Pross Echoes Hsieh

James S. Valliant's picture
Submitted by James S. Valliant on Tue, 2006-08-29 23:18

Victor Pross sees the mind-body dichotomy at work in David Kelley's ideas about judgment.

Does anyone besides me remember that Diana Hsieh

had already observed the mind-body dichotomy in Kelley's approach to moral judgment?

Could Mr. Pross have been unaware of Ms. Hsieh's work -- or was he influenced by it? Would a citation here be mandatory? And, can we, like an editor at The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, accuse him of "plagarism" at this point?


( categories: )

fair enough

Landon Erp's picture

I guess I tend to have a different view on perfection. Due to the nature of Objectivist morality as self rewarding and self-punishing (in cases when not followed) I tend to view moral perfection as an ongoing process.

Put simply you're only as perfect as the last few things you did.

In Objectivist morality you bear punishments for being immoral, which is a good thing. But once you've taken your punishment and you've honestly done everything you can for any particular moral transgression it's up to you to build back up to a "current" level of moral perfection (ie: you don't do anything else immoral and you haven't let any past immoralities fester without dealing with them).

That's my view and my reason for my reaction. (Ok that and MSK's "plagarism isn't the problem it's moralizing" response) But I still hold that for the bulk of the people on that side of this debate my statement rings true.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Landon

eg's picture

I wasn't thinking about insulting you with my comment, but I was taking issue with your use of "Anyone." This does not mean that many who object to those terms aren't in the category you've described, but I do object, for one, and it doesn't describe me. I am not "morally perfect." This "perfection" is once you have done wrong--and I've done wrong in my life--you are dirty goods that can't come clean. The concept is not dynamic and living creatures--human beings especially--are tremendously dynamic and evolving. Anyone claiming personal moral perfection has such a narrow view of morality as to be completely out of touch with his or her inner if not outer life and experiences. Now, there are some here who do see the concept as dynamic, but I see them as making a snowman in the Sahara.

--Brant

Brant

Landon Erp's picture

I'm all for that too. Just that last connection has really been sticking with me for a while. Unless of course that was meant as a personal insult.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

Landon

eg's picture

How about rallying against stupidity?

--Brant

Kenny

Landon Erp's picture

That link reminded me of something which has really hit me lately. Anyone who rallies against "moral perfection" or "moralizing" wants to get away with something they know is immoral.

---Landon

Inking is sexy.

http://www.angelfire.com/comics/wickedlakes

That's All

James S. Valliant's picture

You know, Jim, in the time it took you to express your "yawn," you might have carried post-Objectivist thinking to new heights in any number of ways.

In any event, Linz will allow cartoons -- nothing but juvenile insults -- to be posted here. OL and MSK cannot abide sincere and genuine criticism of its members -- period.

This is why SOLOPassion is a cross-roads for all types -- and the most diverse forum of its kind.

Mike

Kenny's picture

Robert acknowledged on another thread that Pross plagiarised Diana Hsieh. He promised to come down hard on Pross unless he apologised fully. I am merely inviting him to honour that promise.

My position on citing is that everyone should uphold the highest standards. I have not read the works that you mention by Branden, Peikoff and Smith. I cannot on the detail but would apply that position to everyone.

Yawn

James Heaps-Nelson's picture

I find the clamor on both sides much ado about nothing. Dr. Smith is free not to cite Branden if she doesn't want to. Dr. Mayhew has the right to edit Ayn Rand Answers in a way that fits the spirit of Ayn Rand's thought in today's context. I'd rather see more material out in book form than waste much time with nitpicking. People are free to publish their own lists of errata to supplement the books.

The unvarnished Ayn Rand can certainly see the light of day. However, in justice, we should give Rand leeway and benevolence in our interpretations of her as she has certainly earned it.

Frankly, the feeling I've had with some notable exceptions in the published Objectivist material outside Rand is a sense of boredom. They've aimed their sights low, tackling ground already covered. Where is the daring originality to blaze new trails? Outside Objectivism, that's where. I would say that Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi's Flow or Jeff Hawkins' On Intelligence blows any post-Rand Objectivist work out of the water. They've actually tackled new questions and written profoundly with new syntheses.

In any case, carry on. I'm sure more acrimony can be stirred up about even less substance.

Jim

Campbellian double standards

Mike_M's picture

Kenny,

Nathaniel Branden deleted a reference to Leonard Peikoff in an updated version of his "Moral Revolution" essay. By the standard Campbell applied to Tara Smith, Campbell should believe Branden intellectually dishonest. By deleting that reference, Branden has re-written the historical record. By the standards Campbell applies to The Estate of Ayn Rand and ARI, Campbell should think Branden a Stalinist. By deleting that reference to Peikoff, Branden is leaving the false impression that he was the originator of that identification. By the standards Campbell applies to Peikoff and Binswanger, he should think Nathaniel Branden a plagiarizer.

If Campbell were to apply the standards of judgment he uses on ARI affiliates, he should think Branden intellectually dishonest for failing to properly cite a source. He should think Branden an authoritarian Stalinist for altering the historical record. He should think Branden a plagiarizer for taking credit for Peikoff's work.

Will Robert Campbell a) admit to holding a double standard, b) continue to hold the double standard by saying nothing on the topic, or c) start a half dozen threads on OL accusing Nathaniel Branden of various types of intellectual honesty?

I think he will opt for (c). Of course there is option (d), which involves Campbell throwing around many red herring in an effort to distract everyone from his bigotry (red herrings like posting cartoons).

What makes you think he do anything about MSK or Victor Pross, if he won't apply his standards of evaluation to Nathaniel Branden? In fact, why haven't any Brandroids apply this standard to their guru? Or have I answered my own question with my choice of terminology?

(Parenthetically, we should also accuse TAS (the publisher of this essay) of Stalinism for supporting a re-write of the historical record. We should also accuse them of sanctioning plagiarism. Will any TAS supporters contact their organization to see what they will do about this flagrant authoritarianism?)

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

MSK deleted the whole thread

Kenny's picture

The Pross plagiarism thread has been deleted by MSK. His excuse to LW Hall for deleting his post defies belief,

"I deleted your post because it was insulting to an OL member and tried to humiliate him. Two OL policy issues were involved with this affair and they have been addressed with both words and actions. The first was plagiary and the second was OL members insulting each other to start flame wars. You may not like our policies, but they are clear and that is what they are. You have the entire Internet available to air grievances about our policies or insult other members. Not here."

