I was reading about this Summer Seminar on their website a few weeks back, and was pleased to notice Michael Newberry is on the agenda which would be interesting, but the rest of it does appear to be the usual wankfest Americans seem to enjoy, and Lindsay probably has had a fortunate escape from utter boredom.

I must confess to sniggering at their "budget minded" accomodation available, encouraging people to sleep in some glorified backpacker hostel! ...ha ha...seems the 'capitalism' side of things has yet to sink in with some folk.

Did I really induce you to start smoking cigars?

It must have been a smoke induced fog-up of my premises

Here is a memento of happier times, 2005. Of course, I had just grabbed that wine off Barbara (I had to intervene—she just wouldn't stop guzzling).

If "Robbie" had been around my guess is that he would have been part of your faction.

That's the nicest thing anyone's said to me ever!

But if he were around, I'd be part of his faction!

If "Robbie" had been around my guess is that he would have been part of your faction.

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

Now the world is really screwed.

Global warming is a hoax carbonhoax.org.nz and spread the word.

From your Ingersoll quote:

Surely it is worth something to feel that there are no priests, no popes, no parties, no governments, no kings, no gods, to whom your intellect can be compelled to pay a reluctant homage.

If our Robbie were around now I'm sure he'd have added "no factions."

That's a magnificent roar ya got there, Big Boy!

Had you let out this roar a month ago it might have shocked the KASSless corpus into generating a backbone and standing upright against the lynch mob.

"You are SUPPOSED to call a lying fuck a lying fuck."

No, you're supposed to say, "I hear what you're saying and understand where you're coming from, but I'm not sure I don't have issues with some of it. Please don't take offence. I'm taking it all on board and we're all civil around here ... Saddam."

As Ingersoll remarked:

Surely every human being ought to attain to the dignity of the unit. Surely it
is worth
something to be one, and to feel that the census of the universe would be
incomplete
without counting you.

Surely there is grandeur in knowing that in the realm of
thought, at
least, you are without a chain; that you have the right to explore all heights
and all
depths; that there are no walls nor fences, nor prohibited places, nor sacred
corners in
all the vast expanse of thought; that your intellect owes no allegiance to any
being,
human or divine; that you hold all in fee and upon no condition and by no
tenure whatever;
that in the world of mind you are relieved from all personal dictation, and
from the
ignorant tyranny of majorities.

Surely it is worth something to feel that there
are no
priests, no popes, no parties, no governments, no kings, no gods, to whom your
intellect
can be compelled to pay a reluctant homage.

Surely it is a joy to know that all
the
cruel
ingenuity of bigotry can devise no prison, no dungeon, no cell in which for one
instant to
confine
a thought; that ideas cannot be dislocated by racks, nor crushed in iron boots,
nor burned with fire.

Surely it is sublime to think that the brain is a castle,
and that
within its curious bastions and winding halls the soul, in spite of all worlds
and all
beings, is the supreme sovereign of itself.

Surely it is more inspirational for any aspiring Objectivist to witness the principal of intellectual and individual freedom in action here rather than attending a sycophantic meeting of acquiescent appeasers, all hellbent on shrouding the long overdue presence of a traitor.

No amount of browbeating and shouts of "civility please" will countenance that lie for very much longer now that James has exposed it so thoroughly.

And Lindsays rescindment is their loss...SOLO, however challenged sometimes is the real home of KASS Objectivism.

I admit that reason is a small and feeble flame, a flickering torch by stumblers carried in the starless night, -- blown and flared by passion's storm, -- and yet, it is the only light. Extinguish that, and nought remains.- - Robert Green Ingersoll

At heart, I am a cut through the bullshit type guy.

These guys are utter pussies for reneging on the speaking invitation.

As usual, Linz, when you write this:

"My mistake all along would appear to have been to entertain this foolish notion that that's what Objectivists are supposed to do—stand up for the truth, loudly and proudly (and admit you're wrong when shown to be). I don't know where I got that idea from."

you are 100% balls-on correct.

You are SUPPOSED to call a lying fuck a lying fuck.

Do these people recall or have they read about how passionate Ayn Rand could be when aroused to anger? Was it a fluke? Or was it justifiable anger in the face of evil?

How can you have an organization dedicated to truth when you live in such mortal terror of being criticized? Where does such a fear come from?

Always suspect those who are afraid of transparency, and those who try to muzzle free speakers and free thinkers.

As for RoR: anyone who has anything to do with an organization founded on deal-breaking, deception, underhanded sneakiness is a moral relativist. Period. Not an Objectivist.

OL? Fucking pathetic. A delusional old whore, a self-important silver haired adulterer, but master manipulators. One hopes for an afterlife for the destination this lot deserves. A nest of vipers looking to spread its poison and bile.

I met Will briefly once. He seems a decent fellow, and I mean that--really a decent fellow. I like Bidinotto.

But this is cowardly garbage.

Linz, you keep doing what you are doing. The quality of person forming the ranks of your defenders who have already posted is all the proof you need to know that the road you walk is difficult and lonely, but it is the right road. You cannot let cowards and dastards dissuade you.

Anyway, I apologize to all of you gorgeous SOLO broads for my insensitive use of the term "pussies" but my nature as an emotional, inarticulate brute forces me to step over the line occasionally.

What is infinitely more offensive than my turn of a salty phrase is Hudgins' conduct here, and the jackals-upon-the-lion pounce Linz's detractors perpetrated here. If we were all in the same room, bet your ass there'd be a real brawl if these fuckwits had the balls to say for real what they safely type in the interweb.

See, it can get messy and personal if you treat ideas seriously and not as passionless intellectual baubles.

Scott DeSalvo

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Dear Ayn

This is to inform you that I am not including you on the program for our 2008 Summer Seminar. Let me make clear the reasons for my decision.

In your announcement on SOLO that you would be speaking at our Summer Seminar you seemed to be spoiling for a fight with those with whom you have had differences in the past. Subsequently, after they'd likened you to various dictators and mass murderers, you called them "rotten," even going so far as to cite evidence that they were.

With respect to my challenge concerning civility you responded: "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."

It was never our belief or aim that TAS could heal or unite the Objectivist community. However, it was our hope and our clear intention that in extending this invitation we might at least take the first steps toward reducing the decibel level of personal vituperation and the incivility by which even profound disagreements are expressed. But you have, by your own public statements subsequent to our invitation, only poured more gasoline on the fires that are consuming Objectivism's public reputation. You actively participate in online discussion threads where you continue to mock and taunt your opponents and, at times, sink to obscenities (e.g. what you said recently about Barbara Branden, calling her "an unutterably disgusting low-life bitch" and having the temerity to justify that judgment).

