My Dinner With Andy
Chris Wolf
Lately, several people have had heaps of praise for Andrew Bernstein, an
Associate of the Ayn Rand Institute, who lectures on the topic of egoism in
_The Fountainhead._ Bernstein has frequently been referred to as a "really
swell fella."
Well, no doubt he can be a really nice fella (at least when the public is
watching) but he can also be a real jerk. I know, because I've seen it
first hand.
It's interesting to note that none of the supporters of Andrew Bernstein
have demanded (or even requested) the details of my allegations against
Bernstein. This seems to indicate, rather clearly, that these supporters
of Bernstein place mindless loyalty above truth and justice. Therefore I'm
taking the time to relate my first hand account of Bernstein's atrocious
behavior, in detail, so that each person can judge for himself.
The incident took place approximately eight years ago, in November of 1991,
in Seattle, Washington (my home town).
Andrew Bernstein was in town for a national convention of English teachers.
As I recall, the Ayn Rand Institute had sponsored a booth at the convention
to promote _The Fountainhead_ essay contest. While in Seattle, Bernstein
was staying with Pam Benson (who later went on to become a part of Lyceum
Conferences). Pam was working closely with Bernstein at the convention.
In fact, as I recall, she even helped him man the booth at the convention.
At the time, I was hosting a Friday night get-together for Seattle
Objectivists, twice each month, in my home. I had been involved in
Objectivism for many years, and knew most of the Seattle-area Objectivists
(including Pam Benson). Since it was Friday night, and a meeting was
scheduled, Pam suggested that we take Bernstein out to dinner at a nice
restaurant, and then take him to the meeting. Pam offered to pay for
Bernstein's dinner. Pam also told me that, in addition to attending the
meeting, Bernstein would speak to our group about egoism in _The
Fountainhead_, which was a lecture he was developing at the time. As the
host and program chairman for the Friday night meetings, I was constantly
scratching my head for suitable discussion topics for our meetings, so I
was thrilled at the idea of having Bernstein address the group.
Accordingly, I spread the word to the rest of the group that Bernstein
would be speaking to us, and as a result, we had an extra-large turnout
(30+ people).
I suggested to Pam that we take Andy to a local seafood restaurant that was
less than a mile from my home. It was one of Seattle's better restaurants,
and it wasn't cheap, but it's not every day you get to host a famous
Objectivist lecturer. Pam agreed with my choice of restaurant.
Our Friday night meeting was scheduled to begin at 7:00 p.m. Therefore I
arranged to meet Pam and Andy at the restaurant, at 5:30 p.m. I took along
my close friend and business partner, Mike Maikowski. Both Mike and I were
looking forward to meeting Bernstein.
It's important to know that, at the time, I was an enthusiastic supporter
of Leonard Peikoff, the Ayn Rand Institute, and everyone associated with
the Institute (including Andrew Bernstein). I was also the sworn enemy of
David Kelley, whom I regarded as a turncoat traitor to Objectivism.
It's amazing how much I've changed in the last eight years.
Mike and I arrived at the restaurant at the appointed time. Bernstein was
a skinny, dark-haired fellow, wearing jeans and a jacket (I think it was
leather). He was a little underdressed for the restaurant, but such things
aren't very important in Seattle (and certainly not important to me). Pam
introduced us, we shook hands, and were promptly shown to our table. I was
looking forward to an intellectually stimulating, enjoyable dinner, with a
man who was fast gaining a reputation as a brilliant Objectivist lecturer.
Alas, 'twas not to be...
Bernstein opened his menu, quickly scanned it, then closed it and put it
down and announced, "There's nothing in here that I can eat."
Needless to say, I was quite surprised. The restaurant was a very fine
restaurant, with an extensive menu of choice seafood items. And if you
didn't like seafood, steaks and other traditional fare were also available.
"What's the problem?" I asked. Bernstein shook his head and repeated,
"There's nothing on this menu that I can eat." I waited for him to explain
the nature of his dietary difficulty, but no explanation was forthcoming.
Apparently he did not wish to explain the nature of his problem. Naturally
I was very curious as to the nature of his problem, but as he was my guest,
and we had only just met, I did not feel justified in prying.
"We need to go somewhere else," said Bernstein.
I glanced at my watch. It was 5:45 p.m., on a Friday night in Seattle.
Our Friday night meeting was scheduled to start, in the living room of my
home, at 7:00 p.m.
"I'm afraid that's impossible," I told Andy. "It's Friday night in
Seattle, and without reservations we'll never get in anywhere else, in
time. I have to start hosting the meeting at 7:00 p.m."
"Well I can't eat anything here," Andy repeated. Apparently he was
expecting me to Do Something to solve his dietary problem. His attitude
seemed to be that he had a problem, and it was up to the rest of us to do
something about it.
"We'll have snack food at the meeting," I told Andy. "Popcorn and potato
chips, and such. You could fill up on that. Or we could go to a fast food
place. Hamburgers or pizza. That's the only sort of place where we can be
served in time."
"No, I can't eat fast food," declared Andy.
I was getting a little perturbed at Bernstein. Just what in the hell COULD
he eat?
"Can't we go someplace where I can get some pasta?" asked Andy.
"Not without a reservation," I told him. "I'm afraid you only have three
choices. Snack food at the meeting, fast food somewhere else, or find
something on the menu that you can eat here."
"I don't understand why we can't go somewhere else," said Andy. Clearly he
was upset. And I could not understand his seeming lack of understanding
simple English. We simply did not have time to go elsewhere, and still
make the meeting at 7:00 p.m. How hard was that to understand?
(It did not occur to me, at the time, that I could have skipped dinner,
returned home, and been there to greet my guests when they arrived for the
meeting, while Mike, Pam, and Andy went somewhere else for dinner. Without
dinner reservations, they would have missed the first hour, or two, of the
meeting, but I could have held down the fort until then. However I don't
feel too badly at this oversight, since no one else thought of it either.)
Faced with the fact that it was either Find Something On The Menu, or
Starve, Andy began scrutinizing the menu. He finally found a salad dish
that might suffice. When the waiter came to take our orders, Andy entered
into a detailed conversation with him; inquiring as to the ingredients in
the salad dish, and repeatedly emphasizing that it must not contain certain
ingredients. I began to wonder if Bernstein was some kind of strict
vegetarian.
At this point, I had several questions on my mind. First, Pam had been
running around with Bernstein for several days, and she presumably knew
that he had some sort of dietary restriction, so why did she not mention
this to me at the time I suggested a restaurant? But she had made no
mention of it to me. Second, when told that we would be going out for
dinner, why did Bernstein not make mention of his dietary restrictions?
Why did he wait until we were in a restaurant, and seated at our table, to
drop his little bombshell? And third, why was he not offering any sort of
explanation as to the nature of his dietary problem? Granted, it was his
private business, and if he wished to keep it private, that was his
privilege, but his refusal to explain made him look like a spoiled brat who
expected to have his whims catered to, at the last minute, by the rest of
us, regardless of the inconvenience. For someone who was being treated to
a fine dinner in an expensive restaurant, I thought Bernstein's behavior
was abominable.
As we waited for our food to be brought, Mike and I attempted to engage
Bernstein in polite dinner conversation. However it quickly became obvious
that Bernstein was in no mood for polite conversation. His answers were
short and curt. He looked and sounded, for all the world, like a pouty
little kid who was sulking because he couldn't get his way.
I decided that if Bernstein wanted to sulk and pout, that was his
privilege, so I engaged Mike and Pam in conversation. Periodically I made
attempts to get Bernstein to join in, and after about twenty minutes or so,
he seemed to loosen up and started to converse with us. We asked Bernstein
about his work, and about his association with other famous Objectivists.
Bit by bit, the conversation got a little boisterous, and ended up with Pam
and Andy relating the details of how they lost their respective virginities
(interesting stories in their own right).
The rest of our dinner was pretty straightforward. However, afterward,
Mike make an interesting observation. He pointed out that we had asked
Andy all sorts of questions about his work, his background, his life, etc.
However, Andy never asked the first question about OUR work, background,
life, etc. Apparently he did not have the slightest interest in us,
personally. Obviously he had not been taught how to behave in polite
company. At one point, Mike (who is a pilot) mentioned to Pam that he had
just received his Instrument Flight Rating that he had been working on for
many years. Pam asked several questions relating to Mike's accomplishment,
but Andy just looked bored, and had nothing to say. It was obvious that
Andy was happy to talk about himself, but had zero interest in the rest of
us. Apparently he expected to be entertained, and catered to.
We finished our dinner and returned to my home for the Friday night
meeting. I only had chairs for about twelve guests, so the overflow crowd
had to stand, or sit on the floor. At the height of the meeting, we must
have had close to thirty people present (a tribute to Andy's reputation).
Andy sat on the floor as well. He leaned back against the front of an
empty chair, and prevented it from being occupied. Then he draped his arm
over the seat of the adjacent chair. In other words, Andy managed to
occupy TWO chairs, while the rest of my guests sat on the floor, or stood
up. Nice guy, huh? Always thinking of others. A real kind, considerate
gentleman.
In my opinion, your Basic Jerk.
So the living room was packed with people, King Andy was sprawled across
his private throne, and everybody was eager for Andy to begin his talk. I
introduced Andy, gave a bit of his background, and then announced that Andy
would be speaking on the subject of egoism in _The Fountainhead_. The room
got very quite, and all eyes turned to Andy.
Whereupon Andy announced that he'd changed his mind! He didn't feel like
talking about _The Fountainhead_ tonight, and anyway, he'd forgotten his
lecture notes, having left them back at Cliff's house.
I thought that Andy was being very unfair to the audience, since he had
previously agreed to give his _Fountainhead_ lecture (or at least that's
what Pam Benson had told me he would do). Was this Andy's revenge for the
restaurant? Or was it just more of his Basic Jerk character? Whatever the
reason, there was nothing I could do about it.
But Andy's refusal to deliver his lecture left me in a real bind. I had a
living room full of thirty people, and no program to fill the next three or
four hours. I decided to make Andy the centerpiece of the meeting (whether
he liked it, or not). I asked him a general question about Objectivism.
He couldn't resist answering it. Then someone else asked another question,
and we quickly had an impromptu Question & Answer session (which was
probably more entertaining that Andy's _Fountainhead_ lecture).
During the Q&A session, I treated Bernstein with politeness and respect,
however I remained firmly in charge of the meeting. If I disagreed with
one of Andy's answers, I said so. I made him prove his assertions. (At
one point, Andy was thumbing through a copy of _Atlas Shrugged_ looking for
the passage that would prove his claim.)
After the meeting was over, several of my guests commented to me on what a
jerk Andy Bernstein seemed to be. His refusal to give his _Fountainhead_
lecture, after agreeing to do so, and hogging two chairs when seating was
extremely limited, was noticed by more than few people. When I related the
story of Bernstein's behavior at the restaurant, my friends were doubly
stunned. THIS is how a top-notch Objectivist behaves?
The next day, I was told by Pam that Andy had been very critical of me
during their drive home. Andy had told her that I was doing "tremendous
harm" to the Objectivist movement. Apparently he found me intimidating and
arrogant. According to Andy, I dominated the conversation, hogged the
floor, dismissed arguments without listening to them, and in general
behaved like a pompous ass.
I was very surprised to hear this, since I thought I had gone out of my
way to treat Andy with politeness and respect. Certainly I had been
less-than-happy at his rude behavior in the restaurant, and then at his
refusal to speak on _The Fountainhead_. Was it possible that my private
anger had spilled over into my public persona? I called up several people
who had attended the meeting. I had known these people for many years, and
I knew they would give me a straight answer. My question to them was
simple; had I indeed behaved like a pompous ass during the meeting?
Their unanimous answer was "no." They thought I had treated Andy just
fine, and that I had run the meeting in my usual fair manner; giving
everyone a chance to speak, and not hogging the floor. One woman even
pointed out how, at one point, I had conceded that Bernstein was right, and
I was wrong (on a plot detail in _Atlas Shrugged_). Hardly the behavior of
an intimidating, arrogant, pompous ass.
Considering how Andy had behaved at the restaurant, and later at the
meeting, I decided that I need give no additional credence to his personal
criticisms of me. Apparently, "refusing to cater to Andrew Bernstein's
whims" constitutes "tremendous damage to the Objectivist Movement." Later
on, a friend of mine who had attended several Objectivist conferences
(where Bernstein was a speaker), explained why Andy was so critical of me.
"You CHALLENGED Bernstein," my friend pointed out to me. "You made him get
out _Atlas Shrugged_ and PROVE his claims. Bernstein isn't used to that
sort of treatment. He's accustomed to being treated like royalty at
Objectivist conferences. Andy Bernstein is NOT accustomed to having his
opinion challenged. He speaks, and the audience listens respectfully.
They adore him. They NEVER challenge him. You did challenge him, so now
he hates your guts."
Interesting theory, to say the least. My friend is an unusually astute
observer, and very intelligent, so I will take him at his word, even though
I've never been to an Objectivist conference myself.
Anyway, that's the story of my diner with Andy. A most unpleasant dinner
companion.
At this point, I think the evidence that Andrew Bernstein can be an
Absolute Jerk, is overwhelming. There was simply no excuse for his rude
behavior in the restaurant. Why would Bernstein have behaved as he did? I
think it was simply because he felt he was in the presence of people who
weren't particularly important, or valuable, to him, so he treated them
like dirt. He felt no need to be polite and benevolent, whereas a
civilized man is ALWAYS polite and benevolent. That's the crucial
difference between a truly civilized man, and a jerk like Bernstein.
It's been suggested that perhaps Bernstein was simply having a bad day. My
answer is that even a bad day is no excuse for a complete lack of manners.
Furthermore, if Bernstein was simply having a bad day, I should have later
received an apology from him. That's how a civilized man behaves, if he
slips. I never heard anything more from Bernstein. Obviously Bernstein
doesn't think he did anything wrong. That makes him a first-class Jerk.
It's also been suggested to me that one episode of being a Jerk does not
necessarily make a man a Jerk. That is certainly true. However, in this
case, I would have to say that this episode provides overwhelming proof
that Andrew Bernstein IS a rude, ill-mannered, uncivilized Jerk. When
treated to a meal in a fine restaurant, Bernstein demanded to be taken
elsewhere, and never bothered to explain why. He then reneged on his
promise to deliver his _Fountainhead_ lecture, and the left the meeting
host scrambling to fill the gap. He hogged two chairs during the meeting,
when seating was in short supply. How much more evidence is needed?
It's been pointed out that this particular incident took place eight years
ago, and that Bernstein might very well have changed, for the better, since
then. Perhaps, but I doubt it. Behavior such as Bernstein's is automated
at a very early age, and seldom changes. At the time the incident
happened, Bernstein was a completely developed grown-up, and such creatures
seldom change their basic behavior. In other words, this was not a
twelve-year-old kid who might be expected to learn better.
Andrew Bernstein may be a brilliant scholar, and outstanding speaker, but
as a civilized human being, he leaves a lot to be desired. This is why,
when I hear how Bernstein is such a kind, thoughtful, sensitive fellow, I
can only think to myself, "Pretty good act. And the suckers are buying
it."
A lot of people seem to be under the mistaken belief that if a man is
highly intelligent, and acts like a warm human being in public, then he is
equally charming in private, and is a fine fellow, through and though. It
isn't so. Intelligence, and emotional maturity, are two very different
things.
Of course, the final proof for the claim that Andrew Bernstein is a Jerk,
is the fact that he's still associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, in
spite of their irrational and unjust treatment of George Reisman, Edith
Packer, Linda Reardan, Jerry Kirkpatrick, and Richard and Genevieve
Sanford.
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
Leonard Peikoff Sues Barbara Branden
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/peikoff/barb.html
mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org
rites:
[snip]
>It's interesting to note that none of the supporters of Andrew Bernstein
>have demanded (or even requested) the details of my allegations against
>Bernstein. This seems to indicate, rather clearly, that these supporters
>of Bernstein place mindless loyalty above truth and justice. Therefore I'm
>taking the time to relate my first hand account of Bernstein's atrocious
>behavior, in detail, so that each person can judge for himself.
Obviously, I couldn't have had another reason for my silence. Impossible!
I place mindless loyalty above truth -- and you, hasty generalizations over
logic.
Or so you seem to indicate.
[snip background]
>"What's the problem?" I asked. Bernstein shook his head and repeated,
>"There's nothing on this menu that I can eat." I waited for him to explain
>the nature of his dietary difficulty, but no explanation was forthcoming.
>Apparently he did not wish to explain the nature of his problem. Naturally
>I was very curious as to the nature of his problem, but as he was my guest,
>and we had only just met, I did not feel justified in prying.
You were offended because he didn't explain something that you didn't
even ask about? Gee, that sounds reasonable.
[snip]
>Andy sat on the floor as well. He leaned back against the front of an
>empty chair, and prevented it from being occupied. Then he draped his arm
>over the seat of the adjacent chair. In other words, Andy managed to
>occupy TWO chairs, while the rest of my guests sat on the floor, or stood
>up. Nice guy, huh? Always thinking of others. A real kind, considerate
>gentleman.
Chris, did you or anyone else point out his extravagant usage of chairs and ask
him to move? It seems silly to get offended with him *before* he refuses a
reasonable request.
[snip]
>At this point, I think the evidence that Andrew Bernstein can be an
>Absolute Jerk, is overwhelming. There was simply no excuse for his rude
>behavior in the restaurant. Why would Bernstein have behaved as he did? I
>think it was simply because he felt he was in the presence of people who
>weren't particularly important, or valuable, to him, so he treated them
>like dirt. He felt no need to be polite and benevolent, whereas a
>civilized man is ALWAYS polite and benevolent. That's the crucial
>difference between a truly civilized man, and a jerk like Bernstein.
I thought that a *civilized* man would point out, politely and benevolently
, the
actions of a guest which bothered them. And here you are, getting all worked
up over something that Bernstein might not have been aware was a problem.
[snip]
>It's been suggested that perhaps Bernstein was simply having a bad day. My
>answer is that even a bad day is no excuse for a complete lack of manners.
>Furthermore, if Bernstein was simply having a bad day, I should have later
>received an apology from him. That's how a civilized man behaves, if he
>slips. I never heard anything more from Bernstein. Obviously Bernstein
>doesn't think he did anything wrong. That makes him a first-class Jerk.
I predict that if you contacted him, reminded him of the incident, and expr
essed
your resentment, he would apologize.
I find it utterly unsurprising that Bernstein doesn't think he did anything
wrong.
After all, you didn't tell him.
As for the Fountainhead talk, it sounds like his excuse was entirely approp
riate,
but you were just in a bad mood.
---
Kyle Markley
p.s. I'm a long-time lurker, and enjoyed your Eskimo posts of many months back.
I'm also very busy, so if you reply to this, don't *expect* to get another
from me.
Mike Rael
I don't know about Bernstein's food issues, but the rest of it
does seem to be an issue, as you pointed out, of just *telling* Bernstein
what was up.
In fact, (and I address this to Chris), if you haven't already done
so, why not give the guy a call and tell him you want to get something
off your chest so you can feel better towards him in the future? Then let
him know all your concerns--but without telling him he's a jerk!!