This is an example of airbrushing recent history and attempting to rationalise it. I hope that Robert Campbell will not sanction MSK's outageous behaviour.

Second Hander in Chief

MSK wants us to see that its time to put this whole messy business behind us. This was, after all just an isolated incident unconnected to any prior behavior. And he apologized. Bush still hasn’t apologized for Iraq, after all, and he is much less intelligent and sophisticated then Victor. We should all follow MSK’s lead and give Victor another chance. What? He used his other chance already...

Wm

I posted a short reply

LWHALL's picture

in the rants section of OL after MSK deleted my post, however I have no idea if it will stay up.

Needless to say if stating the truth in a rational manner is considered malicious then I am definitely guilty as charged in this instance. Here is my post as best I can remember it from OL:

"Victor,

This is why it is hard to take you serious:

'I read Hsieh’s article before writing mine. After the OPAR study group meeting, I saw Hseih’s article presented many of the ideas that we had been discussing and it was, to be fair, better organized than any other material on this, so I ended up using more information than I should have from a few parts, including quotes and technical terms. I am new to public writing as an intellectual and the citing of material, I have learned the hard way, is a must."

Do you really understand what the term "rationalizing negative behavior" means? If not, then reread what you wrote above and it may come to you."

L W

Evil LW

James S. Valliant's picture

Well, just so long as they "tolerate" sincere criticism.

Oh, I can't resist...

DianaHsieh's picture

MSK just deleted a comment from LW Hall critical of Victor's apology; Hall rightly noted that the apology rationalized the plagiarism. (I hope that LW will post the comment here, as I think it was substantially right.)

MSK says, "I have locked the thread to avoid insults being posted. Please discuss this issue off line or elsewhere on the Internet."

How perfect! I guess Victor is now protected property at OL.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

A thought about the "apology"

Chris Cathcart's picture

Where's Pross been living, in a cave? He's doing the "Oh, I don't any better, I'm new to this" routine, like it's some mystery to the minimally-educated how you go about acknowledging sources. I thought this kind of thing was taught in high school.

The "apology" reeks.

It's more like a stop-gap patch . . .

Chris Cathcart's picture

. . . on a sinking ship. Pross is a reliable fuck-up; he'll do something to embarrass them again, mark my words.

Pross Admits Plagiarism

DianaHsieh's picture

After much beating around the bush, Victor Pross finally admitted the obvious, namely that he plagiarized my essay on David Kelley. Although I appreciate the admission, Victor is yet again blaming his accusers of malice. In any case, Victor has crossed bright moral lines too many times to ever get back into my good graces.

Oh, and guess who kinda sorta offered an excuse for him without knowledge of the particulars?

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

The proper course of action

Mike_M's picture

The proper course of action would have been for Nathaniel Branden, when he reprinted that essay, to keep the 1962 footnote to Leonard Peikoff, adding a disclaimer.

So will you apply the same standards to Branden as you did Dr. Smith? Will you conclude Branden intellectually dishonest for not citing Peikoff? (This time there isn't any debate over the source of the ideas, like in the Smith case). It seems by Campbellian standards Nathaniel Branden is intellecutally dishonest.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

Again?

Craig Ceely's picture

Mr. Campbell: Thanks for the comment on Branden.

As for my interpretation "again" of the Ayn Rand comments to which you refer, I don't recall making any in the first place, so I'm not sure why you'd use "again" with reference to me. Beyond that, I don't even know the relevant passages that were changed. I'm aware of the controversy, but I can't claim any expertise there.

Unlike, say, TOC versus a commercial book publisher: I can't understand why anyone at TOC wouldn't have noticed the footnote changes during editing. I had no problem finding over a hundred changes, including that one.

Campbell

James S. Valliant's picture

O.K., so no "collective guilt" ever applies with THOSE guys. Check.

Mendacity

Robert Campbell's picture

Mr. Ceely,

You are of course right that Dr. Branden's statement falls short of being completely truthful.

And there is no excuse for that, either.

Now, what is your interpretation again of Ayn Rand's statements concerning the revisions she made to the second edition of We the Living?

I think they're mendacious.

How about you?

Mr. Valliant,

I rather doubt that Ayn Rand's publisher was at fault for the false statements she made concerning her revision of We the Living.

Unless the folks at TOC were told about the deletion of the footnote to Peikoff, or noticed it during editing and didn't make an issue of it, I wouldn't consider them to be at fault.

Robert Campbell

Campbell

James S. Valliant's picture

Does Branden's publisher bear any of this "guilt"?

Not so fast here...

Craig Ceely's picture

It's not so simple a matter as citing or removing same, but also of being mendacious about it. As I wrote back then:

Branden writes, I read at the beginning of his pamphlet, "Except for a few cuts of superfluous words or sentences, the essay is reproduced in its original form," and he ends his introduction with the words,

I have allowed this essay to be republished as originally written because Ayn Rand thought so highly of it as an introduction to her moral philosophy and because, therefore, I believe students of her work will find it of historical interest -- and also because there is much here with which I continue to agree."

NB's deletion of credit to Leonard Peikoff

Robert Campbell's picture

Mr. Mazza,

I was not active on this board when Mr. Ceely's item appeared.

In any event, this is hardly a difficult issue.

The proper course of action would have been for Nathaniel Branden, when he reprinted that essay, to keep the 1962 footnote to Leonard Peikoff, adding a disclaimer.

Of course, none of this seems likely to matter to you and your associates, who will keep insisting that no one has any duty to cite Nathaniel Branden, who, besides, is irredeemably evil, a Benedict Arnold, and the kiss of death.

But I'll state it for the record anyway.

Robert Campbell

More Dishonesty at O-Lying

Lindsay Perigo's picture

While Instant Messaging with Jason Quintana yesterday I had occasion, because of something Jason observed, to go back to O-Lying to look again at Victor's caricature of me. I noted that since I first saw it Victor had added some text at the bottom. It quoted my line, "That creature is lower than the lowest of the low," & attributed it to "Lindsay Perigo, another satisfied customer"—making it seem that that was my response to Victor's drawing & the remark was about him. It was neither. My only comment about the drawing was that it was "funny enough"; "lower than the lowest of the low" was about Michael Kelly. Again, Plagiarist Pross demonstrates that his connection to the truth is about as tenuous as that of the other O-Liars.

Linz

hypocrite, part 2

Mike_M's picture

I just thought I'd post a link to this article, which clearly demonstrates Nathaniel Branden taking credit for Leonard Peikoff's idea without citing or acknowledging him. Will Campbell target Branden with a plagiarism accusation of some such? Let's wait and see...

