You were right.

"The Branden Society."

I have my fingers crossed. But I'm expecting TAS to cave in. How can they not? Inviting Linz may hurt their bottom line.

Well, it is certainly a positive sign that Mr. Bidinotto is willing to admit his own past incivility -- and that serious incivility exists at OL, as he describes it, the "personal insults, the obscene language, the gratuitous psychologizing, the He-threw-the-first-punch finger-pointing" -- where, it should be remembered, this was posted.

I wouldn't accuse TAS of "cowardly capitulation" if it would clearly take a side -- that sort of thing would be seen, however, in an evasive effort to avoid any decision.

To boldly dis-invite Linz now would not be "cowardly," at all -- in the long run, it would be suicidal. TAS might just as well then rename itself (again) "TBS." At the end of the day, it is simply a losing proposition to have an Objectivist organization standing so fiercely against Ayn Rand herself.

But "cowardly"? Anything but -- and this starting to look like a real olive branch.

Bidinotto's right in many ways.

Robert Bidinotto chimes in on Objectivist Living with a finger-wagging for the crew:

While the recent posts on this thread have strayed -- mercifully -- off-topic, there is a lot posted earlier, and on a related thread, that prompts me to break my silence.

Let me emphasize that this is my personal viewpoint, and it should not be taken as representing the views of my employer or anyone other than myself.

I am saddened and depressed by what is transpiring on this site and elsewhere concerning the matter of the TAS Summer Seminar speaking invitation to Lindsay Perigo.

It didn't have to come to this, and frankly, participants on all sides of these contentious issues are deliberately making any positive resolution impossible -- by pouring more gasoline on the fire and then finding "moral" reasons to rationalize their gleeful pyromania. If there is a market for civility, it is not easy to find on many online Objectivist discussion groups -- and sadly, that observation is not meant to apply exclusively to the SOLO-Passion site.

Let me admit that my own past record on this score has hardly been unblemished; but -- seeing too clearly the dead end of this acrimony -- I have been trying to set a better example more recently, in the interests of better promoting the philosophy that we all claim to value.

However, the continuing competition in vituperative, intramural one-upsmanship is putting Ed Hudgins (and TAS) in an impossible position, when his only aim all along was to heal wounds within the Objectivist movement by encouraging greater civility. Put yourself in his shoes: At this point, any decision he makes, either to affirm or rescind that invitation, will merely be seized upon by partisans to score points and to smugly assert their sanctimonious I-told-you-sos. Any decision he renders will be damned by one side as a "cowardly capitulation" to the other side -- and all of you know it. I could write all the talking points for both sides in advance. Even five seconds of reflection will tell you that this double-bind interpretation of Ed's motives is illogical and completely unjust.

Since I realize that all the combatants on all the competing websites furtively follow all the threads devoted to this food fight, let me address you collectively:

Can any of you honestly imagine a Howard Roark sinking to this sort of mud-wrestling?

Could you imagine his posts on any of these threads?

Then, ask yourself why.

So please stop rationalizing the all personal insults, the obscene language, the gratuitous psychologizing, the He-threw-the-first-punch finger-pointing. This behavior is undignified and unseemly, and nobody involved seems to realize that it is only providing Objectivism's real enemies with an abundance of footnotes.
[from OL thread "The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar"]

WSS

Chris Cathcart asks, "Is he hostile? Friendly? Asshole? Opinionated? Satirist? Nutter?"

Hostile to sluggish and sloppy thinking, in my heart, yes. Friendly enough to have friends in the real and online worlds, yes. Asshole enough to say things that surprise, shock and offend, yes. Opinionated, yes. Satirist, no . . . my comic excursions are more spoofs and cartoons than satire.

Nutter? Of course. Or so it is convenient for some to think.

Speaking of assholes, don't you miss Fred Weiss? What is he up to, list-wise, since he refused to pony up a photo and departed these environs?

WSS

http://www.politicsforum.org/images/flame_warriors/flame_45.php

Everything's a non-sequitur with him. Is he hostile? Friendly? Asshole? Opinionated? Satirist? Nutter?

Scherk is whatever Scherk is. What that is, I haven't the faintest.

I have a plausible hypothesis: he models his online persona after a David Lynch film, and leaves it up to your interpretation.

I saw a couple of posts by La Scherkette, from memory on one of the scientology nutter's threads, which were outstanding in their clarity and perspicacity. I tried to make contact to congratulate him in the hope this would encourage more of the same, but immediately encountered the flake/freak we're all familiar with, so didn't pursue the matter. It's rather like chatting to an Alzheimer's patient on a lucid day. It gives you hope—which is then dashed at the next conversation. I fear Scherk has no intention of raising himself from schism-junkie, muck-wader and pot-stirrer status, which is a shame, given his ability. Of course, I say this partly as a challenge to him to prove me wrong. But as it is, he's a mere MSK with a brain.

"Schism-junkie." Never heard that one before.

Then is that a "yes," Mr. Scherk?

Whatever next comes up is fine... can't wait!

I'm not pissed off at all.

And, it's very enlightening, indeed, but I believe that a refusal to be civil reveals bad faith. You always give civility a chance.

But, you're right, it can be most illuminating.

Note to Linz: he has no intention of ever being civil with anyone here. Does he belong here if his sole aim is pollution? In the name of civility, Ed Hudgins' cause, what's appropriate at this point?

Well, I don't champion Ed Hudgins' cause, which is indiscriminate, unconditional civility. I've no objection to name-calling, if it can be substantiated. In fact, in such instances, name-calling is desirable. I note Mr. Bidinotto recently called someone a "scumbag." It was someone in the Ron Paul camp, I believe, so I assume it was justified, but I wonder how Ed Hudgins squares it with his own admonitions.

Me, I'm with Bidinotto. Call a scumbag a scumbag, or, as I said to Hudgins, a stinker a stinker. Justice is a virtue at all times; civility only when it is an extension of justice.