It might not work, in the sense of getting him to open up, but it
surely would help you feel more courageous in this arena. I have had many
similar problems, and I know for a fact that when I decided to say
nothing, and beefed about upsetting behavior instead to friends or
relatives, it reflected my fear of confronting the other person's naked
anger, more than any practical considerations of what he or she could do
to me.
best always,
Mike
--
Mike Rael, MS, instructional technology
la...@netcom.com
listowner, self-esteem-self-help
owner, COACHING BY PHONE, the rapid way to raise reality-based self-esteem
Jim Klein
<cwo...@nwlink.com> writes:
>Of course, the final proof for the claim that Andrew Bernstein is a
>Jerk, is the fact that he's still associated with the Ayn Rand
>Institute, in spite of their irrational and unjust treatment of George
>Reisman, Edith Packer, Linda Reardan, Jerry Kirkpatrick, and Richard
>and Genevieve Sanford.
Well...that's proof that he doesn't hold rationality and justice as
high in his value system as some would say. Damn good proof, in fact.
As to whether he's a "jerk" otherwise, that's tougher. You bring up a
good point that one's behavior away from the spotlight is more telling
than his behavior in it. Personally, I'd be inclined to make a
"jerkiness adjustment" for the fact that he was on the road and was
more or less being imposed upon to meet at a private house. Plus, Kyle
brings up a good point that he really may not have been aware that his
behavior was so offensive.
OTOH, that he'd discuss _you_ once he's out of your presence is a
little telling I'd say; but then that applies to you as well. And
then there's the question of whether being a jerk is all that big a
deal in the first place. It's never stopped you, and doesn't directly
affect your arguments---they lose on their own! There may have even
been a moment or two where it didn't stop me.
FWIW, my impression of the whole story is that it sounds like a typical
example where Objectivism--more precisely Objectivism misunderstood--
yields a personality trait of just being an uncivilized boor. That
he's considered a prominent ARIan confirms this impression to me, of
course. Basically, it's just a manifestation of several things which
most non-Objectivists think Objectivists are all mixed up about.
Which may be true, but it doesn't follow from the philosophy. Galt,
Francisco, Hugh Akston and Rearden would've been princes of men,
totally great to be around...once they got away from Rand, maybe.
O wad some power the giftie gie us
to see oursels as others see us.
Burns
jk
Jim Klein
>In fact, (and I address this to Chris), if you haven't already done
>so, why not give the guy a call and tell him you want to get something
>off your chest so you can feel better towards him in the future?
Oops...I forgot to include this in my post. I very strongly concur
with this advice. [Though I don't know that I'd care about explaining
_why_ I was getting it off my chest, nor do I know that the reason is
"to feel better about him."]
I can't imagine how you're going to get paid for stuff like this, but
this time you're spot-on IMO.
jk
Chris Wolf
>Hi, Kyle:)
> I don't know about Bernstein's food issues, but the rest of it
>does seem to be an issue, as you pointed out, of just *telling* Bernstein
>what was up.
Absolutely wrong.
The issue is NOT whether or not I should have called Bernstein's behavior
to his attention, or whether or not I was justified in taking offense at
it. The point is that only an unthinking jerk would behave in such a
manner in the first place.
My personal reponse to such jerky behavior is quite irrelevant to the point
in question.
> In fact, (and I address this to Chris), if you haven't already done
>so, why not give the guy a call and tell him you want to get something
>off your chest so you can feel better towards him in the future?
Why would I want to "feel better" towards an absolute jerk?
>Then let
>him know all your concerns--but without telling him he's a jerk!!
Sorry, but I'm not interested in being friends with unthinking jerks. Life
is too short. I have no interest in teaching uncivilized clods how to
behave properly in public. That's their responsibility.
> It might not work, in the sense of getting him to open up, but it
>surely would help you feel more courageous in this arena.
Funny. I hadn't noticed a lack of guts on my part, lately.
>I have had many
>similar problems, and I know for a fact that when I decided to say
>nothing, and beefed about upsetting behavior instead to friends or
>relatives, it reflected my fear of confronting the other person's naked
>anger, more than any practical considerations of what he or she could do
>to me.
I have no fear of confronting anyone's anger. Nor do I have any desire to
"get along" with clods like Andrew Bernstein. I simply don't waste time
dealing with jerks who haven't been taught how to behave properly. Life is
too short.
Jim Klein
writes:
>Why would I want to "feel better" towards an absolute jerk?
You wouldn't, but it's not towards him that you'll feel better.
>Sorry, but I'm not interested in being friends with unthinking jerks.
>Life is too short. I have no interest in teaching uncivilized clods
>how to behave properly in public. That's their responsibility.
None of that is why you'd contact him. The real reasons are:
1. Just as a matter of plain identification and sharing information,
considering that _he_ is the subject of the information.
2. As a matter of simple courtesy and justice, so that if he has any
reasonable defense, he may offer it.
3. The real reason though is so that you may know--both within
yourself and as a matter demonstrable fact--that you're not the sort of
person who speaks ill of another, without being willing to face him
forthrightly. While you're undoubtedly convinced that you're not that
sort of person anyway, it always helps to raise the assertion from the
status of supposition to the status of actualized occurence.
It's like honesty--everyone believes that they wouldn't lie in order to
gain a large amount of goods, say given a super-easy opportunity. But
only some of us really know it.
And while this is well off the topic at hand, I've noticed an odd irony
that those who are the most honest tend to be a lot less certain that
they ought to be, than those who merely suppose that they are.
If nothing else, this forum has provided abundant evidence of that.
jk
Belle
Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:798sa8$5...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com...
Well said! You are allowed to join me for internet tea.
Mike Rael
The reason to talk about "getting it off your chest" is to make
it superclear that, even if you have a bunch of angry feelings stored up,
you're not using Bernstein as a kind of human tape recorder, whose raison
d'etre is to record all one's resentments.
Instead, as I see it, he is also a human being, and this has got
to be taken into account. Most folks will take an incredible amount of
abuse if (1)they are clear that the person doing the talking is not being
personal about it and (2)they feel that they can be helpful to someone else.
The nice thing is that, once you finish talking, if the guy you
talk to sounds like he's on automatic defense mode, it's possible for you
to replay his conversations and feeling in your mind, and let them mingle
into your bodily wisdom for the space of 9 heartbeats (I know...this
sounds mystical, but I'm talking about deliberately noticing the tensions
associated with your "sense" of the situation for 9 heartbeats), and then
reply. That way you get completely out of compulsive mode for a moment.
There are yet other benefits:if he still doesn't get off defense
mode, you can then upbraid him about not being empathetic--pointing out
that you chose to do that--and, with any luck, you can get him to "try a
little harder" to step in your shoes for a moment.
Experimentally, I have
found that, with the vast majority of folks, you can't ask them to go
into their bodily wisdom but, surprisingly, in a 2-way conversation, you
don't *need* both folks to do that kind of integration. If *one* person
does it, that suffices for a reasoned conversation! The other person
*does* need to try harder to empathize, though!
From experience, this method of dealing with folks locked into
compulsive patterns *works*--both on myself and the person I'm talking
with, unless the other person is so locked up into being right that he or
she does not have the free-will to empathize or does not *want* to do that!
best wishes,
Mike
Jim Klein (rum...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <lakidF6...@netcom.com> Mike Rael <la...@netcom.com> writes:
: >In fact, (and I address this to Chris), if you haven't already done
: >so, why not give the guy a call and tell him you want to get something
: >off your chest so you can feel better towards him in the future?
: Oops...I forgot to include this in my post. I very strongly concur
: with this advice. [Though I don't know that I'd care about explaining
: _why_ I was getting it off my chest, nor do I know that the reason is
: "to feel better about him."]
: I can't imagine how you're going to get paid for stuff like this, but
: this time you're spot-on IMO.
: jk
Mike Rael
Chris Wolf (cwo...@nwlink.com) wrote:
: Mike Rael writes:
: >Hi, Kyle:)
: > I don't know about Bernstein's food issues, but the rest of it
: >does seem to be an issue, as you pointed out, of just *telling* Bernstein
: >what was up.z
: Absolutely wrong.
: The issue is NOT whether or not I should have called Bernstein's behavior
: to his attention, or whether or not I was justified in taking offense at
: it. The point is that only an unthinking jerk would behave in such a
: manner in the first place.
: My personal reponse to such jerky behavior is quite irrelevant to the point
: in question.
:
Well, you present me with a problem, Chris. I like you, yet I got to
disagree with you, and I don't want to anger you, but I got to risk
that...sigh...
Bernstein may lack basic social awareness, but what that means is he
doesn't have certain knowledge. If you make a good-faith effort to let
him know your feelings in a manner designed to minimize the probability
of provoking defensiveness, and he does not acknowledge your efforts in
the slightest, *then* he is acting like a jerk.
Unless you do that, all that can be said is that he lacked awareness, and
you lacked assertivness. Two folks with problems.
: > In fact, (and I address this to Chris), if you haven't already done
: >so, why not give the guy a call and tell him you want to get something
: >off your chest so you can feel better towards him in the future?
: Why would I want to "feel better" towards an absolute jerk?
Chris, anyone can act like jerk from time to time. What counts, to me, is
how I choose to react towards that person...either to help or to hinder.
I realize that, in part, when you chastise folks you want to educate
them, but that simply does not happen alot of the time. If you really
want to educate folks, you have to try to get into their heads.
The kind of effort I'm making *now* while reading this post:)
: >Then let
: >him know all your concerns--but without telling him he's a jerk!!
: Sorry, but I'm not interested in being friends with unthinking jerks. Life
: is too short. I have no interest in teaching uncivilized clods how to
: behave properly in public. That's their responsibility.
I dunno, Chris. When I talk this way, it's usually to cover up a veil of
pain from the past. It gets me to wondering what your life has been like
as a youngster...I wouldn't want to you talk about that here, God
knows:), but maybe we can share sometime in personal email?
: > It might not work, in the sense of getting him to open up, but it
: >surely would help you feel more courageous in this arena.
: Funny. I hadn't noticed a lack of guts on my part, lately.
Well, Chris, hope you don't think I'm just out of it, but when I make the
effort to integrate this, I get a sense of immense pain, but underneath,
way underneath. And I don't feel it's all *my* pain.
: >I have had many
: >similar problems, and I know for a fact that when I decided to say
: >nothing, and beefed about upsetting behavior instead to friends or
: >relatives, it reflected my fear of confronting the other person's naked
: >anger, more than any practical considerations of what he or she could do
: >to me.
: I have no fear of confronting anyone's anger. Nor do I have any desire to
: "get along" with clods like Andrew Bernstein. I simply don't waste time
: dealing with jerks who haven't been taught how to behave properly. Life is
: too short.
As I said before, Chris, I like you. Though I feel alot of pain as I read
this post--I intuit that
it's yours, not just mine!--a part of me reads this paragraph and says:
"Yep, I'd love to blow away some of the blowhards in my life, too!":)
best always,
Mike
: Chris Wolf
: cwo...@nwlink.com
: Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
: http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
: What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
: http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
: Leonard Peikoff Sues Barbara Branden
: http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/peikoff/barb.html
Mike Rael
Sharing, courtesy, and honesty--beautifully put together!
best always,
Mike
Jim Klein (rum...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In <36d4e97d...@news.supernews.com> Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com>
: writes:
: >Why would I want to "feel better" towards an absolute jerk?
: You wouldn't, but it's not towards him that you'll feel better.
: >Sorry, but I'm not interested in being friends with unthinking jerks.
: >Life is too short. I have no interest in teaching uncivilized clods
: >how to behave properly in public. That's their responsibility.
: None of that is why you'd contact him. The real reasons are:
: 1. Just as a matter of plain identification and sharing information,
: considering that _he_ is the subject of the information.
: 2. As a matter of simple courtesy and justice, so that if he has any
: reasonable defense, he may offer it.
: 3. The real reason though is so that you may know--both within
: yourself and as a matter demonstrable fact--that you're not the sort of
: person who speaks ill of another, without being willing to face him
: forthrightly. While you're undoubtedly convinced that you're not that
: sort of person anyway, it always helps to raise the assertion from the
: status of supposition to the status of actualized occurence.
: It's like honesty--everyone believes that they wouldn't lie in order to
: gain a large amount of goods, say given a super-easy opportunity. But
: only some of us really know it.
: And while this is well off the topic at hand, I've noticed an odd irony
: that those who are the most honest tend to be a lot less certain that
: they ought to be, than those who merely suppose that they are.
: If nothing else, this forum has provided abundant evidence of that.
: jk
Steve Davis
> Considering how Andy had behaved at the restaurant, and later at
> the meeting, I decided that I need give no additional credence
> to his personal criticisms of me. Apparently, "refusing to
> cater to Andrew Bernstein's whims" constitutes "tremendous
> damage to the Objectivist Movement."
You are a legend in your own mind, Chris.
Dismuke
> It's interesting to note that none of the supporters of Andrew
> Bernstein
> have demanded (or even requested) the details of my allegations
> against
> Bernstein. This seems to indicate, rather clearly, that these
> supporters
> of Bernstein place mindless loyalty above truth and justice.
So, in other words, the only alternative to "mindless loyalty" is
"mindless gullibility," i.e. automatically equating Chris Wolf's say-so
with "truth and justice." Has it occurred to you that perhaps
Bernstein's supporters did not ask you for the details because they
consider your say-so as having minimal credibility - especially when it
contradicts their own first-hand experiences and the experiences of
people they know? Let's face it, so far, all you have offered is your
say-so.
> Therefore I'm
> taking the time to relate my first hand account of Bernstein's
> atrocious
> behavior, in detail, so that each person can judge for himself.
I have yet to meet Andrew Bernstein, so I have no first hand
observations to offer. However, less than a year ago, a good friend of
mine - a person I have known for many years and whose word I have
complete confidence in - had the honor of being one of the hosts when
Bernstein made a visit to a campus club in his city. Last night, I
forwarded him a copy of Chris Wolf's posting and asked him to read it
and comment. Here is his reply:
"I'm too busy to read the whole thing. I got to about where the
"private
throne" was mentioned. This story is incredible and is either a
fabrication or distorted by time and imagination. Neither the
account of
Bernstein's alleged dietary finickiness nor his demeanor nor his
lack
of basic etiquette bear any relationship whatsoever to what I
observed on
his visit to Houston.
The post is cleverly titled 'My Dinner with Andy' as an ironic
reference
to "My Dinner with Andre." A more fitting title might be 'The Wolf
Who
Cried 'Boy!'"
Wolf writes:
> The next day, I was told by Pam that Andy had been very critical of me
>
> during their drive home. Andy had told her that I was doing
> "tremendous
> harm" to the Objectivist movement. . . . . . .
This makes me think that there may be *much* more to this story than
Wolf is telling us - or perhaps is even willing to admit to himself.
Wolf lists Pamela Benson as a witness. I met Ms. Benson a few years
ago when we sat at the same table during a dinner break at a conference.
(She even laughed at some of my jokes!) I had a positive impression of
her - and think it would be interesting to see what she has to say on
this. Does anyone have her email address?
> Andrew Bernstein may be a brilliant scholar, and outstanding speaker,
> but
> as a civilized human being, he leaves a lot to be desired. This is
> why,
> when I hear how Bernstein is such a kind, thoughtful, sensitive
> fellow, I
> can only think to myself, "Pretty good act. And the suckers are
> buying
> it."
> A lot of people seem to be under the mistaken belief that if a man is
> highly intelligent, and acts like a warm human being in public, then he is
> equally charming in private, and is a fine fellow, through and though. It
> isn't so.
>
Well, let's assume for just a moment that everything Wolf says is
correct and that Bernstein is a total jerk. So what? What difference
should this make for the vast majority of the Objectivist public who
will NEVER deal with him on a personal level and whose only interaction
with him is on the receiving end of books and lectures? Unless a person
is writing a book on etiquette, what bearing does his alleged lack of
manners have on his published ideas? Over the years, there have been
many attempts from all quarters to discredit Objectivism that have
basically amounted to little more than saying "Ayn Rand was a bitch."
Even if she was, does it invalidate "Atlas Shrugged" or "Introduction To
Objectivist Epistemology"? Bringing the issue closer to home, I have
run across all sorts of people who, when asked for their reasons for
supporting Kelley and IOS, can only talk about how someone associated
with ARI allegedly mistreated them or spew out emotional denunciations
of Peikoff, Schwartz and other prominent Objectivists. Even if their
usually wild and exaggerated accusations were correct, does an attack on
Peikoff, Schwartz or Bernstein constitute a case for such things as
"Tolerationism"? Of course not.
> Of course, the final proof for the claim that Andrew Bernstein is a
> Jerk,
> is the fact that he's still associated with the Ayn Rand Institute, in
>
> spite of their irrational and unjust treatment of George Reisman,
> Edith
> Packer, Linda Reardan, Jerry Kirkpatrick, and Richard and Genevieve
> Sanford.
Case in point.
|
Dismuke
|
Chris Wolf
>In <36d76209...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> w
>rites:
>
>[snip]
>
>>It's interesting to note that none of the supporters of Andrew Bernstein
>>have demanded (or even requested) the details of my allegations against
>>Bernstein. This seems to indicate, rather clearly, that these supporters
>>of Bernstein place mindless loyalty above truth and justice. Therefore I'm
>>taking the time to relate my first hand account of Bernstein's atrocious
>>behavior, in detail, so that each person can judge for himself.
>Obviously, I couldn't have had another reason for my silence. Impossible!
I was referring to the supporters of Andrew Bernstein who took the trouble
to say nice things about him, on this newsgroup, but apparently were not
interested in the details of my allegations against him. As I recall, you
were not one of Bernstein's public supporters.
If I admired a man to the point that I would praise him in a public forum,
and someone made an accusation that contradicted what I had to say, I would
certainly want to know the details, so I would know if my admiration was
misplaced.
Unless, of course, I placed mindless loyalty above truth and justice.
>I place mindless loyalty above truth
If the shoe fits, wear it with my compliments.
>-- and you, hasty generalizations over logic.
Thereby demonstrating that you cannot tell the difference. But the tone of
your post suggests that you are an impressionable kid in college (probably
a fresh-caught Objectivist). If so, I will make an allowance for that.
>>"What's the problem?" I asked. Bernstein shook his head and repeated,
>>"There's nothing on this menu that I can eat." I waited for him to explain
>>the nature of his dietary difficulty, but no explanation was forthcoming.
>>Apparently he did not wish to explain the nature of his problem. Naturally
>>I was very curious as to the nature of his problem, but as he was my guest,
>>and we had only just met, I did not feel justified in prying.
>You were offended because he didn't explain something that you didn't
>even ask about? Gee, that sounds reasonable.
Are you unable to read? I never said I was offended by Bernstein's refusal
to explain his dietary problems. I said I was VERY CURIOUS. As I also
said, I did not feel justified in prying.
Bernstein's refusal to explain his dietary problem did not offend me. His
request to go to a different restaurant did not offend me. What offended
me was his refusal to understand that we did not have time to go elsewhere.
What also offended me was the sulking, pouting attitude he displayed after
being told that we did not have time to go elsewhere. Plus his complete
lack of any apology, or contrition, for attempting to cause a major
disruption of our dinner plans.
Learn to read.
>[snip]
>
>>Andy sat on the floor as well. He leaned back against the front of an
>>empty chair, and prevented it from being occupied. Then he draped his arm
>>over the seat of the adjacent chair. In other words, Andy managed to
>>occupy TWO chairs, while the rest of my guests sat on the floor, or stood
>>up. Nice guy, huh? Always thinking of others. A real kind, considerate
>>gentleman.