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

Victor Pross

Wayne Simmons's picture

So there's no "guilt by association", I'm not in agreement with what Victor did. Victor is a smart man. He needs to trust in himself that he can express his thoughts without plagiarism.

Jim's proxy-posting from

Chris Cathcart's picture

Jim's proxy-posting from Casey, we can only conclude, is a concerted campaign to personally discredit someone (Robert Campbell) who gave Jim's book a negative review.[1] It's all Jim/Casey's fault this is happening. It's all a result of Robert Campbell's negative review.

For shame!

[1] Wording adapted from Campbell, op. cit.

From Casey

James S. Valliant's picture

Casey Fahy, still having posting trouble, has asked me to post the following:

"Let's review Robert Campbell's evidence, since he likes to pretend he's made a point after it has been refuted.

"Campbell stated that Peikoff got his definition of self-esteem from Branden. To this, Fred Weiss replied thus, way back on Campbell's 'Black Box' thread:

"''Robert informs us that Branden's "definition" of self-esteem - which "definition" he claims Peikoff plagiarized in OPAR - first appeared in 1967. Here is the "definition" Robert cites:

"''Self-esteem has two interrelated aspects: it entails a sense of personal efficacy and a sense of personal worth. It is the integrated sum of self-confidence and self-respect. It is the conviction that one is competent to live and worthy of living.'"

"'First of all, that is not a definition. It is a description. That aside, the last time I checked, Atlas Shrugged appeared in 1957, 10 years before Branden's said definition.

"'In Atlas Shrugged is something called Galt's Speech which apparently Robert has not read in some time. So, may I remind him of the following:

"''My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists-and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason-Purpose-Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge-Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve-Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.'"

"'Gee, Robert, it looks to me like Branden plagiarized Ayn Rand.'

"Undaunted by this little problem, Campbell proceeded to claim that Peikoff got his definition of the arbitrary from Branden's 1963 article, 'Intellectual Ammunition Department: What is the Objectivist view of agnosticism?' The title alone tell us that Branden was giving the official Objectivist view in this article -- he is crediting the contents of the article itself as a recitation of the official Objectivist position, which was surely the product of close consultation with Ayn Rand. Both Branden and Peikoff relied on Rand as the authority on Objectivism. Citing Branden as the originator of the ideas within this article would not only be unnecessary, but wrong in this context. The contents are not psychological insights that might be properly understood as Branden's original ideas -- they are fundamental philosophical ideas that are part of the philosophy of Ayn Rand, which Peikoff properly credited in the title of OPAR. And yet this is the case Campbell has made for Peikoff plagiarizing Branden. And he trots it out, again, despite the fact that his smoking gun evidence for the self-esteem definition imploded on him, and even earns a statement from Barbara Branden claiming that even she did not know the extent to which Peikoff plagiarized Branden until Campbell's brilliant observations. On the other hand, clear plagiarism of Diana's essay, argument, thesis and citations is only a possible instance of plagiarism in his mind. Just what standards are operative in Campbell's mind?"

The confusion seems to have begun when Branden failed to cite RAND. This means that Branden was comfortable using Rand material without citation. What does this say about the 1963 article on agnosticism? Can we trust that anything was Branden's original thought in those days at all?

Bad Chris. Bad Bad. Very Bad.

Boaz the Boor's picture

You're going to be "Randroid" numero uno at this rate. Branden the "Kiss of Death"? Oy. Vey.

Humor us with a self-assessment

Chris Cathcart's picture

Campbell writes:

Now, what does the cultural advancement of Ayn Rand's ideas require?

If it requires narrow-minded zealotry and blinkered philosophical ignorance, you have a model ready to hand in Fred Weiss.

If it requires pretensions to scholarship, combined with campaigns to personally discredit anyone who ever gave your book a negative review, you have models ready to hand in Jim Valliant and Casey Fahy.

If it requires a craving for servile followers, an endless supply of derogatory rhetoric, and gross disdain for any intellectual endeavor, you have a model ready to hand in Lindsay Perigo.

Campbell picks and chooses the (purportedly) "bad" concretes and figures that they represent the "ARI approach" well enough. He leaves out the good concretes like Tara Smith, who've met the highest academic standards in promoting Rand's ideas.

Of course, this is inconvenient to Campbell, so he goes and concocts a smear-job on Tara Smith's academic standards, so that she, too, now qualifies one of the "bad" ones. In fact, every most-prominent ARI-affiliated concrete, from Smith to Peikoff to Binswanger to Andrew Bernstein, Campbell has smeared. Indeed, who in the "ARI orbit" wouldn't escape a smear-job by Campbell when all is said and done?

Anyway, let's do a hypothetical. Let's say that someone wants to come up with a number of "bad" concretes as examples of how not to conduct Rand scholarship. In the process of considering potential concretes to name, they encounter Robert Campbell. They get a sample of Campbell's academic writing that contains gratuitous and false shots at Ayn Rand's personality. They observe the way Campbell conducts himself in online forums. Let's hear why they shouldn't include Campbell in the final list of selected concretes.

I wrote:"Any good journal

Chris Cathcart's picture

I wrote:

"Any good journal would be like SOLO in this relevant regard: it is open to airing critical debates and letting the chips fall where they may."

Of course, a good journal would differ from SOLO in that all debate there would be respectful critical debate. Besides all the "go fuck yourselves" that go on around here in seriousness or jest, a good journal would recognize the Campbellian M.O. for how disrespectful it is, and exclude it. Here, SOLO gives up a little bandwith for the extra entertainment value.

You do know that your main value around here is entertainment value, right, Campbell?

Now, go, go cook up a new conspiracy theory for us -- maybe one explaining my "turn".

Chris

James S. Valliant's picture

That's why a personal friendship with the Brandens did not initially prevent me from engaging Sciabarra myself. But, of course, it is sometimes possible to judge someone's "sanction," if you know that context well enough.

Oh, BTW

Chris Cathcart's picture

The fact of someone's association with Nathan Branden doesn't by itself tell me enough about that someone's character. I consider it sufficient to make a direct assessment of Nathan Branden and leave things to folks' own objective judgment whether they consider it wise and just to sanction him. The "you sanction bad guy X, and so I won't sanction you" stuff is lots of nice intrinsicist stuff worthy of a Peter Schwartz=style argument, but it doesn't respect context. So Campbell's little attempt at trap-setting to get me to denounce Chris Sciabarra on this basis won't work.