Far from contributing to the civilized atmosphere we sought and expect at a Summer Seminar, you have only turned your prospective appearance into another battleground in an ongoing uncivil war.

We recognize that some of your opponents have also contributed much to this toxic atmosphere through their own intemperate comments about your scheduled appearance. They likened you to Hitler, Goebbels and Arafat. You might have taken this as an opportunity, not to ignore past disagreements nor to feign friendship with those with whom you have bad blood but to say, "I'm not sinking to that level. I am taking the high road. Why don't you? Let's see where it takes us." Both sides are always right, after all, and it's uncivil to press one's case beyond a certain point.

I do want to apologize for not vetting your talk more carefully in the first place. Had I done so, perhaps you would not have been invited at all, sparing all concerned a lot of grief.

In any case, Ayn, we take your statements and behavior as a rejection of the terms under which we wanted you to speak at the 2008 Summer Seminar and it is my decision that you not be included on the program this year.

Sincerely

Edward Hudgins

Executive Director

The Atlas Society (formerly The Objectivist Centre, but we deemed "Objectivist" to be uncivil)

And Linz, I still don't get how sectarianism (understandable to an extent) has devolved into tribalism (itself and enemy of the truth Objectivists are supposed to defend) among Objectivists, but clearly it has. At least we can count on you not toning yourself down in the least!

As I've said before, the two criteria - indiscriminate civility and refusal to engage in 'Branden-bashing' - would actually preclude Rand from attending the conference. I've yet to hear any refutation of that conclusion from the OL 'attack dogs.'

In other words, the control Branden & her supporters on OL are wielding is only possible because Ayn Rand is dead. If she were alive, TAS & OL would be in the unenviable position of having to choose between a moratorium on Branden-bashing, or inviting Ayn Rand to a conference on Objectivism!

Think about that & draw a few conclusions from it ...

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

In any case, I'm not surprised that the schism and the shunning of Mr. Perigo continues. Its what happens when you stand up for the truth, and do so loudly and proudly!

My mistake all along would appear to have been to entertain this foolish notion that that's what Objectivists are supposed to do—stand up for the truth, loudly and proudly (and admit you're wrong when shown to be). I don't know where I got that idea from.

Kelley once said that the problem with the movement was not cultism so much as tribalism—my tribe, right or wrong. TAS, formed as a reaction against ARI's tribalism, has, since PARC at least, usurped ARI as Exhibit A. O-Lying, the Church of the Brandens, a sub-tribe of TAS, openly prohibits "Branden-bashing" with the apparent imprimatur of the Main Tribe. TAS itself doesn't explicitly forbid criticism of itself, but you don't see it airing any, and its reaction to the demonstrably true criticism that it's "KASSless" is to dismiss it as "uncivil" and make unconditional civility the #1 Objectivist virtue (poor Ayn!!). It flirts with one of its critics knowing he's the kind of KASS speaker it needs, but loses its nerve when a lynch mob forms—rings his doorbell then runs for its life, as Samantha so amusingly puts it on this thread.

It's all so depressingly conventional and cowardly. Where are the Objectivist heroes? Not at TAS, that's for sure.

Linz

I admire his integrity as well, perhaps his disapproved-of stance on PARC and against the Brandens is what caused his invite reversal as the one aspect about Linz that they just couldn't cope with. If perhaps Linz was a soft-spoken man who only 'quietly' offered support of your wonderful work, Mr. Valiant, perhaps he'd likewise still be invited.

In any case, I'm not surprised that the schism and the shunning of Mr. Perigo continues. Its what happens when you stand up for the truth, and do so loudly and proudly!

They did have him, even knowing him to be "intimidating" and controversial, before all that, though, didn't they?

They, or more precisely, Will Thomas, even extended another invitation...

Take the PARC and Branden stuff out of the equation, and, though you might have heard complaints, he'd have been there this time.

One must admire his integrity.

Linz intimidates other Objectivists, he's Objectivism's "battle cry" only with more articulation and substance than those with whom he intimidates. Linz puts brass knuckles on the truth and that just scares the living fuck out of certain people so while they may want Linz' talent and 'sizzle' for their little events they don't want his (for lack of a better word) power, especially when its not used in an 'approved' manner. The whole dis-invitation thing seems about that simple to me, PARC and schisms notwithstanding. My two cents.

Mine was a much simpler question than the one you seem to have tried to answer. What I was asking about was something you posted over at OL, and I even provided the link below.

You ended a post with the following line:

"I added another post [at SOLO], noting that (at least according to Alexa rankings) SOLO readership is in decline recently as compared to both OL and RoR."

That sounds like you then thought the data good -- and even seemed to suggest that this is a good thing -- or at least a fact of significance to the debate. Can you see why this might sound to some like a "Go team!"

However, I have no intention of filling the many apparent gaps in your knowledge. There are just too many.

On another thread you couldn't get a well-known reference to the famous novel and film Gone with the Wind. That's okay, but you also don't get the use of very common American slang like "strokes," either. I think I've noticed this before. Well, that's perfectly okay, too, of course, but you also seem totally ignorant of Campbell's long and varied history of elaborately inventing facts in his bigoted and most uncivil personal attacks. We can certainly overlook that, too, but, as you say, you did fail to "catch my point" about Stuttle, and the laugh was all mine. You seem not to know the first thing about PARC, so what point would there be in discussing with you its gross misrepresentation by others? Only ignorance, of course, can explain an assertion like this: "I find odd disjunctures between what some Objectivists consider settled truth and what research suggests. I sometimes find the disjuncture baffling: e.g., what does neuroscientific and other research suggest about 'altruism'?" Please do share whatever science you think is somehow at odds with standard Objectivist opinion (no cranks now.) That's the very stuff I want substantiated, "baffling" as you concede it is to you. (While you're at it maybe you can ask Ellen to provide that "empirical" case for determinism she claimed existed over at Dawkins.) And if we are not "blank slates" in the only sense Rand ever implied, then could you please indicate what I know that was not acquired knowledge? Rand was a keen observer of the fact that human consciousness possesses an elaborate identity, of course. Ignoring all of this -- and still more disturbingly given the boldness of your assertions -- you don't really seem to understand Rand about emotions not being "tools of cognition." Rand repeatedly acknowledged that emotions can be either/both friend or foe to cognition, but she's unavoidably correct in her claim that only reason can produce knowledge. Thus, when you say that for many Objectivists "statements about the mind" are "ipso facty" [sic] true, you really must explain yourself, that is, if you are to be coherent. I can think of many a "statement about the mind" which is also something that an Objectivist would take issue with in the strongest terms possible. Now, you could mean that Objectivists regard introspection as being a valid form of observation, which it surely is, but then your assertion is just plain wrong.

And the list goes on.