>Chris, did you or anyone else point out his extravagant usage of chairs an
>d ask
>him to move?
Of course not. I do not publicly embarrass a guest in my house by pointing
out his bad manners, in public. If he wants to sit on the floor and shove
popcorn up his nose, I will not say a word.
If a guest is embarrassed in my house, it is entirely his own doing. I do
not contribute to it in any way.
>It seems silly to get offended with him *before* he refuses a
>reasonable request.
Apparently you are unable to see the relevant point here. The point is NOT
whether or not I was justified in taking offense. My personal reaction to
Bernstein's actions is quite irrelevant. The point is that such actions,
by Bernstein, clearly demonstrate that he's an unthinking jerk, with little
or no consideration for others.
It is not necessary for a man to refuse a reasonable request before being
labeled a jerk. We expect certain standards of behavior from grown adults.
When we fail to get such behavior, we label them "jerks."
Perhaps this will make things clear to you. When a man hogs two chairs,
while other people are standing up, he's an unthinking jerk. Period. And
if I ask him, politely, to please release one of the chairs, and he
complies, he's STILL an unthinking jerk. Understand?
>[snip]
>
>>At this point, I think the evidence that Andrew Bernstein can be an
>>Absolute Jerk, is overwhelming. There was simply no excuse for his rude
>>behavior in the restaurant. Why would Bernstein have behaved as he did? I
>>think it was simply because he felt he was in the presence of people who
>>weren't particularly important, or valuable, to him, so he treated them
>>like dirt. He felt no need to be polite and benevolent, whereas a
>>civilized man is ALWAYS polite and benevolent. That's the crucial
>>difference between a truly civilized man, and a jerk like Bernstein.
>I thought that a *civilized* man would point out, politely and benevolently
>, the actions of a guest which bothered them.
You thought wrong. As a civilized man, I could have played it either way.
I could have said nothing, or I could have spoken up. I would have been
right either way. It largely depends on whether or not I plan to have
future interactions with the person. Normally I say nothing, unless a
guest really starts getting out of hand. If Bernstein had taken a piss on
the carpet, I probably would have said something.
>And here you are, getting all worked
>up over something that Bernstein might not have been aware was a problem.
I'm quite confident that Bernstein felt he had done nothing wrong during
the entire evening.
That's what makes him a jerk. He is ignorant of proper, civilized
behavior.
And apparently, so are you.
>[snip]
>
>>It's been suggested that perhaps Bernstein was simply having a bad day. My
>>answer is that even a bad day is no excuse for a complete lack of manners.
>>Furthermore, if Bernstein was simply having a bad day, I should have later
>>received an apology from him. That's how a civilized man behaves, if he
>>slips. I never heard anything more from Bernstein. Obviously Bernstein
>>doesn't think he did anything wrong. That makes him a first-class Jerk.
>I predict that if you contacted him, reminded him of the incident, and
>expressed your resentment, he would apologize.
He might very well. So what? I'm not interested in apologies from jerks.
There is nothing easier in the world to make, than an apology. Jerks do it
all the time. Then they go right back to being jerks.
I demand a certain level of civilized behavior from my friends and
associates. If I don't get it , then I no longer have dealings with them.
I'm not interested in teaching them basic manners, or proper etiquette.
As far as I'm concerned, if an adult has not learned proper behavior by the
time he's 21, I write him off. Life is too short to waste it on clods.
>I find it utterly unsurprising that Bernstein doesn't think he did anything
> wrong. After all, you didn't tell him.
I shouldn't HAVE to tell him. We expect adults to know how to behave in a
civilized manner. You seem to be implying that my demand for civilized
behavior is some sort of subjectivity on my part, and that I can't hold
other people responsible for failing to behave, according to my preference,
if I fail to inform them of my requirements.
Well Son, I have news for you. We are not talking about someone who ate
with the wrong dinner fork. We are talking about someone who repeatedly
demonstrated that he had no consideration for the people around him. If
you think that such a person cannot be held responsible for his bad
behavior, unless we first point it out to him, then I can only assume that
you are also an uncivilized clod who has never been taught the rudiments of
civilized behavior.
>As for the Fountainhead talk, it sounds like his excuse was entirely
>appropriate, but you were just in a bad mood.
You think it's appropriate to cancel a promised lecture, at literally the
last possible second, leaving the host with no time to prepare an alternate
program, and not offer a single word of apology? As Bernstein did?
I see that Bernstein is not the only one who is clueless when it comes to
proper behavior.
Mike Rael
Actually, the more I read your explanation of Bernstein, the more
I get the sense he was just plumb angry at you. As I (hypothetically)
look into his mind, I see the thought that if you were not going to be
properly respectful to him, he wasn't going to act as if everything were
peachy cream.
This is strictly intuition, Chris. Unfortunately, I own no
working crystal ball:)
The question does arise, though: how might you have been
responsible for creating his anger? I like this question because, it not
only throws the ball into your court, it throws *control* straight into
your hands, as well. For to the extent that you were responsible for the
problem, that means to that extent the problem is correctible by you in
the future.
If Bernstein is just a jerk, that means you absolutely had no
control in the situation. If he is not just a jerk, then should a similar
situation pop up in the future, you will have far more control over what
happens!
best always,
Mike
Chris Wolf (cwo...@nwlink.com) wrote:
: mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org writes:
: Learn to read.
: Chris Wolf
: cwo...@nwlink.com
Chris Wolf
>In <36d76209...@news.supernews.com> Chris Wolf
><cwo...@nwlink.com> writes:
>
>>Of course, the final proof for the claim that Andrew Bernstein is a
>>Jerk, is the fact that he's still associated with the Ayn Rand
>>Institute, in spite of their irrational and unjust treatment of George
>>Reisman, Edith Packer, Linda Reardan, Jerry Kirkpatrick, and Richard
>>and Genevieve Sanford.
>Well...that's proof that he doesn't hold rationality and justice as
>high in his value system as some would say. Damn good proof, in fact.
>
>As to whether he's a "jerk" otherwise, that's tougher.
Not for people who have been taught how to behave in a civilized manner.
>You bring up a
>good point that one's behavior away from the spotlight is more telling
>than his behavior in it. Personally, I'd be inclined to make a
>"jerkiness adjustment" for the fact that he was on the road and was
>more or less being imposed upon to meet at a private house.
Yeah, there's nothing like being treated to a good meal at a fine
restaurant, and then being invited to address a gathering of your adoring
fans, to really piss a guy off, and make him act like a jerk.
>Plus, Kyle
>brings up a good point that he really may not have been aware that his
>behavior was so offensive.
And if so, that's what makes him a jerk. A jerk is entirely clueless that
his behavior is offensive to civilized people.
The mark of a civilized man is not that he never slips, or engages in rude
behavior. That can happen to anybody. However a civilized man calls the
next day, and apologizes for his rude behavior. A jerk, on the other hand,
is clueless about such behavior, and never apologizes.
>OTOH, that he'd discuss _you_ once he's out of your presence is a
>little telling I'd say; but then that applies to you as well.
Telling of what? There's nothing wrong with mentioning your opinion of
someone, out of earshot.
>And
>then there's the question of whether being a jerk is all that big a
>deal in the first place.
I never said it was a big deal. It certainly has no bearing on the man's
professional work. Everyone I've ever talked to agrees that the man can
deliver a fantastic lecture.
I only brought up this subject because several people commented on what a
fine fella Andy Bernstein is; how sweet and sensitive he is. I wanted ALL
the facts to be known.
>FWIW, my impression of the whole story is that it sounds like a typical
>example where Objectivism--more precisely Objectivism misunderstood--
>yields a personality trait of just being an uncivilized boor.
Bingo! I quite agree. If one takes his behavior cues from Ayn Rand
herself, rather than from the abstract philosophy, then one is greatly
encouraged to treat others like shit. Ayn Rand was frequently a
first-class jerk.
>That
>he's considered a prominent ARIan confirms this impression to me, of
>course. Basically, it's just a manifestation of several things which
>most non-Objectivists think Objectivists are all mixed up about.
I quite agree.
>Which may be true, but it doesn't follow from the philosophy. Galt,
>Francisco, Hugh Akston and Rearden would've been princes of men,
>totally great to be around...once they got away from Rand, maybe.
I quite agree.
mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org
rites:
>mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org writes:
>
>>In <36d76209...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> w
>>rites:
>>>It's interesting to note that none of the supporters of Andrew Bernstein
>>>have demanded (or even requested) the details of my allegations against
>>>Bernstein. This seems to indicate, rather clearly, that these supporters
>>>of Bernstein place mindless loyalty above truth and justice. Therefore I'm
>>>taking the time to relate my first hand account of Bernstein's atrocious
>>>behavior, in detail, so that each person can judge for himself.
>
>>Obviously, I couldn't have had another reason for my silence. Impossible!
>
>I was referring to the supporters of Andrew Bernstein who took the trouble
>to say nice things about him, on this newsgroup, but apparently were not
>interested in the details of my allegations against him. As I recall, you
>were not one of Bernstein's public supporters.
You are wrong.
http://x8.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=437405783&CONTEXT=918099008.1973289068&
hitnum=1
Please retract your "mindless loyalty" claim.
>If I admired a man to the point that I would praise him in a public forum,
>and someone made an accusation that contradicted what I had to say, I would
>certainly want to know the details, so I would know if my admiration was
>misplaced.
>
>Unless, of course, I placed mindless loyalty above truth and justice.
Or, because I have very limited time for newsgroups.
And, because your behavior is incredibly rude:
>Thereby demonstrating that you cannot tell the difference. But the tone of
>your post suggests that you are an impressionable kid in college (probably
>a fresh-caught Objectivist). If so, I will make an allowance for that.
>Learn to read.
>That's what makes him a jerk. He is ignorant of proper, civilized
>behavior.
>
>And apparently, so are you.
>behavior, unless we first point it out to him, then I can only assume that
>you are also an uncivilized clod who has never been taught the rudiments of
>civilized behavior.
>I see that Bernstein is not the only one who is clueless when it comes to
>proper behavior.
Chris, when you communicate in such a brazenly hostile manner, do you
honestly expect fruitful discussion to follow? Is it a mystery why so many
people detest you? What happened to benevolence?
[Rhetorical questions; don't bother answering, because I'm not continuing this
discussion with you.]
---
Kyle Markley
Chris Wolf
>In <36d4e97d...@news.supernews.com> Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com>
>writes:
>
>>Why would I want to "feel better" towards an absolute jerk?
>You wouldn't, but it's not towards him that you'll feel better.
Uh-huh.
>>Sorry, but I'm not interested in being friends with unthinking jerks.
>>Life is too short. I have no interest in teaching uncivilized clods
>>how to behave properly in public. That's their responsibility.
>None of that is why you'd contact him. The real reasons are:
>
>1. Just as a matter of plain identification and sharing information,
>considering that _he_ is the subject of the information.
Uh-huh.
Next.
>2. As a matter of simple courtesy and justice, so that if he has any
>reasonable defense, he may offer it.
Somehow I don't feel much need to be courteous to an asshole that canceled
his promised speech at the last possible second, and left me hanging, with
no alternate program, with a roomful of thirty people who had come to hear
Bernstein speak.
As far as justice goes, if Bernstein has some reasonable defense, he's
perfectly free to offer it, right here. Or let his loyal admirers contact
him, get his side of the story, and post it here.
>3. The real reason though is so that you may know--both within
>yourself and as a matter demonstrable fact--that you're not the sort of
>person who speaks ill of another, without being willing to face him
>forthrightly.
I offered my criticism of Bernstein on a public forum (this newsgroup). If
Bernstein wants to come here and "face" me, that's his privilege. I
certainly have no need to "prove" anything to myself, or to anyone else.
I certainly have no interest in attempting to make personal contact with
the jerk. Life is too short to waste my time in such an unproductive
fashion.
>While you're undoubtedly convinced that you're not that
>sort of person anyway, it always helps to raise the assertion from the
>status of supposition to the status of actualized occurence.
Maybe you need that. I don't.
>It's like honesty--everyone believes that they wouldn't lie in order to
>gain a large amount of goods, say given a super-easy opportunity. But
>only some of us really know it.
Whatever.
jal...@icsi.net
Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
> Chris Wolf wrote:
[...]
> > The next day, I was told by Pam that Andy had been very critical of me
> > during their drive home. Andy had told her that I was doing
> > "tremendous
> > harm" to the Objectivist movement. . . . . . .
> This makes me think that there may be *much* more to this story than
> Wolf is telling us - or perhaps is even willing to admit to himself.
Dismuke isolates an interesting quote. I wonder, Chris, do you hold a
grudge against Andy Bernstein for his assessment of you?
...John
There
once
was
a
bot
named
Mack,
who
needed
an
occasional
binary
snack.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
cath...@my-dejanews.com
> run across all sorts of people who, when asked for their reasons for
> supporting Kelley and IOS, can only talk about how someone associated
> with ARI allegedly mistreated them or spew out emotional denunciations
> of Peikoff, Schwartz and other prominent Objectivists.
While I'm partial to Kelley's approach, I haven't had any personal contact,
as far as I know, with people associated with ARI, so I cannot say that there
was any mistreatment at a personal level. And while I "spew" "denunciations"
of Peikoff and Schwartz, I do it not for emotional reasons, but because of
the objective fact that the arguments they make are bad, and the positions
they take mistaken. The "denunciations" are directed at their arguments and
their bad methods, and my evaluation of their intellectual stature follows.
Ergo, if identifying Schwartz as a third-rate "intellectual" counts as a
"denunciation," then I don't mind issuing denunciations of this sort.
I don't know enough about Bernstein to say much one way or the other. That he
tacitly endorses the likes of Schwartz is one count against him. From what
I've heard from many people, though, is that he is one of the best
personalities that the "ARI faction" has to offer. When Wolf relayed what
Benson had told him that Bernstein had told her, about his impression of Wolf
as arrogant, pompous, etc., by reaction was, "I cannot even imagine it." :-)
cath...@my-dejanews.com
Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
> The next day, I was told by Pam that Andy had been very critical of me
> during their drive home. Andy had told her that I was doing "tremendous
> harm" to the Objectivist movement. Apparently he found me intimidating and
> arrogant. According to Andy, I dominated the conversation, hogged the
> floor, dismissed arguments without listening to them, and in general
> behaved like a pompous ass.
Andy's probably a crackpot, or a nut case, or an idiot, or a fucking moron.
Probably too much of a lunatic to be taken seriously.
lstra...@earthlink.net
posts. I want to preface ALL of my comments by stating that I'm not a
pro-Peikoff, anti-Kelley person. If I had to be categorized by those
standards, I'm more on Kelley's side - anyone who has read my posts in the
past probably knows this. As such, Andy and I have some intellectual
differences. That being said....
I lived with Andy, about 15 years ago, when I was a student at ARS - a
private objectivist high school. Andy taught Philosophy and Literature there.
He and his first wife Joan were our 'dorm parents'. Most of the year, there
were two students; Chris Dool and myself. As the years went by, we drifted
apart - but I knew him real well, and I still think I know him well enough to
comment.
Andy is probably the best teacher I've ever had. I only say 'probably'
because I also had Herb Grossman teach math at ARS, and he was great, too -
really, all the teachers there were great. But I went to ARS because I was
interested in philosophy and books. Andy's credentials as a speaker and
teacher are pretty much beyond reproach, but this isn't about that. It's
about him as a person.
So let me tackle Chris Wolfe's post. First thing - I'll stipulate the FACTS
of Chris's account. Factually speaking, it all seems very feasible to me that
Andy would do and say many of things Chris says he did.
Now, let's look at what Chris said happened this way - Andy was the GUEST at
the dinner. The dinner was for him, in the sense that the meal would not have
happened as it did were it not for Andy's presence. Then, Andy looks at the
menu and doesn't see anything he can eat.
Why? Well, here's my guess - in the time I knew Andy, he became 'healthy'. He
was in his early-mid thirties and he started getting more serious about his
diet and exercise. I'm in my early-mid thirties now, and I'm doing the same
thing. I'm sure many of you are familiar with this. If you've tried to eat
healthy, you know how difficult it can be to order healthy from a menu. I
don't remember if Andy likes seafood or not. And I've been to seafood places
in Seattle - I once had an incredible smoked salmon and leek fettucine with
in a white sauce at place down on the Pier - not Ivar's, but near there.
Incredibly good, but heart attack central. Yum yum. Oops, I'm getting
distracted...
At any rate, he didn't find anything he could order - and HE was the guest.
Sorry Chris, YOU were the rude one - don't try to tell me there was no other
way to eat, and that every restaurant in Seattle was full. Bullshit - YOU
didn't leave because YOU wanted to eat there, regardless of how your guest
felt. Andy saying he couldn't get anything to eat there should have stopped
everything and a creative change of plans would have been in order. It was
uncomfortable for everyone, I'm sure - but hey, that's life. It's not
anyone's fault that you picked the wrong restaurant, but it is your
responsibility.
As for the meeting, here's what it sounds like happened - and I say this only
by reading Chris's post. Andy said something. Chris said "No, you're wrong" -
thereby disrupting Andy's flow and creating an uncomfortable situation where
the host is correcting the guest. Andy proceeds to look up the point in
Atlas. Andy is right, amd Chris is wrong. Chris admits it.
Chris wants points for 'admitting it'. To paraphrase Chris Rock - You're
SUPPOSED to admit it when you're wrong, ya low expectations mofo...especially
if you're factually wrong about a point that is shown to you in a book. Gee,
kinda hard to deny it at that point, isn't it? MAYBE you shouldn't have
corrected Andy in the first place - why was that needed?
In all honesty, it sounds like Chris was the one who wanted to be king and who
was used to deferential treatment. I've seen it before - the host who needs to
prove they are as smart as all their guests. And reading YOUR account, Chris,
that came through loud and clear.
Can Andy be a jerk? Sure. Who can't? When I balance the negatives and
positives, it isn't even close - Andy is one of the good ones.
Lee Stranahan
www.stranahan.com
-- - -
JDL
>>
>> during their drive home. Andy had told her that I was doing
>> "tremendous
>> harm" to the Objectivist movement. . . . . . .
>
>This makes me think that there may be *much* more to this story than
>Wolf is telling us - or perhaps is even willing to admit to himself.
>Wolf lists Pamela Benson as a witness. I met Ms. Benson a few years
>ago when we sat at the same table during a dinner break at a conference.
>(She even laughed at some of my jokes!) I had a positive impression of
>her - and think it would be interesting to see what she has to say on
>this. Does anyone have her email address?
I know Pam quite well (we laugh at each other's jokes ;-) ) so I found it
fishy that Wolf would make a reference to her in his post. It doesn't prove
anything in particular, but I was left with a few questions: why? Is Pam
Benson instrumental here? Aside from the few of us who post on HPO who
actually know who she is, of what relevance is dropping her name?
A favorite expression of mine is: "Listen to what they're *not* saying." I
think this applies to Mr. Wolf in spades.
Jason Lockwood
Steve Davis
> Actually, the more I read your explanation of Bernstein, the more
> I get the sense he was just plumb angry at you. As I
> (hypothetically) look into his mind, I see the thought that if
> you were not going to be properly respectful to him, he wasn't
> going to act as if everything were peachy cream.
Chris Wolf not being properly respectful of someone?
That's an OUTRAGEOUS accusation!
You must be brain damaged!