My problem with Scherk is not incivility; it's the bad faith behind it. He is simply, as I've already said, a schism-junkie who gets his jollies off on all the internecine stuff and trying to stir it up. That's grounds for booting, for sure, but I'm not ready to do it just yet. The more he posts the more he reveals. I'm finding it all, selfishly, enlightening. So, for now anyway, if he's off-pissing you, just ignore him.

And he gives me the impetus to point out the following: that the expression, being one's own worst enemy, refers usually to inadvertent, good-faith shoot-oneself-in-the-foot behaviour. That's certainly the sense in which my topic subject, "Objectivism's Worst Enemy: Objectivists" is meant. I was never intending a diatribe against individuals I dislike. Only have an hour, after all.

Linz

Scherk writes:

"JSV: I know that he's capable of a friendly reply over at OL, so one can only conclude that he has no interest in civil discourse -- at least, not at SOLO. (Emperor Linz, please take note.)
"Yow. A friendly reply to whom?"

Then, are there no civil, no "friendly" comments, anywhere, that he would credit himself with at least?

I revisit James Valliant's comments in light of Lindsay's precision:

JSV: How 'bout you and I start right now -- no more name-calling or ridicule? Deal?

Emperor: I fear Scherk has no intention of raising himself from schism-junkie, muck-wader and pot-stirrer status, which is a shame, given his ability. Of course, I say this partly as a challenge to him to prove me wrong. But as it is, he's a mere MSK with a brain.

JSV: C'mon, Mr. Scherk, let's get Linz on board by proving him wrong with a civil engagement of our own, okay?

In "No Interest, Then?" James S. Valliant had noted, Since I made my "truce" offer to Mr. Scherk, there has been no reply -- although he has been around here, according to the Online Guest list.

Yikes. I feel like we are already sitting at the same table, James. Alhough usually plugged-in to my 'obsession' with O-worlds online, I may not always be active. Our posting ratio is probably something like JCV/WSS 42/1, ferheavensake.

I emailed him the same request, too.

You did. I apologize for my tardiness. I have yet to open that mail.

Emperor: I saw a couple of posts by La Scherkette, from memory on one of the scientology nutter's threads, which were outstanding in their clarity and perspicacity. I tried to make contact to congratulate him in the hope this would encourage more of the same, but immediately encountered the flake/freak we're all familiar with, so didn't pursue the matter. It's rather like chatting to an Alzheimer's patient on a lucid day. It gives you hope—which is then dashed at the next conversation.

Yikes again.

JSV: I know that he's capable of a friendly reply over at OL, so one can only conclude that he has no interest in civil discourse -- at least, not at SOLO. (Emperor Linz, please take note.)

Yow. A friendly reply to whom?

JSV: Perhaps his only goal here is to add to the incivility and to make this site appear to be the "freak show" he claims it to be. In all seriousness, how else can we explain his obsession with that "freak show"?

Calling my interest in the 'Ick Factor' of Objectivism an obsession is one way of looking at things. I mostly bowed out of the OL and RoR and SOLO threads discussing Lindsay's acceptance note. I posted a twit of Emperor Michael for jumping down JHN's throat and I posted twice in this thread. Why am I important enough to be notable in this instance, James?

JSV: [P.S. I'm still willing, Mr. Scherk. I'll bet that we can get others on board, too -- and I'd only have to whistle to get "lapdog" eager -- right?]

Oh, for land sakes, yes. I will set aside any heartache I suffer at Lindsay's "flake/freak" Alzheimer's patient characterization.

What is your topic? I've made my opinion sort of clear: Lindsay will not name names or name-call in his Summer Seminar appearances. He will not follow Hudgins' presciptions for SOLO, nor follow your suggestion I be pushed off into the moat. Things will roll along and be what they become. I don't have influence with Lindsay and his decisions and behaviours and I don't believe TAS will rescind their invitation.

James, I'm getting the impression that just for a moment there you wanted to have me red-buttoned.

WSS

Scherk, I don't believe you are capable of discussing substance -- take away Hopalong/Emperor/Church Lady/Lapdog and the rest of your foul-smelling gaseous emissions and nothing is left under the cloud, just as I suspected two years ago in that quote of mine you have emblazoned in your memory forever and ever, enough even to email me with a desperate plea to take it back. You have not earned better, I'm afraid. For the life of me I can't understand why you or Parille are even interested in haunting Objectivist sites. What is the point, Scherk? Just to wax arch and pose Wilde? Dear god.

No, sir, if you cannot do it here, I suspect that you cannot do it at all.

Why not try? Afraid let the world see how wrong your bluster is?

And, no evidence of "abutting" whatever, I see, since you can't "cite and point and quote" -- but surely even you are able to i.d. your name-calling all by yourself? No one else has missed it, I assure you.

Well, don't expect any more replies from me in the future, then -- just links back to this discussion.

Note to Linz: he has no intention of ever being civil with anyone here. Does he belong here if his sole aim is pollution? In the name of civility, Ed Hudgins' cause, what's appropriate at this point?

In my "Moral Putrefaction" post, I asked about Lindsay's intent and behaviour: "While exfoliating the enemy in "Objectivism's Worst Enemy: Objectivists" will Lindsay name the enemies of Objectivism? Will he name not only the avowed (Peikoff), but also the not-quites (Scumbarra, Bitch Whore of Evul, Insane Weasel Girly-Man, Pomo-arselicker, Deviant Scumbag, etc)?."

I answered my own question: I doubt it. I still doubt it. I don't think Lindsay has planned any denunciations by name in his talks.

James Valliant responded: "Lovely. A Dazzling example of how Linz is the only name-caller and worthy of singling out. Thanks, Scherk.."

I then suggested that he found my questions incomprehensible except as such as example. The irony was, of course, that I was twitting James for his slagging off of the 'Ugly Trolls' who 'stalked' him at the RichardDawkins.net! Not to mention his casual diagnosis of Robert Campbell as suffering from psychotic delusions and other unnamed mental torments! This is funny, this is why I laugh at James Valliant and his erstwhile sidekick, Hopalong Fahy.

