault for her death lies on the
"person
> who took her to the butcher"?
I would say that is possible, although I certainly do not know enough to
make this accusation.
> That would require that he had any reason to
> believe she would die.
No, that is not necessary. She relied on him for help, and since it seems he
had agreed to help her, he had a moral responsibility for her well-being. If
he was careless in his choice, then her death is partially his fault. Of
course, at this point the most important question is whether or not he had
selected that abortionist with due care. From the result it doesn't appear
he had done that, but as I said, we don't know enough to make that judgment.
> It's pure speculation. We don't even know if he was
> pressuring her.
No, we don't know that. If he was, however, then he is partly responsible
for her death, regardless of whether or not he tried to pick a good
abortionist.
> Thinking about it isn't very necessary, since you seem to have
misunderstood
> me. I did not call the young woman an idiot. That would have been
horrible.
I apologize if I have misunderstood you.
Helen.
Fred Weiss
"SANDRAMEND" <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote in message
news:20010414164752...@ng-mk1.aol.com...
This....
>I, on the other hand, having read THE
> FOUNTAINHEAD at the age of 15 and having read it 25 times ....
...is a likely predictor of this.
>...had to release a lot
> of obnoxious ... traits .....
>
> And still there's a way to go.
Apparently.
Does everyone remember "Malenor" who essentially reported the same thing?
Does anyone remember anything of substance he ever said?
Fred Weiss
Jim Klein
Dave O'Hearn <dave...@pobox.com> wrote:
>I did not call the young woman an idiot. That would have been horrible.
You did directly charge her with fabricating the story, and not doing a
very good job of it at that. Myself, I think being charged as an idiot is
rather less troublesome than being charged as a liar.
Well, okay...being _charged_ as either doesn't really matter. I don't mind
_being_ an idiot about some things that are discussed here, but I don't
want to be a liar about any of them. Point being that if you think calling
her an idiot would be horrible, calling her a liar is worse IMO.
jk
Jim Klein
>OK Sandra and Helen, where are YOUR pictures?
I think there's a famous picture of Helen from the movie _Star Wars_, in
which she was engaged in a laser duel with one of the good guys.
jk
Jim Klein
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote:
>Helen
[...]
>I like you. I really like you.
She's easy to like. Sorta like a pizza overloaded with pepperoni and
anchovies---you know it's wrong, but what a smile it can bring!
jk
Jim Klein
Gaius Helen Mohiam <GMo...@Bene-Gesserith.org> wrote:
>If he was careless in his choice...
Hey Helen, could you please correct your usage of the past subjunctive of
"be" to "were" from "was"? It's not a big deal, but Darth Vader with
blotches...well, he's not quite Darth Vader!
jk
Lionell K. Griffith
wrote:
>
>Does everyone remember "Malenor" who essentially reported the same thing?
>Does anyone remember anything of substance he ever said?
There is evidence that "Malenor", "Helen", and "SANDRAMEND" are one
and the same or at least have formed a mutual intellectual
masterbation society. Too bad he/she/it do not use thier minds for
more productive ends.
Dave O'Hearn
"Jim Klein" wrote:
> Dave O'Hearn wrote:
>
> >I did not call the young woman an idiot. That would have been horrible.
>
> You did directly charge her with fabricating the story, and not doing a
> very good job of it at that. Myself, I think being charged as an idiot is
> rather less troublesome than being charged as a liar.
This is getting confusing. More precisely, I accused her of fabricating the
story. This was a guess, but about half right. About all that's known to be
true is that this woman died of abortion complications. It was pure
speculation, or fabrication if you prefer, that she was pressured or "taken
to" an abortionist. The original post was also very poorly worded and didn't
make clear what incident the newspaper articles were referring to. Finally,
for being a story preposing to blame a bunch of people for someone's death,
it had strikingly little (zero) evidence. Anyone who believed it took it on
faith.
