I don't bother with him anymore. I don't have time to waste on him. In addition, I've lost my confidence in his intelligence. If he reads claptrap like that and believes it, then he deserves to believe it and I can do nothing more.

As MichaelAarethun added below, he may have been yanking on chains to see whether they still existed. That was my first thought, which may have been the reason he spoke of it in front of me.

Exactly what I would have done, especially if she left for that reason.

Burbling, but not directed at me. One of my first refutations would have been, "You know from experience that a person's private life may not be representative of their ideas."

(I do not expect you to share details of her personal life- but I can imagine being part of the "inner circle" was thrilling!)

I like this quote, where is it from?

Wiggys, my comment about my current partner was (perhaps) unclear. He believed my upset was due to him being an ex-boyfriend, and not that he was reading a book like that. I will be the first to admit that my feelings were accentuated by his relation to me, but my disgust would have still been there. I agree, however, that he did not make me feel supported in the least.

There were a few of his close friends, and I wouldn't have been able to convince them anyway- since they are unquestionably on his side.

So beautiful. I've never heard that one before, but it's great.

My first thought was that he was attempting to hurt me by smearing her. I didn't want to engage him because I knew I'd have that in the back of my head and be unable to argue effectively.

if the attack was personal (the affair with Nat Branden) on Ayn Rand in order to discredit her philosophy, it was ad hominem and should be refuted accordingly...

Sarah, I had an ex return to seek comfort after she
took off on a crazy trip to california (to make x-rated
movies, it turned out). . I didn't smile when she walked
into my room in our house off-campus. . it was just
the 2 of us there, in the house. . she asked,
"Don't you smile, anymore?"
I replied, "Not in public."
she just turned around and walked out. -- j
.

some people are not convinced by the facts;;; their
minds are made up and closed to new discovery.
It Is Not Your Fault that he's a doofus. -- j
.

"Never try to teach a pig to sing. It wastes your time and it annoys the pig."

Was he merely reading, or was he burbling out loud? If merely reading leave it alone unless he starts a discussion. If he's holding forth then you might want to engage him in conversation, if your silence would be interpreted as agreement. But keep in mind something that many seem to forget. What happens in a persons private life may have nothing to do with their writings, or philosophy. I personally go back to that era and I met Ayn Rand and was involved with Branden's circle of friends. It was a screwy time in which both parties were tainted. Rand, however, had a considerable circle of devotees and as the founder of the feast, was able to cast Branden out as the bad guy. With all of their brilliance and superior intellect, it just shows that people can do stupid things.

I really know too much about their personal lives to get involved disussing them. There is no question that no matter what her critics say, she is without a doubt one of the most influential writers of the 20th century, and as it looks now, perhaps the 21st century as well. Branden's books on psychology are worthy contributions to the practice and are breakthroughs in the area of the human persona via the ego. But, to answer your questions clearly:
1. Stay silent if the reader is silent.
2. It is no betrayal. You neither wrote the book nor spread the poison.
3. If it becomes verbal, and as Rand would caution, you've checked your premises, go get him, kiddo.

Call? Let's think. Besides some blacks being racist?
Idiotic vapid clodpates for leftist dunderheads could work as well as other words for being pseudo-intellectually socialist stupid..
To a libtard back then, anyone against Obama was a racist. Even peanut-brain Jimmy Carter insinuated that would be the root cause.
One reason I liked Cain is his being black. I was thinking now here is the one conservative who has the skin color to beat socialist Obama.
Because of that, Cain was the one candidate who scared the hell out all that was Team Obama.
I still believe my conspiracy theory that George Soros money paid for that phony one-at-a-time trotting out of falsely accusing bimbo eruptions.

Yes, and I believe that there are millions who did just that. -- j
.

ignore. . I would advise that any response would be
completely skewed by the fact that he is an "ex" and
the real subject -- Rand -- would be incidental.

are you sure that he didn't have that book, and that
he didn't make those comments, just to "get back"
at you? . I would think that any interaction would be
just a continuation of the break-up. . ignore. -- john
.

Under the circumstances, yes. It seems there may have been another purpose than the merits of the book for your Ex to discuss the book within your earshot. Engaging him would have given your Ex a a soap box and audience.
2. No. By not responding, you didn't take the bait. Ms. Rand would have waited until the circumstances were better to her. You can see this in the behaviour of her characters in her works.
3. First determine by yourself if a "fight in situations like these" is necessary (being upset does not necessarily require a response). If so, what would you like to accomplish with the fight and does it have to be there and then. Having done this, a plan would then develop on a solid foundation.

Yes, Sarah did the right thing. Now, about your Herman Cain remark. If you're a racist for supporting him because you want to prove you're not a racist, then what do we call all the people who voted for Obama because he is black?

If there had been an audience that could have been swayed by his assertions, assuming that they were reasonable, it would have probably been better to put up an argument. If not, not. It all depends on the circumstances and the people involved.

You have coincidentally described my own personal situation exactly and accurately, except it's been going on for a while and it is getting worse. There is no way to have a rational conversation at all, so we don't. I doubt we will make it through this election cycle. My attempt to psychoanalyze myself and why I put up with this leads to despair and frustration. But something is definitely happening in the country, and I am rooting for the good guys, worthless though that action might be. Maybe.

I cannot count the number of times I have had quasi arguments with so called smart people whos eyes glaze over when confronted with logic and reason. It generally degrades to the typical liberal shout down, so why bother with them. As far a your ex, He is that for a reason, I guess I don't understand why you bother with him.

That is so true.

Those who deny reason are seen in an epistemological mirror just as are those who deny existence in the metaphysical one.

With respect to the latter, one should always take them seriously and act as if they are not there. The former, as if they are but a insignificant piece of inanimate matter.

As others have indicated, "But I don't think of you Ellsworth!" Although I know that emotionally you are likely going through your personal version of what all of us have experienced when moving ahead following discoveries that produce an "ex."