In any case, James comes back with "No, I understood the post quite well this time, but note that my point remains unanswered." So I go look at his preceding posts -- Lovely, Ethics and Objectivity, Neil, And..., Neil, Neil, Jim, Right, Neil, Editor at JARS, Eh?, Judgment and Conclusions?, Neil, Rand's "Evil" Is the Premise, Crazed Monster!, Robert, Jim, Of Course, Let's Fix That, Jim, btw, He Makes It For Us, Oh, Dear, Right, Jim, Jim, Jim, Welcome to the Bizarro World of Robert Capmbel, Jim, Beware of Greeks Bearing Gifts..., Linz, Mr. Scherk . . . and I found, I think, several points . . . and await Valliant's precision on this note.

James gets a bit testy when his questions aren't answered so I will give a try:

But, really, more empty name-calling [ . . . ] because...?

. . . James, with me you got to cite and point and quote, brother. As ever, context.

May we see your evidence about rule-abutting?

Refer to the Guidelines, or my spoof. Apply the stiff brush of self-criticism to your and Fahy's self-expression and you will agree that you go to the line. Abut means abut.

How 'bout you and I start right now -- no more name-calling or ridicule? Deal?

That wouldn't work for you, James. Calling things by their rightful names cannot be discarded so easily. Considering you don't take back things like "soul of a rapist" and the like . . . why would you give up your right to name names as you see fit?

Likewise with ridicule. The bite of ridicule is occasionally necessary.

I'd be happy to hear you make a stronger, realtime case for a 'ceasefire.' Howzabout we chat sometime in the SOLO chatbox? Something about the chatbox makes for instant cordiality.

WSS

C'mon, Mr. Scherk, let's get Linz on board by proving him wrong with a civil engagement of our own, okay?

[P.S. We might make both Neil and Casey happy with a thread detailing both Rand's virtues and her faults. Maybe test Kelley's evaluation. How 'bout it?]

I know that he's capable of a friendly reply over at OL, so one can only conclude that he has no interest in civil discourse -- at least, not at SOLO. (Emperor Linz, please take note.)

I saw a couple of posts by La Scherkette, from memory on one of the scientology nutter's threads, which were outstanding in their clarity and perspicacity. I tried to make contact to congratulate him in the hope this would encourage more of the same, but immediately encountered the flake/freak we're all familiar with, so didn't pursue the matter. It's rather like chatting to an Alzheimer's patient on a lucid day. It gives you hope—which is then dashed at the next conversation. I fear Scherk has no intention of raising himself from schism-junkie, muck-wader and pot-stirrer status, which is a shame, given his ability. Of course, I say this partly as a challenge to him to prove me wrong. But as it is, he's a mere MSK with a brain.

Emperor Linz

I'd be happy to discuss things of substance with Scherk as opposed to the other stuff, and I'm happy to do so in a civil manner. What say you, William?

Since I made my "truce" offer to Mr. Scherk, there has been no reply -- although he has been around here, according to the Online Guest list. I emailed him the same request, too. I know that he's capable of a friendly reply over at OL, so one can only conclude that he has no interest in civil discourse -- at least, not at SOLO. (Emperor Linz, please take note.) Perhaps his only goal here is to add to the incivility and to make this site appear to be the "freak show" he claims it to be. In all seriousness, how else can we explain his obsession with that "freak show"?

[P.S. I'm still willing, Mr. Scherk. I'll bet that we can get others on board, too -- and I'd only have to whistle to get "lapdog" eager -- right?]

One would think that these people should have an outpouring of admiration for Ayn Rand. After all, she escaped the horrors of Soviet Russia and came her with nothing but the shirt on her back. While putting forth a radical philosophy, she had to overcome a hostile culture. Yet, she succeeded. She created works of genius that continue to grow in sales. She lived an incredibly heroic life struggling for and succeeding in reaching her values.

Yet, what do the Rand diminishers do? The obsess over her flaws!! They pick and pick and pick--attempting to turn any flaw, real or imagined, into a mortal wound on her character. All under the banner of "benevolence" and "understanding" and "civility" and "toleration".

Rand jumped to unwarranted psychological conclusions, Rand had unwarranted anger, Rand had a quickness to moral judgment, Rand flaw this and Rand flaw that. All of this replete with psychological diagnoses of Rand. No wonder they hate her article admonishing psychologizing--it perfectly encapsulates their method!!

Granted, there are those in the civility sect that do not obsess over her flaws and give Rand her due--to their credit. However, they turn a blind eye to those in their ranks who do obsess over her flaws, then proceed to whitewash it as mere "personality issues".

What was Rand, a brain in a vat? A philosophical oracle where her character can be thrown to the wolves? Or a real person who deserves justice as much as anybody else? Who deserves to have her flaws put in full perspective, in full context of the type of person she was and the life she lead?

The Rand diminishers truly are sickening.

We know where you stand.

In your opinion, did Rand have any faults other than her temper?

Neil, do you mean aside from her philosophy?

Neil,

Back to the well one more time, eh? You just need to hear him say it one more time, don't you, even though, unlike you, he actually published a book with that statement in print for the world to read? What is this obsession of yours? You seem to have a deep psychological need to essentialize Rand via her faults. THAT is what I find disgusting about your whole approach, and your whole agenda. You look at a woman like Ayn Rand, who took on a whole culture flinging everything it could at her, high and low, and you come away with a profound need to focus on... her faults? What is UP with that, dude? I know you won't answer, because you never do, but just ask yourself why. An answer would be nice so everyone can see exactly what point you are trying to make -- and don't give me that b.s. about anyone worshipping Ayn Rand as infallible -- no one, including Rand herself, has ever claimed her infallibility. You and Campbell and others over there continue to conflate immorality with fallibility -- two things which only the most man-hating medievalist would do in the first place and which Rand and most sensible people never do. Not even the LAW does that. So what is it? What are you trying to prove by pointing out that Ayn Rand stubbed her toe or overcooked dinner or misjudged someone and got angry when she shouldn't have or missed a button or didn't part her hair straight? What?! What are you about, man? Why is THAT important? Why is the given essential and the exceptional nonessential to you? Really? I have never read a single good word from you about Rand -- not one, ever. All of it is resentful ax-grinding against Rand.

