Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Giants, those Objectivists, Giants!

162 views
Skip to first unread message

SANDRAMEND

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 10:20:05 AM4/13/01
to
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.

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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 3:56:29 PM4/13/01
to
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.

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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 4:12:45 PM4/13/01
to
dbcooper said:

<< 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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 4:20:14 PM4/13/01
to
>Subject: Giants, those Objectivists, Giants!
>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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 5:21:22 PM4/13/01
to
On 13 Apr 2001 dbco...@webinbox.com wrote:

> 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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 7:25:07 PM4/13/01
to
dbco...@webinbox.com wrote:

<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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 8:06:57 PM4/13/01
to

"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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 8:22:36 PM4/13/01
to
Russell Hanneken asked:

<< Could you provide a date?>>

1960 I think.


Russell Hanneken

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 8:31:45 PM4/13/01
to

"SANDRAMEND" <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote in message
news:20010413202203...@ng-mr1.aol.com...

> 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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 8:34:36 PM4/13/01
to
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???

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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 8:40:01 PM4/13/01
to
Russell Hanneken:

<< 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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 8:51:03 PM4/13/01
to

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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 9:19:40 PM4/13/01
to
Sorry, folks, AOL fainted just as I was finishing this post and I thought it
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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 10:06:59 PM4/13/01
to
Dear, dear Helen:

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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 9:46:46 PM4/13/01
to
"SANDRAMEND" <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote in message
news:20010413203319...@ng-mr1.aol.com...

> <<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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 10:31:21 PM4/13/01
to
"SANDRAMEND" <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote in message
news:20010413220633...@ng-mr1.aol.com...

> 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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 10:34:56 PM4/13/01
to

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

unread,
Apr 13, 2001, 11:08:46 PM4/13/01
to
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.

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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 1:17:08 AM4/14/01
to
On 14 Apr 2001, SANDRAMEND wrote:

> 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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 1:31:31 AM4/14/01
to

"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.
>
> 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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 2:25:33 AM4/14/01
to
On 14 Apr 2001, SANDRAMEND wrote:

> 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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 11:41:46 AM4/14/01
to
Betsy Speicher said:

<< > 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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 1:08:13 PM4/14/01
to
"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!

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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 1:44:00 PM4/14/01
to
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).

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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 1:56:59 PM4/14/01
to
"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

--Helen.

Gaius Helen Mohiam

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 2:04:21 PM4/14/01
to
"SANDRAMEND" <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote in message
news:20010414134323...@ng-mk1.aol.com...

> 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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 3:22:49 PM4/14/01
to

"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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 4:01:39 PM4/14/01
to
In article <200104131956...@webinbox.com>,
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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 4:10:16 PM4/14/01
to
Dave,

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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 4:43:06 PM4/14/01
to
SM (to Betsy Speicher: 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>>

Takes one to know one.

Sandra ;-)


SANDRAMEND

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 4:49:31 PM4/14/01
to
Helen answered my question:

<< > 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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 6:50:06 PM4/14/01
to
"SANDRAMEND" <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote in message
news:20010413230736...@ng-mr1.aol.com...

> 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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 8:27:54 PM4/14/01
to

"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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 8:45:21 PM4/14/01
to
"Dave O'Hearn" <dave...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:9bapu5$8hbkq$1...@ID-81982.news.dfncis.de...

> 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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 9:02:54 PM4/14/01
to

Thank you. Not bad for a 56 1/2 year old, is it?

OK Sandra and Helen, where are YOUR pictures?

SANDRAMEND

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 9:16:08 PM4/14/01
to
BS:<< Not bad for a 56 1/2 year old, is it? >>

My pix will be up next week. I'm 66 and look younger than you do.

Sandra ;-)


SANDRAMEND

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 9:42:05 PM4/14/01
to
Dave O'Hearn said:

<< 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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 9:51:11 PM4/14/01
to
Helen said:

<< 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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 10:13:41 PM4/14/01
to
"Gaius Helen Mohiam" wrote:

> "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
> nonsense. [...] If you try to live your life according to what you

> "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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 11:22:07 PM4/14/01
to
"SANDRAMEND" <sandr...@aol.comsf> wrote in message
news:20010414215025...@ng-mr1.aol.com...

> 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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 11:30:21 PM4/14/01
to
Dave O'Hearn wrote:

> 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

unread,
Apr 14, 2001, 11:40:21 PM4/14/01
to
"Dave O'Hearn" <dave...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:9bb04f$8g2kq$1...@ID-81982.news.dfncis.de...

> 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

unread,
Apr 15, 2001, 6:16:46 AM4/15/01
to

"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

unread,
Apr 15, 2001, 9:57:52 AM4/15/01
to
In article <9bb04f$8g2kq$1...@ID-81982.news.dfncis.de>,

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

unread,
Apr 15, 2001, 9:59:39 AM4/15/01
to

>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

unread,
Apr 15, 2001, 10:01:05 AM4/15/01
to
In article <20010414215025...@ng-mr1.aol.com>,
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

unread,
Apr 15, 2001, 10:04:53 AM4/15/01
to
In article <oI8C6.48097$RV1.7...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com>,
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

unread,
Apr 15, 2001, 10:23:40 AM4/15/01
to
On 15 Apr 2001 10:16:46 GMT, Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com>
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

unread,
Apr 15, 2001, 10:28:35 AM4/15/01