> Well, okay...being _charged_ as either doesn't really matter. I don't
mind
> _being_ an idiot about some things that are discussed here, but I don't
> want to be a liar about any of them. Point being that if you think
calling
> her an idiot would be horrible, calling her a liar is worse IMO.
My charge of her being an idiot still stands, but it was levelled against
the female character in her story, not Sandra. Sandra made that woman look
like a total buffoon. And, I repeat, this is wholy Sandra's doing. The part
about being "taken to" an abortionist is speculation she added to help the
rhetoric.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Ken Gardner
> Does everyone remember "Malenor" who essentially reported the same thing?
> Does anyone remember anything of substance he ever said?
Maybe you should look at yourself in a mirror as well.
Ken
Ken Gardner
I don't know about Sandra, but you should find a picture of Helen at any
good Dune website. <G>
Ken
Stephen Grossman
<sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote:
> Vivian missed a menstrual period and became convinced she was pregnant.
> Instead of taking her to see his ex-wife's husband , Alan Blumenthal,
who was a
> doctor, Alan Greenspan took her to an abortionist. She died on the table. She
> hadn't been pregnant. She died of an air embolism. This abortionist butcher
> couldn't even give an injection properly. Greenspan then turned state's
> evidence, had his mother move in with him and someone broke into Vivian's
> apartment and stole her journals. The story was splashed all over the front
> page of the New York Daily News. Vivian's parents who were Russian peasants
> who'd worked 6 days a week to give their angel everything and anything her
> heart desired wanted to come after Greenspan with a baseball bat. I
promised to
> tell the whole story someday. Someday is now.
does this mean that existence doesnt exist?
--
==========================================================
Ancient Greeks thought that romantic love is a sickness.
That must have been a comforting thought...
----------------------------------------------------------
Tracking Marxist dialectical revolution: ZigZag
Radically systematic radical metaphysics: Existence 2
http://home.att.net/~sdgross
----------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Grossman Fairhaven, MA, USA sdg...@att.net
==========================================================
Stephen Grossman
> Consequently, her so-called "egoism" is really just a thin
> rationalization for a militant quasi-salvation religion based on the
> ideological purification of both oneself and mankind in general.
and your alternative is...
SANDRAMEND
<< There is evidence that "Malenor", "Helen", and "SANDRAMEND" are one and the
same or at least have formed a mutual intellectual
masterbation society. >>
It's spelled *masturbation*
Sandra
Oh stop, you're hurting us. No, please <taking out nail file and buffing
my fingernails>, we can't take any more. <moving on to the other hand>
<yawn>
<buffbuffbuff>
Gaius Helen Mohiam
news:3ad9ae11...@news.silcom.com...
> There is evidence that "Malenor", "Helen", and "SANDRAMEND" are one
> and the same
Oh really? I find that exceedingly interesting. Would you reveal any of that
evidence to us?
> or at least have formed a mutual intellectual masterbation [sic!] society.
[Laughing] A randroid accusing somebody, anybody, else of "intellectual
masturbation"...
> Too bad he/she/it do not use thier minds for more productive ends.
Don't worry son, we do.
Helen.
SANDRAMEND
Sandra: Tell me what you think of the final chapter of Michael Crichton's
book TRAVELS in which he writes down the speech he wanted to give at CalTech on
the *religion of science.*>>
Helen: <<I haven't read the book. Is it worth reading?>>
Worth owning. It's available in paperback and is about his shedding the
narrowness of what he learned at Harvard Medical School and expanding his
awareness.
He also has the best profile of Sean Connery I've ever read in which Connery,
who MC hero-worships and for whom he created the character, John Connor in
RISING SUN, discusses his relishing of his *feminine side*.
The similarities between the *rational scientists* members of The Committee For
the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal at Cal Tech and the
dorks on this ng are incredible.
Ludwig von Mises couldn't get a job at NYU and Crichton couldn't get a hearing
at Cal Tech.
Amazing how terrified people get of ideas contrary to those they're comfortable
with.
Sandra ;-)
To learn about paranoids, follow "em around!