Well, since you think that "playing the booze card" was somehow so bad as to be inappropriate or even, oh my, a "mistake," I wonder if you could comment on TAS's debate-closing rules which exclude Linz for "incivility," but seemingly not such defamations as that. Indeed, Ms. Branden says, "Now," and Hudgins moves. Do you imagine that her future prospects at TAS conferences are limited?

In any event, the nobs over at TAS chided OL members using a rather lengthy list of incivilities. From the title of your post, you seem focused on the "insults" you have suffered here. Is it that the insults are directed at you, or do you share TAS's distress at OL members' conduct as well?

In this context, if you care to comment, how would you compare Ms. Branden's defamation of Linz to Linz's "incivility"?

Finally, you ask: "What ick do you know I love, James?"

When it was you who said of yourself, "More fair to say that I am fascinated by the ick factor..."

'Twas your contribution, this word "ick" -- and it was you yourself suggesting a certain fascination, or so it seemed.

[edit. P.S. I have recommended to Mr. Scherk, off line, that he read Peikoff's OPAR, and listen to his lecture courses, especially "Understanding Objectivism" and those in which Rand takes part in the Q & As. It seems that he hasn't had the benefit of any of those.]

Your references to Solo on OL and OL on Solo keep on showing that Lindsay's choice of wording is extremely apt.  You are a schism junkie and perhaps should consider using your time to contribute less to pot stirring between the two forums, and possibly more areas, (but I don't follow you), and spend more of your time on those gems of lucidity you occasionally proffer up.

James Valliant: Since you mentioned [twitting Michael Stuart Kelly, I'd be curious to see your very harshest words posted there criticizing the management there -- may I?

Yes, you may. My posts at Objectivist Living can be found here.

But, what was the point of the observation in any event? Truth by opinion poll (assuming the data are good) or what?

If by 'the observation' you mean my comments about readership ('It is salutary to see the two sister-lists examining each other's productions. It helps boost readership for both'), it is obvious. I approve of SOLO folk reading OL, and of OL folk reading SOLO.

If you meant the further comments about the 'rubberiness' of Alexa's stats of readership, I was puzzled by Objectivism Online and THE FORUM being represented as much less read than either OL or SOLO. As for "truth by opinion poll," I don't know what you mean. I was curious to see how the readership at SOLOHQ/RoR had changed over time in relation to its descendent lists. As Robert Winefield points out, it is hard to find objective statistics.

I trust that the varied lists I noted below are put up on the internet for a reason -- to attract and engage people in discussions of Rand's philosophy.

In any case, until Joe Rowlands booted Lindsay from SOLOHQ, there was a single constituency.

And, also curiously, you didn't feel the need to mention that you substantiated Linz's claims to an extent, did you?

Which of Lindsay's claims do you mean, James?

More to the point, I wonder if you can substantiate your own claim about those "canyons" with some examples and explanations -- or could those have been just empty stokes for the "Emperor's" benefit?

It's not a claim as such. I find odd disjunctures between what some Objectivists consider settled truth and what research suggests. I sometimes find the disjuncture baffling: e.g., what does neuroscientific and other research suggest about 'altruism'? To some Rand-influenced people, the very research is suspect.

I'm sure you find examples of disjuncture yourself, James, as you have read varied lists and forums. There is sometimes an assumption that statements about the mind are ipso facty true. For example, the mind is a blank slate. Another example, that emotions are not tools of cognition.

Sometimes too, folks go blank and silent when challenged on a disjuncture. For example, see the discussion of modern skeptics between Ross and Elliot and me.

Sometimes the gulf is between the intended and actual effect of a pronouncement -- for example, Holcberg's letter to the editor on aid to tsunami victims (in this sense, the gulf was between the PR objectives and the actual result).

I am sure you can find a score of your own examples.

Bear in mind that when I say O-world, this necessarily includes the wackos as well as the wise.

I have not idea what 'empty stokes' means.

"Perhaps some SOLOists do really believe that OL is a pit of snakes seething and rattling at the command of Emperor Michael and Empress Kat!"

Let's see, that's your title for them, isn't it?

Um, yeah. So? Like Empress Hsieh, Emperor Rowlands, Emperor Speicher, etc.

No, I really didn't imply that she [Stuttle] is any real danger from rules which are about as credible and serious as TAS "civility" rules -- did I?

I don't know. I guess I failed to catch your point then, at the time. Your comment was "Stuttle better watch herself -- she risks getting booted for "Branden-bashing.'" Stuttle found the comment funny. So did I. So what?

And bizarre misstatements of my position occur over there with some regularity (e.g., Stuttle's claims on that very thread.)

Well, if there are some 'bizarre misstatements' made by Stuttle, fork them up for dissection, James.

Those "canyons" never seem to phase you in that context, so what do you mean?

Canyons fazing me? Stuttle's canyons? Bizzare misstatements? You could quote or link to "Stuttle's claims on that very thread" if you like . . .

And are you sincere in seeming to agree with those who are trying to slime Linz so ridiculously?

That is very broad. Do I agree with "those who are trying to slime" Lindsay? Give me clear examples of ridiculous sliming and I will answer.

Do I agree that bringing up the booze card was a mistake in 2005 and in 2008? Yes.

Are you just feeding the "ick" you love so much? Or, what?

I'll have to say 'what?' What ick do you know I love, James? Do I love that Lindsay ropes all of the OL posters into "those swamp dwellers"? No. Do I love the purges and withdrawals and bannings? No. Do I like the murky appellations like "ugly trolls," or the characterizations of Robert Campbell as 'psychotic'? No.

I do like this idea of yours: "Of course, ideas must always be evaluated separately from the person who advocates them. Otherwise, we commit an ad hominem fallacy."

WSS

Wotta surprise to hear what he's sayin' on Lyin'! Not.

He belongs with those swamp-dwellers.

You "twitted" MSK did you, Mr. Scherk?

Since you mentioned this, I'd be curious to see your very harshest words posted there criticizing the management there -- may I?

In any case, over at OL it sounds like you're pretty proud of the statistical observations you made here.

But, what was the point of the observation in any event? Truth by opinion poll (assuming the data are good) or what?

You write at OL:

"Well, I didn't quite expect Lindsay to call me a 'sick fuck' quite so soon in the thread. My post was a very small swirl of the spoon. Lindsay seems convinced that I am a 'schism-junkie.' More fair to say that I am fascinated by the ick factor, and the schisms that attract my attention are the canyons that sometimes loom between objective reality and the O-world.

"I found it amusing that Lindsay is now reading OL, and thought I would correct his editorializing by giving links to and quotes from a group of posters he was characterizing as a 'lynch mob' of 'scum.' I suspect a hidden readership at SOLO -- those who don't actually post, but do follow the discussions. Maybe he just doesn't like to be corrected."