Chris Wolf
>Chris Wolf whined:
>
>> Considering how Andy had behaved at the restaurant, and later at
>> the meeting, I decided that I need give no additional credence
>> to his personal criticisms of me. Apparently, "refusing to
>> cater to Andrew Bernstein's whims" constitutes "tremendous
>> damage to the Objectivist Movement."
>You are a legend in your own mind, Chris.
It's tough being a God of Philosophy.
jal...@icsi.net
lstra...@earthlink.net wrote:
[...]
> In all honesty, it sounds like Chris was the one who wanted to be king an
> d who
> was used to deferential treatment. I've seen it before - the host who nee
> ds to
> prove they are as smart as all their guests. And reading YOUR account, Chris,
> that came through loud and clear.
Actually, it almost came across like an interrogation. I wonder if there
was a giant, bright heat lamp on Andy Berstein during the questioning.
"Is it or is it not in the book, Mr Bernstein, answer the question!"
"We aren't going to throw you any patsy questions around here, Mr.
Bernstein."
...John
Mike Rael
I did not make that post to put Chris down. I strictly asserted a
*possibility* designed to elicit further thinking.
best wishes,
Mike
Steve Davis (sda...@pa.dec.com) wrote:
: Mike Rael wrote:
cath...@my-dejanews.com
Steve Davis <sda...@pa.dec.com> wrote:
> Mike Rael wrote:
>
> > Actually, the more I read your explanation of Bernstein, the more
> > I get the sense he was just plumb angry at you. As I
> > (hypothetically) look into his mind, I see the thought that if
> > you were not going to be properly respectful to him, he wasn't
> > going to act as if everything were peachy cream.
>
>
> That's an OUTRAGEOUS accusation!
>
> You must be brain damaged!
That, or just a twit. Or a crack-..., well, you get the idea.
bot-food
bot-food
bot-food
Chris Wolf
>Hi, Chris:)
> Actually, the more I read your explanation of Bernstein, the more
>I get the sense he was just plumb angry at you.
That's rather obvious. I certainly hope he wasn't expressing his great
love for me.
>As I (hypothetically)
>look into his mind, I see the thought that if you were not going to be
>properly respectful to him, he wasn't going to act as if everything were
>peachy cream.
> This is strictly intuition, Chris. Unfortunately, I own no
>working crystal ball:)
I think you're probably right. I don't think there's any question that
Bernstein thought I was not being properly respectful to him. In his mind,
I refused to take him to a different restaurant, and I refused to accept
his claims without hard evidence to back them up.
In the world of ARI, those are hanging offenses.
> The question does arise, though: how might you have been
>responsible for creating his anger? I like this question because, it not
>only throws the ball into your court, it throws *control* straight into
>your hands, as well. For to the extent that you were responsible for the
>problem, that means to that extent the problem is correctible by you in
>the future.
In the future, I will not have dinner with Andy Bernstein. That will
correct the basic problem.
> If Bernstein is just a jerk, that means you absolutely had no
>control in the situation. If he is not just a jerk, then should a similar
>situation pop up in the future, you will have far more control over what
>happens!
If I could have taken Bernstein to a different restaurant, I would have.
But I couldn't, and I explained why. It was physically impossible. I had
to be elsewhere at 7:00 p.m. Bernstein refused to accept that. Draw your
own conclusions.
Chris Wolf
>Hi, Chris:)
>
>
>Chris Wolf (cwo...@nwlink.com) wrote:
>: Mike Rael writes:
>
>: >Hi, Kyle:)
>: > I don't know about Bernstein's food issues, but the rest of it
>: >does seem to be an issue, as you pointed out, of just *telling* Bernstein
>: >what was up.z
>: Absolutely wrong.
>
>: The issue is NOT whether or not I should have called Bernstein's behavior
>: to his attention, or whether or not I was justified in taking offense at
>: it. The point is that only an unthinking jerk would behave in such a
>: manner in the first place.
>
>: My personal reponse to such jerky behavior is quite irrelevant to the point
>: in question.
>Well, you present me with a problem, Chris. I like you, yet I got to
>disagree with you, and I don't want to anger you, but I got to risk
>that...sigh...
I doubt that you can anger me. You're too reasonable a man for that, and I
never take offense at reason.
>Bernstein may lack basic social awareness, but what that means is he
>doesn't have certain knowledge.
He doesn't have certain knowledge that we expect every adult human to
possess.
>If you make a good-faith effort to let
>him know your feelings in a manner designed to minimize the probability
>of provoking defensiveness, and he does not acknowledge your efforts in
>the slightest, *then* he is acting like a jerk.
No, then he's malevolent. He's ALREADY acting like a jerk. A jerk is
basically someone who is clueless as to civilized behavior (for whatever
reason). A jerk is someone who fails to show basic consideration to other
people.
It's more than a mere lack of knowledge. It's a very bad character flaw.
I expect a certain standard of behavior from civilized adults. If I don't
get it, then I write them off. I'm not interested in correcting them,
educating them, or teaching them Basic Manners. Life is too short.
It's like someone who applies for a job. Either he already has the
necessary skills, or he doesn't. And if he doesn't, then he doesn't get
the job. I don't offer to send him back to school, and teach him what he
needs to know.
>Unless you do that, all that can be said is that he lacked awareness, and
>you lacked assertivness. Two folks with problems.
My "lack of assertiveness" is not on trial here. In fact, it is totally
irrelevant to the point at hand. The point is that Andy Bernstein can act
like a Real Swell Fella, but he can also act like a Complete Jerk.
It's Bernstein' lack of awareness that makes him a jerk. Awareness that he
should have. Awareness that we expect him to have.
>: > In fact, (and I address this to Chris), if you haven't already done
>: >so, why not give the guy a call and tell him you want to get something
>: >off your chest so you can feel better towards him in the future?
>: Why would I want to "feel better" towards an absolute jerk?
>Chris, anyone can act like jerk from time to time. What counts, to me, is
>how I choose to react towards that person...either to help or to hinder.
>I realize that, in part, when you chastise folks you want to educate
>them, but that simply does not happen alot of the time. If you really
>want to educate folks, you have to try to get into their heads.
Sorry, but I'm not interested in dealing with (or educating) jerks. Life
is too short. There are too many good people to interact with, to waste
time on the jerks.
However if you want to minister to them, be my guest.
Anyone can slip from time to time, but that doesn't necessarily make him a
jerk. However if a civilized man *does* slip, he then later apologizes for
it. If no apology is forthcoming, then you know you're dealing with a jerk
(because he doesn't think he did anything wrong).
>: >Then let
>: >him know all your concerns--but without telling him he's a jerk!!
>: Sorry, but I'm not interested in being friends with unthinking jerks. Life
>: is too short. I have no interest in teaching uncivilized clods how to
>: behave properly in public. That's their responsibility.
>I dunno, Chris. When I talk this way, it's usually to cover up a veil of
>pain from the past.
I have certainly found jerks to be very painful. Which is why I don't deal
with them. Why swim with someone who pisses in the pool?
>It gets me to wondering what your life has been like
>as a youngster...
It wasn't too bad. I was usually able to successfully fight the rats for
the raw meat that my folks threw down the basement stairs every week.
>I wouldn't want to you talk about that here, God
>knows:), but maybe we can share sometime in personal email?
Why don't you try to save Andy, first?
>: Funny. I hadn't noticed a lack of guts on my part, lately.
>Well, Chris, hope you don't think I'm just out of it, but when I make the
>effort to integrate this, I get a sense of immense pain, but underneath,
>way underneath. And I don't feel it's all *my* pain.
Have you ever considered getting a pet?
Chris Wolf
>In article <79cnmg$uc0$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>,
> lstra...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> In all honesty, it sounds like Chris was the one who wanted to be king an
>> d who
>> was used to deferential treatment. I've seen it before - the host who nee
>> ds to
>> prove they are as smart as all their guests. And reading YOUR account, C
>> hris,
>> that came through loud and clear.
> Actually, it almost came across like an interrogation.
The questions certainly flew thick and fast. But to his credit, Andy
answered them quickly and efficiently. No one denies the man's basic
intelligence. Or his command of his material.
>I wonder if there
>was a giant, bright heat lamp on Andy Berstein during the questioning.
The circuit breaker couldn't handle the load, so we were forced to shut it
off. Fortunately the cattle prods were battery powered.
> "Is it or is it not in the book, Mr Bernstein, answer the question!"
>
> "We aren't going to throw you any patsy questions around here, Mr.
>Bernstein."
They pantywaists wouldn't let me use my rubber hose.
Chris Wolf
>In <36cbce4c...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> w
>rites:
>>mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org writes:
>>
>>>In <36d76209...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com> w
>>>rites:
>
>>>>It's interesting to note that none of the supporters of Andrew Bernstein
>>>>have demanded (or even requested) the details of my allegations against
>>>>Bernstein. This seems to indicate, rather clearly, that these supporters
>>>>of Bernstein place mindless loyalty above truth and justice. Therefore I'm
>>>>taking the time to relate my first hand account of Bernstein's atrocious
>>>>behavior, in detail, so that each person can judge for himself.
>>>Obviously, I couldn't have had another reason for my silence. Impossible!
>>I was referring to the supporters of Andrew Bernstein who took the trouble
>>to say nice things about him, on this newsgroup, but apparently were not
>>interested in the details of my allegations against him. As I recall, you
>>were not one of Bernstein's public supporters.
>You are wrong.
>http://x8.dejanews.com/getdoc.xp?AN=437405783&CONTEXT=918099008.1973289068&
>hitnum=1
>Please retract your "mindless loyalty" claim.
My apologies. I overlooked you in the shuffle. Obviously "mindless
loyalty" does not describe you. Apparently your problem is that you see
nothing wrong with Bernstein's behavior. Which shows that you suffer from
the same character flaw.
>>If I admired a man to the point that I would praise him in a public forum,
>>and someone made an accusation that contradicted what I had to say, I would
>>certainly want to know the details, so I would know if my admiration was
>>misplaced.
>>
>>Unless, of course, I placed mindless loyalty above truth and justice.
>Or, because I have very limited time for newsgroups.
In that regard, you are very different from the others who praised
Bernstein. They are regular contributors to this newsgroup, and the time
excuse will not work for them.
>And, because your behavior is incredibly rude:
There is a major difference between being incredibly rude, and speaking the
unpleasant truth. I speak the unpleasant truth, which many instantly
categorize as incredibly rude. However, a harsh criticism does not
automatically qualify as incredibly rude.
Learn the difference.
>>Thereby demonstrating that you cannot tell the difference. But the tone of
>>your post suggests that you are an impressionable kid in college (probably
>>a fresh-caught Objectivist). If so, I will make an allowance for that.
>
>>Learn to read.
>
>>That's what makes him a jerk. He is ignorant of proper, civilized
>>behavior.
>>
>>And apparently, so are you.
>
>>behavior, unless we first point it out to him, then I can only assume that
>>you are also an uncivilized clod who has never been taught the rudiments of
>>civilized behavior.
>
>>I see that Bernstein is not the only one who is clueless when it comes to
>>proper behavior.
>Chris, when you communicate in such a brazenly hostile manner, do you
>honestly expect fruitful discussion to follow?
I do if my opponent is honest, and interested in the truth. It's a very
reliable screening process. Not only does it quickly get rid of the
weaklings, but it tells me who is looking for the truth (or who is trying
to evade the truth), and who is merely looking for a fight. (And I enjoy
both types.)
>Is it a mystery why so many people detest you?
It's a bigger mystery why so many people love me. People who speak the
truth are uniformly despised.
>What happened to benevolence?
It was gang-raped the first night here. It quickly lapsed into a coma, and
has not been heard from since.
This is an arena where the gladiators fight. Not much room for
benevolence.
>[Rhetorical questions; don't bother answering, because I'm not continuing this
>discussion with you.]
Oh, I think you will. Eventually. Because you strike me as ignorant, but
basically honest. And you will find my consistent honesty to be
irresistible.
It's not enough to fear Big Brother. You must also love him.
;-)
Chris Wolf
>Someone on the list sent me an email about Chris Wolfe's 'Dinner With Andy'
>posts. I want to preface ALL of my comments by stating that I'm not a
>pro-Peikoff, anti-Kelley person. If I had to be categorized by those
>standards, I'm more on Kelley's side - anyone who has read my posts in the
>past probably knows this. As such, Andy and I have some intellectual
>differences. That being said....
>
>I lived with Andy, about 15 years ago, when I was a student at ARS - a
>private objectivist high school. Andy taught Philosophy and Literature there.
>He and his first wife Joan were our 'dorm parents'. Most of the year, there
>were two students; Chris Dool and myself. As the years went by, we drifted
>apart - but I knew him real well, and I still think I know him well enough to
>comment.
>
>Andy is probably the best teacher I've ever had. I only say 'probably'
>because I also had Herb Grossman teach math at ARS, and he was great, too -
>really, all the teachers there were great. But I went to ARS because I was
>interested in philosophy and books. Andy's credentials as a speaker and
>teacher are pretty much beyond reproach, but this isn't about that. It's
>about him as a person.
I quite agree.
>So let me tackle Chris Wolfe's post. First thing - I'll stipulate the FACTS
>of Chris's account. Factually speaking, it all seems very feasible to me that
>Andy would do and say many of things Chris says he did.
Nice to hear that from a source with first-hand experience.
>Now, let's look at what Chris said happened this way - Andy was the GUEST at
>the dinner. The dinner was for him, in the sense that the meal would not have
>happened as it did were it not for Andy's presence.
Very true.
>Then, Andy looks at the menu and doesn't see anything he can eat.
>
>Why? Well, here's my guess - in the time I knew Andy, he became 'healthy'. He
>was in his early-mid thirties and he started getting more serious about his
>diet and exercise. I'm in my early-mid thirties now, and I'm doing the same
>thing. I'm sure many of you are familiar with this. If you've tried to eat
>healthy, you know how difficult it can be to order healthy from a menu. I
>don't remember if Andy likes seafood or not. And I've been to seafood places
>in Seattle - I once had an incredible smoked salmon and leek fettucine with
>in a white sauce at place down on the Pier - not Ivar's, but near there.
>Incredibly good, but heart attack central. Yum yum. Oops, I'm getting
>distracted...
You're also making me hungry.
>At any rate, he didn't find anything he could order - and HE was the guest.
>Sorry Chris, YOU were the rude one - don't try to tell me there was no other
>way to eat, and that every restaurant in Seattle was full. Bullshit - YOU
>didn't leave because YOU wanted to eat there, regardless of how your guest
>felt.
Lee, are you completely unable to read? I said that I offered to take Andy
elsewhere to get some fast food. He refused the offer. That's the only
reason we didn't leave the restaurant. ANDY SAID NO! If I had simply
wanted to stay in the restaurant, I certainly would not have given Andy the
opportunity to say "yes" and force us to go elsewhere.
Get a grip!
>Andy saying he couldn't get anything to eat there should have stopped
>everything and a creative change of plans would have been in order.
It did stop everything. I immediately looked for a viable alternative. I
managed to come up with several alternatives, but none of them were
acceptable to Andy. I could find no way to accommodate his wishes. I
certainly would have, if I could. But I couldn't.
>It was
>uncomfortable for everyone, I'm sure - but hey, that's life. It's not
>anyone's fault that you picked the wrong restaurant, but it is your
>responsibility.
You were doing real well, up until this point, Lee. Now you're full of
shit, and you've got most of your facts wrong. So pay attention while I
try to straighten you out.
In the first place, Andy was NOT my guest. He was the guest of Pam Benson.
He was staying in her home, and she was providing his transportation all
over Seattle. I was invited by Pam to join her and Andy for dinner.
That's why she was paying for Andy's dinner. SHE was responsible for the
"wrong" restaurant; not I.
Since the plan was to take Andy directly from the restaurant to the meeting
in my home, Pam asked me to pick a good, nearby restaurant. I did so. She
approved my choice of restaurant. If there was any need to check that
restaurant, ahead of time, with Andy, that was Pam's responsibility; not
mine. It was also ANDY'S responsibility to make his dietary restrictions
known, ahead of time, to his hostess. For him to wait until he was seated
at the restaurant table, and THEN announce his dietary restrictions, is
inexcusable. For you to fail to criticize Andy, on this point, is also
inexcusable.
I'm sorry you don't believe me that every other restaurant in Seattle was
full, and there was nowhere else to go, but that's the simple truth. I
have lived in this town for twenty years, and I know what I'm talking
about. On Friday night, you CANNOT get in to any good restaurant without
reservations. They are packed. If you show up without a reservation, you
will typically have a 1-2 hour wait. So if you want to eat out, in
Seattle, on a Friday night, without a reservation, you either go to fast
food places (hamburgers or pizza) or you try your luck at a place like
Denny's. And even at Denny's, you may have to wait twenty or thirty
minutes. That's just the way this town is. That's why I told Andy that he
could either snack at the meeting, go to a fast food place, or find
something to eat on the menu. There was simply no other choice. But I was
willing to go along with whatever option he chose. So don't accuse me of
refusing to leave the restaurant. That's simply not true.
Pam Benson was desperately eager to please Andy that night, but even SHE
did not suggest going elsewhere. Why? Because she knew it was impossible
to get in anywhere else, in time, and still get to the meeting on time
(where Andy was the scheduled speaker). Or are you going to seriously
suggest that I should have simply taken Andy elsewhere, regardless of our
time constraints, and left my guests to sit and wait for our eventual
arrival? Sorry, but MY first responsibility is to MY guests; not Andy
Bernstein. Andy was Pam's responsibility; not mine.
Your claim that I refused to leave the restaurant because *I* wanted to eat
there, regardless of how my guest felt, is simply more of your nonsensical
psychologizing. I only live a flew blocks from that restaurant, and I eat
there frequently. It's no big deal for me.
Why didn't Pam offer to take Andy elsewhere, let me go on the meeting, and
then show up at the meeting late with him? I have no idea. Maybe she just
didn't think of it (it certainly never occurred to me). Probably because
she knew that Andy was the scheduled speaker at the meeting, and couldn't
be late. But Andy was her guest, and her responsibility; not mine.
And what about Andy's responsibility during all this (which you have
completely ignored)? Didn't Andy have a responsibility to tell Pam about
his dietary needs BEFORE he arrived at the restaurant. Didn't Andy have an
obligation to those thirty people in my living room, before whom he had
promised to speak? Or is filling his stomach, to his liking, his first and
only obligation?
If I had been Andy Bernstein, and I had failed to make my dietary
requirements known, well before going to the restaurant, and found myself
locked out from the menu, I would have gladly accepted the suggestion to go
get a hamburger, or some pizza. Or are you telling me that Andy
Bernstein's stomach could not handle even ONE god damned meal of fast food?
If I could have taken Andy somewhere else, more to his liking, I would
gladly have done so. But I simply could not. It was impossible. I had a
meeting to host at 7:00 p.m. And that was MY responsibility. It was NOT
my responsibility to see that Andy Bernstein got fed, in accordance with
his finicky diet.
I hope you understand now.
>As for the meeting, here's what it sounds like happened - and I say this only
>by reading Chris's post. Andy said something. Chris said "No, you're wrong" -
>thereby disrupting Andy's flow and creating an uncomfortable situation where
>the host is correcting the guest. Andy proceeds to look up the point in
>Atlas. Andy is right, amd Chris is wrong. Chris admits it.
