CA's attack on Google's Gmail

California's Senate voted 24-8 today to pass a bill restricting how Google's ad-based Gmail service can serve up ads. The politicians responsible for this atrocity have a taxpayer-funded staff to take care of their taxpayer-funded email accounts, while Google works hard to allow millions of people to get access to a free and technologically innovative email account. Well, I am going to make Senator Figueroa's attack on America a bit harder by emailing the CA senators from my Gmail account. (Assembly emails are here.) Feel free to send the letter below...or anything else that will help them appreciate the value of email.

Dear Senator __,

I am writing to you to express my disappointment and distress at today's vote (SB 1822) to restrict Google's ability to keep records of customers of its Gmail service. Google is a private company that provides me with a free service in exchange for agreeing to their terms and conditions. While the taxpayers pay for your email and the staff that manages it, I depend on the innovation of the brilliant developers at Google for free and technologically superior email service.

I consider the bill to regulate how Google provides its email service an unjust, immoral, and unconstitutional infringement on my liberty and privacy. The government has no business dictating the terms of a private transaction between two parties. As long as Google is honest about the contract it makes with customers, you have no right to violate the privacy of that contract.

The right to privacy is the right to choose how I integrate my life into the rest of society. Limiting my ability to make private choices about how I interact with others is equally immoral whether those choices involve public association, online communication, or business transactions. Restricting my ability to engage in voluntary associations is an unconstitutional encroachment on my rights

If you do not respect the institution of private property, you cannot respect the right to privacy. It is private property that implements my right to disagree and protects the privacy of my mind. If you believe that Google does not adequately protect user's privacy, please start your own email service - don't take mine away.

I ask you to respect my privacy - the privacy of a mutually consensual and beneficial transaction between myself and Google.

Sincerely,
David Veksler

Nick Gaetano's Covers on Quent Cordair

Over the past decade, Nick Gaetano's artwork has graced the covers of Ayn Rand's daringly original novels and non-fiction works, including the 50th Anniversary Edition of The Fountainhead and the 35th Anniversary Edition of Atlas Shrugged, with millions of copies sold in the U.S. and around the world. Quent Cordair Fine Art and Nick Gaetano are very pleased to announce the release of the Ayn Rand Cover Art in special Limited-Edition, signed and numbered, brilliantly colored Giclee prints on canvas. Special prices are available for orders of three or more Gaetano cover art prints.
These beautiful prints are available exclusively at Quent Cordair Fine Art. Please contact us for additional information. 1-866-267-3247 www.cordair.com

(From Linda @ Quent Cordair Fine Art)

What's worse: abuse of Iraqi prisoners, or the world's reaction to it?

The abuse of Iraqi prisoners is reprehensible, if we can take the reports of it so far at face value. Of course, even when all the news stories about it reported only humiliating photographs, leftists began filling editorial pages with denouncements of supposed torture and even murder by U.S. military personnel, and leftist politicians made similar comments.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's testimony yesterday unfortunately seems to support such allegations. He said that more photos and videotapes may be released which "depict incidents of physical violence toward prisoners, acts that can only be described as blatantly sadistic, cruel and inhuman." Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., added more details: "We're not just talking about giving people a humiliating experience. We're talking about rape and murder and some very serious charges."

If these allegations are true, America must show the world that we will not tolerate such behavior and prosecute the offending parties in strict accordance with our (already existing) laws. But this must be done in the name of justice, not as an attempt to appease world opinion--because given the response to the incident around the world, nothing we do will change their opinion of us anyway. These are people who just look for excuses to hate America. As Cox & Forkum pointed out in two recent posts (here and here), the outcry over a few humiliating photographs is completely disproportionate to the outcry (or lack thereof) over outrages perpetrated against Americans in Iraq, such as the murder and dismemberment of four U.S. Army contractors in Fallujah less than a month and a half ago--or for that matter, over the even more horrible treatment of Iraqis under Saddam's regime before America toppled it.

Even worse are those, including some of our own politicians, who claim (without evidence) that the abuse is systematic and that the American government (in particular Rumsfeld and President Bush) is responsible for it--and simultaneously hold that the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 were isolated acts committed by a few criminals! These kinds of evasive, context-dropping double-standards are possible only to those whose driving motive is the hatred of the good for being good--in this case, hatred of America for being better than militant Islamic states.