Campbell, though, is an unrepentant Brandroid. He runs around screaming, "Why don't they quote Branden? Why don't they cite Branden?" and caring not a whit for context.

Campbell wrote:Normally, I

Chris Cathcart's picture

Campbell wrote:

Normally, I refrain from quarreling in public with an author who has contributed to a journal that I edit.

But nothing's normal in Rand-land.

Well, this is why SOLO is where it's at. Differences, warts and all, get aired in public and dealt with. And people, like Robert Campbell, make fully and publicly known what asses they are. It's great.


Frankly, I've said before and will say again that it would be a good thing for there to be another journal that focuses on Rand's ideas.

But do you suppose for one minute that your regular debate partner, Dr. Bass, would be able to get published in a journal operated by affiliates of ARI, under the current regime?

Maybe, maybe not. How does a question like this get answered outside of some context?

Any good journal would be like SOLO in this relevant regard: it is open to airing critical debates and letting the chips fall where they may.

Do you think, by the way, that Eric Mack would be welcome to publish there?

I would sure as hell hope so.

Have you even considered the possibility that your prior statements about the importance of Dr. Mack's work might be held against you?

Let's make something nice and sparkling here: these are not "prior" statements. I'll say it right here and now, Dr. Mack's work is in many obvious respects most important and valuable. I'm not as closely in agreement with all its aspects as I was a number of years ago. (The "moral dualism" that the Dougs attribute to him and Mack himself even seems to embrace is the main bone of contention.) That's not to diminish the importance of what he has done.

Could an ARI-operated journal just maybe have a "naked partisan agenda"?

If it did, I couldn't see myself being involved in it.

Even if it did, it wouldn't excuse yours, Dr. Campbell.

Besides, when you made your remark about the Sokal hoax (with which I'm quite familiar--in fact, I've read Sokal and Bricmont's book about abuses of modern physics by pomos who wouldn't know Tevs from leptons, and recommended it to others), you crossed the line.

For if you honestly believe that JARS would be taken in by a Sokalian hoax, you must think that Chris Matthew Sciabarra doesn't know dialectics from randomly assembled tufts of decon, pomo, post-structuralist, and post-Heideggerian jargon. You must also think that Dr. Sciabarra is such a comlete dope that he wouldn't ask a physicist to review a submitted manuscript that pertained to physics.

Okay, I may have crossed the line on that one. I have too much respect for Chris Sciabarra for that. Unfortunately, I can't say the same for Campbell. No fucking way he'd conduct himself around here the way that Campbell has been.

(Chris, who comports himself more reasonably and dignified than Campbell has been around here, has his own context and I wouldn't pretend to guess at the reasons for why he would continue to keep Campbell on as editor. I'll just leave it at that.)

You might even find it necessary to atone for publishing in JARS yourself. Though in that event you'll need to find a new suit of sackcloth. I fear that Andrew Bernstein's has too many tears, smudges, and rents to bear up under another penitential ritual.

Oh, brother. More of the same Campbell junk. I'm not going to be "atoning" for anything.

He's quite lovely ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... when he's angry, isn't he?!

Robert—I'm impressed. You should get mad more often. Feel dat dare Objectivist rage, man ...

Think carefully about what you wish for

Robert Campbell's picture

Mr. Cathcart,

Suppose that the Ayn Rand Institute started a journal--something that it easily has the financial wherewithal to do.  (JARS doesn't cost that much to operate.)

Frankly, I've said before and will say again that it would be a good thing for there to be another journal that focuses on Rand's ideas. 

But do you suppose for one minute that your regular debate partner, Dr. Bass, would be able to get published in a journal operated by affiliates of ARI, under the current regime?

Do you think, by the way, that Eric Mack would be welcome to publish there?

Have you even considered the possibility that your prior statements about the importance of Dr. Mack's work might be held against you?

Could an ARI-operated journal just maybe have a "naked partisan agenda"?

You can say whatever you damn well like about me.  But there are certain patterns in the conduct of the Ayn Rand Institute and its principals that you will need to come to terms with, whether you care to accept my judgments about them or not.

Normally, I refrain from quarreling in public with an author who has contributed to a journal that I edit.

But nothing's normal in Rand-land. 

The rest of the intellectual world rarely witnesses deliberate noncitation of those whom some guru has declared to be unpersons, or public exercises in doublethink and doubletalk whenever questions are asked about such practices, or calls to boycott journals that publish works by unscheduled authors who cite other unauthorized writers.

Besides, when you made your remark about the Sokal hoax (with which I'm quite familiar--in fact, I've read Sokal and Bricmont's book about abuses of modern physics by pomos who wouldn't know Tevs from leptons, and recommended it to others), you crossed the line.

For if you honestly believe that JARS would be taken in by a Sokalian hoax, you must think that Chris Matthew Sciabarra doesn't know dialectics from randomly assembled tufts of decon, pomo, post-structuralist, and post-Heideggerian jargon.  You must also think that Dr. Sciabarra is such a complete dope that he wouldn't ask a physicist to review a submitted manuscript that pertained to physics.

But if you honestly believe this--hell, if you dishonestly believe it, cause the implications are the same--why are you demanding that Dr. Sciabarra fire me?  Surely that couldn't satisfy you.  If I left tomorrow, he would still be calling the shots at JARS.  He would still be accepting articles by authors who say that Rand was "sectarian" and do manifold other things to offend your sensibilities.  And judging from your Sokal-hoax remarks, and your ready absorption of the lastest Perigoonian rhetoric about Brandroids, you would have to be at least equally dissatisfied with him.

The history of this board shows rather clearly that I am not a high-value target in Rand-land.  Dr. Sciabarra is. Agreeing with Mr. Weiss and Mr. Valliant and Mr. Perigo to the extent that you already are, how can you avoid concluding that Chris Matthew Sciabarra is irremediably ignorant of Rand's ideas, not to mention lower than a slime mold, and could only begin to redeem himself by shutting down JARS today, and publicly apologizing for his entire life work tomorrow?

You might even find it necessary to atone for publishing in JARS yourself.  Though in that event you'll need to find a new suit of sackcloth.  I fear that Andrew Bernstein's has too many tears, smudges, and rents to bear up under another penitential ritual.

Now, what does the cultural advancement of Ayn Rand's ideas require?

If it requires narrow-minded zealotry and blinkered philosophical ignorance, you have a model ready to hand in Fred Weiss.

If it requires pretensions to scholarship, combined with campaigns to personally discredit anyone who ever gave your book a negative review, you have models ready to hand in Jim Valliant and Casey Fahy.