Suspect? How could you miss the links? Or the discussions about what's said there? You slid from Linz to everyone, it seems, without much pause. And, also curiously, you didn't feel the need to mention that you substantiated Linz's claims to an extent, did you?

More to the point, I wonder if you can substantiate your own claim about those "canyons" with some examples and explanations -- or could those have been just empty stokes for the "Emperor's" benefit?

I also note that over at OL you said that you found my comment about Ms. Stuttle amusing. "Yes, Valliant's aside [about Stuttle being booted] was hilarious. Perhaps some SOLOists do really believe that OL is a pit of snakes seething and rattling at the command of Emperor Michael and Empress Kat!"

Let's see, that's your title for them, isn't it?

But what's really so amusing is your take on what was obvious to all but you, it seems. No, I really didn't imply that she is any real danger from rules which are about as credible and serious as TAS "civility" rules -- did I? (Maybe you should read all that again.)

And bizarre misstatements of my position occur over there with some regularity (e.g., Stuttle's claims on that very thread.) Those "canyons" never seem to phase you in that context, so what do you mean? The crazy "snake pit" paranoia of Ms. Branden's and Campbell's wild claims never phased you, either. And are you sincere in seeming to agree with those who are trying to slime Linz so ridiculously?

Forgive me, but I must inquire as to the purpose of what might appear to some as two-faced behavior.

Are you just feeding the "ick" you love so much? Or, what?

Forgive me, but all of the noticeable "ick" -- and the love of "ick" -- seems to be elsewhere.

which ratings toolbar you down load.

The one I've got is a Firefox plugin called Search Status 1.22. It reports Alexa Ranks and Compete Ranks.

Using the Compete Ranking system the data is as follows:

Which suggests that SOLO readership is rising again.

Quote

""We wanted to take the time to clarify a few points so that you have a better informed view of who Compete is and where Compete’s analysis / metrics come from.

Compete data is not based solely on Compete Toolbar users. Compete balances multiple data sources, including ISPs, ASPs, Opt-In Panels and the Compete Toolbar. We strongly believe in our multiple data source strategy and its ability to detect and correct for bias across diverse data sources to ensure accurate projections."

More here and and here

So who is right? Fuck knows. I only did year one Statistics at University and deal with quantitative assays at work. The nefarious world of collecting internet user statistics (effectively conducting polling studies) is a mystery to me. Other than observing that political pollsters are paid for accurate results and I'm not sure that is true of internet pollsters I couldn't give you any more direction.

Nor am I concerned enough to learn.

I don't go to sites because they are popular. I go to sites because of the merit of their content. Judging things on merit was a principle worked for Galileo, Copernicus and sundry other heretics so I'm sure that I'm correct to apply it here.

But seeing as you asked, according to the Alexa ~rankings~ SOLO is still in the 250,950 range (1 is best, e.g. Amazon.com has a ranking of 32). OL is at 344,702 in spite of their wonderful Alexa statistics this month.

Lies, damn lies and statistics...

Thanks for the note, Robert. I had read about the statistical rubberiness around the time I twitted MSK for suggesting that SOLO staffers were gaming Alexa (which suggestion I thought was not only stupid but unprovable).

I suppose any ranking service that purports to compare one site with another is subject to the same constraints as Alexa. The service needs to sample from a real population going about their business of visiting sites. And a service with integrity needs to protect itself from folks installing the software and then madly poking at the site they wish to promote.

If the Alexa rankings of Objectivism Online/SOLO are incorrect, I guess it is because OO readers are less likely to have installed the toolbar than SOLO readers. As you note there could be only fifteen toolbar users, who may or may not be a representative sample.

I wish there were some more objective statistics with which to compare Alexa's. Can you give any suggestions?

WSS

Alexa is a pile of dog turds statistically speaking.

Non random sampling, mysterious methods of extrapolation etc. etc.

"Alexa data is based on a statistical sample consisting of website users who have downloaded the Alexa Toolbar.

Leaving aside the question of whether these users are a random sample of all website users, which they almost certainly are not (most are webmasters and marketers), another question is whether Alexa's sample size is really large enough to provide an accurate estimate of web traffic to a given site.

Alexa, owned by Amazon, does not provide information about their total population of toolbar users, but an analysis of Alexa data reveals this information by other means. Alexa claims to have had over 10 million downloads since the Toolbar's inception, but this provides an exaggerated picture of the toolbar's user population.

One of the two breakdowns of traffic is the Alexa Reach Rank, which purports to show the number of users per 1 million that access the site in a given period. Alexa provides reach rank data for the day, previous week, and previous three months."

I had written, "It is salutary to see the two sister-lists examining each other's productions. It helps boost readership for both (mind you, there is a much larger readership of the more orthodox lists such as THE FORUM and Objectivism Online -- or the very popular Atlasphere)."

Assuming that The Forum, Objectivism Online and the Atlasphere rank above both SOLO and OL was incorrect, at least according to traffic extrapolations from Alexa. I am not sure why the Alexa ratings show Objectivism Online and The Forum lower, while both their membership numbers and visible 'logged-in' statistics suggest otherwise.

The Alexa rankings place Rebirth of Reason, Objectivist Living, and SOLO Passion above The Forum, Objectivism Online and the Atlasphere.

It appears that Objectivist Living and Rebirth of Reason have each increased their rankings over the past month (in both reach and page views), while SOLO has declined.

I am sure there are other publicly accessible rating tools to compare these rankings. It is interesting to compare the slow deline of Rebirth of Reason vis a vis SOLO and OL.

WSS

At least here the schism-junkie doesn't conceal his being a cheerleader for O-Lying.

Bit of glossing going on, methinks. I distinctly remember someone other than MK saying Will's comments showed there were Perigo plants in TASland or something equally moronic.

If Ellen is taking a stand for decency she might insist that Babs justify her other recent smears of me as well. Every one of them is a rotten lie (and the kind of schism-stuff you lap up, Scherk, you sick fuck).

If Babs is going after MK for going after Will, I can only ask—what does she expect? Will invited an out-of-control, booze-befuddled derelict psych case to speak at TAS, according to Babs herself. [Edited to add—I forgot the best one: "Objectivism's suicide bomber."] Of course Will should be strung up!

Kind of reminds me of better days at SOLO/SOLOHQ, before the purgings and withdrawals of a varied group of discussants (Weiss, Sciabarra, Maurone, Bissell, Gagnon, Gomez, Deerman, Coates, Lineberry, Newberry, Mazza, Quintana, Hsieh, Newnham, Elliot, Wong, Ceely, Gaede . . . and so on).
Of course, most of these folk are either 'scum' or 'hyenas' or 'psychotic' or 'lying bitches' according to the line promulgated by the Emperor.