No, that's not what happened. There was no "flow" to disrupt. Andy had
refused to deliver his scheduled lecture, remember? Having managed to turn
Andy's aborted lecture into a Question and Answer session, I asked a
question of my own that had been bothering me for some time. In had to do
with a plot incident in _Atlas Shrugged_. Specifically, it dealt with
Dagny's refusal to contact Hank Reardan while still in the Valley.
Andy answered the question, but I thought his answer was in error. We
discussed it back and forth for several minutes. Finally Andy said, "Got a
copy of _Atlas Shrugged_? I'll look it up." I gave him the book, and he
looked it up. It took him a few minutes to find the passage in question,
and I'll be damned! Andy was right. I said, "Thanks very much. That's a
question I've been wondering about for a long time." And that was the end
of it.
>Chris wants points for 'admitting it'.
Bullshit.
>To paraphrase Chris Rock - You're
>SUPPOSED to admit it when you're wrong, ya low expectations mofo...especially
>if you're factually wrong about a point that is shown to you in a book. Gee,
>kinda hard to deny it at that point, isn't it? MAYBE you shouldn't have
>corrected Andy in the first place - why was that needed?
I didn't correct him. I told him I thought his answer was in error. But I
wasn't certain, either, and I said so. So he looked it up, and the
question was resolved.
If you're looking for something sinister in this, you won't find it.
And I don't care at all for your suggested that maybe Andy shouldn't have
been corrected. In a rational environment, NOBODY is immune to having
their claims challenged.
>In all honesty, it sounds like Chris was the one who wanted to be king and who
>was used to deferential treatment. I've seen it before - the host who needs to
>prove they are as smart as all their guests. And reading YOUR account, Chris,
>that came through loud and clear.
Only in your fertile imagination. Your attempt to defend your friend is
laudable, but it has caused you to take leave of your senses. I have never
seen so much conclusion drawn from so little evidence.
Actually, I thought I got along quite well with Andy, during the meeting,
and so did the rest of my guests. Pam Benson was the lone dissenting
voice, but she was so smitten with Andy, at that point, that her judgment
was on Mars.
>Can Andy be a jerk? Sure. Who can't?
The difference is that a civilized man apologizes for his jerky behavior.
The True Jerk does not. That's what makes Andy a jerk.
>When I balance the negatives and
>positives, it isn't even close - Andy is one of the good ones.
As long as he gets his way in restaurants.
But if you want to put up with such jerky behavior, be my guest.
For Andy to act as he did, in the restaurant, to disrupt our dinner, and
offer no apology, is inexcusable. To cancel a promised lecture, at
literally the last second, in front of the audience, and again to offer no
apology, is inexcusable.
To fail to condemn Andy on either of these points, is inexcusable, and
reveals a serious lack of civilized behavior.
Chris Wolf
>Chris Wolf wrote:
>
>> It's interesting to note that none of the supporters of Andrew
>> Bernstein
>> have demanded (or even requested) the details of my allegations
>> against
>> Bernstein. This seems to indicate, rather clearly, that these
>> supporters
>> of Bernstein place mindless loyalty above truth and justice.
>So, in other words, the only alternative to "mindless loyalty" is
>"mindless gullibility," i.e. automatically equating Chris Wolf's say-so
>with "truth and justice."
Nonsense. I never asked anyone to take my claims on faith. If my claims
are challenged, I will ALWAYS back them up with evidence, or witnesses.
All you have to do is ask.
Which is why I ALWAYS win such challenges.
>Has it occurred to you that perhaps
>Bernstein's supporters did not ask you for the details because they
>consider your say-so as having minimal credibility - especially when it
>contradicts their own first-hand experiences and the experiences of
>people they know?
Certainly it occurred to me. It's an excellent indicator of just how far
out of touch with reality, these people are.
The more a claim contradicts your own first-hand experience, the more it
should interest (and concern) you.
>Let's face it, so far, all you have offered is your
>say-so.
In my case, that's quite a lot. In case you haven't noticed, I have a
reputation on this newsgroup for objective reporting of the facts. Even my
enemies will acknowledge this. I report ALL the facts, and I back up my
claims with evidence.
In other words, if Chris Wolf says it happened, then you can make book on
it. I make damned certain that my reporting is complete and accurate,
precisely so that when I make a claim that is hard to believe, I can't be
dismissed as just another liar or crackpot. My claims have to taken
seriously by anyone who is interested in truth and justice.
In this case, I also have witnesses. See the thread "Chris Wolf's Dinner
With Andy."
>> Therefore I'm
>> taking the time to relate my first hand account of Bernstein's
>> atrocious
>> behavior, in detail, so that each person can judge for himself.
>I have yet to meet Andrew Bernstein, so I have no first hand
>observations to offer. However, less than a year ago, a good friend of
>mine - a person I have known for many years and whose word I have
>complete confidence in - had the honor of being one of the hosts when
>Bernstein made a visit to a campus club in his city. Last night, I
>forwarded him a copy of Chris Wolf's posting and asked him to read it
>and comment. Here is his reply:
> "I'm too busy to read the whole thing.
For starters, your friend is a damned liar. Nobody is that busy. He's
REFUSING to read the whole thing.
> I got to about where the
> "private
> throne" was mentioned. This story is incredible and is either a
> fabrication or distorted by time and imagination.
Your friend is "too busy to read the whole thing," nevertheless he has no
problem declaring that my account is "either a fabrication, or distorted by
time and imagination."
What a typical Peikoffian Objectivist! One wonders why be bothered to read
it at all, since he already knew his answer.
My story may be incredible, but it's not a fabrication, nor is it distorted
by time and imagination. I have witnesses that it's not a fabrication.
Nor is it distorted by time and imagination, since I took detailed notes at
the time it happened. Most of my post was actually written eight years
ago; the day after it actually happened.
Your friend is a very silly creature. If he cannot take the time to read
the whole thing, then he has absolutely no grounds for passing judgment on
it. Your friend is intellectually dishonest.
This sort of behavior, of course, is what is so TYPICAL of supporters of
Bernstein, in particular, and the ARI, in general. When confronted with
unpleasant facts, they simply dismiss them, out of hand. They refuse to
face reality.
>Neither the
> account of
> Bernstein's alleged dietary finickiness nor his demeanor nor his
> lack
> of basic etiquette bear any relationship whatsoever to what I
> observed on
> his visit to Houston.
Which proves nothing. Except that your friend is not willing to face the
unpleasant truth.
I was there. I saw it. And I have witnesses.
> The post is cleverly titled 'My Dinner with Andy' as an ironic
> reference
> to "My Dinner with Andre." A more fitting title might be 'The Wolf
> Who
> Cried 'Boy!'"
In other words, your friend simply refuses to consider that my account
might be true. He makes no attempt to investigate my claims.
Your friend's idea of truth and justice, is a joke. Loyalty is all well
and good, but serious accusations, from credible sources, must be taken
seriously. They cannot be dismissed out of hand.
> Wolf writes:
>
>> The next day, I was told by Pam that Andy had been very critical of me
>>
>> during their drive home. Andy had told her that I was doing
>> "tremendous
>> harm" to the Objectivist movement. . . . . . .
>This makes me think that there may be *much* more to this story than
>Wolf is telling us - or perhaps is even willing to admit to himself.
Uh-huh.
Feel free to dig as deeply as you wish. I'll still be here when you get
back, and the only thing you will learn is that my story was both accurate
and complete.
Feel free to consult with Pam Benson. She was there, and she saw it all.
However, keep in mind that Pam Benson should be regarded as a VERY hostile
witness to my cause. She currently hates my guts. She thinks I made her
look bad in front of Andy (which made it hard for her to drop one wing, and
run in circles).
>> Andrew Bernstein may be a brilliant scholar, and outstanding speaker,
>> but
>> as a civilized human being, he leaves a lot to be desired. This is
>> why,
>> when I hear how Bernstein is such a kind, thoughtful, sensitive
>> fellow, I
>> can only think to myself, "Pretty good act. And the suckers are
>> buying
>> it."
>
>> A lot of people seem to be under the mistaken belief that if a man is
>> highly intelligent, and acts like a warm human being in public, then he is
>> equally charming in private, and is a fine fellow, through and though. It
>> isn't so.
>Well, let's assume for just a moment that everything Wolf says is
>correct and that Bernstein is a total jerk. So what? What difference
>should this make for the vast majority of the Objectivist public who
>will NEVER deal with him on a personal level and whose only interaction
>with him is on the receiving end of books and lectures?
It will not make one bit of difference. And I never claimed otherwise. I
simply wanted to provide a balance to those people who were claiming that
Bernstein is a Really Swell Fella. I simply wanted the record to be
complete, with ALL the facts known. The truth is, sometimes Bernstein is a
jerk.
Personally, I suspect that Bernstein is simply another basically nice guy
who has been horribly corrupted by the poisonous atmosphere at the ARI.
Ayn Rand had some horrible character and personality flaws. Unfortunately,
many of her followers (like Peikoff) were unable to separate her brilliant
philosophy from her character flaws. They naturally assumed that a
brilliant woman, with a brilliant philosophy, must also have a brilliant
character and a brilliant personality. So they not only copied her
philosophy, they also copied her character and personality flaws. Andrew
Bernstein is simply the latest, in a long line, to be infected.
Dismuke
> >Has it occurred to you that perhaps
> >Bernstein's supporters did not ask you for the details because they
> >consider your say-so as having minimal credibility - especially when
> it
> >contradicts their own first-hand experiences and the experiences of
> >people they know?
Chris Wolf answered:
>
>
> Certainly it occurred to me. It's an excellent indicator of just how
> far
> out of touch with reality, these people are.
>
> The more a claim contradicts your own first-hand experience, the more
> it
> should interest (and concern) you.
Really? So does that mean you always show a great deal of "interest
(and concern)" whenever some kook presents an absolutely crackpot (to
use your word) conspiracy theory? Have you spent a great deal of time
absorbing the "teachings" of psychic Edgar Cayce? Have you analyzed all
of the so-called scientific "evidence" behind "Creation Science?" After
all, such claims contradict your first-hand experience *big time*. Are
they of great "interest (and concern)" to you?
Personally, the more something contradicts my first-hand experience, the
quicker I am to dismiss it as a waste of time.
> >Let's face it, so far, all you have offered is your
> >say-so.
>
> In my case, that's quite a lot. In case you haven't noticed, I have a
>
> reputation on this newsgroup for objective reporting of the facts.
> Even my
> enemies will acknowledge this. I report ALL the facts, and I back up
> my
> claims with evidence.
>
> In other words, if Chris Wolf says it happened, then you can make book
> on
> it. I make damned certain that my reporting is complete and accurate,
>
> precisely so that when I make a claim that is hard to believe, I can't
> be
> dismissed as just another liar or crackpot. My claims have to taken
> seriously by anyone who is interested in truth and justice.
You are just begging the question. What you are basically saying in
answer to those who doubt the credibility of your say-so is to take your
word for it because you say-so.
>
>
> In this case, I also have witnesses. See the thread "Chris Wolf's
> Dinner
> With Andy."
Yes. The same person you referred to in your posting as your "close
friend and business partner" Unlike your behavior towards my friend, I
am NOT going to accuse your friend of being a liar. I know absolutely
nothing about the man. Nor, I suspect, do most people on the group.
That's just it. Again, I do not mean to disparage the man in any way,
but face it, anyone who forms a negative judgment of Andrew Bernstein
based on his say-so confirming your say-so is extremely gullible.
>
>
> >> Therefore I'm
> >> taking the time to relate my first hand account of Bernstein's
> >> atrocious
> >> behavior, in detail, so that each person can judge for himself.
>
> >I have yet to meet Andrew Bernstein, so I have no first hand
> >observations to offer. However, less than a year ago, a good friend
> of
> >mine - a person I have known for many years and whose word I have
> >complete confidence in - had the honor of being one of the hosts when
>
> >Bernstein made a visit to a campus club in his city. Last night, I
> >forwarded him a copy of Chris Wolf's posting and asked him to read it
>
> >and comment. Here is his reply:
>
> > "I'm too busy to read the whole thing.
>
> For starters, your friend is a damned liar. Nobody is that busy.
> He's
> REFUSING to read the whole thing.
Yes, he refused to read the whole thing because he is a busy person
facing pressure and deadlines. Since he considers this forum to be
little more than a giant cyber-circlejerk, I doubt he would have even
read it at all had I not asked him to send me a reply. When he said he
was too busy, my guess is that he was checking his email between
projects at work and had only a few minutes to read it, reply to it and
deal with any other emails he may have had in his inbox. You know,
Chris, not everybody has vast periods of spare time like you and your
fellow mental masturbators who spend hours reading and putting up
endlessly repetitive postings to Usenet.
>
>
> > I got to about where the
> > "private
> > throne" was mentioned. This story is incredible and is either a
> > fabrication or distorted by time and imagination.
>
> Your friend is "too busy to read the whole thing," nevertheless he has
> no
> problem declaring that my account is "either a fabrication, or
> distorted by
> time and imagination."
>
> What a typical Peikoffian Objectivist! One wonders why be bothered to
> read
> it at all, since he already knew his answer.
He read it because I asked him to. I asked him because I wanted to know
if your claims had any credibility at all behind them.
>
>
> My story may be incredible, but it's not a fabrication, nor is it
> distorted
> by time and imagination. I have witnesses that it's not a
> fabrication.
> Nor is it distorted by time and imagination, since I took detailed
> notes at
> the time it happened. Most of my post was actually written eight
> years
> ago; the day after it actually happened.
>
> Your friend is a very silly creature. If he cannot take the time to
> read
> the whole thing, then he has absolutely no grounds for passing
> judgment on
> it. Your friend is intellectually dishonest.
That's funny. He posted here anonymously a couple of years ago. At the
time you said he had "class and style" and said that he was "cool." You
even said "It's nice to see a literate man for a change."
>
>
> This sort of behavior, of course, is what is so TYPICAL of supporters
> of
> Bernstein, in particular, and the ARI, in general. When confronted
> with
> unpleasant facts, they simply dismiss them, out of hand. They refuse
> to
> face reality.
Yes, but they do it with such "class and style!"
>
>
> >Neither the
> > account of
> > Bernstein's alleged dietary finickiness nor his demeanor nor his
>
> > lack
> > of basic etiquette bear any relationship whatsoever to what I
> > observed on
> > his visit to Houston.
>
> Which proves nothing. Except that your friend is not willing to face
> the
> unpleasant truth.
And that he is a "literate man"!
>
>
> I was there. I saw it. And I have witnesses.
Yes. One is your business partner. The other you dismiss as a "hostile
witness" because she hates your guts.
>
>
> In other words, your friend simply refuses to consider that my account
>
> might be true. He makes no attempt to investigate my claims.
And just how was he to investigate your claims? By taking them on your
say-so? I for one DID attempt to investigate your claims - by bringing
them to the attention of someone who has had first hand experience in
dealing with Andrew Bernstein and whose honesty and judgment I have
complete confidence in.
>
>
> Your friend's idea of truth and justice, is a joke. Loyalty is all
> well
> and good, but serious accusations, from credible sources, must be
> taken
> seriously. They cannot be dismissed out of hand.
But it is the very credibility of the source of the accusation (i.e.
you) that is at question here. Again, you are expecting everybody to
take this on your say-so. Why? If I were to just out of the blue make
some wild accusation that I saw your buddy David Kelley attempt to put
his hands down the pants of a little boy and fondle him, would you take
that accusation "seriously" and with great "interest (and concern)"?
Wouldn't you question the validity of my claim? If I then got real
huffy that you would even dare question my say-so and persuaded my "good
friend and business partner" to step forward and say that he was with me
when I saw Kelley trying to fondle the little boy, would you then go
around believing that David Kelley is some sort of pervert? If your
answer is yes, PLEASE give me a call. I have some "investment
opportunities" to show you.
> Feel free to consult with Pam Benson. She was there, and she saw it
> all.
> However, keep in mind that Pam Benson should be regarded as a VERY
> hostile
> witness to my cause. She currently hates my guts. She thinks I made
> her
> look bad in front of Andy (which made it hard for her to drop one
> wing, and
> run in circles).
How convenient.
>
>
> >Well, let's assume for just a moment that everything Wolf says is
> >correct and that Bernstein is a total jerk. So what? What
> difference
> >should this make for the vast majority of the Objectivist public who
> >will NEVER deal with him on a personal level and whose only
> interaction
> >with him is on the receiving end of books and lectures?
>
> It will not make one bit of difference. And I never claimed
> otherwise.
Really? Well just a moment ago you classified your claims as being
"serious accusations." If it does not make one bit of difference, then
how can the accusations be so "serious"?
> Personally, I suspect that Bernstein is simply another basically nice
> guy
> who has been horribly corrupted by the poisonous atmosphere at the
> ARI.
> Ayn Rand had some horrible character and personality flaws.
> Unfortunately,
> many of her followers (like Peikoff) were unable to separate her
> brilliant
> philosophy from her character flaws. They naturally assumed that a
> brilliant woman, with a brilliant philosophy, must also have a
> brilliant
> character and a brilliant personality. So they not only copied her
> philosophy, they also copied her character and personality flaws.
> Andrew
> Bernstein is simply the latest, in a long line, to be infected.
Hmmm. Chris, I think you've been reading too much Jim Kl-ayn.
|
Dismuke
|
mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org
writes:
>mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org writes:
>>Please retract your "mindless loyalty" claim.
>
>My apologies. I overlooked you in the shuffle. Obviously "mindless
>loyalty" does not describe you. Apparently your problem is that you see
>nothing wrong with Bernstein's behavior. Which shows that you suffer from
>the same character flaw.
Chris, I'm disappointed. Even when you apologize, you make personal attacks.
>>And, because your behavior is incredibly rude:
>
>There is a major difference between being incredibly rude, and speaking the
>unpleasant truth. I speak the unpleasant truth, which many instantly
>categorize as incredibly rude. However, a harsh criticism does not
>automatically qualify as incredibly rude.
>
>Learn the difference.
I know the difference, and I maintain that you have been incredibly rude.
You have insulted my intelligence and my character numerous times on the basis
of a handful of short messages. You don't know anything about me except my
admiration of Bernstein and my suggestions for how your situation could have
been handled better. You don't know that I'm an "impressionable kid" or
"ignorant" or even that I'm an Objectivist. And *you* accuse *me* of ignor
ance!
(However, in the spirit of <ahem> goodwill: I'm 20, not ignorant, and an
Objectivist. Now you may insult me *intelligently*.)
>>Chris, when you communicate in such a brazenly hostile manner, do you
>>honestly expect fruitful discussion to follow?
>
>I do if my opponent is honest, and interested in the truth. It's a very
>reliable screening process. Not only does it quickly get rid of the
>weaklings, but it tells me who is looking for the truth (or who is trying
>to evade the truth), and who is merely looking for a fight. (And I enjoy
>both types.)
Yes, I agree that it's a very effective screening process. It screens out
almost
everybody! I'll bet you scare away a lot of honest opponents, too, even though
you don't intend it. Fortunately (or not), I have a high tolerance for abuse.
>>Is it a mystery why so many people detest you?
>
>It's a bigger mystery why so many people love me. People who speak the
>truth are uniformly despised.
I'm tempted to respond to this sloppy exaggeration with an insult. <sigh>
What a waste...
>>What happened to benevolence?
>
>It was gang-raped the first night here. It quickly lapsed into a coma, and
>has not been heard from since.
>
>This is an arena where the gladiators fight. Not much room for
>benevolence.