And what's truly disgusting is how obvious it is that most of those who are loudest in denouncing the abuse don't actually give a damn, but are just using the incident to further their own (corrupt) political agendas--for example, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., who is calling for Rumsfeld to be fired and replaced with Colin Powell (which would be a major blow to our war effort).

But there is a more insidious move being made here, for which all of the political rhetoric is just a cover: an attempt to further entrench the ethical code of altruism into our foreign policy, by lumping sadistic, nihilistic torture and any purposeful harming of prisoners even for purposes of interrogation together into a package-deal. Several questions aimed at Rumsfeld yesterday asked if the alleged abusers "were acting under orders from higher-ups or military intelligence to abuse and humiliate the Iraqi prisoners to make them more vulnerable to interrogation"--as though the treatment of the prisoners would be worse if it actually served our interests, rather than just being pure sadistic nihilism!

These are prisoners of war, not diplomatic guests. While rape and murder should of course not be tolerated for any reason, and neither should torture that serves no purpose, there is nothing inherently wrong with harming our enemies. That's what a war is. Remember that when you hear all of the rhetoric surrounding this issue, regardless of what the facts of this particular case turn out to be. It may well turn out that these alleged abusers did in fact act improperly or even criminally, but do not let the enemies of America--including those within her own government--use that as a cover to put over on you the evil idea that we have no right to infringe the "human rights" of our prisoners. If they're prisoners, they've already lost their rights, but not because we took them away--we didn't start this war.

Transcript: Drs. Brook and Ghate on ObjectivismOnline.Net

The following online public chat took place on April 23, 2004 at 5:30 PM (PST). Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute (ARI), and Dr. Onkar Ghate, a senior fellow at ARI, appeared as guests of ObjectivismOnline.Net at the #AynRand IRC channel. Their purpose was to meet students and others, and answer questions about Objectivism, ARI and the Objectivist Academic Center (OAC). ARI does not oversee or endorse the content of and is not affiliated in any way with ObjectivismOnline.Net or #AynRand.

NOTE: The editor, in preparing this transcript from the original chat log, has corrected some minor errors in grammar and spelling, as well as a few imprecise statements. Corrections were kept to a minimum. Some content was moved from its original place in the log. This was done only when questions or comments came out of sequence, as often happens during online chats. The editor has also inserted a few bracketed comments to assist the reader in comprehending the dialogue. The only deletions from the original log were irrelevant administrative notices. To the editor's knowledge, this transcript is a complete and accurate record of everything conveyed during the chat session.

[Transcript begins.]

<Bearster> Hi, I am Bearster, AKA Keith. My fellow Objectivists and most welcome guests: I'd like to thank everyone for being here this evening, and particularly the Ayn Rand Institute and its Executive Director Dr. Yaron Brook along with Dr. Onkar Ghate, an ARI Senior Fellow. I am now going to turn over the floor to my co-moderator for this session David, AKA GreedyCap.

<GreedyCap> Hello everyone! Thanks for joining tonight's chat. The purpose of this chat is to meet students interested in Objectivism, the Ayn Rand Institute, or the Objectivist Academic Center, and to answer your questions. Dr. Yaron Brook and Dr. Onkar Ghate will be here for an hour to answer your questions.  I would like to thank them for joining us tonight.

This chat is sponsored by the ObjectivismOnline.NET website in association with the #AynRand IRC channel. The chat will be moderated by Bearster (Keith) and me (David).

To participate in the discussion, please send me or Bearster a private message. We will give you voice privileges to ask your question.  It looks like we have a great turnout, so please be patient, as it may take some time to get to your question. If you are using the online applet, just double click on our names. If you are using an IRC client, you can type "/msg GreedyCap" or "/msg Bearster" to send either of us a private message.  Please do not message either Dr. Brook or Dr. Ghate directly, as Bearster and I will be the only ones doing moderation. We will remove speaking privileges after your question, so message us again if you want to ask another question.  After the Q&A is over, we will open the chat room to open discussion and any questions we didn't have time to get to.

And now a disclaimer: Drs. Brook and Ghate do not necessarily endorse the content of www.objectivismonline.net or of #AynRand, and their appearance as guests during this public chat should not be construed as such.

And now I'd like to welcome Dr. Yaron Brook and Dr. Onkar Ghate of the Ayn Rand Institute.

<Dr_Brook> Hi, everyone. Thanks for coming tonight. I look forward to your questions.

<Dr_Ghate> Hi, everyone. I am pleased to be here tonight. I also look forward to your questions.