Some of your fellow-scum in there to be sure, but some fine folk as well. I doubt the latter will appreciate being used as grist for your dirty moral equivalence mill, Mr. Scherk.

"Straight up disagreements" which consist of Campbell and Stuttle pulling back from MSK's ravings about Linz's assumed dishonesty -- when Campbell knows how easily verifiable the truth of the matter is -- or Ms. Branden's ugly defamations of Linz?

Check.

And, for TAS and OL, it certainly was "the recent debacle."

Check again.

They needed some feel of sanity over there around now -- and badly.

Such a substantive and worthwhile discussion, too.

And Stuttle better watch herself -- she risks getting booted for "Branden-bashing."

Ah, the joys of an open forum...

Lindsay writes:

Some of the inhabitants of [Objectivist Living] were debating whether Will Thomas actually said what I said he said.

'Dragonfly' wrote "It seems obvious that Thomas is a big fan of Perigo."

Ellen Stuttle wrote "I don't know where you're getting its 'seem[ing] obvious that Thomas is a big fan of Perigo.'"

Then Dragonfly quoted Lindsay's paraphrase that Will Thomas considered him a 'true Objectivist.'

Ellen noted that if the paraphrase was accurate, "[i]t does sound from Linz's report (provided his report is accurate) as if the situation is other than I'd thought it was." And she further noted that "A case might be made for the 'true Objectivist' part."

Michael Stuart Kelly noted he couldn't make that kind of case, and implied that he doubted Lindsay's reporting.

Dragonfly countered MSK, saying "No, we can safely assume that it is fairly accurate."

Robert Campbell also corrected MSK: "I exchanged a couple of emails with Will Thomas during the recent debacle. What Mr. Perigo says Will said sounds authentic to me."

Some of the lynch-mob are going after Will for saying these things and for inviting me in the first place.

Not exactly, no.

Meanwhile, one O-Liar [Ellen Stuttle] actually had the decency to be remonstrating with [Barbara Branden] about one of her filthy smears against me.

As I already reported to this list, Ellen commented that she thought that James Kilbourne's post "Drooling Beast was "a bad mistake, and uncalled for" and that Barbara Branden's subsequent misunderstanding the post "was a further mistake."

Ellen did not approve Branden's more recent remark about 'a man often befuddled by alcohol.' She wrote, rather forthrightly, "I stick by my guns here. I think the remark was not wise for Barbara to have made."

Robert Campbell summed up the Will Thomas/Lindsay Perigo 'true Objectivist' kerfuffle with this useful note: "I think in this context 'true Objectivist' means 'has a firm command of Objectivist philosophy and commitment thereto, as Will Thomas understands these.' Will told me that Mr. Perigo was a much surer bet than some speaker who turns out to have a shaky understanding of Objectivism."

Also of note is Barbara Branden taking MSK to task: "I strongly protest the accusations -- accusations of willful, deliberate, conscious immorality -- that you have leveled at Will Thomas."

It is salutary to see the two sister-lists examining each other's productions. It helps boost readership for both (mind you, there is a much larger readership of the more orthodox lists such as THE FORUM and Objectivism Online -- or the very popular Atlasphere).

It is interesting to see that far from being the lockstep ravings of a lynch-mob, the actual discussions at OL are full of straight-up disagreements.

Kind of reminds me of better days at SOLO/SOLOHQ, before the purgings and withdrawals of a varied group of discussants (Weiss, Sciabarra, Maurone, Bissell, Gagnon, Gomez, Deerman, Coates, Lineberry, Newberry, Mazza, Quintana, Hsieh, Newnham, Elliot, Wong, Ceely, Gaede . . . and so on).

Of course, most of these folk are either 'scum' or 'hyenas' or 'psychotic' or 'lying bitches' according to the line promulgated by the Emperor.

WSS

When I was at Lance's last night he showed me the latest carryings-on at Lying. Some of the inhabitants of that repository of rottenness were debating whether Will Thomas actually said what I said he said. This is for their benefit—you can put quotes around the remarks I attribute to him.

Some of the lynch-mob are going after Will for saying these things and for inviting me in the first place. About what you'd expect from those devotees of openness and tolerance.

Meanwhile, one O-Liar actually had the decency to be remonstrating with Babs about one of her filthy smears against me. I expect this outbreak of integrity will be quashed forthwith.

Linz

No, it's real simple.

If "civility" is the real issue, then we should expect that TAS will be "uninviting" several other lecturers for future events whom they've had in the past -- given the admissions by Hudgins and Bidinotto of incivility over at OL. If the issue is his having been critical of TAS -- then the same is also true.

The alleged basis for booting Linz is, quite obviously, bullshit, a pretense.

Since other TAS lecturers are just as "guilty" as Linz on the grounds used to exclude him, but get very different treatment, I wonder if TAS participants even care about this kind of dishonesty and what it implies.

That's all.

"I have read the various threads on this issue and couldn't really stop as it felt like I was watching a bus crash."

As bridge-burning is practically the national sport of Objectivism, rubbernecking is nigh impossible to resist.

I'd have respected Ed sticking hard by Will's decision and saying "Concerns for controversy be damned; we're having Linz as a lively if inflammatory speaker!"

Now wouldn't that have been a "Wow!"?!

Or I'd have respected Ed if he'd just weighed in from the start "WTF?! Will messed up. Linz insults TAS all the bloody time and I'll be damned if we're not going to invite him!"

It was a bit late for that. My presentations had been accepted, remember, *after* I had made the following clear:

_______________________________________

Last time, the Valliant/Branden debate was raging, and you let me know that I ought to bite my tongue when it came to criticising TAS in that debate since I was scheduled to speak at the upcoming SS. I pulled out of the SS rather than bite my tongue, as you surely knew I would. I don't foresee any internecine war this year, but you know what this movement is like. And the
Valliant/Branden matter is apt to flare up again at any time (indeed, it just has on SOLO): I remain resoundingly on Valliant's side in the matter of the Rand-diminishers.

In any event, any demand that I bite my tongue this time would have the same result. I shall be true to myself under all circumstances. I alienated TOC over Valliant; I alienated Hsiekovians over Peikoff's voting fatwa. I stand by everything I said in both disputes. I shan't be picking fights (other than with alruists, statists and mystics, of course) but I won't shrink from one either.

_____________________________________________

How prophetic!

When the lynch mob first began to bray, Will said he was glad I was wrong for accepting and he was wrong for inviting, since that could well mean we were both right! He also said he knew me to be an excellent speaker, a true Objectivist, and someone who has thoughtful and insightful things to say. I suspect if it were over to Will, I'd still be going. It was nice dealing with him, and I had high hopes for what it portended, as did he.