David Friedman
Lionell K. Griffith <lgr...@silcom.com> wrote:
> There is evidence that "Malenor", "Helen", and "SANDRAMEND" are one
> and the same or at least have formed a mutual intellectual
> masterbation society.
I'm willing to go out on a limb on this one. Judged simply by
intellectual style, Helen and Sandramend are different people.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Gaius Helen Mohiam
news:9bc9pp$c6p$1...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> Hey Helen, could you please correct your usage of the past subjunctive of
> "be" to "were" from "was"? It's not a big deal, but Darth Vader with
> blotches...well, he's not quite Darth Vader!
[Blush] Oh no, I'm so terribly sorry, another inexcusable mistake! If only I
could turn back time! But no, it's impossible, so I am doomed!
Helen.
P.S.: I usually neither spell-check nor proof-read my posts, so I would be
more than surprised if the above was (were?, has been? might not have
un-been?...) the only slip-up of that sort.
David Friedman
SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote:
Go to:
http://prolife.about.com/newsissues/prolife/library/century/aahxpt3a.htm
and search for "Grant" .
No mention of Greenspan, and no exact date or reference to the story,
although it asserts that it is in the New York Times archive and gives a
very approximate date.
--
David Friedman
www.daviddfriedman.com/
Ken Gardner
> I'm willing to go out on a limb on this one. Judged simply by
> intellectual style, Helen and Sandramend are different people.
And both are very different from Malenor. But maybe all of them are really
Stephen Speicher in disguise. :)
[Insert "Duck....IMCOMING!!!!" here.]
Ken
6079 Smith W
----------
In article <20010413230736...@ng-mr1.aol.com>, SANDRAMEND
<sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote:
>Dearest Helen said:
>
><< I am known as one of the more prolific "trolls" in this group. Thus,
>according to "objectivist" orthodoxy, you should not read anything I
>write, lest you endanger your immortal soul... oops, sorry, different
religion.
>But I trust you get the idea.>>
>
>You too??? My philosophical twin!!! At last, I've found you.
I think we should form a 'Troll' Club.
6079 Smith W
----------
In article <9ba05n$89oik$1...@ID-81982.news.dfncis.de>, Dave O'Hearn
<dave...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Second, no abortionist would ever perform an operation without doing a
>pregnancy test. Simply missing a mentral period is not enough, as any
doctor
>knows it can happen for a variety of reasons. If it actually happened the
>way you said, the doctor would have gone to jail. Idiocty on that level
goes
>far beyond malpractice.
Yes, it goes far beyond malpractive because abortion, being illegal in the
US until 1973, WAS ONLY PERFORMED BY STRUCK-OFF DOCTORS, you stupid bastard.
>And finally, air embolisms never result from a simple injection. That's
pure
>science fiction.
Hey, how about I test your theory? C'mere, i've attached a needle to a
turkey baster.
Jddescript
>From: SANDRAMEND sandr...@aol.comsf
>Date: 4/15/01 1:39 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Message-id: <20010415153753...@ng-cv1.aol.com>
]
]
]
]
You are derfinitely an explaination for one of the Ayn Rand Theory [ART] most
famous irrational claims. She said that she would never vote for a woman for
President because they couldn't handle the task. Many of US thought this a very
strange claim since she was as smart and insightful as any thinker we had ever
seen before but WE [Wealth Engines] didn't realize that she was thinking about
you as the POSTER GAL for a female President. She must have had fits of
depression when she contemplated your support for a "thinker" who believed in
supermen instead of all inherently equal in the American Declaration while
supposedly opposing socialist dictatorships simultaneously.
