... whoever he is wrote that article years ago. I was impressed with it at the time but I now see the damage the "tolerationists" have done and how intolerant in the bad sense they really are. I just looked up another old article, this one by leading "tolerationist" Robert Bidinotto, called Understanding Peikoff. What a disgraceful piece of psychologising based on the testimony of an unnamed source! And I had to laugh at this bit, about Peikoff's alleged reversion to form following the publication of Babs's book:

Behavior that had been common during the ugly NBI days -- demands of loyalty and fealty, moral denunciations, evaluating books without reading them, etc. -- suddenly returned to fashion.

Evaluating books without reading them? Hahahahaha! Ask Mr. Bidinotto what he said about PARC—without reading it. And need I mention yet again the purging of speakers' lists?

Anyway, Objectivists shouldn't shrink from judgement—or from the responsibility of backing it up. It's gratuitous (irrational) judgmentalism that is wrong. That's the kind pomowankers engage in, even as they claim to be non-judgmental.

I have not heard of this Wolf chap...but, Luke, speaking in general terms...

Yes, I consider a marxist to be 'evil' ...those chaps want to bump off chaps like me! ...they want to steal profits (out of envy) and enslave everyone who does not agree with them by wanting to tell everyone how to think, how to behave, where to live, what to do, what to eat, what to wear (etc...etc)...enslavement!

There is also the matter of denying reality....denying a reality of free markets, and people preferring to make their own decisions, and of their ideology being outdated and nonsense.

It is as if they hold up something blue and emphatically claim it is purple and start holding a gun to the head of anyone disagreeing!

As such, anyone who claims to be a marxist..yes...they deserve derision, deserve to be held in contempt.

On election day...tick the LIBERTARIANZ box...

In case you haven't noticed, you initiated the ad hominems by accepting on faith that Objectivists have a morbid propensity for gratuitous attacks on the character of their adversaries. The only example given is the hypothetical "academic Marxist," the allusion here being to the different assumptions about such a gentleman touted in Peikoff's Fact and Value and Kelley's Truth and Toleration. I volunteered that most of the time, Peikoff's evaluation—evil evader—would be correct, given the real-life experience we have of Marxism (and academic Marxists, like Jane Kelsey). You have a different view? Then argue it, instead of behaving like a silly prat.

Another excellent illustration.

 Instead of talking about the substance of the quote, the author is "the stupidest", what he says is "bullshit" and you ask "Who's Chris Wolf?" because, as everyone knows, the person is more important than the idea.

Did you try the stupidest author of the day too? Why is this pertinent today? It's bullshit, I've read it before. Who's Chris Wolf? - he hasn't a handle on it.

A perfect example of what the quote was talking about.

For example, we are told that an academic Marxist is not merely mistaken, but is 'evil,' and is guilty of practicing 'evasion.' ...

Of most academic Marxists that would be true.

The victims of such attacks frequently conclude that Objectivism is simply another nutty cult, not worth wasting time on."

Well they would say that wouldn't they?

I see you've picked up on a link supplied by our resident Scientology nutter. Scientology is a cult. To compare Objectivism with it is absurd on its face.

There's another nutty cult one should watch out for: The cult of never passing judgement except on those who pass judgement they can back up. The cult of never getting angry except at those who get angry justifiably. The cult of never taking anything seriously except the cultivation of airheadery. The cult of cool. The stupid, filthy cult of cool. Not worth wasting time on.