But the appear-to-kind-of-leave-the-decision-up-to-Linz, multiple posts for civility here and there and everywhere, then finally rescind, all with way too much verbiage - damn that's just lame.

Yes, I believe Ed expected me to pull out after he first blamed me for the outbreak of fresh hostilities. I wasn't going to make it that easy for him. I did not start those hostilities, had not breached any contract and was not going to accept blame for something I didn't do. In the end, Ed's capitulation to the mob had to be all his own work—and it was.

It was dishonorable and cowardly. TAS now lines up quite explicitly with the proposition that to initiate calumnies against someone will earn a mild, no-names-mentioned rebuke-by-allusion, followed by the contract-violating dumping of the innocent party who was slandered because of his justifiably ferocious response to the slander ... and the blaming of that party for causing the trouble! Hudgins, Bidinotto, Kelley—come out and admit this openly, you craven apologies for approximations to shadows of jellyfish.

Same-old same-old moral equivalence we saw from you guys re PARC.

Was it "slime" Peikoff called you? He sure was in a good mood that day!

Linz

Scott McMickle writes: The fact that this issue was brought up by TAS in an open forum shows a tremendous lack of judgement.

I thought that Lindsay made it public here in "Batten Down the Hatches!" -- if by 'this issue' Scott means an invitation to speak.

Is the toddler happier when he gets home and has no one to play with? Is Objectivism better when voices are silenced or ignored? I hope TAS enjoys playing with itself.

What I didn't understand was the tactics (or lack of tactics) of the Society and Lindsay. If the Society (in the person of Will Thomas) didn't do its homework in gauging possible reactions . . . and then it sent Ed Hudgins forward to ask for clarifications from the speaker . . . and then it was surprised by the reaction from the speaker . . . it reflects poorly on their ability to see and transform controversy.

Similarly, I don't know if Lindsay had a strategy: was he interested foremost in bringing his message of the 'worst enemies' to the seminar? Was that the strategic goal? If so, then what kind of tactics were deployed to make sure he got to his goal?

As for the kerfuffle, I think Ellen Stuttle had the best set of questions and analyses by far. Unlike the caricature of all OLers as psychotic good-bashing ogres.

Not so oddly, she took Barbara to task for yet again bringing up the booze-related issue:

The "Drooling Best" post by James Kilbourne was a bad mistake, and uncalled for however genuine the concern for Linz's well-beling. Barbara's misunderstanding Linz's posting it as acceding to the charge was a further mistake. I don't know if Barbara ever apologized for that. Her now having again referred to Linz's drinking gives him the one legitimate grievance in the whole commotion.
[Link]

WSS

"TAS itself can be attacked and ridiculed at OL -- but will their members catch any fallout from TAS?"

By "members," James, you mean those with something real or intangible to lose?

Extemporaneously, I can think of two types of members who *might* stand to lose favored status points for speaking unflatteringly of TAS: Those with sub-optimal academic credentials who relish the opportunity to speak at conferences, and graduate students. Donors, highly-degreed speakers, undergrads, rank-and-file general members -- not so much to fret about.

"May I ask all those who have adhered to TAS in the past -- what do you think?"

I'm not sure what you mean by "adhered," which implies a compact of some sort.

As the recipient of two SumSem fee waivers, based on student status, I was obliged to provide written feedback of my experience post-conference (for which I admit to letting slide). That was the extent of the quid pro quo, though. If there existed some code of conduct or speech proviso I was never made aware of it -- and would've failed miserably at abiding the latter (especially!), I might add.

On the contrary, I wasn't shy about speaking up when I thought someone was bang out of order. (No prizes for guessing the initials WRT and ELH correctly.)

This is the only thing I am going to say about this issue.  I have read the various threads on this issue and couldn't really stop as it felt like I was watching a bus crash.  The fact that this issue was brought up by TAS in an open forum shows a tremendous lack of judgement.  They purposely or mistakenly created a political power struggle and asked for people to throw fuel on the fire.  It's a bad idea to have personal arguments in public for many reasons (new thread or can we agree on this?).  Objectivists should avoid these sororityesque political power struggles that hurt them personally, hurt the philosophical movement, and create schisms.  It is perfectly appropriate to disagree with someone on a philosophical issue in public.  It is completely irrational to create this controversy. 

Now that the issue is public: Objectivists have a tremendous respect for personal property rights.  This is wonderful.  However, many Objectivists act like toddlers when using them.  Objectivism is hurt when free speech takes a back seat to "well, it's my convention and I can do what I want!"  Yes, you can do what you want.  Just as a two year old can take his toys and go home.  Is the toddler happier when he gets home and has no one to play with?  Is Objectivism better when voices are silenced or ignored?  I hope TAS enjoys playing with itself.  Yet one more stupid Oschism.

I'll admit that Linz can be a bit abrasive online.  But that's a silly reason to ignore everything he says. 

"Nonetheless, it takes two sides to stage a public brawl, and in any
case, those individuals were not invited to speak at our seminar about
Objectivism."

Well, isn't this the very acme and pitch of prevarication. ::shakes head::

I'm not usually much for following the Oist infighting, but in this case I've read through the respective threads at SOLO and OL.

I'd have respected Ed sticking hard by Will's decision and saying "Concerns for controversy be damned; we're having Linz as a lively if inflammatory speaker!"

Or I'd have respected Ed if he'd just weighed in from the start "WTF?! Will messed up. Linz insults TAS all the bloody time and I'll be damned if we're not going to invite him!"

But the appear-to-kind-of-leave-the-decision-up-to-Linz, multiple posts for civility here and there and everywhere, then finally rescind, all with way too much verbiage - damn that's just lame.

So does this mean the Perigo-Valliant takeover of TAS won't be happening after all?

As for the disinvite: entities act in accordance with their natures. This is Ed Hudgins being Ed Hudgins. The disinvite was done in the only kind of fashion that we would have expected from him. There's even the nice little touch about "the flames consuming Objectivism's public reputation," where it's no secret that things like Rand's dismissal of the Brandens from the Objectivist movement, for shamefully deceiving and using her for years, only "served to fan the flames consuming Objectivism's public reputation," whatever the requirements of justice involved, whatever the need to put in their place folks who behave badly and who would themselves give Objectivism a bad name in the process.

It's a kind of poetic irony that Dr. Hudgins is so consumed in some cock-eyed fashion with "Objectivism's public reputation" that his own leadership and actions are the face of TAS's public reputation -- and that doesn't bode well for TAS. Perhaps everyone should have figured that the beginning of the end for TOC/TAS had been signaled by bringing him on as Executive Director. Things looked promising back in the '90s, with an emphasis on strong engagement of ideas at an academic level of discourse, and where the alternative was so much groveling before Warts and Binswanker and Rubblefield at ARI. Then the name change. Then the ill-conceived "outreach" effort to CATO, then where it got to the point that a premier lecturer had to put the organization on notice that there was a KASS deficit, then the PARC bombshell, then the second name change, and now this, a fresh new telltale event to stamp on TAS's resume of decline.