If it requires a craving for servile followers, an endless supply of derogatory rhetoric, and gross disdain for any intellectual endeavor, you have a model ready to hand in Lindsay Perigo.

Unless... this might have become an occasion to heed Miss Rand's advice about checking your premises.

Robert Campbell

In keeping with the original

LWHALL's picture

point of this thread, it is plain Victor plagarized Diana's material and I believe he is about as contrite about it this time as he was the last time he got caught. His show of contriteness amounts to covering up his transgressions by lying about them or shifting the thrust of the issue in another direction as witnessed by his attempt at blaming Jame's calling him out about it on his caricature of Linz, as if this was some kind of bullshit excuse for his behavior.

L W

I think now is about the

Mike_M's picture

I think now is about the time, if it weren't already, for Chris to seriously consider tossing RC's ass from JARS.

While I'd love to laugh in Campbell's face if that happened, I doubt it will. See, both Sciabarra and Campbell like to invent conspiracy theories about ARI. Sciabarra has enough sense to do it privately, while Campbell seems very comfortable making a public ass of himself.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

hypocrite

Mike_M's picture

I seem to recall Campbell calling me irresponsible for judging JARS while having very little knowledge of its contents. Now, while having less knowledge of Binswanger's lecture than I had of JARS, he is crying plagiarism. So, in addition to liar and bigot, we can safely add hypocrite to a list of adjectives that accurately describe Campbell.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

More "Martian Evasion"

Fred Weiss's picture

"bad ideas backed by specioius arguments."

That is pretty bad, Campbell.

But not as bad as worthless arguments backed by nothing.

Or, as bad as someone who keeps repeating the same worthless arguments even after their worthlessness has been demonstrated to him.

I think now is about the

Chris Cathcart's picture

I think now is about the time, if it weren't already, for Chris to seriously consider tossing RC's ass from JARS. The naked partisan agenda, the wild-eyed conspiracies, etc., are just too much to stand for. Rand does not need "scholarship" done in her name like this, not with the importance of the cultural advancement of her ideas at stake. It pains me, it really does, to see this happening amongst the editorial staff of a journal I'd like to think I could continue to respect and do productive work with.

(Are you listening in, Chris?)

Campbell on the plagiarism issue

Chris Cathcart's picture

Robert Campbell writes:

[*blank out*]

Pross "admits" plagiarizing

Boaz the Boor's picture

Here is an update: early tonight I edited the article in question as I didn't want to leave up material that could be understood as intent to plagiarize Hsieh. I emphatically do not consider it as such, but since there was a problem, I prefered to change it rather than bicker. [Yaaaaawn!]

Earth to Martian Evaders

Boaz the Boor's picture

"IF...she has been plagiarized"????

Plagiarism

Robert Campbell's picture

In my humble opinion, Victor Pross is a talented caricaturist.  His skills as a philosopher, on the other hand, stand in major need of improvement.  He also needs to learn something about the ethics of written communication.

The evidence indicates to me that Mr. Pross did borrow extensively without attribution from Ms. Hsieh's blog entry directed at David Kelley.

A couple of contrasts seem relevant, however.

Mr. Pross has admitted the plagiarism, and deleted much of the plagiarized material that he had posted.  I think he's learned a lesson.

Leonard Peikoff, on the other hand, will most likely admit plagiarizing from Nathaniel Branden around the same time that  Harry Binswanger admits lifting without attribution from David Kelley: when hell freezes over.  I would like to hope that Tara Smith would admit her pointed noncitations of Dr. Branden a little sooner than that, but I have little basis for making such a prediction.

What's more, people who steal from Dr. Branden's essays on self-esteem, or his article on agnosticism, or from Dr. Kelley's book on perception, are putting their uninvited mitts on good ideas backed by serious arguments.  Whereas those who steal from Ms. Hsieh's recent blog entries denouncing the weekly "enemy of Objectivism" are helping themselves to bad ideas backed by specioius arguments.

Kind of like a student who gets an F for copying a paper that rated a D.

Robert Campbell

Surprise, Surprise

DianaHsieh's picture

Gee, I'm just so shocked. Victor wants me to write him privately: "If Hsieh feels she has been plagiarized in any manner, I request that she please contact me with the specific passages or specific complaints: artpross@hotmail.com."

Sheesh, the nerve! As if I'm going to engage that man in conversation of any sort after he so blatantly ripped off my essay.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Shame, Peter!

Daniel Walden's picture

Shame on you for asking for such a vulgar and outmoded concept as "proof." After all, everyone knows that nobody worth anything asks for that anymore. And I shall display my disapproval of you by walking away with my postmodern nose raised so high in the air that it winds up lodged in my ass Smiling

Arbitrary?

Peter Cresswell's picture

You're not saying that it would be, um, arbitrary are you? ;^)

Can you prove the Templars aren't involved?

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

Of Knight and Masons

Boaz the Boor's picture

My hypothesis was a respectible contribution to the chronicle of Campbellian conspiracies. As such, it had to remain faithful to the general themes, contours and stock characters of that respectible genre. Injecting it with historical exoticisms of the sort you're trying to peddle here would be inappropriate.

... or the Masons.

Marnee's picture

... or the Masons.

Any Knights?

Peter Cresswell's picture

Are you sure the Knights Templar aren't involved somewhere? You can't get a decent conspiracy theory going without them.

Cheers, Peter Cresswell

'NOT PC.'
**Setting Brushfires In People's Minds**

ORGANON ARCHITECTURE
**Integrating Architecture With Your Site**

Ha!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Well, the one part about Jekyll-and-Hyde personalities caught special attention. Only they weren't talking about you, Linz -- they were talking about Ayn Rand!

Well I'm glad they found such a worthy substitute! Smiling

You do like to witness train wrecks, dontcha Linz?

Chris Cathcart's picture

Well, the one part about Jekyll-and-Hyde personalities caught special attention. Only they weren't talking about you, Linz -- they were talking about Ayn Rand!

Chris ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I didn't click on that link. If there's anything I really ought to know about, please just copy & paste it here. Don't make me go there! Smiling

SOLO is the most fun, yes,

Chris Cathcart's picture

SOLO is the most fun, yes, and there's also HPO, which has plenty entertaining moments (though a number of lulls as well).