Let me offer a sign of possibility. ART is a Love-Of-Life philosophy and it is
never TOO LATE. As long as there is life there is hope. Although ART can't tell
you what is your life accomplishment path it can tell you to plug away and you
will be amazed at where you reach and how you will grow to self love the
realistic result. Churchill said it as NEVER, NEVER, NEVER,.....GIVE UP. You
know something about the Ayn Rand ideas and they are very currently pertinent
to the future of America. What could you do to help propogate some of the Ayn
Rand economics that is replacing Keynesian economics, for example? You will
understand this question. How could a small girl from Russia think she could
escape to American freedom and then save the future of American freedom? The
answer is yes? how could she think that? and then if she didn't do it who, if
anyone would? JD
]
]
]
]
-----------------------------------------------------------
R Lawrence
> I came to the
>conclusion that Ayn was also an ADDer and like me had self-medicated with
>amphetamines (mentioned in Barbara's book, footnote, page 173n.)
Rand was not "self-medicated" as that term is normally understood. She had
prescription from a doctor to use medication to control her weight, and
later stopped taking them when advised to do so by a different doctor --
which is what Branden actually says in the afformentioned footnote.
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/
Dave O'Hearn
> Dave O'Hearn wrote:
> > That's pure science fiction.
>
> Hey, how about I test your theory? C'mere, i've attached a needle to a
> turkey baster.
That would be a very poor test. A turkey baster contains sufficient air to
cause a fatal embolism. Bubbles in the end of an anesthetic injection do
not. However, I am not very familiar with air injections being performed
with turkey basters. The imprecision in the delivery might burst the vein
rather than result in an embolism. This would be new research, and you might
want to look into getting a grant for it. If you are interested in more
typical air embolisms, though, a careful web search will turn up some data.
Further, I must advise you that this needle / turkey baster contraption
you've devised is illegal. It isn't wise to announce to the entire world
that you are in possession of contraband.
--
Dave O'Hearn
SANDRAMEND
<< Rand was not "self-medicated" as that term is normally understood. She had
prescription from a doctor to use medication to control her weight, >>
the same reason I took them: they gave one energy and one lost any excess
weight.
<<and later stopped taking them when advised to do so by a different doctor --
>>which is what Branden actually says in the afformentioned footnote.>>
Turn the page Richard and do the math. She stopped taking amphetamines in the
1970's which means she'd been taking them for about 30 years, if she went WHILE
writing THE FOUNTAINHEAD, as Barbara says.
Sandra
dbco...@webinbox.com
<rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>Objectivists repress taboo thoughts and feelings, blaming their
>>existence on a lack of ideological purity.
>
> Oh, please. There's no such thing as a "taboo thought" to an
> Objectivist, if he's defined as one consistent with Objectivism.
> Objectivism is built on the exact opposite of repression; "bad" thoughts
> and feelings would be eliminated by their irrationality.
Then how do you account for the rejection of Vivian?
Oh, I get it. Rand and her inner circle of sycophants were not
Objectivists.
>>Objectivists routinely stab their friends, lovers, and co-workers in
>>the back and throw away perfectly good relationships because their
>>counterparts aren't ideologically pure enough.
>
> Where do you get this stuff?
From reality.
>>In intellectual exchanges, Objectivists don't really care about
>>discussing philosophical ideas, since Rand of course has already given
>>them The Truth (TM) and made any further discussion of philosophy
>>superfluous. Instead, Objectivists like to use intellectual forums to
>>satisfy their neurotic craving to show off their ideological purity,
>>personalities being more important than ideas.
>
> Can we just reduce your theory? Specifically it's, "ARIanism is the real
> manifestation of Objectivism."
Well, it is impossible to fully manifest something as absurd as
Objectivism in reality, but it is accurate to say that the ARIans
are the true heirs to the original death cult created by Ayn Rand
(centered on her senior and junior "collectives" of the 1950s and
1960s). ARIans are the most consistent ideological puritans; other
Objectivist factions achieve their "tolerance" and "benevolence"
(such as it is) by evading the actual content of Rand's philosophy.
>>Why do they have so much difficulty in understanding that
>>Rand herself was the malevolent founder of an evil personality cult,
>
> Maybe because they're not cultish, rendering this claim impossible. Or
Your statement is illogical. Rand's role in founding an evil
personality cult is a question of historical fact; if present-day
moderate Objectivists are not cultish, that has no bearing on the
claim that Rand and her philosophy did promote cultishness.