What's this new event capture about TAS in a nutshell? Its lack of direction, its wishy-washiness, its moving about to and fro in an increasingly pathetic and desperate (and bound-to-backfire) attempt at shoring up its "image" and "reputation," its only seeming firm commitment any longer being a bizarre attachment to the Brandens, whatever the cost, whatever the latest meltdown by Barbara. (I mean, c'mon, still petty sniping at Tara Smith, her leaving Branden out of the discussion the alleged sign, of all things, that ARI-supported scholars are dishonest cultists? And if ARI writers have mushroom clouds in their eyes, can we likewise toss the Bissell Steamer in for the same blanket thrashing for expressing essentially the same sentiment?) It's sad to see what was once a vibrant and thriving organization being reduced to what we see now.

And to top it off, there's that whiff of bad faith. Nothing had changed since the previous Hudgins posting and this new one still left unaddressed the problem of how ridiculous it sounds to question whether Linz would be a civil lecturer. TAS need only review its history of his appearances at TAS seminars to know what they were going to get with him this time around. Linz laid out the question, and it was never answered:

"And when have you known me not to be [civil in the content of any speech at TAS and in behavior at any TAS event]?"

Linz's "acrimonious" words here on SOLO in response to what was said about the invite in OL, was flimsily and rather transparently dredged up as the excuse to rescind the invite. What's revealing about this turn of events was that Hudgins, if we take his words at face value, expected Linz to act differently than in accordance with his nature and past conduct at both TAS lectures and here on the internets. It was no secret to anyone who'd been paying attention that Linz spent the last 2 years bashing OL, TAS, and the Brandens in no uncertain terms. All of a sudden whatever bashing that was going on is supposed to stop on a dime in the interests of getting along, whatever comes out of OL, TAS, or the Brandens?

And let me reiterate that my first reaction to seeing this invite that it seemed like out of bizarro world, given the past bashing, but maybe it was in accordance with TAS's nature all along -- to lurch to and fro, to flip-flop, to invite and rescind both in the name of "civility" and "openness, to not have its leaders on the same page about invitations and then come up with lame excuses to rescind rather than just own up plainly to an administrative error?

I suppose it's just in Ed Hudgins's nature to be this short-sighted and epistemologically scatterbrained not to see how this just opens up the hole wider on his sinking ship, given his professed concern for image and reputation. I mean, how, otherwise, could he not see this plain as day?

And, hell, will their newly reorganized Summer Seminar lineup have anything quite as intriguing as the two lectures they just chopped?

Well spotted, that bit about psychologising and moral judgment from Babs' rage speech. Hahahaaaa!

Yes, meat axe to the skull stuff. And yes, she and TAS have both lost big time. With that one post she blew her credibility as a biographer, threadbare as it already was, right out of the water, irretrievably, not to mention any remaining credentials as a decent human being; and TAS forfeited any semblance of a claim to the high ground in acquiescing to it. Yes, Hudgins went through the motions of alluding to it, but it was my response to it that he condemned explicitly, not the disgraceful things she said.

I'd never seen that RoR debate you linked to and couldn't be bothered ploughing through it. Was I being likened to a Jihadist? Funny, given the time I spend being uncivil to real ones.

Barbara has not won the battle, it was another hideously embarrassing moment for her. TAS's capitulation wasn't a win for her, but a loss for them, but more on that later...

No elegant pierce to the heart with a stilleto here, Barbara came out wildly swinging the meat axe at Linz's skull.

I was absolutely aghast at her leveling the drunken Linz charges again. First, she aids in a public intervention on charges of being an alcoholic for which there was no evidence!! In fact, repeated testimonials from those who know Linz far better than Barbara (who I think only met him in person once) demonstrate no such thing. Did Barbara ever apologize for this?

No, instead she has the downright audacity to insinuate the same thing. Even when challenged on OL by her own people she tries to hide under insinuations of "often befuddled by alcohol". How does she know? How often? Where is her proof? Her answer: she will provide no further documentation--i.e. she will just leave the slander floating mid-air without any evidence to back it up.

Sound eerily familiar to her insinuations of Frank O'Connor being a drunk, who by all accounts was a very kind and decent man? No objections from Barbara when the PAR movie showed him falling down drunk in a telephone booth--Peter Fonda "was Frank", after all. Can't you just feel the "love"?

So in response, the only thing that Mr. Hudgins condemns is Linz's response to Barbara's slander? WHAT????? Does their model of "civility" include turning a blind eye to one of their own speakers who commits these vicious slanders? Rather strange, considering a couple TAS principals damned "The Drooling Beast" article when it first came out. What has changed since then? Slander is now a-ok? Very telling.

The Peron incident was brought up again. Another fine example. What was Barbara's response to all the evidence brought to her attention? To ignore the evidence, of course, because it conflicted with her view of her friend.

Anybody else notice a trend? When the evidence conflicts with the charges against a person, be it Linz or Peron, Barbara discards the evidence in favor of her emotions.

With such a mentality, how can anybody possibly trust her portrayal of Ayn Rand? Certainly, she had deep emotional attachments to Ayn Rand, and many of them extremely negative from The Break, yet she put this aside? Just like she did for Peron or Linz? She has steadily sunk her own reputation and, with it, her portrayal of Ayn Rand. The execrable PAR movie simply removed the window-dressing of "love" and "compassion" and exposed the naked truth of what she sought to accomplish.

Once again we see the psychological comparison to suicide bombers. In the quest for "civility" and "benevolence", many TAS people (including higher-ups) do not see the malice in such comparisons, or the hypocrisy. Additionaly, I guess Barbara has trouble following her own advice:

"How much more difficult it is to see into other people’s minds. We cannot know precisely what information they possess or how their minds dealt with that information. We cannot know the degree of their intelligence or their context or their life experiences. We cannot know how or why they have arrived at ideas that we may find abhorrent and irrational...Justice demands that we withhold moral censure where we do not have certainty."

Barbara sure presumes to have pinned down Linz's psychology and is no stranger to "moral censure"--in the worst way (i.e. unjustified slander). Barbara's dismissal of evidence in favor of hypocritical psychologizing makes Rand's statements on the subject all the more timely and priceless ("The Psychology of Psychologizing", VOR):

"Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific individuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to evidence." Sound familiar?

"Since he is dealing with the great "unknowable"--which used to be life after death or extrasensory perception, but now is man's subconscious--all rules of evidence, logic, and proof are suspended, and anything goes (which is what attracts him to his racket".