Lovely imagery. Now I feel welcome. Thank you.
>>[Rhetorical questions; don't bother answering, because I'm not continuing
>> this
>>discussion with you.]
>
>Oh, I think you will. Eventually. Because you strike me as ignorant, but
>basically honest. And you will find my consistent honesty to be
>irresistible.
You *almost* didn't insult me. Keep trying, you can do it! :)
>It's not enough to fear Big Brother. You must also love him.
>;-)
<rotfl>! This, I truly appreciated.
---
Kyle Markley
Jim Klein
writes:
>Hmmm. Chris, I think you've been reading too much Jim Kl-ayn.
Or, more likely, not enough.
jk
David Friedman
his dinner with Andrew Bernstein. As I presume Chris realizes, part of his
reputation here is that he is rude, abrasive, and arrogant (also fairly
bright and independent minded, but that is irrelevant to the present
discussion). That doesn't imply that he is deliberately misreporting the
facts, but it does suggest an alternative interpretation for the facts he
reports--that Bernstein perceived Chris as being rude and abrasive towards
him and reacted accordingly.
--
David Friedman
DD...@Best.com
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/
Mike Rael
This is one of those times, I think, where you just can't know
who is right or wrong unless you were actually there.
What you say makes perfect sense, but is all dependent upon how
you two interacted, that is with a sense of mutual respect or not.
The way it works is that I accept your version because I like
you, while some folks won't accept it because they don't like you.
?
Anyways, best wishes,
Mike
Chris Wolf (cwo...@nwlink.com) wrote:
: Mike Rael writes:
: >Hi, Chris:)
: If I could have taken Bernstein to a different restaurant, I would have.
: But I couldn't, and I explained why. It was physically impossible. I had
: to be elsewhere at 7:00 p.m. Bernstein refused to accept that. Draw your
: own conclusions.
: Chris Wolf
: cwo...@nwlink.com
: Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
: http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
: What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
: http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
: Leonard Peikoff Sues Barbara Branden
: http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/peikoff/barb.html
Mike Rael
But why do you mention it here??
best wishes,
Mike
Chris Wolf (cwo...@nwlink.com) wrote:
: Mike Rael writes:
: >Hi, Chris:) : > : > : >Chris Wolf (cwo...@nwlink.com) wrote: : >: Mike
: Chris Wolf
: cwo...@nwlink.com
Mike Rael
I really liked this post:)
As I see it, you're not against Chris. You're against gratuitious
insults, while you are just as deeply *for* benevolence.
I get the sense that you are definitely
struggling to extend the envelope vis-a-vis radical honesty, Kyle.
My hat is off to you!
best always,
Mike
mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org wrote:
: In <37464d36....@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com>
: writes:
: >mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org writes:
screening process. Not only does it quickly get rid of the : >weaklings,
: ---
: Kyle Markley
Tom Scheeler
mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org wrote in message <79e3v3$lau$1...@news.iastate.edu>...
>In <37464d36....@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com>
>writes:
>>mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org writes:
>
>>
>>There is a major difference between being incredibly rude, and speaking
the
>>unpleasant truth. I speak the unpleasant truth, which many instantly
>>categorize as incredibly rude. However, a harsh criticism does not
>>automatically qualify as incredibly rude.
>>
>>Learn the difference.
>
>I know the difference, and I maintain that you have been incredibly rude.
>
Let's see here now; Chris is claiming what a jerk Bernstein is by
demonstrating what a jerk (and several other negative characteristics, such
as hypocrisy, immaturity and possibly schizophrenia...does that qualify for
"kookiness"?) he is! Man, is this loaded with irony!!!
Chris, when it comes to "jerks", may I suggest a mirror?
Tom
It seems Chris is trying harder to prove something to himself than to
others.
lstra...@earthlink.net
It's obvious from your initial post that Andy was trying to eat 'healthy'.
You suggested fast food or pizza.
No suprise that he wasnt thrilled at them.
You're mad because he wrecked YOUR dinner.
Your post is filled with statements that show no concern for anybody but
yourself, while criticizing him for the allegedly the same behaivor.
I don't know what to do to make you see this, but it's very obvious...
- Le
Chris Wolf
>In article <36B8C417...@dismuke.com>,
> Dismuke <dis...@dismuke.com> wrote:
>
>> Chris Wolf wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> > The next day, I was told by Pam that Andy had been very critical of me
>
>> > during their drive home. Andy had told her that I was doing
>> > "tremendous
>> > harm" to the Objectivist movement. . . . . . .
>
>
>
>> This makes me think that there may be *much* more to this story than
>> Wolf is telling us - or perhaps is even willing to admit to himself.
> Dismuke isolates an interesting quote. I wonder, Chris, do you hold a
>grudge against Andy Bernstein for his assessment of you?
Not a bit. Never have, and never will. Since Bernstein doesn't even know
how to behave at a dinner get-together, why should I give the slightest
credence to his personal evaluation of me?
I took the precaution of checking with my trusted friends, to see if I had
gotten out of line during the meeting, or if any of them agreed with
Bernstein's assessment of me. They all agreed that my behavior was
exemplary, and they did not agree with Bernstein's assessment of me.
And one of the reasons I trusted their judgment, is because in the past,
they HAD told me when I was out of line.
Chris Wolf
>In <37464d36....@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com>
>writes:
>>
>>My apologies. I overlooked you in the shuffle. Obviously "mindless
>>loyalty" does not describe you. Apparently your problem is that you see
>>nothing wrong with Bernstein's behavior. Which shows that you suffer from
>>the same character flaw.
>Chris, I'm disappointed. Even when you apologize, you make personal attacks.
It saves time.
>>There is a major difference between being incredibly rude, and speaking the
>>unpleasant truth. I speak the unpleasant truth, which many instantly
>>categorize as incredibly rude. However, a harsh criticism does not
>>automatically qualify as incredibly rude.
>>
>>Learn the difference.
>I know the difference, and I maintain that you have been incredibly rude.
No problem. At your age, I didn't know the difference either.
Dispensation is granted.
>You have insulted my intelligence and my character numerous times on the basis
>of a handful of short messages. You don't know anything about me except my
>admiration of Bernstein and my suggestions for how your situation could have
>been handled better. You don't know that I'm an "impressionable kid" or
>"ignorant" or even that I'm an Objectivist. And *you* accuse *me* of ignor
>ance!
I never said I "knew" all those things. I said those were my educated
guesses.
>(However, in the spirit of <ahem> goodwill: I'm 20, not ignorant, and an
>Objectivist. Now you may insult me *intelligently*.)
So I was mostly right in my guesses. You're a kid, and you're an
Objectivist. Your age guarantees that you're both ignorant and
impressionable. But time cures that.
And in the spirit of goodwill, I will tell you that you are MUCH further
along the learning track than I was, when I was your age. I'm 47.
>>I do if my opponent is honest, and interested in the truth. It's a very
>>reliable screening process. Not only does it quickly get rid of the
>>weaklings, but it tells me who is looking for the truth (or who is trying
>>to evade the truth), and who is merely looking for a fight. (And I enjoy
>>both types.)
>Yes, I agree that it's a very effective screening process. It screens out
>almost
>everybody! I'll bet you scare away a lot of honest opponents, too, even t
>hough
>you don't intend it.
Probably. But they come back later.
>Fortunately (or not), I have a high tolerance for abuse.
Good man! I'm in the same boat. We take a lot of punches, but we also
have a lot of fun.
>>>Is it a mystery why so many people detest you?
>>It's a bigger mystery why so many people love me. People who speak the
>>truth are uniformly despised.
>I'm tempted to respond to this sloppy exaggeration with an insult. <sigh>
>What a waste...
If it's a good insult, I'll be the first to congratulate you.
>>>What happened to benevolence?
>>It was gang-raped the first night here. It quickly lapsed into a coma, and
>>has not been heard from since.
>>
>>This is an arena where the gladiators fight. Not much room for
>>benevolence.
>Lovely imagery. Now I feel welcome. Thank you.
Wanna buy a bigger sword?
>>>[Rhetorical questions; don't bother answering, because I'm not continuing
>>> this
>>>discussion with you.]
>>Oh, I think you will. Eventually. Because you strike me as ignorant, but
>>basically honest. And you will find my consistent honesty to be
>>irresistible.
>You *almost* didn't insult me. Keep trying, you can do it! :)
Stick around Kid. You're okay. Ya got a good sense of humor, so I know
your basic foundation is good. Besides, this place needs all the fresh
minds (and fresh blood) it can get.
It's people like you who will finally do something with Objectivism, after
those of us who were directly exposed to Rand (and hopelessly ruined) have
died out.
>>It's not enough to fear Big Brother. You must also love him.
>>;-)
>
><rotfl>! This, I truly appreciated.
So you are a literate man, as well? Excellent!
cath...@my-dejanews.com
David Friedman <DD...@best.com> wrote:
> Chris raises the issue of his reputation in the context of his account of
> his dinner with Andrew Bernstein. As I presume Chris realizes, part of his
> reputation here is that he is rude, abrasive, and arrogant (also fairly
> bright and independent minded, but that is irrelevant to the present
> discussion).
Well, as Wolf said, it's tough being a God of Philosophy. I don't detect any
arrogance there.
Unless, of course, he really isn't a God of Philosophy . . .
Chris Wolf
>mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org wrote in message <79e3v3$lau$1...@news.iastate.edu>...
>>In <37464d36....@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com>
>>writes:
>>>mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org writes:
>>
>>>
>>>There is a major difference between being incredibly rude, and speaking
>the
>>>unpleasant truth. I speak the unpleasant truth, which many instantly
>>>categorize as incredibly rude. However, a harsh criticism does not
>>>automatically qualify as incredibly rude.
>>>
>>>Learn the difference.
>>I know the difference, and I maintain that you have been incredibly rude.
>Let's see here now; Chris is claiming what a jerk Bernstein is by
>demonstrating what a jerk (and several other negative characteristics, such
>as hypocrisy, immaturity and possibly schizophrenia...does that qualify for
>"kookiness"?) he is! Man, is this loaded with irony!!!
Beats being loaded with shit. Like your posts.
>Chris, when it comes to "jerks", may I suggest a mirror?
I have a suggestion for you, as well.
>Tom
>
>It seems Chris is trying harder to prove something to himself than to
>others.
More psychologizing horseshit.
Chris Wolf
>>> The next day, I was told by Pam that Andy had been very critical of me
>>>
>>> during their drive home. Andy had told her that I was doing
>>> "tremendous
>>> harm" to the Objectivist movement. . . . . . .
>>
>>This makes me think that there may be *much* more to this story than
>>Wolf is telling us - or perhaps is even willing to admit to himself.
>>Wolf lists Pamela Benson as a witness. I met Ms. Benson a few years
>>ago when we sat at the same table during a dinner break at a conference.
>>(She even laughed at some of my jokes!) I had a positive impression of
>>her - and think it would be interesting to see what she has to say on
>>this. Does anyone have her email address?
>I know Pam quite well (we laugh at each other's jokes ;-) ) so I found it
>fishy that Wolf would make a reference to her in his post. It doesn't prove
>anything in particular, but I was left with a few questions: why? Is Pam
>Benson instrumental here? Aside from the few of us who post on HPO who
>actually know who she is, of what relevance is dropping her name?
Pam Benson was mentioned my post because she was HOSTING Andy Bernstein for
the week. She invited him to dinner with me and Mike. She approved the
restaurant. She paid for his dinner, and she witnessed the whole thing.
She can corroborate what I say (even as a hostile witness).
Is that relevant enough for you?
>A favorite expression of mine is: "Listen to what they're *not* saying." I
>think this applies to Mr. Wolf in spades.
I think you need to learn to read.
Chris Wolf
>I'll stick to one point at a time...
>
>It's obvious from your initial post that Andy was trying to eat 'healthy'.
And I have no problem with that. I will be happy to pick a restaurant
where someone can eat 'healthy.' But he cannot wait until we are seated at
the table, menus in hand, to announce his dietary restrictions. Or to wait
until the last possible second, and then demand that we solve his problem,
no matter what.
>You suggested fast food or pizza.
>
>No suprise that he wasnt thrilled at them.
>
>You're mad because he wrecked YOUR dinner.
I haven't the slightest interest in your evaluation of my behavior. It's
Andy's behavior that's being discussed.
>Your post is filled with statements that show no concern for anybody but
>yourself, while criticizing him for the allegedly the same behaivor.
So you say. But Andy's behavior is the subject under question. My
behavior is not, and I will not permit you to shift the focus away from
Andy. However, I will take a moment to utterly destroy your silly
argument.
If I had no concern for Andy's problem, I certainly wouldn't have offered
to take him to a fast-food restaurant. I was quite willing to give up a
good dinner, in a fine restaurant, and eat hamburgers instead, if that's
what it took to get Andy something to eat.
So unless you want to continue to look like a complete idiot, I suggest you
drop the claim that I showed no concern for anybody but myself.
>I don't know what to do to make you see this, but it's very obvious...
Sorry, but I haven't the slightest interest in your evaluation of my
behavior. Andy's behavior is the subject under discussion. And if you
refuse to address the subject of his behavior, then you have nothing to
say.
Chris Wolf
>Chris raises the issue of his reputation in the context of his account of
>his dinner with Andrew Bernstein. As I presume Chris realizes, part of his
>reputation here is that he is rude, abrasive, and arrogant (also fairly
>bright and independent minded, but that is irrelevant to the present
>discussion). That doesn't imply that he is deliberately misreporting the
>facts, but it does suggest an alternative interpretation for the facts he
>reports--that Bernstein perceived Chris as being rude and abrasive towards
>him and reacted accordingly.
So according to your "alternative interpretation," Bernstein perceived me
as being rude and abrasive towards him, and reacted accordingly?
Hmm. Interesting theory. Let's see if it can hold water.
Bernstein perceives me as being rude and abrasive towards him, so he
responds by declaring that there's nothing on the menu he can eat, and that
he must be taken to a different restaurant.
No, I don't think that will fly. Unless we assume that Bernstein is
basically nuts.
Let's try again. Bernstein perceives me as being rude and abrasive towards
him, so he responds by telling the assembled crowd of thirty people, who
have done him no harm, and have come specifically to hear him speak on the
_Fountainhead_, that he will not give his _Fountainhead_ lecture.
No, I don't think that will fly either. Certainly canceling the lecture
puts Chris in a tough spot, but only by punishing the other thirty people
in the crowd. I don't think even Bernstein is that corrupt.
Let's try again. Bernstein perceives me as being rude and abrasive towards
him, so he responds by taking up two seats, while other people, who have
done him no wrong, must stand.
No, I don't think that will fly either. As the host, I had a seat during
the entire meeting, so the fact that Andy took up two seats, did me no harm
at all.
Nice try, David. Better luck next time.
Chris Wolf
>In article <DDFr-05029...@ddfr.vip.best.com>,
> David Friedman <DD...@best.com> wrote:
>> Chris raises the issue of his reputation in the context of his account of
>> his dinner with Andrew Bernstein. As I presume Chris realizes, part of his
>> reputation here is that he is rude, abrasive, and arrogant (also fairly
>> bright and independent minded, but that is irrelevant to the present
>> discussion).
>Well, as Wolf said, it's tough being a God of Philosophy. I don't detect any
>arrogance there.
>
>Unless, of course, he really isn't a God of Philosophy . . .
Apart from a cold appreciation of my own genius, I've always thought of
myself as a modest man.
David Friedman
<cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>Hmm. Interesting theory. Let's see if it can hold water.
>
>Bernstein perceives me as being rude and abrasive towards him, so he
>responds by declaring that there's nothing on the menu he can eat, and that
>he must be taken to a different restaurant.
>
>No, I don't think that will fly. Unless we assume that Bernstein is
>basically nuts.
Bernstein looks at the menu, comments that he doesn't see anything he
likes, and asks you if perhaps you can go to another restaurant. You reply
with "We couldn't possibly get a meal anywhere else in time, this is where
we are, shut up and order." He, not unreasonably, concludes that the
reason you won't walk down the street to look for another restaurant is
that you are an arrogant SOB who wants to get his own way, not that there
are no practical options available, and responds by repeating his request
in more forcible form.
>Let's try again. Bernstein perceives me as being rude and abrasive towards
>him, so he responds by telling the assembled crowd of thirty people, who
>have done him no harm, and have come specifically to hear him speak on the
>_Fountainhead_, that he will not give his _Fountainhead_ lecture.
His perception of the situation was that he came to talk to the people,
and had discussed the possibility of giving his fountainhead lecture. When
he noticed that he had forgotten to bring his notes he said that he didn't
think he could give the whole lecture properly without them. You replied
that he had come to give the lecture, you had told your guests he would
give the lecture, and he would damn well give the lecture, and stop acting
like a jerk. At which point he decided not to try to improvise the
lecture.
Alternatively, he really can't give the talk without notes--and by that
point he was suffiently mad at your hostile attitude so that he wasn't
willing to apologize to you. He still should have apologized to the
audience, but at that point it may not have occurred to him. Also, he may
have thought that the audience was there to meet him, not to hear a
particular lecture.
>Let's try again. Bernstein perceives me as being rude and abrasive towards
>him, so he responds by taking up two seats, while other people, who have
>done him no wrong, must stand.
Nobody, by your description, asked for the seats. He assumed that if there
were two empty seats near him, that meant nobody wanted them.
Obviously, I have no idea whether these speculations are correct--for all
I know your interpretation of the events is right. But I don't think they
are contradicted by the available facts.
Jim Klein
<cwo...@nwlink.com> writes:
>Apart from a cold appreciation of my own genius, I've always thought
>of myself as a modest man.
IOW...in actual reality you're a genius, but you think of yourself as a
modest man.
Perhaps you ought to try switching their status.
jk
Chris Wolf
>Dismuke asked:
>
>> >Has it occurred to you that perhaps
>> >Bernstein's supporters did not ask you for the details because they
>> >consider your say-so as having minimal credibility - especially when
>> it
>> >contradicts their own first-hand experiences and the experiences of
>> >people they know?
>>Chris Wolf answered:
>>
>> The more a claim contradicts your own first-hand experience, the more
>> it
>> should interest (and concern) you.
>Really? So does that mean you always show a great deal of "interest
>(and concern)" whenever some kook presents an absolutely crackpot (to
>use your word) conspiracy theory? Have you spent a great deal of time
>absorbing the "teachings" of psychic Edgar Cayce? Have you analyzed all
>of the so-called scientific "evidence" behind "Creation Science?" After
>all, such claims contradict your first-hand experience *big time*. Are
>they of great "interest (and concern)" to you?
Now you have completely dropped the context. My point was that my
reputation for honesty and truthful reporting precludes being treated like
a kook or a crackpot. So that is not a valid reason for dismissing my
claims outright.
If the source of the claim is credible, then the claim must be taken
seriously. That's why when Edgar Cayce sees a UFO, we pay no attention.
However when astronaut Gordon Cooper sees a UFO, we pay keen attention.
>> In other words, if Chris Wolf says it happened, then you can make book
>> on
>> it. I make damned certain that my reporting is complete and accurate,
>>
>> precisely so that when I make a claim that is hard to believe, I can't
>> be
>> dismissed as just another liar or crackpot. My claims have to taken
>> seriously by anyone who is interested in truth and justice.
>You are just begging the question. What you are basically saying in
>answer to those who doubt the credibility of your say-so is to take your
>word for it because you say-so.