> put it this way...even if she did found such a cult, that has nothing to
> do with the philosophy of Objectivism.
Bullsh!t. She formulated and fine-tuned Objectivism to promote the
worship of Great Philosophers and to demonize ideological deviation -
and to represent herself as being the Greatest of the Great
Philosophers.
>>Or are they in deep denial about how Rand's ideas translated into Rand's
>>actual behavior?
>
> This is an important point IMO, and it's valid. To the degree any of
> Rand's behavior was both irrational and an outgrowth of Objectivism, it
> indicates an error in Objectivism.
Of course it indicates an error in Objectivism, just as the insane
Objectivist proposals to wage nuclear war do. Like Ken Gardner
quipped: "Other than that Mrs. Lincoln, how did you like the play?"
> Your gripe is a straw-man. There are exactly the same number of
> philosophies in the world as there are people. Objectivism is just the
> distillation of certain principles...the ones that are right should be
> understood and the ones that are wrong should be corrected. Your
> approach is no different than those whom you ostensively oppose; you
> package-deal the whole thing until it's comical.
You are not making sense here. By your own assumption, if just one of
the distilled principles of Objectivism is in error, Objectivism
should be abandoned. Otherwise, you would not be able to correct the
erroneous principle.
The essence of the package-deal is to trick you into not correcting
the error because it is bundled together with principles that are
not in error. As long as you proclaim your loyalty to a defective
package (in this case, Objectivism), *you* are the one guilty of the
fallacy of the package deal.
-Coop
__________________________________________
Sent using WebInbox. "Your email gateway."
Check us out at http://www.webinbox.com
dbco...@webinbox.com
<sdg...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Consequently, her so-called "egoism" is really just a thin
>> rationalization for a militant quasi-salvation religion based on the
>> ideological purification of both oneself and mankind in general.
>
> and your alternative is...
... to honestly pursue self-interest.
Owl
news:20010416011648...@ng-ci1.aol.com...
> You are derfinitely an explaination for one of the Ayn Rand Theory [ART]
most
> famous irrational claims. She said that she would never vote for a woman
for
> President because they couldn't handle the task. Many of US thought this a
very
I don't think she said because they couldn't handle the task. I think she
said because a pschologically healthy woman would never want to be
President.
> strange claim since she was as smart and insightful as any thinker we had
ever
> seen before but WE [Wealth Engines] didn't realize that she was thinking
about
Ayn Rand, for instance, would not have wanted to be President (nor any other
political office).
Unfortunately, we also have to confront the fact that a psychologically
healthy person of any kind would probably never want to be a politician.
Probably anyone who wants to be President should not be allowed to.
Dave O'Hearn
> SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote:
>
> > I came to the
> >conclusion that Ayn was also an ADDer and like me had self-medicated with
> >amphetamines (mentioned in Barbara's book, footnote, page 173n.)
>
> Rand was not "self-medicated" as that term is normally understood. She had
> prescription from a doctor to use medication to control her weight, and
> later stopped taking them when advised to do so by a different doctor --
> which is what Branden actually says in the afformentioned footnote.
It's also worth noting that amphetamines are rather mild drugs. In smaller
doses, they have essentially the same effect as caffeine. They have a bad
rap for being addictive, but caffeine is addictive too, so there really
isn't much difference. Amphetamines are probably a bit healthier than
caffeine mentally, as they last longer so there's less "up and down".
(No, I have never taken amphetamines.)
--
Dave O'Hearn
R Lawrence
>Richard Lawrence said:
>
><< Rand was not "self-medicated" as that term is normally understood. She had
>prescription from a doctor to use medication to control her weight, >>
>
>the same reason I took them: they gave one energy and one lost any excess
>weight.
Did you have a prescription? If so, then you were not "self-medicated,"
just as Rand was not. This term is normally used to mean that someone has
decided for herself what medications to take, without formal medical advice
or a prescription.