Format-wise, HPO is next to ideal. Anyone can post there (within very light auto-moderation limits, basically set up to block spam more than anything -- and an active intervention against a most egregious troll has happened only once in its 10 years), so theoretically, you could have both LP and MSK and all their associated bugs and goons both posting there at the same time. (Okay, perhaps it's not possible even in theory. Eye )

Hi LW (and Chris)

Kenny's picture

Just back from dinner. Chris's copy had me laughing too. It is sad, but not surprising, that Mr Pross is taken seriously by those who ought to know better. Plagiarism is despicable.

It was my first visit to OL in a while (see my earlier) comments. It seems that the quality is, in general, "this bad". It is, however, more "entertaining" than FRORD. FRORD is , as I have posted before, hust boring. SOLO is the only the Objectivist site for real debate - as the George Smith/Linz joust proves.

Linz

Chris Cathcart's picture

I know you're a glutton for punishment:

This was my first visit to O-Lying in yonks. I've frequently been told that but for SOLO & Linz they'd have nothing to talk about, but is it always *this* bad??!!

Well, since you asked . . .

You Don't Know the Half of It

DianaHsieh's picture

Boaz,

You don't know the half of it. My super-secret sources tell me that David Kelley is actually secretly in league with Leonard Peikoff to separate all the pseudo-Objectivists, Brandoids, and Rand-haters from genuine Objectivists.

Eye

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

Thanks, Dan! I'm glad it

Boaz the Boor's picture

Thanks, Dan! I'm glad it hit it's mark. What's amazing to me is that my own alternate-universe scenerio isn't that much of a leap from some of the things we've heard on this site, by people who make it their business to write about "standards of evidence."

Diana, I hope you realize that I've provided you and James and Victor with even more cover - by making your dastardly plot seem all the more implausible. But isn't that the REAL genius of it? I think I'm beginning to believe it myself, now.

Kenny, my intention was to stir Victor up

LWHALL's picture

and see what happened. As it was I thoroughly enjoyed the reaction.

Heck, I'm just laughing at the fact that Chris made a copy of the initial post before Victor did some of his editing magic.

L W

Credit due to LW Hall

Kenny's picture

Mr Hall linked to this thread on Pross's OL thread (page 3). Pross, characteristically, did not comment it and resorted to abusing Solo and Linz. What an odious little creep!

Only reason to visit OL

Kenny's picture

I agree Chris. She is cute and the only reason to visit OL.

Visiting OL is a surreal experience. Some of threads beggar belief. Some of them remind me of a bunch of schoolkids whining about their teacher or the kids in another form.

Kenny wrote: I followed

Chris Cathcart's picture

Kenny wrote:
I followed James' link and took a look at a few of the other threads on OL. There is a pretty young woamn called Angie who posts as "CNA". It appears, on another thread, that she is falling for the "charms" of Mr Pross. Someone should point out to her Mr Pross' outrageous plagiarism and rescue Angie from a dreadful fate.

Would be a shame, wouldn't it. I wouldn't worry too much, though; as long as she can think strong and straight, I think she'll figure him out soon enough.

Pross's article after yesterday's edit

Chris Cathcart's picture

All the following text is from Pross's post, as of late last night, just in case anyone wants to do a side-by-side comparison with Diana's article that James linked.

The Mind-Body Dichotomy in David Kelley’s philosophy.

After a careful read, I maintain my position that David Kelley has accepted—or at least proceeds from—the Mind-Body Dichotomy orientation. This is specifically so in regards to his focus on ethical questions, and especially so when it comes to moral evaluation. Kelley unmistakably sieves the Objectivist understanding through the distorting lens of the mind-body dichotomy, via his division between “motives” and “consequences”. His approach is that of a classic deontologist.

In this post, I will demonstrate very clearly why this is so.

First, Kelley states in Truth and Toleration [in regards to moral judgment] that “the particular form of evaluation concerned with what is volitional, with the realm of man-made facts” and then he elaborates thusly:

“Since the fundamental choice is whether to think or not, whether to use our capacity for reason, we must judge people by how they make this choice. In judging an action, therefore, we are concerned not only with its consequences, measured by the standard of life, but also with its source in the person's motives, as measured by the standard of rationality. The question is how to integrate these two factors into a single judgment. Philosophers have proposed various theories about the proper weight to assign consequences on the one hand and motives on the other. The Objectivist ethics, unfortunately, has yet to address this question at any depth. But it's clear that we cannot ignore either factor.”

This is where we find Kelley proceeding from a traditional philosophy perspective, as Utilitarians and Consequentialists maintain that the moral status of an action (i.e., whether the action is morally right or wrong) depends on the action's consequences. In any situation, the morally right thing to do is whatever it will have the best consequences. Take the Utilitarian philosopher John Stuart Mill's Greatest Happiness Principle: "actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness." Deontologists deny that what ultimately matters is an action's consequences. They claim that what matters with regard to whether an action is right or wrong is why the action was done.

There are, however, many varieties of deontological ethics (e.g., The 'Golden Rule' - "Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"). Immanuel Kant is the most influential deontologist. Rejecting consequentialism, he wrote: "A good will is good not because of what it effects or accomplishes." Even if by bad luck a good person never accomplishes anything much, the good will would like a jewel, still shine by its own light as something which has its full value in itself."

We can see that philosophers have long grappled with the question of how to integrate motives and consequences into a single judgment or else they simply “flip the coin” in preference for one side over the other. Kelley’s starting point, his whole approach, springs from this Utilitarian base. This being so, Kelley has set himself at variance with Objectivism. “Whether an idea is true or false, and whether it is good or bad, are related issues,” Kelley writes. “But they are distinct, and the issue of truth is primary.

Bam, right there--by conceding the premise of the “motives versus consequences” standard, as seen in the quote above, Kelley accepts the core split between mind and body.

In Kelley’s ethics, the mental (the cognitive) and the physical (consequences) of human action are treated as fundamentally detached and distinctive parts, assigning each its own standard of judgment: the standard of rationality for motives and the standard of life for consequences.

In Kelley’s system, the mental and the physical have been juxtaposed, but not integrated. “If ideas cannot be judged morally in terms of their causes and effects,” Peikoff asks, “why and how can a man’s actions---his bodily movements—be judged morally?” David Kelley has never answered that question and, I hasten to add, neither have his Utilitarian friends.

OBJECTIVISM: FULL INTEGRATION.

Any serious student of Ayn Rand’s philosophy knows that Rand rejected the mind-body dichotomy out-right. This permitted her to bypass the traditional “motives and versus consequences” quagmire. And yet Kelley states that Objectivism is “yet to address this question.” Ayn Rand swept aside all the mind-body dichotomy questions that Kelley wishes to resuscitate--because they are false from the outset. The thorough integration of mind and body in Ayn Rand’s philosophy has closed the gaps that were false in the first place—false metaphysically.