<Dr_Brook> Okay, let's have the first question.

<Bearster> I'd like to ask the first question.  How do you measure the progress that Objectivism has made in the culture, since the inception of ARI?

<Dr_Brook> If the question is how, then we measure it by the number of people reading Ayn Rand's books, the number of people in venues available for us to expose Ayn Rand's ideas, and the number and quality of academics teaching and writing on Ayn Rand.

<Bearster> And also how much progress has been made?

<Dr_Brook> On all these fronts there has been substantial progress over the last twenty years. More Ayn Rand books are being read today than at any other point in history. ARI op-eds are being published at an increasing rate. Our speakers are interviewed on TV and radio more frequently. Ayn Rand's name and ideas are mentioned in the popular press and general media probably more than ever before. So, the exposure to her ideas is much greater today than it was twenty years ago. And, of course, on the academic front we have significantly more professors teaching Ayn Rand, more students studying Ayn Rand, and, for the first time, explicitly Objectivist programs at major universities.

Let's have another question.

<Ent1> Does the ARI see any value in projects like the Free State Project?

<Dr_Brook> I am not aware of the free state projects, and I cannot comment on it. I would like the questions, particularly at the onset, to be focused on ARI's academic programs and the Objectivist Academic Center.

<Dr_Ghate> Let's have some questions on OAC, if there are some.

<SteveG> Dr. Brook, Dr. Ghate, thank you so much for being here. Have there been any efforts to get the OAC program accredited with any major university? Is there a possibility of this in the future? Thank you.

<Dr_Brook> Efforts have been made to try and get OAC classes accredited. These efforts have not been successful to date. However, we are certainly not giving up. And if anything, we are re-intensifying our efforts to get these courses accredited. We do not expect that in the short term this will be with a major university. But I would not rule that out in the longer term.

<Dr_Ghate> Some of our students, who have taken the initiative to ask their department if they can get credit, have been successful, even at some major universities.

<GreedyCap> DanG? Go ahead.

<Bearster> Ok, I will post for him to keep this moving forward.

<Bearster> DanG: "Question for Dr. Ghate:  Where do you see OAC going and [what do you see it] doing in the future?  Will it eventually teach all levels of students, or will it remain a college level institution?"

<Dr_Ghate> It will remain a college level institution, but that includes graduate and undergraduate students. And within the next two years, the systematic graduate program will be unveiled. So that will be the next step after the undergraduate program. At both the undergraduate and graduate levels, we plan to offer courses other than philosophy, but still broadly in the humanities, such as history.

Though the courses are undergraduate and graduate level, that doesn't mean all our students are in universities. We have students who are working, still in high school, between careers, etc.

<DanG> Will there be an option to view pre-recorded lectures as opposed to teleconferencing? [There was no response to this question.]

<Zirjin> Will the OAC be targeted towards international students as well as the US, and how will time zones apply? (I am Aussie.)

<Dr_Ghate> We already have students from around the world, including Australia, Hong Kong, Israel, and various European countries. For people whose time zone makes it difficult to attend live, they listen to class recordings over the Internet. They submit assignments and get grades just like any other student.

<BradW> What is ARI/OAC doing to reach young adults who seem to be more tuned into Internet technologies than books? For example, have you considered a current events web log, discussing from an Objectivist viewpoint?

<Dr_Brook> The Institute has an extensive Web site with well over 1000 pages of content. In the coming months, our Web site will be significantly revised to better enhance the navigation and use. We are always looking for new opportunities to use the Internet and technology to get our message to a growing number of people. However, it will always be the case that to learn about Objectivism one will need to read Ayn Rand's works.

<Dr_Ghate> Let me address current events web log. We publish through the media department numerous op-eds that can be accessed on our Web site. A daily web log wouldn't allow us the kind of editing and philosophical precision necessary to spread Objectivism.

<GreedyCap> Lyceum, go ahead.

<Lyceum> How many students (OAC) are enrolled at the moment?

<Dr_Brook> There are between 50 and 60 students in the undergraduate program.

<egochick> What is taken into account when considering an applicant to the OAC?

<Dr_Ghate> His general knowledge and interest in Objectivism, his career plans, and his general level of intelligence. The application process consists of describing your current schooling, career plans, intellectual interests and interest in the OAC. And then there is an entrance exam, which tests the [applicant's] basic familiarity with Objectivism and presupposes that one has read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, The Virtue of Selfishness, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. The details of the application process are on our Web site, and the deadline this year for applications is April 26th. If you're worried whether you'll be accepted or not, we accept a broad range of candidates, so I encourage you to apply.