><<and later stopped taking them when advised to do so by a different doctor --
>>>which is what Branden actually says in the afformentioned footnote.>>
>
>Turn the page Richard and do the math. She stopped taking amphetamines in the
>1970's which means she'd been taking them for about 30 years, if she went
>WHILE
>writing THE FOUNTAINHEAD, as Barbara says.
I don't see how this is relevant to my point. Rand had a prescription for a
long time (longer than 30 years if the information provided by Nathaniel
Branden is correct -- his story conflicts slightly with his ex-wife's on
this issue). She still wasn't self-medicated.
SANDRAMEND
<< Did you have a prescription? If so, then you were not "self-medicated," just
as Rand was not.>>
I'd had a prescription early on for amphetamines for low thyroid and to help me
lose weight.
Later, I got my amphetamines from an Objectivist. Everyone took them for energy
in those days. I couldn't have done the work I did otherwise, as I'm not that
high energy a person.
Recently, a doctor prescribed ADDERALL, two dexedrine salts. Three a day worked
fine initially and I had a very productive first day. The next day nothing. The
following week he started me on 6 a day. When I went back he wanted me to take
9 a day, a prescription which would have cost $200. I rebelled. And now take
the remaining tablets only when I need the energy for creative work.
Durk Pearson, libertarian genius, wrote a book LIFE EXTENSION in which he
recommended Hydergine and Piracetem among other brain boosters. I don't even
take aspirin, but I will take brain boosters. When I asked my doctor about
Piracetem, he became irrational and I ceased contact with him.
<< I don't see how this is relevant to my point. Rand had a prescription for a
long time (longer than 30 years if the information provided by Nathaniel
Branden is correct -- his story conflicts slightly with his ex-wife's on this
issue). She still wasn't self-medicated.>>
I doubt that after the initial prescription Ayn kept going to a doctor for her
amphetamines. They were too easily available without a prescription. And as
Barbara says in her book, it wasn't until the mid 70's that a doctor taking her
medical history discovered she was still taking Dexamyl.
In my case, they were precisely what I needed at the time. Eventually, my body
said enough and I looked for other solutions. If you look at the chemical
structure of amphetamines, they're very similar to that of L-phenylalanine, a
brain boosting amino acid.
People in TV and the movie business work 16 hours a day and often 6 days a
week. They take amphetamines and even cocaine to a much greater degree than any
are willing to admit to.
In Hollywood, there are few closet gays. There's no room in the closet because
of all the Republicans and Amphetamine takers.
Sandra ;-)
Agent Cooper
<bran...@verizon.net> wrote:
> He was charged with homicide. Also, remember that this was before Roe v.
> Wade, when most abortions were underground. While I am sure that there were
I recall seeing a film that took place in the 1950s involving a college
student who goes to get an abortion. It was illegal in the state it takes
place in, and the person performing it was a semi-competent,
semi-well-intentioned medical school student trying to make ends meet. I
imagine that such event were not uncommon before Roe, and that "mistakes
were made" all the time. I think in the film the girl dies.
Agent Cooper
<win...@NOSPAMministry-of-love.co.uk> wrote:
> Yes, it goes far beyond malpractive because abortion, being illegal in the
> US until 1973, WAS ONLY PERFORMED BY STRUCK-OFF DOCTORS, you stupid bastard.
Unless I'm mistaken, it was never a *federal* crime, but a *state* crime
in specific (for all I know, all) states. The upshot of Roe being that
such state statutes were unconstitutional.
Agent Cooper
<RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote:
>
> > I came to the
> >conclusion that Ayn was also an ADDer and like me had self-medicated with
> >amphetamines (mentioned in Barbara's book, footnote, page 173n.)
>
> Rand was not "self-medicated" as that term is normally understood. She had
> prescription from a doctor to use medication to control her weight, and
> later stopped taking them when advised to do so by a different doctor --
> which is what Branden actually says in the afformentioned footnote.
The facts in the second sentence do not preclude the claim in the first,
of course, unless you also believe that it is impossible to abuse a
substance which has been prescribed to you for another purpose.
Chris Cathcart
Speicher says...