So let me turn this around: Have you anything good to say about Ayn Rand? If so, what is it?

A reader of PARC could do better. I won't pretend otherwise for you.

A reader of this site still better.

Having consistently failed to respond to my replies, to this very same question, and so many others, why should I respond to yours now?

So, first, why do you ask?

In the context of Campbell's assertion and my response, let me ask you: what impact would my answer have on you?

Jim,

You said yesterday that Rand had "faults." In your book, the only fault I detect is that Rand had a temper.

In your opinion, did Rand have any faults other than her temper? If so, what were they?

I followed your link and see no evidence of MSK retracting the statement. In fact, I only see a humorous additional accusation of 'taking pot shots at [O-Lying]'. I used our Google enabled search found at the top of the page (shameless plug) to find that the last time I gave any thought to O-Lying however indirectly was when I attacked MSK's evil ideas regarding islamofacisim on 10-09-2006! These folks have long memories and quite an obsession with the inner workings of SOLO. I frankly hadn't given MSK's Royal Court of Speculation and LOL a single processor cycle (a little computer nerd lingo) since late 2006.

Wm

It is no secret that we use Google Analytics. The JavaScript is visible (if you know how to view the page source for a web page). That is what we have used since summertime, but we didn't have it working reliably until September. Search engine traffic typically accounts for 35% of our 'raw' total hits, however both Drupal (our web page software) and Google take this in to account for the statistics. If a search engine visits an article, the article read count is not incremented, for example. Indeed, if it was, at the rate our site is re-indexed our stats would be incredibly inflated.

Wm

No, I understood the post quite well this time, but note that my point remains unanswered.

My desire and capacity to engage in civil debate has been demonstrated many times on internet sites, sir, and has been appreciated by a number of my opponents.

But, really, more empty name-calling is required because...?

May we see your evidence about rule-abutting?

How 'bout you and I start right now -- no more name-calling or ridicule? Deal?

William Green notes, "In all my years on SOLOHQ and SoloPassion I have never been accused of professional misconduct."

With regard to MSK's speculations about what goes on under the hood by SOLO Webmasters, I reject any insinuation about William's integrity and asked for any evidence.

Emperor Michael has noted he had no evidence. He also noted he had no one in particular in mind when he wrote about "they" who manipulate SOLO ratings via encouraging garbage traffic.

It needn't be argued that MSK is missing the point that anything "they" do to manipulate ratings passes under William's remit, and so would implicate him.

I hate the "they" talk whither it comes. I expect the Emperor will apologize for any unintended implications.

I suggest that both both Emperors (and Emperor Joe) could easily publish a sample of statistics on site traffice that can be compared objectively -- if they were interested.

William, can you let the other sides know how you collect your stats, and give a rough breakdown of members/non-members/spiders on daily average basis?

Alexa provides a poor ruler, in any case. Anyone from outside or in the SOLO membership can help manipulate the Alexa ratings themselves, which expands "they" to most of the human race . . .

WSS

JHN asks if I will be attending June 28-July 5

I must make every effort to attend. Arranging leave from work might make my visit short.

Bearing that in mind, at the very least I don`t see any obstacle to chatting cordially at the lavish banquet, and buying bootleg video downloads of Lindsay`s sessions. Depending on my workload, I may be able to attend the entire jamboree.

James Valliant indicates he finds my previous post incomprehensible save as "example of how Linz is the only name-caller and worthy of singling out."

I am a name-caller, having called James Church Lady of Objectivism. I did catch an earlier allusion to health and travel issues -- I hope that all goes well on those counts for the man. You will find a cohort, James, and semi-cordial questions, even if none from your gang-banging Ugly Trolls. It is unknown if the Psychotic Dr Campbell will rub shoulders with you or the poodle.

Mark Hubbard weighs in with a "final barb, the extent to which many of the posters on OL are detaching themselves from the facts of reality to perform character assassinations (Jonathan) [ . . . ] should trouble the rational posters to the OL site, given that such fantastic postings, on that thread, at least, are never taken to task."

No, I take Emperor Michael to task as ofter as I take to task the Emperor Perigo. Jonathan is a comic, jester of the lame and false-ferocious. Hardly an assasin. If you don't read OL save through the lens of terror and disgust, you won't even know the players, Mark.

As for the implication of several posters here that Ed has crossed some line, no. No, given the agreement by Lindsay to obey the guidelines of TAS Summer Seminar, there is nothing to be kerfuffled about.

That James and poodle regularly abut the SOLO Guidelines is noted, but irrelevant.

Lindsay is not going to choose the "I am outraged by the weasels at Kassless" route. I had asked, "Will he name not only the avowed (Peikoff), but also the not-quites (Scumbarra, Bitch Whore of Evul, Insane Weasel Girly-Man, Pomo-arselicker, Deviant Scumbag, etc)? I doubt it."

Why would he names names? My point was that this is not done at Atlas Society seminars. If he doesn't actually put the verbal torch to Scumbarra Hsiehkovia Bitch Whore and Co he is well within his rights.

And why should he withdraw because of Hudgins commentary? The invitation is not conditional on anything that Lindsay has not agreed to. How he chooses to re-enter these threads and excerise his imperial powers is up to him. Not Winefield, not Valliant, not Fahy, not Hubbard, not Hudgins or Scherk.

Those who think Lindsay will play his hand now don't understand Lindsay very well.

WSS

In all my years on SOLOHQ and SoloPassion I have never been accused of professional misconduct. SoloPassion is not the first or only website I work on. Accusing someone of manipulating website statistics is like accusing someone of manipulating TV ratings -- professional fraud of the highest order. I would demand the statement be retracted, but what recourse do I have when it is the moderator of the site making the accusations? I would ask for evidence but that has proven unsuccessful when the accusation was dwindling traffic and users (which was demonstrated to be false). I thought I shouldn't even really respond to it considering the source of the accusation. However, my professional interests are being challenged without any evidence and I can not let it stand here on this site without response.