<Ramare> Does ARI ever offer financial assistance to participants of OAC who are not otherwise college students-particularly those pursuing high-profile intellectual careers (e.g. writer)?

<Dr_Brook> Yes, the Institute offers full tuition waivers and, in some cases, scholarships that cover telephone costs to eligible OAC students. I reiterate that they do not have to be college students. However, most are. We view the primary audience for the OAC as potential future "New Intellectuals"-in other words, future [Objectivist] writers and teachers, [and more] broadly, [Objectivist] intellectual activists.

<Ent1> I have another question, and that is to do with the ARI. Is there any intent to make it less US centered, i.e., with links to organizations in other countries, setting up small sub-branches, etc.? Are finances also an issue, or is control more of a factor?

<Dr_Brook> In the foreseeable future, we do not expect to branch out beyond North America. The difficulty in monitoring organizations from a distance is prohibitive. Given the importance of the purity of the philosophical message, any association we have with any organization anywhere would have to enable us to control the message that organization conveys to the public, and that would be very difficult-in the United States, nevermind overseas.

In addition, both financial and human resources available to the Institute are limited, and we must choose our battles and where to fight them. We believe that the United States is our best chance at a cultural renaissance, and that is why we are dedicating all our resources to it at this time.

<Dr_Ghate> That being said, we do reach an international audience. We have students from around the world, our Web site is accessible to anyone in the world, our op-eds and editorials are published in newspapers around the world.

<GreedyCap> Organichu, go ahead.

<Organichu> The message I submitted may be too long; allow me to cut it in half, please.

Would it be fair to say that only those with an extremely competent grasp of Objectivist theory and application will be considered for admission? This is not to say that I would consider not applying out of some irrational fear. I'm merely curious about the necessity of actual Objectivist intellectual qualification versus range of interests and career wishes, etc. Basically, would you place the level of competence necessary for admission as greater than that of the average "aspiring Objectivist"?

<Dr_Ghate> No. If anything it will be less than that. We're looking for people who have heard of Objectivism, and are interested in the philosophy, and as evidence of that, we make sure that they've read some Objectivist material. But the whole purpose of the undergraduate program is to give people who have become interested in the philosophy a structured education in its basic principles and their application.

<Organichu> Thank you.

<Bearster> After this, I'd like to encourage anyone to ask questions about Objectivism also.

I'd like to ask a follow-up to my first question. Can you give a few specific numbers of students or professorships or book sales or essay contestants?

<Dr_Brook> Let's start with essay contests. This year, for the second time, we will have received 14,000 essays from high school students competing in our essay contests. This probably makes ours the largest essay contest in the country. In addition, this year we shipped over 50,000 copies of The Fountainhead and Anthem to high school teachers committed to teaching these books in their classrooms. Imagine a day when we are shipping 500,000 copies a year to such teachers, thus ensuring that millions of college freshmen are exposed to Ayn Rand's ideas in high school. That day is coming.

The 50,000 books were sent to over 1,000 teachers. Book sales of Ayn Rand exceded 500,000 copies for the second year in 2003. Five years ago there was no formal program at a university in which Objectivism was taught. Today we have such programs at the University of Texas, University of Pittsburgh, and at Ashland University.

In addition, there are programs in which Ayn Rand is significantly featured and taught by Objectivists at Duke University, and next year, at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Add to that, starting this fall, the business schools at the Universities of Kentucky and South Carolina will be handing out copies of Atlas Shrugged to all incoming undergraduate and graduate business students.

<Bearster> Don't be shy, surely there are questions about Objectivism in a group this size! "/msg" right up!

<GreedyCap> I have a three-part question.  I have heard that interest in Objectivism is growing rapidly in India.  Can you confirm this?  What kind of effort is being made to promote Objectivism in other nations?  Specifically, what progress is being made to translate Ayn Rand into other languages?

<Dr_Brook> As far as I know, there has always been a strong interest in Ayn Rand in India. I have no evidence to suggest that it is growing.

There is a continuous flow of new translations of Ayn Rand's work into a variety of languages. However, the fact is that most of these translations do not sell well. And it is very hard for us to assess whether they have any impact in their targeted countries. The Institute does not make any substantial efforts to promote Objectivism outside of the United States, for reasons that I mentioned earlier, primarily because of lack of resources.