For Objectivism, justice requires the moral evaluation of a person “for what he is”---as man is being of “self-made soul.” A man of self-made soul is what a man has made of himself--in thought and action.

“Man is an indivisible entity, an integrated unit of two attributes: of matter and consciousness, and that he may permit no breach between body and mind, between action and thought, between his life and his convictions.” [Man is an indivisible entity—and no breach is to be made of “motives and consequences” as well.]

The mental action leads, and the body follows. This position does not entail the straw man argument that ideas are “agents in the world” whatever the hell that is suppose to mean. As an indivisible sum, it means that a man’s actions derive from his mental state--his ideas, his methodology, his philosophy, the content of his mind, and the manner in which he holds that content, the ideas, determine what a man IS—and this drives his actions. By dividing motives from consequences, aside from his lapse into traditional philosophy, Kelley presents a person’s thinking as having only a vague relationship to the results of his actions.

In Fact and Value, Peikoff wrote:

“There is only one basic issue in philosophy and in all judgment, cognitive and evaluation alike: does a man conform to reality or not? Whether an idea is true or false is one aspect of this question---which immediately implies the other aspects: the relationship to reality of the mental processes involved and of the actions that will result.”

The above, I submit, is a complete understanding of mind-body integration—as is the totality of Fact and Value.

Do you remember the scene in Atlas where Francisco is explaining to Rearden the moral significance of a steel mill:

"If you want to see an abstract principle, such as moral action, in material form--there it is. Every girder of it, every pipe, wire and valve was put there by choice in answer to the question: right or wrong."

Concluding on this above quote from Atlas Shrugged: “Justice,” writes Ayn Rand, “is the recognition of the fact that you cannot fake the character of men as you cannot fake the character of nature, that you must judge all men as conscientiously as you judge inanimate objects, with the same respect for truth, with the same incorruptible vision, by as pure and as rational a process of identification--that every man must be judged for what he is and treated accordingly…”

********

This post has been edited by Victor Pross: Today, 06:29 PM

Damsel on OL needs rescuing

Kenny's picture

I followed James' link and took a look at a few of the other threads on OL. There is a pretty young woamn called Angie who posts as "CNA". It appears, on another thread, that she is falling for the "charms" of Mr Pross. Someone should post about Mr Pross' outrageous plagiarism and rescue Angie from a dreadful fate.

Well, evidently he didn't

Chris Cathcart's picture

Well, evidently he didn't edit it enough to erase the examples already cited here. (Some time late last night, I did have to do a copy and paste of the article so that we could have at least something to identify as the article as-of-yesterday, as opposed to some potential ever-changing non-entity slithering away from objective commentary, should someone challenge what's been said here about the article. [Not that the real conspiracy nuts won't be deterred -- that the copy-and-paste version as of yesterday is some kind of fabrication.])

Victor pretends that Linz's characterization of MSK as "lowest of the low" was Linz's characterization of his cartoon.

I'm figuring it's just part of his meltdown -- a newfound inability to even get simple facts like this straight.

Victor again

eg's picture

Victor admits he has edited his post to get rid of anything that might be considered plagiarism.

Boaz

Dan Edge's picture

That was so f'n funny, I can't tell you.  The "Huzzah!" at the end takes the cake.  I'm cryin'. 

--Dan Edge

Our Dastardly Plot

DianaHsieh's picture

Boaz, clever man, you have found us out! Smiling

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

And ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

This was my first visit to O-Lying in yonks. I've frequently been told that but for SOLO & Linz they'd have nothing to talk about, but is it always *this* bad??!!

Oh my God!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I've just looked at the caricature, which was funny enough. What was not funny was the tissue of lies told about me by Michael Kelly in one of the posts by O-Liars splitting their sides over the caricature. That creature is lower than the lowest of the low. Others here have called him a "skunk" & a "cane toad," but that's a monstrous injustice to skunks & cane toads. His slanderous spewings are about three quarters lies and one quarter half-truths. For a true account of the events about which the O-Liar-in-Chief is lying his putrid ass off, read This Boy's Not For Turning which I wrote at the time. If folk think I need to say more than this in rebuttal of this disgusting reptile's appalling smears, just ask me any questions you think are unanswered. I'd hate to have to spend time on this, but I'd also hate to think anyone would bestow an ounce of credence on his filth.

Linz

BTW, how does the caricature

Boaz the Boor's picture

BTW, how does the caricature rendering of Linz fit into this whole scenario? It's the caricature that's getting everyone here riled up, after all. (Oops, was I not supposed to say that?)

Chris, I'm disappointed in you. It's perfectly obvious how that caricature fits in: it provides him with even more cover. Like Snape and Dumbledore.

Victor

eg's picture

Victor is a scary guy. I'm glad he has a place to roost that is elsewhere.

--Brant

Scratch "Objectivist Lying."

Mike_M's picture

Scratch "Objectivist Lying." Replace with "Objectivist Losers." One OLer spends his time making up stories of plagiarism for... no reason other than a grudge, far as I can tell. Another OLer spends his time scouring the internet to find out how many copies a book has sold for... no reason other than a grudge, far as I can tell. A third spends his time plagiarizing, and when not doing this he is busy making cartoons about... a person he holds a grudge against.

I'm glad the OLers are spending their time being productive and defending the good [said haughtily], rather then wasting their time talking about how much they hate Linz. Oh, uh... oops.

Here's that quote again, Chris.

- Mike

"Observe that we are tolerant, but only of honesty, not of evasion." - Ayn Rand

Hey, I like that theory

Chris Cathcart's picture

Boaz write:

Which brings us to Victor. Why would Victor, of all people, plagiarize Diana on OL (of all places!)? I just don't buy it. Here's what happened: Linz knew all along that Campbell was preparing to thwart the forces of ARIanism by coming here and making all sorts of ugly accusations. So he hatched a plan: (i) stage a fight with Victor Pross, (ii) inject him into OL, (iii) have him copy some of Diana's notes onto an essay there, (iv) make Campbell and company look really bad by showing them what plagiarism actually consists of.

Huzzah!!!!

Hey, all the more reason for OL to boot Pross the SOLO/ARI Mole, right?

BTW, how does the caricature rendering of Linz fit into this whole scenario? It's the caricature that's getting everyone here riled up, after all. (Oops, was I not supposed to say that?) As Victor the Mole says, in the text underneath his drawing, "I'm so going to hell for this."