Wm

What about you, William? Will you be attending? Portland is not too far from BC. It should be a really good time.

Jim

But Mr. Hudgins would scold me.

Lapdog

A dazzling example of how Linz is the only name-caller and worthy of singling out.

Thanks, Scherk.

(And, for those who might not know, a harsh thing or two has been said about TAS over at OL recently, too.)

[btw: my only hesitation about attending was due to my health, as I explained to Jim H-N privately. And my wife, witness to only some of my many knock-down-drag-outs with Casey, is still having a good laugh at your expense, though.]

Lindsay accepts an invitation to speak at the "KASSless [Atlas] Society's 2008 Summer Seminar." He proposed two topics, each of which was accepted: "Objectivism's Worst Enemy: Objectivists" & "Why Romantic Music Is Objectively Superior (and anyone who doesn't get it is a moron)."

He gives a thumbs up to an appearance, "[p]rovided it's understood this is without prejudice." With reference to an earlier such summer session speaking arrangement, "I pulled out [ . . . ] rather than bite my tongue."

And as for his allegiances, "I remain resoundingly on Valliant's side in the matter of the Rand-diminishers." (JHN asks of Valliant if he and lapdog will attend the presentation. Valliant utters a 'let's have my people call your people, mumble mumble' mumble and lapdog has not yet uttered a squeak on the matter of his attendance.)

As a matter of fact statement of intent: "In any event, any demand that I bite my tongue this time would have the same result." He notes he won't be picking, but will not shrink from, "fights."

If, and so, as Will Thomas (and presumably Kelley and Hudgins) understands and accepts the conditions laid down by the speaker, Emperor of SOLO Lindsay assents.

One sad part is that the Beacon of Lindsay will shine at low wattage and rather out of focus.

While exfoliating the enemy in "Objectivism's Worst Enemy: Objectivists" will Lindsay name the enemies of Objectivism? Will he name not only the avowed (Peikoff), but also the not-quites (Scumbarra, Bitch Whore of Evul, Insane Weasel Girly-Man, Pomo-arselicker, Deviant Scumbag, etc)? I doubt it. He will only speak in large terms, not in specifics. He will not denounce anyone but a generic "other."

Simple attention to the niceties of slander suits and so on.

Though he jests with the notion of a secured hustle in and a secured hustle out of his lectures, I assume he will take questions, either informally or in a Q&A. E.g. "Sir, you characterized Barbara Branden as 'Blind sow hog' and 'slatternly devotee of Lies' and 'Evil She Bitch of Hell's Lowest Horror.' You have also called Sciabarra "arch-fiend of bloodsucking,' 'Count Scumbarra,' 'He-whore of Babylon,' 'depraved sink of pestilence.' Care to expand these remarks before the attendees?"

WSS

Apart from all of the wild conspiracy theories, looney and sad instances of psychological projection, name calling, and the like, Professor Campbell has claimed that -- although PARC concedes that Rand made mistakes and that she was not without "fault or flaw," if I recall correctly -- its objectivity is to be questioned because I will not concede significant immorality on Rand's part (on these internet sites). I drew the issue out in just this way (as you can read below) -- and Campbell responded, in effect, "Damn right." It seems, that an objective take on Rand must admit major ethical lapses -- "or else."

However, my overall assessment of Rand on this score is really not unlike that of scholars Campbell himself recommends.

David Kelley and I criticize Rand for different things, but I would agree with this assessment of Rand (which he gave as part of a discussion of Ms. Branden's biography): "It is clear to me that Ayn Rand was a woman of remarkable integrity, who largely embodied the virtues she espoused." Like me, he concedes faults on her part, but, on balance, he considers them "of minor significance in themselves." He also believes that Ms. Branden's claims are "arguable" and he apparently believes that her biography has certain "shortcomings." (Truth and Toleration, p. 75) (From my own correspondence with her, I know that Anne Heller does not regard such a belief in Rand's morality as being one that is fatal to a biographer's objectivity, either.)

I am much more critical of Ms. B. than Kelley is, but my overall assessment of Rand's "perfection" is not unlike his own -- and, like him, I believe that the Brandens' claims can and should be argued.

What is perhaps the most disturbing thing about this thread, apart from the pathetic personal cry for help it represents for Campbell, is the thought that such a rabid, mouth-foaming Rand-hater is also an editor at The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.

Consider: Campbell believes that objectivity about Rand must include the belief in her seemingly self-evident immorality. One can only speculate as to how this affects the editorial policies of JARS, the unwritten policies he may have alluded to earlier. None of the editors there regards himself as an "Objectivist," and, on this thread, Campbell seems to have ridiculed the very possibility of such a thing as a consistent Objectivist.

Campbell's hatred and bigotry extends to a whole class of serious writers and rigorous scholars because of their opinions and affiliations.

And, as he has shown right here, any sign of any sort of "olive branch" between these villains and those he thinks are his own friends must be met with fierce denunciation.

If those at JARS have any hope of ever including some of the most important scholars on the subject of their journal, as one of its editors has asserted to me, then they should consider the impact of having the name of such a disturbed religious zealot of hatred emblazoned on its pages.

Every time I log in there, it comes up in my google ads (along with comic stuff and things like "John Galt Gifts"). I'd really hate to imagine for how many people OL their first introduction to Objectivism for that reason.

But I bet the traffic from that alone probably raises their numbers significantly.

---Landon

The price of liberty is eternal VIGILANCE.

http://www.myspace.com/wickedlakes

... make such a suggestion??? Moi?

SOLOPassions Alexa rank is in the 260,000s. PC.blogspot is in the 360,000s so I guess he's in on the conspriacy too. Can't trust those bloody Irishmen.
OL's is in the 500,000s and RoR's is in the 600,000s.

Robt, you're not seriously suggesting MSK's frenzied fantasies and fabrications are fuelled by vinegary grapes, are you?