There is so much that can be done and still needs to be done in the United States before we can divert resources elsewhere. The Institute's budget today is about 4.5 million dollars. While this is a substantial increase over what it was 10 and 20 years ago (when the budget was about 250,000 dollars), it is still relatively miniscule given the enormity of our mission. With additional resources, both financial and human, much more could be done.

<rgarmong> If I could ask one more "movement" question: could you talk about the 20/20 plan, and how much progress we've made toward meeting its goals?

<Dr_Brook> I would rather not go into the specifics yet, but the plan is to help graduate students get placed in top-level philosophy departments around the country. The program is still in its infancy. It is very ambitious, and we will not know its level of success for many years.

<SteveG> If you don't mind, I have two questions. I've seen that there is an internship [program] at ARI. Does that have any connection to the OAC? Secondly, being a student of philosophy and classical studies at an undergraduate institution, I often encounter hostility and irrationality toward some of Objectivism's ideas. What would you say is your primary motivation for doing what you do with ARI, as opposed to some other endeavor? Thank you.

<Dr_Ghate> The internship program is a small part of the OAC. We invite applications from dedicated students in Objectivism to come to the Institute, usually during the summer. The program involves both clerical/administrative work and intellectual work. The intellectual work includes furthering their understanding of Objectivism, and also sometimes helping us with our various projects. We have another internship that is aimed more at someone who is just discovering Objectivism and wants to find out what the philosophy is all about.

The motivation for an intellectual career is basically that you take ideas seriously and want to see that true ideas win out in the culture. It's true, given today's culture, that an advocate of rational ideas, and especially an advocate of Objectivism, will face serious opposition. But that doesn't change the fact that if you want to live in a rational culture, it will take effort to do so.

But your motivation in pursuing an intellectual career should be selfish. So it should be that ideas really interest you, and that this kind of career-which may involve teaching, and/or writing, and/or other forms of intellectual activism-is an attractive career to you.

<SteveG> Thank you.

<Galois> In his essay "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy," Dr. Peikoff says that the meaning of a word is all the characteristics of the word's referent.  How does his referential theory of meaning respond to the following claim?  Some words have no reference, such as "Pegasus" or "behalf", yet they are perfectly meaningful.

<Dr_Brook> While this is obviously a philosophical question, there is no way in a forum like this to provide a meaningful response. These are the kinds of issues we deal with in classes at the OAC.

<JRoberts> When deemed a good move to make (meaning a potential is seen for a person to overcome dogmatism), do you have any advice on how to respond to a person who dogmatically follows Objectivism?

<Dr_Brook> It is obviously a mistake to follow any set of ideas dogmatically. Just because Objectivism happens to be true does not change this.

<Dr_Ghate> The paramount thing that you have to convey to such a person is that Objectivism is a philosophy of reason and independence, so it means that you have to think for yourself and see the evidence that makes its ideas true, before you follow them. It's likely that such a person comes from a religious background, and that's his only conception of what a philosophy can be.

<SteveG> I noticed recently that the company BB&T granted $1 million to the University of South Carolina for the study of capitalism, including the ideas of Ayn Rand. Have there been any efforts to target major businessmen, such as Bill Gates and Donald Trump, with Ayn Rand's ideas?

<Dr_Brook> Yes. There are continuous efforts to find and cultivate relationships with the leading businessmen of our time. Unfortunately, most businessmen do not share our understanding of the importance of ideas and, therefore, tend to be pragmatists. While we have had much success with some businessmen, we are hopeful that, in the future, a new generation of businessmen, who might have been exposed to Ayn Rand's ideas in high school, will be more sympathetic to her ideas, and to the Institute's mission.

<SteveG> Thank you.

<Enemy_> I'd like to get other people (non-Objectivists) interested in learning about Objectivism. In general, what do you think is a good way to introduce the philosophy to them and promote interest in it?

<Dr_Ghate> I don't think there's any better way than to give them a copy of Ayn Rand's fiction. You'll have to judge whether the person is likely more receptive to The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged. In rare cases, a person may respond more immediately to the non-fiction works. So, good things to give them here are Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness, or Philosophy: Who Needs It. But again, you can tailor this to the person's specific interests.