Apparently you do not know the difference between credibility, and
believability, since you are using them interchangeably. Credibility is
when you give credence to a man's claims. It's when you grant that the
claims might be true, rather than dismissing them outright. Believability
is when you believe a man's claims.
I'm not asking anyone to believe what I claim, solely on my say-so. I have
evidence for that. I'm saying that my reputation prevents my claims from
being dismissed outright, as not worthy of consideration.
>> In this case, I also have witnesses. See the thread "Chris Wolf's
>> Dinner
>> With Andy."
>Yes. The same person you referred to in your posting as your "close
>friend and business partner" Unlike your behavior towards my friend, I
>am NOT going to accuse your friend of being a liar. I know absolutely
>nothing about the man. Nor, I suspect, do most people on the group.
>That's just it. Again, I do not mean to disparage the man in any way,
>but face it, anyone who forms a negative judgment of Andrew Bernstein
>based on his say-so confirming your say-so is extremely gullible.
Not at all. It depends on the degree of believability you are willing to
grant to my story. I'm not asking anyone to form a negative judgment of
Andrew Bernstein, based on my say-so, or that of my witness. There are
people on this newsgroup who know that I'm sufficiently trustworthy that
they can believe what I say, and form a negative judgment of Bernstein
based solely on my testimony. There are also people on this newsgroup who
will not accept my testimony as conclusive proof, but will not dismiss it
as a fabrication, either, and who will investigate further. Finally, there
are people on this newsgroup who will reject anything I say, simply because
it's negative about Andy Bernstein. For this last group, even I had shot
video of the incident, they would still find a way to excuse Bernstein's
behavior.
>> For starters, your friend is a damned liar. Nobody is that busy.
>> He's
>> REFUSING to read the whole thing.
>Yes, he refused to read the whole thing because he is a busy person
>facing pressure and deadlines. Since he considers this forum to be
>little more than a giant cyber-circlejerk, I doubt he would have even
>read it at all had I not asked him to send me a reply. When he said he
>was too busy, my guess is that he was checking his email between
>projects at work and had only a few minutes to read it, reply to it and
>deal with any other emails he may have had in his inbox.
Except that he didn't read it. Therefore he should have refrained from any
comment on it. Only a dishonest man comments on that which he has refused
to examine.
If he wanted to read it, he would have found the time. He didn't want to
read it, so he refused to take the time.
"I'm too busy to read it," is a dishonest excuse. It's gutless doubletalk
for "I don't want to read it."
>You know,
>Chris, not everybody has vast periods of spare time like you and your
>fellow mental masturbators who spend hours reading and putting up
>endlessly repetitive postings to Usenet.
That's very true. You're certainly lucky, Dismuke, that I'm willing to
take time out from my valuable schedule to straighten out a screwball
thinker like you. There are so many areas where you lack simple common
sense. Fortunately, my nature is to take pity on the Stupid, and try to
help them.
>> Your friend is "too busy to read the whole thing," nevertheless he has
>> no
>> problem declaring that my account is "either a fabrication, or
>> distorted by
>> time and imagination."
>>
>> What a typical Peikoffian Objectivist! One wonders why be bothered to
>> read
>> it at all, since he already knew his answer.
>He read it because I asked him to. I asked him because I wanted to know
>if your claims had any credibility at all behind them.
Once again, you demonstrate that you are very stupid, and lacking in common
sense.
If a man is accused of murder, you do NOT go to his friends and neighbors,
asking if he's a murderer. I guarantee they will tell you he's a fine
fellow. Instead, you talk to the people who claim to have seen him commit
a murder, and decide if they are believable.
>> Your friend is a very silly creature. If he cannot take the time to
>> read
>> the whole thing, then he has absolutely no grounds for passing
>> judgment on
>> it. Your friend is intellectually dishonest.
>That's funny. He posted here anonymously a couple of years ago. At the
>time you said he had "class and style" and said that he was "cool." You
>even said "It's nice to see a literate man for a change."
You're really stupid, Dismuke. A man can easily be literate, cool, and
have class and style, and still be intellectually dishonest.
>> I was there. I saw it. And I have witnesses.
>Yes. One is your business partner. The other you dismiss as a "hostile
>witness" because she hates your guts.
So? Witnesses are seldom perfect. They are never as objective, credible,
or impartial, as we would like them to be. However that is never an excuse
for dismissing their testimony.
Are you COMPLETELY lacking in common sense, Dismuke?
>> In other words, your friend simply refuses to consider that my account
>>
>> might be true. He makes no attempt to investigate my claims.
>And just how was he to investigate your claims? By taking them on your
>say-so?
Not at all. For starters, he could have read the whole thing. Then he
could have checked with Andy, to see what he had to say. Or with Pam
Benson, to see what she had to say.
>I for one DID attempt to investigate your claims - by bringing
>them to the attention of someone who has had first hand experience in
>dealing with Andrew Bernstein and whose honesty and judgment I have
>complete confidence in.
Which only proves that you have absolutely no idea how to go about
investigating the truth of a claim. Your friend's testimony only proves
that Bernstein was nice to him. It says absolutely nothing about
Bernstein's behavior elsewhere.
>> Your friend's idea of truth and justice, is a joke. Loyalty is all
>> well
>> and good, but serious accusations, from credible sources, must be
>> taken
>> seriously. They cannot be dismissed out of hand.
>But it is the very credibility of the source of the accusation (i.e.
>you) that is at question here. Again, you are expecting everybody to
>take this on your say-so.
That's what it means to have credibility. People accept your claim, as
valid, on your say-so. It doesn't mean they automatically believe your
claim.
There is no rational reason for questioning the credibility of my claims.
I have already demonstrated, and established, my credibility, in many
previous instances.
Anyone who rejects my credibility, at this point, is being irrational.
>Why? If I were to just out of the blue make
>some wild accusation that I saw your buddy David Kelley attempt to put
>his hands down the pants of a little boy and fondle him, would you take
>that accusation "seriously" and with great "interest (and concern)"?
Of course I would. The last time I checked, you did not have a reputation
as a liar.
>Wouldn't you question the validity of my claim?
No, I would simply ask for any proof you might have of the accusation.
Then I would ask David Kelley.
>If I then got real
>huffy that you would even dare question my say-so and persuaded my "good
>friend and business partner" to step forward and say that he was with me
>when I saw Kelley trying to fondle the little boy, would you then go
>around believing that David Kelley is some sort of pervert?
Of course not. First I would ask David Kelley. Then I would ask for the
name of the little boy. Finally I would weigh the evidence, and decide
whom to believe.
>If your
>answer is yes, PLEASE give me a call. I have some "investment
>opportunities" to show you.
As I said earlier, you are apparently unable to understand the difference
between credibility and believability. My reputation gives me automatic
credibility, in that my claims cannot be dismissed out of hand. However it
does not automatically give me believability in any particular case. For
that, I must be able to offer evidence. This I have done.
>> >Well, let's assume for just a moment that everything Wolf says is
>> >correct and that Bernstein is a total jerk. So what? What
>> difference
>> >should this make for the vast majority of the Objectivist public who
>> >will NEVER deal with him on a personal level and whose only
>> interaction
>> >with him is on the receiving end of books and lectures?
>> It will not make one bit of difference. And I never claimed
>> otherwise.
>Really? Well just a moment ago you classified your claims as being
>"serious accusations." If it does not make one bit of difference, then
>how can the accusations be so "serious"?
It is a serious accusation that will not make one bit of difference to the
vast majority of the Objectivist public who will never deal with Bernstein
on a personal level, and whose only interaction with Bernstein is on the
receiving end of books and lectures.
As I said before, the only reason I brought this up was to show that the
view of Bernstein as a Really Swell Fella that was being presented here,
was not an accurate view. Bernstein has been held up as the
personification of reason, rationality, and Objectivism. I have
demonstrated that he can, on occasion, be an irrational jerk.
Chris Wolf
>In article <3704d0e9...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf
><cwo...@nwlink.com> wrote:
>
>>Hmm. Interesting theory. Let's see if it can hold water.
>>
>>Bernstein perceives me as being rude and abrasive towards him, so he
>>responds by declaring that there's nothing on the menu he can eat, and that
>>he must be taken to a different restaurant.
>>
>>No, I don't think that will fly. Unless we assume that Bernstein is
>>basically nuts.
>Bernstein looks at the menu, comments that he doesn't see anything he
>likes, and asks you if perhaps you can go to another restaurant. You reply
>with "We couldn't possibly get a meal anywhere else in time, this is where
>we are, shut up and order." He, not unreasonably, concludes that the
>reason you won't walk down the street to look for another restaurant is
>that you are an arrogant SOB who wants to get his own way, not that there
>are no practical options available, and responds by repeating his request
>in more forcible form.
Sorry David, not even close.
Only an insensitive, rude, slob looks at the menu, doesn't see anything he
likes, and asks to be taken to another restaurant. To do so when one is
being treated to a free meal, at a fine restaurant, is absolutely
inexcusable.
What is also absolutely inexcusable is to have some sort of dietary
restrictions, and to fail to make these restrictions known to one's host
until you are seated at the restaurant table.
As I said before, there is simply no way that Bernstein's rude behavior can
be attributed to my treating him in a rude and abrasive manner. His
behavior remains inexcusably rude, even if we assume that I treated him
like shit, from the moment I laid eyes on him.
>>Let's try again. Bernstein perceives me as being rude and abrasive towards
>>him, so he responds by telling the assembled crowd of thirty people, who
>>have done him no harm, and have come specifically to hear him speak on the
>>_Fountainhead_, that he will not give his _Fountainhead_ lecture.
>His perception of the situation was that he came to talk to the people,
>and had discussed the possibility of giving his fountainhead lecture. When
>he noticed that he had forgotten to bring his notes he said that he didn't
>think he could give the whole lecture properly without them. You replied
>that he had come to give the lecture, you had told your guests he would
>give the lecture, and he would damn well give the lecture, and stop acting
>like a jerk. At which point he decided not to try to improvise the
>lecture.
Still won't work. A man of character would explain that he had forgotten
his notes, apologized profusely, and then offered to deliver the lecture as
best he could, without his notes. Or would the crowd rather have a
Question and Answer session? A man of character, who had simply forgotten
the notes for his speech, would be anxious to make amends to the crowd, no
matter what he might think of his rude host.
Andy simply announced that he could not give the talk, and offered no
apologies, alternatives, or amends. Inexcusable.
>Alternatively, he really can't give the talk without notes--and by that
>point he was suffiently mad at your hostile attitude so that he wasn't
>willing to apologize to you. He still should have apologized to the
>audience, but at that point it may not have occurred to him. Also, he may
>have thought that the audience was there to meet him, not to hear a
>particular lecture.
No, he knew they were there to hear his lecture. That's why he said he had
forgotten his notes. You can't forget to bring your notes, unless you were
first planning to bring them. If the crowd was simply there to meet him,
the notes would be immaterial, and no excuse for not giving the lecture
would have been necessary. Instead, Andy would have registered surprise at
learning that he was expected to give the lecture.
>>Let's try again. Bernstein perceives me as being rude and abrasive towards
>>him, so he responds by taking up two seats, while other people, who have
>>done him no wrong, must stand.
>Nobody, by your description, asked for the seats. He assumed that if there
>were two empty seats near him, that meant nobody wanted them.
The seats were empty because Andy had gotten there before all the seats
were filled. He occupied two seats, and continued to do so, even after the
room filled up with standing people.
Inexcusable.
Even if one sees two empty seats, surrounded by standing people, one does
not occupy both seats. Not if one has any modicum of civilized behavior.
>Obviously, I have no idea whether these speculations are correct--for all
>I know your interpretation of the events is right. But I don't think they
>are contradicted by the available facts.
They are completely contradicted by the available facts.
There is no way to excuse Andy's terrible behavior, even if you assume that
the host (me) was utterly rude and abrasive to him.
Chris Wolf
That wouldn't be honest.
mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org
rites:
>mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org writes:
>>Chris, I'm disappointed. Even when you apologize, you make personal attacks.
>
>It saves time.
No. Omitting the insulting parts would save time because you would type less.
A *lot* less. :)
>>(However, in the spirit of <ahem> goodwill: I'm 20, not ignorant, and an
>>Objectivist. Now you may insult me *intelligently*.)
>
>So I was mostly right in my guesses. You're a kid, and you're an
>Objectivist. Your age guarantees that you're both ignorant and
>impressionable. But time cures that.
I'd argue about that, except that you're probably right. :) Instead, I as
k you to
assume I'm NOT ignorant about whatever we're talking about until I demonstrate
otherwise. Fair?
>And in the spirit of goodwill, I will tell you that you are MUCH further
>along the learning track than I was, when I was your age. I'm 47.
My curiosity gets the better of me, again....
What was your life like, at 20?
>>Fortunately (or not), I have a high tolerance for abuse.
>
>Good man! I'm in the same boat. We take a lot of punches, but we also
>have a lot of fun.
You probably have more fun than I do... I don't consider myself a battle-h
ardened
veteran. The only truly enjoyable fight I've been in lately got my school'
s local
ACLU group pissed off at me. Then I offered to give a presentation on indi
vidual
rights to their club. They must have been boiling. :)
>>I'm tempted to respond to this sloppy exaggeration with an insult. <sigh>
>
>If it's a good insult, I'll be the first to congratulate you.
Thank you. :)
>>You *almost* didn't insult me. Keep trying, you can do it! :)
>
>Stick around Kid. You're okay. Ya got a good sense of humor, so I know
>your basic foundation is good. Besides, this place needs all the fresh
>minds (and fresh blood) it can get.
Thanks.
Fresh minds have a lot of questions, too. Here's something that's along th
e lines
of the prudent predator thread, but it's a bit more general:
I see (obviously) that we need ethical principles to guide our actions. Bu
t I'm not
clear on how we decide exactly what that principle should be, or how we know
the scope of its validity.
The obvious examples from this newsgroup are the eskimo thread ("Given that I
should respect others' rights in general, are there extreme cases where this is
a bad idea?") and the prudent preadator thread ("Why choose 'respect rights'
over 'get the most from people', assuming that the two would lead to slightly
different actions?").
So, given two surface-plausible principles that mostly (but not entirely) agree
with each other in their results for your behavior, what makes one better
than the other? How can you tell? Then, what is the status of the principle
under "difficult" circumstances?
BTW, I found one of your comments in the eskimo thread (something like: "If
your
morality tells you to die, your morality is wrong") extremely convincing.
>It's people like you who will finally do something with Objectivism, after
>those of us who were directly exposed to Rand (and hopelessly ruined) have
>died out.
I would have said that I'm jealous you were "directly exposed" to her, but you
make it sound so terrible.. Is it really that bad? What happened to you?
>>>It's not enough to fear Big Brother. You must also love him.
>>>;-)
>>
>><rotfl>! This, I truly appreciated.
>
>So you are a literate man, as well? Excellent!
I read _Atlas Shrugged_, didn't I? ;)
On a more frustrating note, it takes a *long* time for my posts to show up
on my
local news server. I see many replies to my messages long before I see my
original appear. What gives? And can I do anything about it?
---
Kyle Markley
cath...@my-dejanews.com
mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org wrote:
> On a more frustrating note, it takes a *long* time for my posts to show up
> on my
> local news server. I see many replies to my messages long before I see my
> original appear. What gives? And can I do anything about it?
Dejanews is a pretty good solution.
Betsy Speicher
> I see (obviously) that we need ethical principles to guide our actions.
> But I'm not clear on how we decide exactly what that principle should
> be, or how we know the scope of its validity.
First, learn your ethical principles _first-hand_. If you are learning
them from someone you admire and respect, like Ayn Rand, check everything
out against your own life and experiences to see if it really makes sense.
Then once you have your principles and are convinced they are true, you
will continually learn, as you apply them daily to your own life, which
principles are relevant to which situations and what the appropriate
context of each is.
That, Kyle, will be a challenge for the rest of your life.
> I would have said that I'm jealous you were "directly exposed" to her,
> but you make it sound so terrible.. Is it really that bad? What
> happened to you?
I'm an old-timer (37 years so far) and directly exposed to Ayn Rand, and I
can't say (like some people) that I was "ruined." In fact, being in the
same room with Ayn Rand was an intellectual challenge and an esthetic
delight I will remember for the rest of my life. For those not fortunate
to have seen Ayn Rand in person, I recommend the movie _Ayn_Rand:_A_Sense_
_of_Life_ and the book _Letters_of_Ayn_Rand_.
Enjoy!
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
Chris Wolf
>In <36df6ebb...@news.supernews.com>, Chris Wolf <cwo...@nwlink.com>
>>writes:
>>
>>So I was mostly right in my guesses. You're a kid, and you're an
>>Objectivist. Your age guarantees that you're both ignorant and
>>impressionable. But time cures that.
>I'd argue about that, except that you're probably right. :) Instead, I
>ask you to assume I'm NOT ignorant about whatever we're talking
>about until I demonstrate otherwise. Fair?
Fair enough.
>>And in the spirit of goodwill, I will tell you that you are MUCH further
>>along the learning track than I was, when I was your age. I'm 47.
>My curiosity gets the better of me, again....
>What was your life like, at 20?
I was in the middle of college. I had gone to college to learn the answers
to the important questions. Unfortunately, I found out that college not
only didn't know the answers, they didn't even know the questions!
I knew nothing of Ayn Rand, or Objectivism.
I was still religious.
In high school, I had wanted to be a part of the space program, but during
college it became obvious that the space program basically ended with the
landing on the Moon.
At that point in my life, I had no philosophy to guide my life. I had a
pretty good sense of life, but it was taking a real beating every day. I
looked around me, and said, "Is THIS all there is?"
It's not a time that I would care to return to.
Needless to say, I envy anyone who has managed to discover Objectivism at
the age of twenty!
>>>Fortunately (or not), I have a high tolerance for abuse.
>>Good man! I'm in the same boat. We take a lot of punches, but we also
>>have a lot of fun.
>You probably have more fun than I do... I don't consider myself a battle
>hardened veteran. The only truly enjoyable fight I've been in lately got my
>school's local ACLU group pissed off at me. Then I offered to give a
>presentation on individual rights to their club. They must have been boil
>ing. :)
Excellent!
>>Stick around Kid. You're okay. Ya got a good sense of humor, so I know
>>your basic foundation is good. Besides, this place needs all the fresh
>>minds (and fresh blood) it can get.
>
>Thanks. Fresh minds have a lot of questions, too. Here's something
>that's along the lines of the prudent predator thread, but it's a bit more
> general:
>
>I see (obviously) that we need ethical principles to guide our actions.
>But I'm not clear on how we decide exactly what that principle should be,
>or how we know the scope of its validity.
Read Rand's essay _The Objectivist Ethics_. You'll find it in her
collection of essays entitled _The Virtue Of Selfishness_.
>The obvious examples from this newsgroup are the eskimo thread ("Given that I
>should respect others' rights in general, are there extreme cases where th
>is is
>a bad idea?") and the prudent preadator thread ("Why choose 'respect rights'
>over 'get the most from people', assuming that the two would lead to slightly
>different actions?").
>
>So, given two surface-plausible principles that mostly (but not entirely)
>agree
>with each other in their results for your behavior, what makes one better
>than the other? How can you tell? Then, what is the status of the principle
>under "difficult" circumstances?
The ethical principles of Objectivism are based on the Is/Ought theory of
ethics. Basically it says that since every entity has a nature, and can
only act according to its nature, an examination of what the entity IS,
will tell you what it OUGHT to do.