Anyway, whoever this Alexa broad is, she's one dame I like.

Solopassion.com users come from these countries:

United States 34.1%
New Zealand 31.7%
United Kingdom 7.3%
Germany 3.7%
Bulgaria 2.4%

Bulgaria? Linz, have you been ordering Ricin-Umbrellas for the special action group you're forming to take over TAS? For shame! You know the CIA could do you a deal on exploding cigars!

More solopassion.com traffic rank...

New Zealand 1,582
United States 98,934
Australia 155,470
United Kingdom 213,386

Penetration in the Hometown market. Excellent!

I mean really! The number of reads a thread gets is shown at the bottom of the posting that heads up that thread.

How in the hell does the serrupticious manipulation of an obscure rating statistic benefit the site when even a mentally retarded Three-toed Sloth can see how many times the post has been opened and read?

MSK is a space cadet.

PS: I note that according to the plugin I just downloaded, SOLOPassions Alexa rank is in the 260,000s. PC.blogspot is in the 360,000s so I guess he's in on the conspriacy too. Can't trust those bloody Irishmen.

OL's is in the 500,000s and RoR's is in the 600,000s. OL more popular than RoR? Say it ain't so!

Noodlefood at 800,000???!??

Obviously this statistic is about as much use for judging the merit of a site (the only thing that matters as SOLO isn't making mad money advertising) as tits are on a bull.

What a lot of nonsense!

Dagnammit! Linz never lets me in on these plots and schemes!

We figure when they come for you it's best you know nothing.

Apparently they are pursuing garbage traffic to get a high Alexa rating. However, they shot themselves in the foot by blowing out their band width. This drastically slowed down their site (see here for an indication that something is wrong).
What this means is that they are trying to increase site "hits," irrespective of where these hits come from. (A "hit" is a browser visiting a site-SOLOP in this case. Technically the visitor's browser sends the URL address to a big honking computer out there somewhere in cyberland called a server and downloads SOLOP's site from that server. There is a lot more to it, but this is how a hit can be measured.)
There are many sources of what is called garbage traffic, which can be bought, come from robot programs, etc. The point is that they are not "hits" by people reading the site (much less interested in Objectivism), but "hits" mostly coming from automated procedures. The idea is usually used to increase visibility in Search Engine Optimization for a variety of commercial reasons. It is a black-hat technique that is a cousin to spam.
In the case of SOLOP, I think the idea is to brag about the traffic the site gets. But for that level of traffic, there is a woeful lack of posts and participation. Those who mess with these numbers will know what I mean (SOLOP's Alexa rating is about 14,500 or so). As a visual, the equivalent would be a local run-down hamburger joint presenting itself as a fast-food multinational corporation with operations in 35 countries.
But the funny part to me is that they are choking on their own garbage traffic (by gumming up their site's performance) and there is not a single tangible benefit other than being able to brag a little.

Dagnammit! Linz never lets me in on these plots and schemes!

OL - Obviously Loopy

Mmmm. unless I need to examine my own premises: Linz, are we on the righteous path of global domination? And is the plan to do this somehow mystically by Internet page hits? If so, I think we need a 'little' discussion on strategy. William, that plate they put in your head 'after the crash' (yeah right) ... Jesus, I've just clicked, the bionic superman in the machine scenario; excellent. Nothing can stop SOLO now!

Are they still at it? Seriously? I'd leave them to their vendettas, conspiracy theories and attempted lynchings if I were you. This "garbage traffic" crap has the same relationship to reality as Campbell's TAS coup nuttery—none.

They're not only ignoble, they're crazed with ignobleness. They're absolutely fucking mad!

But yes, we're looking good for global domination. Just a shame William's metal implant causes my hearing aid to screech.

I have to post this here (again), as, despite having joined OL approximately two weeks ago, I still am not 'authorised' to post to the Your TAS Dollars at Work thread on OL. This in itself is an interesting aspect of the current debate between the two forums, given any poster from OL is free to post in SOLO, yet I am unable to put even an initial post to OL. Note I have tried activating and re-validating my account several times, but to no avail.

Further, whether or not I can post to OL is quite rightly at the discretion of OL's owners, however, now I see this similar disregard for ‘freedom to speak’ being carried over to a campaign on OL to influence TAS against Linz speaking, this being by the threat to withdraw member funding of that organisation. Again, this withholding of funding is rightly the choice of every individual member of OL, but I would ask those members to think seriously about their premises for doing so, and that they are not in fact being led by minds which are blackened by personal vendettas, rather than a thirst for ideas through passionate, reasoned, debate. TAS has quite rightly picked that Linz's speeches will draw crowds, and will spark debate; these two threads themselves witness that fact - why is OL’s membership so scared of such debate?

At the risk of incurring Godwit's condemnation, there is a feeling of fascism in this whole OL thread crusade: a movement which is anti-idea, anti-freedom, and certainly irrational.

Worse, albeit deviating from the above topic.

Robert Campbell posts on SOLO (note, he's allowed to post here) that Linz, et al, are plotting to take over TAS, which they have refuted laughingly (I mean, really?). But now to add the 'in' to 'credulity', I find your following post this morning, Michael, in which you refer to what was only an incidental thread of my own on SOLO:

Apparently they are pursuing garbage traffic to get a high Alexa rating. However, they shot themselves in the foot by blowing out their band width. This drastically slowed down their site (see here for an indication that something is wrong).
What this means is that they are trying to increase site "hits," irrespective of where these hits come from. (A "hit" is a browser visiting a site-SOLOP in this case. Technically the visitor's browser sends the URL address to a big honking computer out there somewhere in cyberland called a server and downloads SOLOP's site from that server. There is a lot more to it, but this is how a hit can be measured.)
There are many sources of what is called garbage traffic, which can be bought, come from robot programs, etc. The point is that they are not "hits" by people reading the site (much less interested in Objectivism), but "hits" mostly coming from automated procedures. The idea is usually used to increase visibility in Search Engine Optimization for a variety of commercial reasons. It is a black-hat technique that is a cousin to spam.
In the case of SOLOP, I think the idea is to brag about the traffic the site gets. But for that level of traffic, there is a woeful lack of posts and participation. Those who mess with these numbers will know what I mean (SOLOP's Alexa rating is about 14,500 or so). As a visual, the equivalent would be a local run-down hamburger joint presenting itself as a fast-food multinational corporation with operations in 35 countries.
But the funny part to me is that they are choking on their own garbage traffic (by gumming up their site's performance) and there is not a single tangible benefit other than being able to brag a little.