>On 14 Apr 2001, Gaius Helen Mohiam wrote:
>
>> "SANDRAMEND" <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote in message
>> news:20010414114105...@ng-mk1.aol.com...
>> > SM: I'll hazard a guess. You're not very goodlooking and have never been
>> too
>> > attractive to men.
>
>> [Laughing] Sandra, you are a genius: http://www.speicher.com/betsys.html
>
>Thank you. Not bad for a 56 1/2 year old, is it?
Well, since you asked . . .
The word that comes to mind, is "hideous."
But maybe it's just a bad picture . . .
>OK Sandra and Helen, where are YOUR pictures?
The pictures of the Reverend Mother Gaius Helen Mohiam of the Bene Gesserit
Sisterhood that I've seen on the "Dune" websites do rival the above in their
hideousness.
Agent Cooper
<dave...@pobox.com> wrote:
> It's also worth noting that amphetamines are rather mild drugs. In smaller
> doses, they have essentially the same effect as caffeine. They have a bad
> rap for being addictive, but caffeine is addictive too, so there really
> isn't much difference. Amphetamines are probably a bit healthier than
> caffeine mentally, as they last longer so there's less "up and down".
You've got to be kidding, right?
R Lawrence
>R Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>SANDRAMEND <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote:
>>
>>> I came to the
>>>conclusion that Ayn was also an ADDer and like me had self-medicated with
>>>amphetamines (mentioned in Barbara's book, footnote, page 173n.)
>>
>>Rand was not "self-medicated" as that term is normally understood. She had
>>prescription from a doctor to use medication to control her weight, and
>>later stopped taking them when advised to do so by a different doctor --
>>which is what Branden actually says in the afformentioned footnote.
>
>The facts in the second sentence do not preclude the claim in the first,
>of course, unless you also believe that it is impossible to abuse a
>substance which has been prescribed to you for another purpose.
Abuse was not the topic of discussion in any case. I do not presume that
any non-prescribed use of drug is abuse. However, I can be pretty confident
that Rand did not take the medication for the purpose of treating ADD,
since she would never have heard of such a diagnosis in the 1940s, 50s or
60s. Since she had a prescription to take the pills for weight control, I
see no reason to believe she took them for any other reason, unless you
have some good evidence to the contrary. (It is perhaps worth noting that
amphetimines were widely overprescribed in the 1940s and 50s, often to
women who had minor weight concerns and/or just wanted "more energy." It is
doubtful that Rand made any effort to seek out a prescription for this
particular medication, or that she had any idea that such casual
prescriptions of potentially addictive drugs had become disreputable in
later years.)
Dave O'Hearn
> Dave O'Hearn wrote:
> > It's also worth noting that amphetamines are rather mild drugs. In
smaller
> > doses, they have essentially the same effect as caffeine. They have a
bad
> > rap for being addictive, but caffeine is addictive too, so there really
> > isn't much difference. Amphetamines are probably a bit healthier than
> > caffeine mentally, as they last longer so there's less "up and down".
>
> You've got to be kidding, right?
The potential for addiction is higher, because they come in pill form, not
coffee. Also, they are "cleaner" than caffeine, so people can take larger
doses of them without getting sick. And yes, large doses of amphetamines are
very bad for you. But the smaller amounts that were perscribed like crazy
decades back were not that harmful when people took them exactly as
instructed. They made some people paranoid, but not significantly more often
than caffeine makes people paranoid. If they saved them up and took a whole
bunch at once, that's another story. In short, amphetamines have more
potential to be abused than caffeine, but when they aren't abused, there's
little difference.
--
Dave O'Hearn
SANDRAMEND
Dave O'Hearn wrote
<< > > It's also worth noting that amphetamines are rather mild drugs. In
smaller doses, >>
they are prescribed for adults with Attention Deficit Disorder where they have
a focusing and calming effect on some ADDers.
Sandra
<A HREF="http://hometown.aol.com/addhuntress/myhomepage/index.html">ADD and the
Gifted Person</A>