Victor

eg's picture

Victor edited his post at 6:29PM today.

--Brant

Pross's caricature

Chris Cathcart's picture

Pross is now in the process of deflecting, by saying the latest expose of his fraud has something to do with his "caricature rendering." Curious as to what this might be referring to, I located it on the OL site.

LOL. What's pathetic, though, is the (yet another) new conspiracy theory being floated -- that James Valliant's exposure of the fraud was his way of coming to the defense of poor defenseless Linz, from whatever threat was being posed by the caricature drawing.

(Caricature, indeed! Eye )

Addendum:
It bears repeating, Pross can deflect and deflect all he likes, but the reason that his ass ended up on OL to begin with was because of plagiarism here. Indeed, by this point, Pross could "try to defend himself" but he's established a pattern of behavior such that he couldn't be believed anyway. So, yeah, his "best" option left is not to address the evidence. Who'd like to bet that any "defense" that he'd offer would only dig himself in deeper anyway?

I consider myself a most patient and tolerant guy, and I don't slam anyone and everyone involved in OL however mistaken they might be. But -- say, where's that quote from Rand's letter to John Hospers, again? -- one thing I'm not tolerant of is unrepentent evasion. Pross has exhausted the benefit of the doubt by this time, and to top it off he's apparently got some kind of creepy thing about Diana, too. Is OL sure it wants this character around?

Context Keeping

Boaz the Boor's picture

Well, let's see if we can unravel the internal relations. Observe that James originated this thread, and that Diana only stepped in after letting others have a first wack at Victor. So there's clearly something afoot.

According to Campbell, James and Diana aren't quite finished converting to "ARInism" (they're still at the stage where they're only being used as schismatic pawns), they haven't earned enough credit with the church of Rand, so they've been asked (by Greg Salmieri) to continue their frenzied moralizing for a little while longer (or in perpetuity, depending on the triad).

Unfortunately for these two novices of the ARIan Order, Campbell has been undoing much of their work of late by exposing LP and Binswanger as plagiarists. Oh, dear. This is a really big problem for ARI.

So what happens next? James calls Diana. Diana calls Chris. Chris calls the other guy. Casey's having login problems, so he's been doing all the grunt research work and handling backstage communications.

Which brings us to Victor. Why would Victor, of all people, plagiarize Diana on OL (of all places!)? I just don't buy it. Here's what happened: Linz knew all along that Campbell was preparing to thwart the forces of ARIanism by coming here and making all sorts of ugly accusations. So he hatched a plan: (i) stage a fight with Victor Pross, (ii) inject him into OL, (iii) have him copy some of Diana's notes onto an essay there, (iv) make Campbell and company look really bad by showing them what plagiarism actually consists of.

Huzzah!!!!

"Freaky" isn't quite the right word

Chris Cathcart's picture

Diana wrote:
Obviously, he's not willing to abide by that request. I didn't think he would, but I never imagined that he'd plagiarize me! That's just too freaky.

"Creepy" is more like it. The guy apparently has some kind of fixation on Diana and/or what she thinks of him.

The grammar police are getting restless...

Chris Cathcart's picture

Diana wrote:

Pathetically, I suspect that he's just seeking attention from me...

I don't see what's so pathetic about your suspecting this.
Eye

Linz said...

DianaHsieh's picture

"I'm amazed to think that he might try this on again so soon after being booted off here for it."

Pathetically, I suspect that he's just seeking attention from me -- of whatever sort. (Plus, it's not like he'll get booted off OL for it!) After his prior plagiarism was revealed, he wrote a big open letter justifying himself to me in particular -- even though my only comment on the matter was "Plagiarism is a serious breach of honesty. (I'm still all boggled over the recent incident.)"

So let me just say here what I told Victor in private e-mail at the time. (I only wrote him because he was pestering me for some reply to his letter..)

    You [i.e. Victor] did something wrong -- not irredeemably wrong, but wrong nonetheless. I was right to be disturbed by it. Nothing that you said in your open letter changes that. I've been even more disturbed by your response to my concerns over your actions. Instead of fully and openly owning up to your wrong, you've (1) made lame and irrelevant excuses for yourself, (2) blamed others and insulted me, and (3) showed by your comments on OL that your opinions are based upon the desire to please others rather than any first-handed judgment of the facts.

    The first two are bad enough, but the last makes you of absolutely zero interest to me. I can't deal with people who aren't living in reality -- and I won't attempt to do so. To say anything about the particular details of your particular irrelevant excuses in your open letter would be a total waste of my time.

    In light of the fact that we barely interacted before my few mild comments upon your plagiarism, I'm completely baffled by your determination to get some kind of response from me. You have no standing to demand anything from me. Even this letter is beyond what our past interactions warrant.

    I hope that you become a better person someday. In the meantime, please leave me alone.

Obviously, he's not willing to abide by that request. I didn't think he would, but I never imagined that he'd plagiarize me! That's just too freaky.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

The question now is, is

Chris Cathcart's picture

The question now is, is Robert Campbell going to step up and make it known on OL that this plagiarism is at least as obvious as Binswanger's plagiarism of David Kelley, or Peikoff's of Branden, or Tara Smith's of (Branden, I guess)?

He has, after all, been applauded over on OL for taking a stand against all the meanies here on the "plagiarism" issue.

Addendum:
I did just a bit of comparison of the two. Oh, jeez. Another example:

Diana Hsieh:
"Ayn Rand's rejection of the mind-body dichotomy allows her to bypass the traditional debates about motives versus consequences in moral judgment. It's not that Objectivism has "yet to address this question," as Kelley claims (T&T 9)."

Victor Pross:
"Any serious student of Ayn Rand’s philosophy knows that Rand rejected the mind-body dichotomy out-right. This permitted her to bypass the traditional “motives and versus consequences” quagmire. And yet Kelley states that Objectivism is “yet to address this question.”"

Oh, jeez.

Wasn't Mr. Pross driven from

Thomas Lee's picture

Wasn't Mr. Pross driven from SOLO after charges of plagarism? It seems old habits die hard:

 

Diana Hsieh: "In that case, the mental and physical aspects of human action are juxtaposed but not integrated."

Mr. Pross: "In Kelley’s system, the mental and the physical have been juxtaposed, but not integrated."

An open and shut case.

Pross the Plagiarist

Lindsay Perigo's picture

I'm amazed to think that he might try this on again so soon after being booted off here for it.

Linz

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.