Let me see if I've got this right. You seriously believe that the owners of SOLO are concerned with manipulating Internet traffic as part of a program, (to follow on from Campbell's assertions), of world domination or some such? Might I suggest this is nonsensical, at best, quite seriously deluded, at worst. Speaking for myself, I find SOLO simply to be a good meeting place for a diverse range of people who have some aspect of Objectivism in common (for and against), and I suspect you will find that is why almost all forum members are there. As someone earlier in your thread said, there are a lot of very interesting threads on SOLO. SOLO’s techie, William, saw to the issues I was having in the thread I started, and I would also suggest, being busy in his own right, does very well keeping the site going: the thought he is spending his time trying to do as you say is, to use a word that is always on my mind in this post, laughable.

As a final barb, the extent to which many of the posters on OL are detaching themselves from the facts of reality to perform character assassinations (Jonathan), and to extract such ludicrous, childish, conspiracy theories and the like above, troubles me, and should trouble the rational posters to the OL site, given that such fantastic postings, on that thread, at least, are never taken to task. Perhaps it's time to re-examine some of your premises. In the meantime, if some of your members want passionate debate across a wide spectrum of topics, where absurdities will most always be taken to task, as they should, then I would suggest they start reading SOLO's lively boards. At least they will always be given the respect of an initial post.

Mmmm. unless I need to examine my own premises: Linz, are we on the righteous path of global domination? And is the plan to do this somehow mystically by Internet page hits? If so, I think we need a 'little' discussion on strategy. William, that plate they put in your head 'after the crash' (yeah right) ... Jesus, I've just clicked, the bionic superman in the machine scenario; excellent. Nothing can stop SOLO now!

Perhaps Michael you would be so kind as to upload this post to the thread in OL, given that I, for whatever reason, cannot.

I'm going to take about a year break, which may last longer, from all online forums to review my views of moral judgment and how to make judgments. I'm not satified that I fully understand it and some of what I do understand is not integrated. I ask forbearance from those I may have judged in haste.

Oh for Heavens sake. Yes, it does involve engagement of the rational mind, but be warned, Jim, at the seat of it is a backbone

I'm going to take about a year break, which may last longer, from all online forums to review my views of moral judgment and how to make judgments. I'm not satified that I fully understand it and some of what I do understand is not integrated. I ask forbearance from those I may have judged in haste.I will check my online inboxes occasionally and wish everyone well in the meantime.

Jim

I got that when you said it the first time. But when you said it the first time you said:

"You told me you don't dispute the account of the Blumenthals as related in PAR. They state... [a list follows and your evaluation] What the Blumenthals says [sic] of Rand is more critical than BB and perhaps more critical than NB."

Then and only then did you follow with saying that he is "even quoted in TARC..."

Of course, I took this to mean that the first comparison you offered was of what they say in PAR. Recall that you were saying something about how PARC seems to accept what was said by the Blumenthals in PAR... the subject of PARC.

Funny me.

Also, are you now relying on TARC or something? Is it to be trusted over PAR in certain aspects?

So, just for clarity sake, you are conceding, then, that what the Blumenthals say in PAR is not nearly so harsh as what Ms. B. says there?

(At this pont, could someone get the slime remover?)

Can we also take it, then, that Dr. Blumenthal believes that comparisons of Rand to an Inquistor using "fire and the rack" constitute a "whitewash" of Rand? Are you confident that that is what he meant? At this point, even what he said?

If so, could Ms. B. have possibly presented a warped view of their opinion, then?

Can we take it that you accept such opinions and evaluations whole without any need for supporting details or evidence?

Now -- from the evidence you possess -- was PAR a "whitewash"? Was the Inquistor comparison insufficient to meet the case (and please explain using the evidence we are given)?

Take all the time you need...

And, then there's Campbell still to address.

Mr. Perigo:
There are thousands of books on Amazon.com that the user may search (the entire text). PAR is one of them. This is very easy to check.

I just did, and you are right. I withdraw and apologise for all allegations that you're a direct conduit for Babs.

Linz

Mr. Perigo:

There are thousands of books on Amazon.com that the user may search (the entire text). PAR is one of them. This is very easy to check.

In addition, you made the allegation at least twice prior to this most recent time.

Jim:

Dr. Blumenthal is quoted in TARC as saying that PAR constitutes a "white wash" of Rand's bad side.

A word, btw, PARC never claims that she used.

Would you please provide evidence to support your claim that I am acting as a "conduit" or "middle man" for Barbara Branden. If you have no evidence, you should apologize.

At some point on this or some other thread you said you'd done an amazon search and discovered a certain word (I forget what) claimed by James to have been used by Babs in PAR was not actually in the book at all. It struck me that an amazon search would yield no such thing unless the whole book were reprinted there. Who would yield such a thing is someone with an intimate knowledge of the book's content and a mission to restore its tattered reputation—namely its author, well-known "operator" (as in "we're all operators now," the line deleted by Babs from JD) and conduit-user, Queen of the Backstage Whisper.

If you need an apology from Mr. Perigo, what do you suppose should be required of someone who writes the following:

"[Valliant] found that he could not sweet-talk Chris Sciabarra, or any of the other editors at JARS, into endorsing his book. Even publishing a reply to a negative review in JARS was crossed off his agenda once he discovered that Mr. Perigo didn't want him to and such support as he enjoyed from ARI could be at risk."