"What he seeks is a chance to condemn--to pronounce a negative moral judgment, not on the grounds of objective evidence, but on the grounds of some intangible, unprovable processes in a man's subconscious untranslated into action. This means: a chance to subvert morality. The basic motive of most psychologizers is hostility".

Hostility in Barbara's response? Check. Dismissal of evidence? Check. Rampant psychologizing of motives? Check. As Rand stated, when it comes to moral judgment, this mentality's motto is: "You can't know, but I can".

There's a bit of wry in Butler's delivery, if you're not familiar. ; )

James S Valliant: Thanks for the promotion, guys -- especially you, Mr. Scherk

I am all for discussion, and I can't discuss the book and its charges until I read it.

(as Rhett Butler said to Scarlett O'Hara when she donated her wedding ring to the Glorious Cause, "I know just how much that means to you, Mrs. Hamilton.")

I haven't ever donated a valuable ring to a cause, so hold yer horses there, James.

I hadn't even wanted to comment on it, hoping it would just become a book and not a touchstone. Although dubbed a 'schism-junkie,' I am disappointed that emotion won the day.

As both Ed and Lindsay and you, James, and others have commented, endless turf and fence squabbles are too-often the take-home message from the O-online world (except for the dating sites, of course).

Not that there is anything wrong with the occasional festival of demonizing.

WSS

But I also see value in putting the principal actors at OL in their proper context. So much better to judge the depth of the hole Hudgins et al. have dug for themselves.

If that hole has KASSless lying down beside Babs, Kelly and their friend Peron, then it's a grave. A grave of ooze, and they all richly deserve each other.

Peron framed? Nope. He was nobbled by one very determined and off-pissed Christian. But it's simple really. Why didn't he sue Winston Peters when Peters challenged him to? Instead he was spirited out of harm's way by ISIL. Who thereby reduced NZ's cockroach population significantly. No surprise that the creature has ended up being feted at Cockroach Corner.

But I also see value in putting the principal actors at OL in their proper context. So much better to judge the depth of the hole Hudgins et al. have dug for themselves.

Well, Linz,

It is a curious sort of invitation that obligates the guest to play by the host's rules not only during the event but anywhere and anytime the host demands. Who seeks that sort of control over others? A collectivist, of course.

Hudgins claims that you had an "implied" obligation to conduct yourself by his lights outside of the invitation to speak at the TAS summer seminar. Then he declares that, because after accepting the TAS invitation (surprise!) Linz was Linz on Linz's turf, you breached the terms of that invitation.

So what are we to conclude? Either Hudgins seriously believes the TAS invitation required your submission to the "kiss ass" collective of making nice with the apparatchiks of Objectivism, or he is concealing the true reason for rescinding the invitation. Once again, either way it stinks.

But let's just take Hudgins at face value. However much your heathen soul needs a little exorcism, Brother Linz , it is still yours. For Hudgins to make even a small claim upon it as part of a collective of psuedo-civility is noxious. And it is psuedo-civility he peddles, for civility is genuine only in service of the truth.

It is telling that Hudgins did not want the true civility you were bringing to the summer seminar. He rejected that because it did not entail your psuedo-civility to his "kiss ass" collective. Well, as you already know, Linz, you better off on your on soapbox anyway.

Moreover, the truth endures while lies fall away. If your path is a true one (and I think it mostly is, if often a dangerously crooked one ), you'll carry the day.

Regards, Bill

Tsk tsk tsk.

I never gave a damn about whether your disagreements with me were civil or not, as I thought I'd made clear. I was certainly emphatic on that point after I returned last spring. Civility is a virtue, yes, but I cared more that your attacks were misplaced. I cared that you had done wrong, not that you were impolite.

And that's the price you bear, when you short-circuit your thinking process and aim immediately at someone's character. You run the risk of being wrong, and people have every right to call you on it and flounce when you blind yourself to it. They have a right to leave your house when you've done wrong, it's as simple as that. I only returned when you changed your mind. I won't be here for long now, because I'm not really sure you ever did. My stand on this is no different in principle than yours on Barbara (with respect to her alcoholism smear). You're not the only person who gets to stand on principle.

But that's neither here nor there. I don't really care whether you were taken in by civility-mongers. I rather like civility -- when it doesn't mask something as insidious as this.

I care that you -- and everyone else on this list -- didn't see from the beginning that (1) Hudgins and company were willing to silence their own serious moral doubts about you in the interests of "peace" and (2) that Hudgins in particular is a patent moral agnostic who couldn't give a damn what anyone (whether Linz or Barbara) had ever said or done. Frankly, the OL crowd had something going for them on that score. They didn't frame it in the right terms, but what they were complaining about is that TAS was risking its moral integrity. Funny, that.

Yep.

Is that it was because of the incivility of the people at OL that TAS rescinded their invitation.

I too thought the same way you do now. I had no interest in reading PAR, I'd been turned off by the reviews people have given me and that god awful TV-movie. I thought that Rand's words were sufficient bulwark to defend Rand's honor.

I thought that any biography that didn't live up to Lytton Strachey's standard of "preserving a becoming brevity which excludes everything that is redundant and nothing that is significant" wasn't worth the paper it was written on.

And judging from the movie and the reviews, PAR seemed to preserve an unbecoming lurid fascination with the scurrilous and redundant so as to obscure that which was significant.

Then I observed Branden and her flunkies at work and I realized that Barbara's poisoned chalice would not be buried with her, but past on through her flunkies to new generations of Rand admirers. And it's to counter this that I intend to read PARC.

______________

These people are not content to argue the facts in evidence. No one, least of all Linz denies his fiery nature -- he counts is as a strength. But they still felt their case was weak so they interviewed their imaginations for 'evidence' so as to pad the indictment:

(1) The utter nonsense about Linz wanting to take over TAS.

(2) Lies about Linz being a fall down drunk of Ulysses S. Grant proportions.

(3) Balderdash about Linz pimping out his devotees to Newberry.

And most recently:

(4) Sewage about SOLOHQ members framing Jim Peron.

This last one is a fascinating in sight into the mentality of one of Branden's loudest champions. MSK has taken it upon himself to conduct a private whispering campaign against unnamed parties who 'smeared and framed' Jim Peron. Unnamed because to name them in public would expose him to a law suit.

Allow me to explain:

[MSK, From the OL thread hyperlinked in (4)]
"To keep this issue to a low public noise level so the smear cannot grow further qua smear, I will be glad to present the information I have by email to anyone asking for it (in good faith, meaning so they can look at the facts and see for themselves, too)."

In other words he'll only supply his revelations to those with a jaundiced eye who will not pass them on to the parties he names.

Which is smart. Unless that named parties are Winston Peters and the principal members of the, now defunct, Locke Foundation his accusations would be libelous.

Note th