.

Finally, she and some of her followers are often perceived as being dogmatic, frequently ignoring published criticism of the system instead of responding to it. This is in part because many of them were young people excited by her novels and unlearned in philosophy; such people are not often aware of the complexities of their subject and prone to construe disagreement as ignorance. Furthermore, many of her supporters would not permit modifications or additions to her philosophical system, leading some to label Rand as a cult leader.

John, you opened to the door to judgements about her personal life by claiming that she "was a person who truly understood what it means to be a human being."

That said, you choose to read the arguments made as mere criticism of her personally. Many perfectly reasonable arguments were, in fact, made; people on this thread have pointed out, among other things:

* That her philosophy is simplistic (>>46)
* That her high standards did not seem to bear out in her own life (>>47 which leads us to ask if the philosophy is actually applicable)
* that she misuses rationality in service of emotionalism (>>51)
* That human reasoning is fallible (>>59)
* That the life of a person can and should be used as a context for their words (>>62, >>64, >>66, >>68-69)
* that even the hard rationalism of the scientific method can be corrupted by simply lying (>>71, >>76)

Given this, you should consider the possibility that you are one of those people mentioned in >>1 who are "prone to construe disagreement as ignorance."