I know how JARS works, and know that whatever the nature of my interaction with Sciabarra, such things wouldn't affect the outcome of any review. Or... AM I WRONG? Does "sweet talking" editors like Campbell himself alter the substance of what comes out on the pages of JARS?

Well, he should know.

Wow -- live and learn, I guess.

If Mr. Campbell is not simply a pathetically unskilled liar, then he must live in an alternate reality of his own manufacture. I am right here discussing whether I will attend a TAS conference myself -- and if the public assertion that I might doesn't already give him reason to question the whole of his bizarre assertion, you might want to consider just the obvious logical inconsistencies within Mr. Campbell's far more elaborate delusions for yourself.

JARS having an editor like him will never be factored into his own analysis of my nefarious motives -- and his psychotic break with reality now only evokes the same uncomfortable embarrassment which results from watching Brittany Spears perform at an awards show.

No exaggeration or hyperbole is involved in saying that nearly everything he has written here is pure fiction, paranoid delusion or an overt lie.

Just taking a recent example, and there are so many, you will never concede that your comparative evaluation of what the Blumenthals said versus what Ms. B. said about Rand was obviously wrong (and where, then, do you get such distortions?) You have evaded every issue once its refutation was made clear to one and all. Yet, perfecting his uniquely stylish form of projection, Campbell writes:

"People who refuse to admit errors when caught red-handed in them, preferring to go after the purported motives of their critics, are lying. Lying is dishonest, dishonesty is irrational... again if [you?] know anything about the Objectivist ethics you can follow the chain of implications."

So, what are we to do with Campbell's looney conspiracy theories so clearly driven by blinding hatred, paranoia and humiliation?

In all seriousness, the poster who recommended professional help was on target.

In any event, do you agree with Campbell, that acknowledging serious moral lapses on Rand's part is a necessary precondition to objectivity?

Campbell actually acknowledges that I have standards! I was under the impression that as an acolyte for Linz, I'd be part of the evil conspiracy to destroy TAS.

Actually I've no need to question James V. about PARC for the simple reason that I've no interest of reading PAR and therefore have no need of PARC.

I really couldn't care less about who Ayn screwed metaphorically or physically. And stated so at the time.

My interest in her springs from the philosophy she gave birth to. As it is for Ayn, so it is for Thomas Jefferson. I've no interest in learning about his sexual conquests. The grand political experiment he spent his life working holds far more interest. And it is apparent that like Rand, his life's work was insulated from his sexual desires.

And in any case, after seeing most of the TV version of PAR, I'm of the impression that I'll learn nothing useful about Rand in PAR.

That train-wreck of a production was probably the worst porn movie I've ever seen. And given that Barbara had a hand in it, I've all the evidence that I personally need to dismiss PAR as a waste of my time. A situation that, with all due respect to James, appears to make PARC - and Neil's objections to it - redundant.

Why should I put to him a question whose answer holds no interest to me?

>WRT the "persistent critic of Mr. Valliant's"

I'd be less inclined to term Neil's efforts as stalking were he not so damned persistent about hijacking a thread which had absolutely nothing to do with PARC. Especially given the fact that he is able, nay encouraged, to begin such threads as he sees fit on this site.

Sticking to the thread is a common internet courtesy that, I'm betting, is even observed at OL.

So what have you to complain about next I wonder? Don't like the way I part my hair?

>Why should anyone take me or my standards seriously?

I wasn't aware that I was demanding that anyone did.

For instance I have not submitted and have no plans to submit a seminar to an objectivist conference. I have no plans to start a blog or publish my views any further than this and one other site.

I've long recognized and publicly acknowledged that my understanding of objectivist in particular and philosophy in general is weak. I have never claimed to be an objectivist precisely because I believe that you require a sound understanding of both before you can justly do so. Rectifying this is a slow and on going process given my other responsibilities.

That leaves me in the position of being someone with a big mouth and strong opinions in need of somewhere to chew ideas. And that being the case, I appreciate the forums Linz has provided as much as I do his first alerting me to Atlas Shrugged via his radio program.

As to whether you take me seriously or not: to dine with me or not is your choice, I don't care one way or another because I fully intend to eat regardless.

And frankly, if the likes of you took me seriously I'd be worried! Anyone who can seriously suggest that Perigo, or anyone else for that matter, is aiming to take over TAS is a paranoid Looney Tunes -- objectivism's Daffy Duck.

What for instance is to be gained from such an adventure? Fame? Fortune? Sex? Ha! You over exaggerate the current pulling power of Objectivism.

You've also accused him of finding fame in Ayn's creation. But you cannot account for the fact that by embracing it, and denouncing the statism rife in NZ, he lost the fame and fortune he'd previously acquired as a broadcaster in his native land.

But I wouldn't expect you to know that, it would require you to stop interviewing your keyboard (the likely origin of your paranoid proclamation) and check your facts.

It isn't true, so he should apologize.

"If"?

Mr. Perigo,

Would you please provide evidence to support your claim that I am acting as a "conduit" or "middle man" for Barbara Branden.

If you have no evidence, you should apologize.

This whole discussion has been like a big game of what Andy Grove used to call: Go Get the Rock. Someone tells you to go down to a river and pick up a rock. You come back and they say not that rock. This should have been a straightforward discussion of free and open inquiry. It should have been about principles. There is an active attempt to disqualify a speaker. That's not what TAS should be about.

Instead there's wrangling, acrimony (some of it mine), clarity problems(some of it mine)and other problems.

I understand Robert Campbell feels strongly about this, but there's a core principle to be upheld. Lindsay is giving two talks for crying out loud. I'll go to your talk next year or the year after.

Jim

Now I know my target. (Just kidding, Roger.)

For complete accuracy as a poster on another forum asked. Irfan did not specify who the author/authors of the abusive emails were. I most definitely should have been more clear.

Jim

The old editor of the Navigator and now a writer for The New Individualist. Not sure what current title he holds.

Jim

Who's Roger Donway, the guy I'm replacing in Robert Campbell's hypothesis? Just curious.

Thanks for the apology.That was important to me. We'll talk about positive psychology or someting else down the road when this topic has d