This can't be above board...

[Sean Piper]

Noticed this on ebay.com.au and figured it must be at least a little bit suspect...???

http://cgi.ebay.com.au/Airtight-by-Jay- ... dZViewItem

What do you think???

[John Pezzullo]

Sean,

This looks very dodgy indeed. His claim that the material is 'public domain' is ludicrous.

The member profile suggests that this clown is based somewhere in Sydney.

Richard Kaufman may want to contact eBay ASAP in relation to this matter.

[Richard Kaufman]

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I have addressed the matter with eBay's VERO program.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Nathan Coe Marsh:
a .pdf copy (blatantly advertised as such) of the Richard's Almanac ...

It's simply not cool to put stuff like that on ebay. I hope the ebaY folks do right on this item.

Nathan, have you read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged?

[magicam]

The item has indeed been removed from Ebay. If anyone saved a PDF of web page before it was taken down by Ebay, I'd be grateful for a copy. I'm saving some Ebay "howlers" just for fun.

Clay

[Angelo Carbone]

what was advertised as it is gone now?

[NCMarsh]

It was a .pdf copy (blatantly advertised as such) of the Richard's Almanac issue that featured "Airtight." The seller made the bizzare claim that because it was copied from the original issue the copyright no longer applied.

Best,

N.

[NCMarsh]

Jonathan,

I haven't read Atlas Shrugged but I have seen documentaries about Rand made by the objectivists, have seen her interview with Mike Wallace from the '60's, and have had a few long conversations with some objectivists.

There are definitely things in her work that appeal to me (championing the excellence of the individual, decrying the tragedy that comes when mediocrity is able to impose its will on excellence (I won't comment on the parallels to the MM situation we were discussing earlier)).

However, and it is a big however, I find her ideas about altruism as the source of fascism and tyranny to be deeply problematic. Her claims that we ought to act uniquely in our self-interest neglect the most beautiful and divine parts of a human being in favor of the ugliest. The authentic objectivist, if such a being were possible, would be a pretty hollow shell of a human.

Further, I find the Ayn Rand Foundation to be disturbingly cult-like and I deeply detest their philosophical evangelizing.

So, the short answer to your question is "no, I haven't read her, but I have very little interest in reading her."

Sorry to go off, why do you ask?

Best,

N.

[Q. Kumber]

It is only by acting in our self-interest that we can achieve any success at all.

Where would most successful magicians be if they listened to all the nay-sayers who advised and harrangued them not to choose magic as a career?

If magic is in your soul, you will not and cannot be truly happy unless you pursue your self-interest first.

Every tree has a number of functions in the environment. Providing homes for birds, spiders and other insects - and visiting bees, not to mention the whole eco-system going on under the tree.

Unless that tree FIRST becomes the best possible tree it can be, it will fail at all its other functions.

Only by being the BEST tree it can possibly be (acting in its own self-interest), will it successfully contribute to the environment.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Nathan Coe Marsh:
...the short answer to your question is "no, I haven't read her, but I have very little interest in reading her."

Sorry to go off, why do you ask?...

When we wish to discuss the notions of right and wrong, we also need to be set some groundwork about a few other things. Right for who? Right when? Even using John Rawl's approach we need a context. In magic, we know we have a mixed market and some large variety of circumstances. How then to discuss ethical principles? To that end, so we can discuss right and wrong, and possible peer groups and safe-havens for artistic exploration, I asked you what you have read so to discuss matters in words and frameworks we might share.

For example, I'm told that in some countries our notion of copyright is not upheld, and so offering a photocopy of something might be legal.

My position on the matter of making and selling copies sides with our existing notion of copyright. I'm looking at the notion of "secret" as property and wondering if we could formally treat the communication of a secret as a private transaction and a one way, no-resale rights item.

Also, rather than simply demanding that everyone change everything they have working at this time, one could set up a peer group which functions under ethical principles you prefer.

Options. All about choices and responsibilities.

Here is a funny idea I'm offering for discussion: That we treat whatever we find in print as a sort of base example of what the inventor had in mind, set up so that the student can take the material and apply it to their own projects. Yes this does suggest we work a bit more abstractly. It also puts a question to new items offered as to whether they cover new ground, have proven effective or are more of historical/personal interest. Peer review for articles and little bit more formal writing style that included citations might also be a nice thing. We have a good five hundred plus years of written history and could benefit from some organization.

:)

[Guest]

The trouble with acting in your self interests is that you can make vicious enemies that way.
Enemies that will stop at nothing to act against your self interests. And of course that would not be in your self interest would it?

The trouble is with being a tree is that the rotten ones can get cut down.

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Lincoln Fitzgerald:
... vicious enemies... that will stop at nothing to act against your self interests.

...
The trouble is with being a tree is that the rotten ones can get cut down.

Those who would act against their own best interests to affect another persons interests are in the most basic sense of the term, mentally ill. One can no more control the anger of the mentally ill than one can tell the wind where to blow.

The trees that rot fall down and become mulch a valuable resource. Trees that bear fruit can also attract birds and other creatures which can keep away things like ivy.

Real trees do ONLY their best, and do not fret over choices. Like animals, they are perfect and always do the best they can. It's us humans that make choices about principles and actions.

Do we cut healthy trees for lumber or rotten trees for kindling today? Do we clearcut to make room for a road? Do we set fire to an area to create a firebreak?

To some magic is an avocation. To others it's a niche market to supply those who perform or who dabble. To some it's a scholarly field. To some it's a safe haven, a place for the inner child to play.

[Guest]

Trees can also be made into things that are wooden. A bit like the personalities of certain magicians that come to mind.

Of course it is not only the "mentally ill" who can get "angry"

Sometimes people who are calm, cool and collected but have long memories can too. A sort of white heat anger. A calculated anger. They can be the most dangerous.

[magicam]

Jonathan wrote:

When we wish to discuss the notions of right and wrong, we also need to be set some groundwork about a few other things. Right for who? Right when? Even using John Rawl's approach we need a context....

Jonathan, Rawls' approach is itself based on context. If one needs context for the context, relativism arguably results. I think you're a closet Hobbesian. :D

Speaking of Hobbes, wait until RK discovers some of the posts in this thread. You guys are sooooo in trouble ... :eek:

Clay

[Jonathan Townsend]

Originally posted by Magicam:
...Rawls' approach is itself based on context...

I thought the golden rule approach was about as close to context free as possible. Literally putting oneself in the other person's position to check for fairness. This approach is also useful in conjuring.

I'll stand by my statements about building anew with people to make a community instead of railing against a tradition which has its own utility. I've also made it pretty clear that I am not advocating any set of ideas as 'right' and instead cited a work about people who decided to build anew.

No forest fires here. Not interested in logging in anyone else's forest either.

[Guest]

A forest fire would certainly burn all the trees down.

[Sean Piper]

um... yeah... so.... this guy was selling pdf copies! :confused: