I just held my nose & went over to O-Lying to see for myself whether what was being reported to me was true. I expected to feel waves of nausea, but in the event I'm much obliged to the estimable folk there for the best belly-laughs I've had since Shayne Wissler made an attempt to be polite.

Talking of Shayne, I see he has gone there, and is already announcing that everyone has it wrong except him. Sounds moderately familiar. I see Brant there, too—must have overcome his qualms about the host being the King of Evil, or whatever it was, in the interests of his compulsive stalking of Barbara. I do hope he proposes to her soon (& that she accepts) & puts us all out of our misery. I say that in a caring way.

If you think those two take the flake cake, that's a mistake, Jake. The host himself takes out that prize, touting himself as an "intellectual" at the lonely forefront of those seeking to persuade "moderate" Muslims that Objectivists are really moderate Muslims too (again, sounds moderately familiar). That one nearly split my abdomen. Then there's the usual SOLO- & Linz-bashing spearheaded by the very peculiar Mr. Engels, a Unitarian.

Of course, we musn't forget She To Whom All Brandroids Genuflect. Her Imperious Majesty has just distinguished herself with the strawiest straw man of her rage-ridden "Lepers of Objectivism" thread, a claim that the ARI advocates the killing of environmentalists. Unfortunately, the ARI doesn't. SOLO, of course does. Environmentalists, vegetarians, and Amish.

Since I last posted, Yaron Brook gave me the go-ahead to paraphrase his reply to me re what he was quoted as saying at UCLA. I've no intention of doing so for the edification of the clamorous kooks in whose douche-squirtings I've just been dousing myself. That would be a waste of Yaron's wisdom and my time.

Linz

If there was "nothing yet on the table to be 'evaded'", then you don't find it odd that Linz went to the trouble to contact Brook about it. Sounds to me like someone wants to have their cake and eat it too.

L W

I'll try one last time.

If you (or anyone else) had reported this in the form that Ms. B did, it would still be obvious that important context was missing from your account.

Adding Ms. B. as the teller only confirms this suspicion -- as to both method and motive. No, she is not a credible source when it comes to accusations against ARI. Both she and someone like Robert Campbell, for example, wear their prejudices on their sleeves.

There is nothing yet on the table to be "evaded." The accusation -- like your own -- is irresponsible.

How did you come to the conclusion that the quoted statements which were attributed to Brook were in fact not credible, unless you first dismissed them out of hand because they came from BB?

I said the way the question was evaded was chicken shit, if you want to extend that to mean Linz and Yaron are chicken shit overall then that's on you not me, sport.

L W

Who on earth believes that "everything" Ms. B. says is a lie? I've never met this straw-man, and, fortunately, this is never the test for a lack of credibility.

Until a credible accusation is formulated, there is nothing to "answer." Demanding a "yes" or "no" is to accept the premise that there is something to answer. When context has obviously, and quite intentionally, been suppressed by the accusers, it is unnecessary.

(And, before BB starts accusing me of being a Nazi or something, forgive my error in the first post below titled "LW," where the first sentence should end "an answer," rather "no answer.")

I am no more in the crowd who believes everything Barbara Branden says is a lie than I am in the one who believes ARI is motivated to kill babies.

For those who read my post on OL, you will know that I stated there was a need for coroboration on what BB posted, but at the same time I really saw and still do not see any reason to believe it is false.

I was disappointed that Yaron Brooks did not allow Linz to at least say "true or false". I am well aware that Brooks is under no obligation to answer, but I can see no way it would have harmed him to do so in this instance. He either said it or he didn't, and if he did not then a very short reply as to the context should not have been asking to much.

As far as asking him in person, I would have no problem with it if i were ever in the position to do so, however at this time I am not.

L W

I'll take that as a "yes."

> Is that your way of saying that Ms. B. is issuing irresponsible public denunciations..?
> how many paragraphs [will] Phil..take to say yes (or no)?

Jim and Robert, it's my way of saying exactly what I said in exactly the form and at exactly the length I said it... (Every sentence matters if you take the time to read it carefully.)

...And of addressing *my* topics not yours.

Changed my mind on what I was going to say

L W

Jesus LW, get off your tower. Linz asked him an unsolicited question, and Brook replied by saying "I'll answer you, but leave me out of it." Brook obviously has no desire to be dragged into an internet flame war. And DERR he was exactly right to do so, because you and Shayne immediately called him a chicken shit, and probably would have said something worse if he had allowed Linz to make his answer public.

How many people who think Brook is the devil (LW? Shayne?) have had the stones to go to one of his speaking events and challenged him? Hmmm? Here is a list of a few upcoming events. Tell us how it goes. And where are the letters to TOS? Are they not publishing them, or are you not writing them? Time to man up and stop hiding on internet forums.

- Mike

How many fraudulent allegations against her many perceived foes do we need to record before you stop believing that Ms. B.'s bizarre tirades need no answer? The accusation itself -- as usual for Ms. B. -- obviously lacks the relevant context needed to even form an initial judgment. Or, is it the case that you, too, take evil motives on ARI's part as a given?

He's threatened to excommunicate me first! I just discovered that I'd been mentioned in a positive light on OL. MSK agrees with me!

I'm aghast! How could I let this happen?

I realise now that you were entirely correct and I apologise totally and utterly. I was completely mistaken.

Nuke Tehran - Twice!

Just please, please don't excommunicate me. My ego could never recover from the severing of the neural uplink to SOLO and the ARI.

By the way, I can highly recommend Cooper's Ale with lunch. Hic!

... on how many paragraphs Phil will take to say yes (or no)?

Is that your way of saying that Ms. B. is issuing irresponsible public denunciations... again?

LW Hall, your pouting would have more effect if in your opening comments on this thread you hadn't called Linz's & Yaron's actions (and by extension Linz and Yaron themselves) chicken-shit.

Go dry your eyes you blouse!

I think the focus on a couple one-line quotes is misplaced. People don't retain full contexts in conversation or in oral presentations with a time limit. It's possible for someone to drop a qualification and it's possible for speakers to "pop off" saying something rash or ill-considered or in anger at an opponent (for example, standing around in a q&a or a post-lecture conversation) they wouldn't *literally* adhere to ... and even do these things in the main formal oral presentation itself -- which is not written out or read from verbatim. What you "hold" people -- whether enemies or friends, whether people you have great respect for or do not -- to is **formal, written essays**, which have (hopefully) gone through several drafts and been checked for wording, implications, etc. Even certain written forms (emails between friends in wihch one blows off steam, vents rage, etc.) are less a testament to one's formal, developed position...I remember when Diana H. combed thru two years worth of Chris S's emails looking for anything emotionalist, rash, misstated or insulting.)

While I think one has to be very careful if one is acting as a spokesman or advocate for Objectivism, nonetheless you wouldn't want others to hang you for any rash statement you made or context you failed to make fully clear. I wouldn't waste time trying to track down exactly what Yaron Brook said on a particular day at a particular college or whether it was in the lecture itself or in informal conversation afterwards. I am behind in reading the Objective Standard, which has lots of long articles, and I've only glanced at Brook and Epstein's article on war and fighting terrorism. But I *would* suggest one focus on formal positions taken in essays like this in toto. Assuming one wants to be a critic of someone's application of Objectivism. And one should bend over backwards to be fair in regard to how to interpret anything unqualified or unclear.

Better yet, I think more worthwhile, more lasting Oist discussions on websites like this would be of the "positive": What exact combination of military strategy / intellectual strategy / economic strategy / diplomatic stategy / intelligence will WIN the war on terrorism?

It's good that Solo has had some threads on the latter...they are of greater interest, at least potentially.

Hi Linz,
Could you please be sure to excommunicate Jason Q. for his dissenting, not-liking comments about Dr. Brook? This is the Executive Director of the AYN RAND Institute after all, and at this crucial time in history, where we should be shoring up solidarity, we could do without this dissent. Whatever it is that Dr. Brook said, I'm sure we could mount an adequate defense for it. And by moving to excommunicate Jason, we'll be making a statement for all the Babs Brandens to take note of, that we're not going to let them hijack the moral highground.

(Please note that this communication is for your eyes only. I want to see the details of the excommunication hashed out and the message down right before we take this matter public to SOLO. Thanks. Hey, good move on silencing Robert Campbell, BTW.)

Chris

LW nailed it. This site has certainly hit a new low point.

My understanding was that the name "Solo" was originally coined as a reference to independence. Now the leader is reduced to humbly asking Yaron to clarify some outrageous things he allegedly said and meekly acquiescing when he gets shooed away with little more than a bone to chew on, and the only people to come to his defense are little bed-wetting kiddies. One of whom doesn't even realize that the "defense" he's toting contains even more evidence that what Yaron's been saying is a rabid distortion of Objectivism.

Even without hearing the original comments, it is obvious that this "controversy" is a question of context-dropping by Ms. Branden and/or her friend.

If the question is police policy in New York City, then, obviously, advocacy or belief should NEVER be the cause of state-initiated force. If, however, we are talking about the death of so-called "innocents" in war, then the answer is just as clear. I for one believe that ideological supporters of a regime with which we are properly at war are legitimate targets -- and, until now at least, this has been the venerable policy of America at war. The people Brook describes are certainly not "innocent victims" of our war.

In any event, a public response to Ms. Branden on this point is not only unnecessary -- given her well-established lack of credibility and relentlessly raging hatreds -- it would inappropriately suggest that she had any credibility in the first place.

As I say -- without having heard the comments in their full context -- but knowing Ms. B.'s approach as well as I do -- this is very likely just another incarnation of our bias-twisted historian's psycho-epistemology.

What is comical is the fact that you give such weight to anonymous sources. Aren't you a person on Solo? If you give weight to this source then ask yourself.

Wm

This is about the kind of replies I expected. Run other people down, but don't touch the sacred cow(ARI), their off limits.

If it had been people on Solo wanting a reply to a quote and this kind of answer was given, a lot of you people would have been all over it.

As I said before, truly comical.

L W

If you're such a hard-arse, and have a burning desire to find about about this, why don't you get off your fat arse and ask Yaron himself?

LWHALL, if I were to ask "when did you stop beating your wife?" would it dignify a response?

Wm

What a chicken shit way of evading the question. He either said what was quoted or he didn't. How the fuck is his answering yes or no going to afford any stature to BB?

For a site that prides itself on Kass, this turns out be comical.

L W

"...nuke-happy, mouth-foaming crazies who salivate at the thought of inflicting mass death"

"And Victor, you are welcome to draw as many ugly caricatures as you'd like of me"

... is here, in my first post:

I strongly suspect that Yaron has been quoted incompletely. Let's see.

That's exactly the case.

As I say, I wish Yaron would let me quote his reply to me in full. I've told him so. Problem is, he knows Barbara's agenda is to paint the ARI as bug-eyed, nuke-happy, mouth-foaming crazies who salivate at the thought of inflicting mass death. He doesn't wish to accord her the dignity of taking her seriously.

Linz

I don't like Yaron Brook or his war philosophy but when I saw this the other day I knew immediately that it was probably nonsense. It struck me as a situation where someone excited by hearing damning information about their enemies broad casted it in public without getting enough information to properly verify whether or not it was true. This is the kind of thing that goes on quite often at objectivistliving.com. There has never been much respect for the facts or truth among that group.

Their attacks are almost always based upon hearsay or gossip. While I have always thought that some of the attacks from the SOLO end directed at certain people have been pointless and unnecessary, the people over here at least make it a point to tell the truth and back up what they say with real verifiable facts. Over on objectivistliving insinuation and even outright lies are readily supported when they are directed at the supposed "bad guys".

- Jason

(And Victor, you are welcome to draw as many ugly caricatures as you'd like of me, but I would ask that you don't put me in drawings that insinuate a positive connection between myself and the ARI war philosophy.)

So we have one person relating a story told to her by an unnamed eye-witness. This is hear-say evidence and it should be dismissed from the court of your mind as it would be in a court of law.

Yaron Brook has replied to my query with a lengthy account of what he remembers having said and the all-important context in which he said it. But he's very explicit that it's for my eyes only—he asks that I not quote him in this context since to do so would grant the premise that the Barbaras of this world are open to rational argument and proceed in good faith. I certainly would like to quote him, and don't agree that to do so would grant such a premise, but I must honour his request. I will say, though, that it's clear from his comments that he doesn't support the gratuitous killing of anyone, even in war.

He concludes with this challenge that I'm sure he won't mind my quoting:

I encourage all those who disagree with me to come to these events and challenge me.

"These events" being the OCON/Ford Hall Forum occasions advertised above.

Linz

I see from the links posted by Mike that the UCLA event in question is not the one I'm thinking of. Perhaps there does exist a recording of this event, but I don't know that.

This correction aside, the rest of my post still stands.

If one cannot verify what was said by a certain speaker at a certain event, and such appears to be in contradiction with their views on record--which for certain the second of the statements about wearing a UBL t-shirt is--then a rational, honest person must assume that the contradictory second-hand, unverifiable "quote" is innacurate.

Neither rationality nor honesty can be consistently expected from Barbara Branden, however, as has been demonstrated amply for quite some time now. She's a sad, sad joke of a person throwing stones at those she knows to be her betters--such as ARI's Yaron Brook.

If the talk was recent and at UCLA, then if I'm right it must have been the panel discussion with Daniel Pipes concerning the Danish Cartoons.

A complete video presentation of the event was (and may still be, I haven't checked lately) openly available on ARI's website. So rather than the frankly silly BB method of asking a person three times if they're sure to "verify" an accurate quote, she and others could have (and maybe still can) quite easily log on and view it for herself.

If it's not available to see online still, a DVD or audio CD is available of the event. I watched it and I do not believe these quotes are accurate.

The idea that BB would make such a big deal over alleged statements heard second-hand in this way and post what she did is par for the course for this immoral and deranged . . . person. This is how smears work, of course. Better that she and her mentally challenged supporters first check out the comments firsthand given that it's possible to do so, and then if they find it to be accurate, then ok let's talk about  it.

But I don't expect that kind of honesty from such loons anyway.

Linz,

Here are two news items discussing the lecture. Neither make any mention of these statements. I'd think those statements would be newsworthy.

one

two

- Mike

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