A cow ought to eat grass, instead of rocks.
A plane ought to have wings, instead of anchors.
Unlike animals, human beings are conceptual creatures (the IS). Therefore
humans can only survive by using reason and logic (the OUGHT). Therefore
we formulate a set of ethical principles, based on this idea.
How to determine what principle is best, or better? How to determine the
proper scope of a principle? That's where the difficulty comes in.
Basically, we see how well the principle corresponds to reality. Does
following the principle lead to happy, prosperous lives?
Fortunately, ethical knowledge (like all knowledge) is hierarchical. Since
a principle is a general truth, upon which other truths depend, identifying
a correct principle can give you a truly incredible amount of correct,
derivative information (unfortunately, the converse is also true).
The problem with principles is that they are a perfect example of inductive
knowledge. They can't be deduced. Instead, you must look at hundreds (or
thousand) of concrete examples, and then induce the general principle. It
can be extremely difficult. (Should property be private, or public?
Should men live by reason, or faith?)
Fortunately, much of this work has already been done by Rand, and other
philosophers, so you need not re-invent the wheel. But you must decide how
much of this previous work is correct. And it will take you a lifetime to
do it.
When it comes to emergencies, it's important to remember that ethical
principles are designed with non-emergency living in mind. That is their
context. Therefore if you simply try to apply ordinary principles to
emergency situations, you'll find that they won't work. A principle
presupposes that a man is in a long-term survivable situation, and that's
exactly what an emergency isn't.
In an emergency, it sometimes comes down to survival of the fittest. This
is unfortunate, and it's why emergencies are bad things, but it's simply
the way the world is.
>BTW, I found one of your comments in the eskimo thread (something like: "If
> your morality tells you to die, your morality is wrong") extremely convin
> cing.
Thank you.
>>It's people like you who will finally do something with Objectivism, after
>>those of us who were directly exposed to Rand (and hopelessly ruined) have
>>died out.
>I would have said that I'm jealous you were "directly exposed" to her, but you
>make it sound so terrible.. Is it really that bad? What happened to you?
I was never directly exposed to Rand, but I felt her influence via the
people who were.
It's obvious that Rand could be a really wonderful human being to be
around. Anyone who has watched her television interview with Tom Snyder,
knows what a wonderfully warm, thoughtful, person she could be.
But Rand could also be a cold-hearted, unthinking bitch. She was quite
capable of inflicting unspeakable cruelty onto her admirers. She chastised
and berated people who had the wrong ideas, as though they had deliberately
chosen to be evil, rather than simply honestly mistaken. She turned moral
judgment, from being a useful tool, into a deadly weapon. If you disagreed
with Rand, or her philosophy, you weren't merely mistaken; you were EVIL.
This gave Rand ENORMOUS power over anyone who agreed with the tenets of her
philosophy. If you agreed that Rand was right about so many basic things,
and then she suddenly declared you to be evil, not only would everyone
agree with her ("If Ayn Rand says he's rotten, then he must be."), but you
might very well agree, too ("How could the author of _Atlas Shrugged_ be
wrong?"). In other words, Rand had the power to instantly send anyone to
Objectivist Hell, and that was a place that all Objectivists wanted to
avoid, at all costs! So to avoid this condemnation, they surrendered
themselves to Rand.
Of course, decent, emotionally healthy people won't put up with this sort
of nonsense. Which is why they packed their bags, and left, the first time
Rand declared them to be evil. Eventually, all that was left around Rand
were the nodding sycophants, the kooks, and the second-rate power lusters
who saw a golden opportunity to use this power of moral condemnation to
rule over others. In other words, it was no different than any other cult.
And so, Leonard Peikoff, and his cronies, have continued to use the skill
they learned by watching Ayn Rand. The people who disagree with them
aren't simply mistaken; they're EVIL.
If you want to see the first-hand evidence of how Rand's cult continues to
function, via the cult of moral condemnation, visit my web site (see
below).
If you want a detailed account of how Rand behaved abominably, and why
eventually no one could stand to be around her, read the book, _The Ayn
Rand Cult_ by Jeff Walker.
A really excellent article on this subject was written by Nathaniel
Branden. It's called _The Benefits and Hazards Of The Philosophy Of Ayn
Rand_. There's a link to this article at my web site.
So in a way, I'm sorry that I was never directly exposed to Rand. They say
that time spent in her presence could be absolutely electrifying.
But in another way, I'm not sorry to have missed her.
The damage done by Rand's novels can be just as bad as anything she ever
did in real life. It's important to remember that Rand's fictional heroes
are merely illustrating abstract principles. They are NOT illustrating
good concretes as to how you should behave in real life.
You should not drop out of college, because that's what Howard Roark did.
You should not blow up a housing project, because that's what Howard Roark
did.
You should not break into a woman's bedroom, and rape her, because that's
what Howard Roark did.
You should not live as an unskilled laborer, because that's what John Galt
did.
You should not abandon society, and move into a mountain cabin, because
that's what John Galt did.
Live by the principles that Rand expressed in her novels. Forget the
concretes.
>On a more frustrating note, it takes a *long* time for my posts to show up
>on my
>local news server. I see many replies to my messages long before I see my
>original appear. What gives?
You're on a slow part of the Internet.
>And can I do anything about it?
Move to a faster part of the Internet (not always possible).
I get my newsgroup access through Supernews, and I've been quite pleased
with it.
Chris Wolf
cwo...@nwlink.com
Check out the World's Fastest Keyboard!
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/
What's REALLY wrong with Objectivism
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/faq/
My Dinner With Andy
http://www.jeffcomp.com/jcp/dinner.html
mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org
>the age of twenty!
I discovered it when I was 16, actually. The mother of a girl I was pursuing
asked me if I'd ever read _The Fountainhead_ and said that I reminded her
of Howard Roark.
I didn't get the girl, but I got the book. :)
I read Atlas the next year, and started devouring the nonfiction once I got
to college.
>>I see (obviously) that we need ethical principles to guide our actions.
>>But I'm not clear on how we decide exactly what that principle should be,
>>or how we know the scope of its validity.
>
>Read Rand's essay _The Objectivist Ethics_. You'll find it in her
>collection of essays entitled _The Virtue Of Selfishness_.
Read it. (I've read _all_ of her books, plus OPAR, and a fair amount of
Branden's psychology. I devoured everything I could get, including
The Art of Thinking and Objectivism Through Induction.)
I want more information than she wrote in that (and other) essays. For
example, she didn't explicitly discuss the contexts within which particular
principles hold. People who have been Objectivists for *decades* are
still arguing over the fates of eskimos and embryos.
I only have a starting point: a principle's scope is contextual. By itself,
that isn't very helpful. It doesn't tell me how to tell if my principle is
well-grounded, or how to recognize what situations fall under it, or
how to tell if I need a new principle to fill a gap left by the old one.
Those are the things I want to know. The details will be different
depending on the principle, but in general, how should these things
be approached?
>How to determine what principle is best, or better? How to determine the
>proper scope of a principle? That's where the difficulty comes in.
>Basically, we see how well the principle corresponds to reality. Does
>following the principle lead to happy, prosperous lives?
... how can you tell if it would?
For example, Mr. Friedman has been arguing that we don't *know*
prudent predation wouldn't lead to a happy, prosperous life. Predicting
the consequences of living by a principle is incredibly difficult.
(It's like trying to determine if a piece of software will work based only
on the knowledge that it compiles properly. Knowing that it is syntactically
correct is a very different thing from knowing that it will do what you
intended.)
>When it comes to emergencies, it's important to remember that ethical
>principles are designed with non-emergency living in mind. That is their
>context. Therefore if you simply try to apply ordinary principles to
>emergency situations, you'll find that they won't work. A principle
>presupposes that a man is in a long-term survivable situation, and that's
>exactly what an emergency isn't.
Are there any other contexts besides emergency vs. non-emergency
situations where different principles apply? I'd like to see more examples
so I have more to integrate... I've just recently started to think about all
this. I'd like all the data I can get.
---
Kyle Markley
jal...@icsi.net
...John
Betsy Speicher
> I want more information than she wrote in that (and other) essays. For
> example, she didn't explicitly discuss the contexts within which
> particular principles hold. People who have been Objectivists for
> *decades* are still arguing over the fates of eskimos and embryos.
>
> I only have a starting point: a principle's scope is contextual. By
> itself, that isn't very helpful. It doesn't tell me how to tell if my
> principle is well-grounded, or how to recognize what situations fall
> under it, or how to tell if I need a new principle to fill a gap left by
> the old one.
The answer is that you constantly test your ideas against reality to see
where it applies and where it doesn't. When a concept is inadequate to
help you explain something or hold it in your mind, then you need more
facts, a narrower concept, a new concept, etc. Sometimes you can
find common elements among your concepts, abstract out those
commonalities, and form a new broader concept. This moving between
concrete observation and high-level concepts and back again is what
Objectivists call "The Spiral Theory of Knowledge."
If you haven't done it yet, get Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism"
lectures. In those lectures, Peikoff explains the Spiral Theory and many
other issues relating to applying Objectivism to your own life. "UO" is
pricey, but ARI makes the set available for free to high school and
college students.
AynRand12
>situations where different principles apply? I'd like to see more examples
>so I have more to integrate... I've just recently started to think about all
>this. I'd like all the data I can get.
I would say, childhood. How do rights apply to children?
Regards,
Don Watkins
Betsy Speicher
Children, qua human beings, have all the rights any adult has. Their
helpless condition, however, requires that they need a guardian to protect
their interests, and exercise the children's rights FOR them. Parenthood
is a _trustee_ relationship.
In this sense, it is similar to the guardianship or custodial arrangement
between an incapacitated adult and the person who looks out after his
interests.
Chris Wolf
>>>I see (obviously) that we need ethical principles to guide our actions.
>>>But I'm not clear on how we decide exactly what that principle should be,
>>>or how we know the scope of its validity.
>>Read Rand's essay _The Objectivist Ethics_. You'll find it in her
>>collection of essays entitled _The Virtue Of Selfishness_.
>Read it. (I've read _all_ of her books, plus OPAR, and a fair amount of
>Branden's psychology. I devoured everything I could get, including
>The Art of Thinking and Objectivism Through Induction.)
Well DAMN son! You're in good shape! Now all ya gotta do is digest it and
assimilate it.
>I want more information than she wrote in that (and other) essays. For
>example, she didn't explicitly discuss the contexts within which particular
>principles hold. People who have been Objectivists for *decades* are
>still arguing over the fates of eskimos and embryos.
Very true.
Rand gave us the "principle behind the principle." She demonstrated how a
principle is only true within a particular context, and that the "dropping
of context" is probably the most common (and deadly) intellectual mistake.
But she didn't have too much to say about the contexts within which
*particular* principles hold. That was left for the students to work out
for themselves. And they are a contentious lot.
>I only have a starting point: a principle's scope is contextual. By itself,
>that isn't very helpful. It doesn't tell me how to tell if my principle is
>well-grounded, or how to recognize what situations fall under it, or
>how to tell if I need a new principle to fill a gap left by the old one.
>
>Those are the things I want to know. The details will be different
>depending on the principle, but in general, how should these things
>be approached?
You are asking, "How can I be wise?" This is covered by the branch of
philosophy called Epistemology. It is by far the largest branch of
philosophy.
A bad principle is like a bad scientific theory. Sooner or later, it
starts giving the wrong answers. The best way to keep your principles
sound, is to constantly check them against the rest of your knowledge,
against more fundamental principles, and ultimately against reality. In
other words, make certain that your knowledge is fully integrated.
Ideally, you should be able to see the connection between any two bits of
knowledge. The broader you can cast your integration net, the sounder your
knowledge will be.
>>How to determine what principle is best, or better? How to determine the
>>proper scope of a principle? That's where the difficulty comes in.
>>Basically, we see how well the principle corresponds to reality. Does
>>following the principle lead to happy, prosperous lives?
>... how can you tell if it would?
>For example, Mr. Friedman has been arguing that we don't *know*
>prudent predation wouldn't lead to a happy, prosperous life. Predicting
>the consequences of living by a principle is incredibly difficult.
Very true.
However, if someone said "We don't *know* that cutting off our hands
wouldn't lead to a happy, prosperous life," would you be able to answer
him? Of course you would. Well, the prudent predator argument is answered
in the same way. You demonstrate how it contradicts a more basic bit of
knowledge about the nature of human beings (in this case, why stealing is a
bad idea for human beings).
>>When it comes to emergencies, it's important to remember that ethical
>>principles are designed with non-emergency living in mind. That is their
>>context. Therefore if you simply try to apply ordinary principles to
>>emergency situations, you'll find that they won't work. A principle
>>presupposes that a man is in a long-term survivable situation, and that's
>>exactly what an emergency isn't.
>Are there any other contexts besides emergency vs. non-emergency
>situations where different principles apply? I'd like to see more examples
>so I have more to integrate... I've just recently started to think about all
>this. I'd like all the data I can get.
Any time that you are forced to deal with a human being who acts in an
irrational manner, it's likely that some principles will not apply. For
example, should you be honest with someone who is prying into your personal
life? Suppose you come home from college, and your parents ask if you've
been involved in any sexual affairs. You know that they will cut off your
money for college if they learn you are having sex. So do you tell them
the truth, and lose your funding? Of course not. You lie through your
teeth in order to protect yourself from irrational people.
Betsy Speicher
> mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org writes:
>
> >>It's people like you who will finally do something with Objectivism, after
> >>those of us who were directly exposed to Rand (and hopelessly ruined) have
> >>died out.
>
> >I would have said that I'm jealous you were "directly exposed" to her, b
> >ut you
> >make it sound so terrible.. Is it really that bad? What happened to you?
>
> I was never directly exposed to Rand, but I felt her influence via the
> people who were.
>
> It's obvious that Rand could be a really wonderful human being to be
> around. Anyone who has watched her television interview with Tom
> Snyder, knows what a wonderfully warm, thoughtful, person she could be.
>
> But Rand could also be a cold-hearted, unthinking bitch. [ Other bad
> stuff allegedly about Rand omitted]
I have some advice to anyone who wants to understand Ayn Rand as a person
and have a fair and accurate assessment of her.
Get all your information about her FIRST-HAND from primary sources you can
verify yourself. That would include all her written work, her journals,
her letters, and her radio and television interviews. Then you can see
what she really thought, how she dealt with critics and those she
disagreed with, etc.
Be aware that there are a tremendous amount of nonsense, mythology, and
outright lies being spread about Ayn Rand. Some of it comes from those
whom Ayn Rand rejected for reasons they dare not name, so they have made
up other "reasons." A lot of it is spread second-hand by who don't know
what they are talking about. Some people have even elaborated and
fictionalized further and the portrait of the "Evil Ayn Rand" that emerges
is totally the opposite of what she, in fact, was.
I think you will find, on investigation of first-hand data, that the
"cold-hearted, unthinking bitch" is pure mythology at best, and deliberate
misrepresentation and rationalization for the critic's personal failings
at worst. You will also find that Rand the "really wonderful human being"
is the real Ayn Rand.
mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org
> Kudos to the kid who put up this clever heading. I really enjoyed it!
>
>
> ...John
Thanks! :)
I wish I had time to follow up on the discussion I triggered. I'm going back
to lurking for a while, because some other aspects of my life (namely,
computer programming) are keeping me from eating and sleeping properly.
No time for newsgroups... :(
I'd have time if it wasn't for all these #&$% classes I'm taking.
"Only one more semester left," I keep telling myself...
---
Kyle Markley
Chris Wolf
>On 9 Feb 1999, Chris Wolf wrote:
>
>> mrbi...@dagny.dorm.org writes:
>>
>> >>It's people like you who will finally do something with Objectivism, after
>> >>those of us who were directly exposed to Rand (and hopelessly ruined) have
>> >>died out.
>>
>> >I would have said that I'm jealous you were "directly exposed" to her, b
>> >ut you
>> >make it sound so terrible.. Is it really that bad? What happened to you?
>>
>> I was never directly exposed to Rand, but I felt her influence via the
>> people who were.
>>
>> It's obvious that Rand could be a really wonderful human being to be
>> around. Anyone who has watched her television interview with Tom
>> Snyder, knows what a wonderfully warm, thoughtful, person she could be.
>>
>> But Rand could also be a cold-hearted, unthinking bitch. [ Other bad
>> stuff allegedly about Rand omitted]
>I have some advice to anyone who wants to understand Ayn Rand as a person
>and have a fair and accurate assessment of her.
>
>Get all your information about her FIRST-HAND from primary sources you can
>verify yourself. That would include all her written work, her journals,
>her letters, and her radio and television interviews. Then you can see
>what she really thought, how she dealt with critics and those she
>disagreed with, etc.
And that, of course, will give you a totally one-sided view of Rand (which
is what Betsy wants). That will give you the public view of Rand; the one
entirely controlled by Rand herself. It's guaranteed to give you Rand at
her best. And when Rand was good, she was VERY good.
However, notice that Betsy very carefully leaves out first-hand reports
from people who personally knew Ayn Rand, and who saw her at her worst.
And when Rand was bad, she was VERY bad.
>Be aware that there are a tremendous amount of nonsense, mythology, and
>outright lies being spread about Ayn Rand. Some of it comes from those
>whom Ayn Rand rejected for reasons they dare not name, so they have made
>up other "reasons." A lot of it is spread second-hand by who don't know
>what they are talking about. Some people have even elaborated and
>fictionalized further and the portrait of the "Evil Ayn Rand" that emerges
>is totally the opposite of what she, in fact, was.
Here Betsy is trying to hint that anything bad about Ayn Rand is "nonsense,
mythology, outright lies, etc." Betsy is attempting to spread a lie, by
providing a few bits of truth (a very effective way to lie).
It's true that a lot of people, who never knew Rand, spread second-hand
accounts of her behavior. Mostly they spread God-awful nonsense about her
philosophy, and what she believed.
But there are also large numbers of individuals who knew Rand personally,
who are credible, and basically tell the same story. If you disagreed with
Rand, you could find yourself instantly condemned as an evil evader.
>I think you will find, on investigation of first-hand data, that the
>"cold-hearted, unthinking bitch" is pure mythology at best, and deliberate
>misrepresentation and rationalization for the critic's personal failings
>at worst. You will also find that Rand the "really wonderful human being"
>is the real Ayn Rand.
It's always amusing to watch Betsy defend Ayn Rand through her rose-colored
glasses. It's like listening to a supporter of O.J. Simpson, explain how
Simpson has been framed, what a wonderful father he is to his children, and
how he spent a lot of money trying to find his wife's killer.
Yes, Ayn Rand could be a really wonderful human being. But she could also
be a "cold-hearted, unthinking bitch." We have the first-hand testimony of
dozens and dozens of credible individuals who saw it.
To deny, or evade, this testimony, is flat-out dishonesty.
And at the top of the "cold-hearted, unthinking bitch" list of evidence, is
the fact that Rand inflicted unspeakable cruelty on her husband, Frank, by
bringing in a man, half his age, several times a week, to have sex with her
in Ayn and Frank's bedroom.
Did Rand have no idea what this sort of humiliation would do to her
husband's self-esteem? Apparently not. Or maybe she just didn't care.
Either way, it qualifies her for the title of "cold-hearted, unthinking
bitch."
If that doesn't constitute "unspeakable cruelty," then I don't know what
does.