"'Reply: Re: We are not amused'"  If the individual does not decide (arbitrate) what is presented by existence existing, who will?  A corollary of existence existing is that each existing informed mind must think for itself.  So, perhaps you thought I meant that the individual is the final 'creator' of reality.  This is not so.  Regardless of how fleshed out your criteria becomes, criterion by criterion, I must still have to agree with the content of this organizations decisions on who Rand is and what she left to posterity.  If I didn't do so, acting as the final arbitrator of my existence (or my interaction within reality) who will?  Existence and existents hold the validity (or lack thereof) of my perceptions, my concepts, my decisions, consequences of my ethics, etc.  Not Wikipedia.  Certainly not you who thinks such a thought nonsense.  And I have all her texts, I'm quite aware of her ideas. Making assumptions without checking on premises is what landed Rand's page in this editing nightmare.  Also, Rand didn't form the thought Existence exists (existence qua existence) or A is A, Aristotle did.  She resurrected the import of the phrase and logically extended the consequences.  Its been fun.  ~RJM