<missing>  Dr. Brook, you mentioned high school students.  In my short experience, high schools are overwhelmingly in opposition to Objectivists' ideas.  Aside from Ayn Rand's books and methods, what do you suggest, in terms of learning resources for a high school student, to combat irrational ideas?

<Dr_Brook> I would recommend trying to find books that present a rational view of specific issues in the world around us. Such books do exist, but, granted, are hard to find. I would also recommend making oneself familiar, during these high school years, with the great literature of the past, which, unfortunately, is not being taught in high schools.

<missing> Thank you.

<Dr_Brook> One additional thing is: always try to focus on the facts, and monitor what you're being told by your teachers, given the hostility, not only to Objectivism, but to reality, in many high schools. You must continuously make an effort to find the facts.

<Organichu> Aside from the obvious approach, rational thinking, is there a specific piece of material that you would suggest for an aspiring Objectivist to "push him over the line", so to say? Perhaps a book or audio tape that you find to be one of the most powerful? I ask this primarily for teenagers who may wish for a catalyst, and, already having a basic idea of Objectivism, would like to start on the path to a serious Objectivist lifestyle.

<Dr_Brook> There is no such thing. Committing oneself to a life guided by reason is not something that can be motivated from without. Inspirational tapes or public speakers cannot produce a long-term commitment to reason. If, after reading Atlas Shrugged, one is inspired to take Objectivism seriously, their motivation to act on this inspiration must come from within.

<Organichu> Alright, thank you.

<HaudRex> What exciting new things are happening in the study of Objectivism? I hear that Peikoff has an upcoming book on integration. What are your thoughts on this work, and in what other applications or innovations is ARI involved?

<Dr_Ghate> Before commenting on Dr. Peikoff's course and book, let me just say that my view is this: what is needed to change the culture is not new innovations in philosophy. What is needed is to make Ayn Rand's philosophy known to rational minds.

Having said that, there is new work being done in philosophy by Objectivist intellectuals. And paramount among these is Dr. Peikoff's new work on induction and integration. He is currently giving a course through the Institute on a new hypothesis of his in the field of epistemology. He is working on two books. One of these books deals with induction in philosophy and physics, and he's co-writing that with David Harriman. Dr. Peikoff is also working on his own book on integration in philosophy and the culture.

<HaudRex> Thank you.

<Dr_Brook> Thank you for this opportunity to answer your questions. I look forward to doing this again sometime in the future. Good night.

<Bearster> Good night and thank you, Dr. Brook.

<Dr_Ghate> I will stay for another five minutes. Next question.

<Galois>  Ayn Rand indicated that she was interested in the development of her theory of mathematical concepts to cover higher mathematics.  I am a mathematician who began writing a rationally organized textbook for physics students, and in that effort I found that I could develop her theory to address the usage of infinitesimals in calculus, Cantor's theorem about higher infinities, and so forth. What would be the appropriate way to bring the Ayn Rand Institute's attention to these ideas?

<Dr_Ghate> Normally, we do not accept unsolicited manuscripts and philosophical essays, basically, because we don't have the manpower to go through the many submissions that we get.

<Galois> Hence my inquiry.

<Ent1> I'd like to give a suggestion for the ARI: There were many questions that we wanted to ask but couldn't. Can the ARI set up a method where the public can ask questions via email, and they will be answered on their website? Like a running forum. The benefit of this is that over time it can coalesce into a FAQ.

<Dr_Ghate> We are always taking questions from the public, from students who are interested in the OAC, etc. On our Web site, you can find the appropriate email addresses to which to send your question. For instance, for OAC questions, the email address is study@aynrand.org. But please be aware that for general inquiries, especially on philosophical topics, you're not guaranteed to get a response. We get many questions sent to ARI and cannot possibly respond to them all.

<Ent1> I understand, but my question is more to the setting up of a site with the answers to other's questions. [There was no time for a response to this follow-up comment.]

<Dr_Ghate> Thank you for attending this session and for your questions. We hope to do this again sometime in the future. I invite all interested students to submit an application to the OAC (www.aynrand.org/academic). Thank you. Good night.

<Bearster> Thank you, Dr. Ghate, for coming and good night.

<Ent1> Yes, thanks.

<GreedyCap> Yes, thank you very much. I look forward to doing this again!

[Transcript ends.]

This transcript was prepared by The Ayn Rand(R) Institute.

 

Copyright (C) 2004  The Ayn Rand Institute

Reproduction of this transcript in any form without permission is prohibited.