NZ Stuff—Linz and Libz: The End

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2008-12-02 11:09

My irrevocable breach from the party of which I was a founding member, first leader and most successful vote-deliverer, has just occurred, at their instigation. I am extremely angry, and will elaborate on this over the next little while. In essence, the party has become unrecognisable to me, and I wish to have no further association with it. I have resigned my membership, and will explain in detail over the next few days.

( categories: )

"I never heard a sausage"

Robert's picture


I offered...

Olivia's picture

my advertising services to the Libz twice, after I had finished with the National campaign two months before the election. I was told that they'd love any help they could get, so my email address was passed over to whomever was in charge of the campaign. I never heard a sausage.

"Do not go gentle into that good night
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

Well then, dear Uncle...

mvardoulis's picture or non-music, I wouldn't let that get in the way of the truly important work which is the *fight* (and make no mistake, it is a *street fight* the kind which the socialists who are now in power have won) for individual liberty.

There should be a distinction between individuals in the liberty movement who differ in opinion regarding certain philosophical positions, and even in tactical preferences, and those individuals who are do more harm than good. Clearly, Linz, in spite of whatever damaged egos or pariah status you may bring to the table, you've done FAR MORE GOOD THAN 'HARM' to the liberty movement in New Zealand and abroad. I urge the Libz to lower an olive branch in your direction so that you may once again be closer than arm's length to the party which (assuming they discontinue pushing you away, dear Uncle) best represents libertarianism anywhere in the world.

Anyone who doubts the importance of being KASS in the fight for liberty needs to look long and hard at the success of the socialists - specifically of people like Saul Alinsky whom I've mentioned numerous times should be a model for success as it is *we libertarians* who are clearly the 'out group' in need of radical action. Linz, it seemed like you did have Bernard well trained in this area - the bits I saw of him were definitely KASS. Libz just needs to use you for as much as you're willing to give and refine their organizational structure and approach around KASS grass roots activism.

If the USPS Libs had a Linz advising them, they'd probably be worth voting for...!

H/G STS Announcement

Luke H's picture

Greetings, Kia Ora, Kia Orana, Fakalofa Lahi Atu, Taloha Ni and (Sign-language greeting).

I'm pleased to announce that attendees of the Howison/Goode Sensitivity Training School can now apply for WINZ grants to pay their attendance fees.

We welcome late entries to the Dec 08 course, which includes training in that most sensitive holiday period topic: work Christmas cards.  We'll show you how to write holiday greetings cards which will make make even the most outlandish religions feel included.  We also have a special workshop on how to facilitate a culturally safe Christmas party by substituting non-alcoholic beer and sparkling grape juice for those nasty alcoholic drinks and asking participants to wear clothes reflecting each other's cultural backgrounds.

Topics for the Jan/Feb 09 course include press release sanitisation, revised marae attendance protocols, tolerating the behaviour of people from other cultures (even when we find them rude, immoral or illegal!), and how to promote recycling in a religiously inclusive way.

To conclude I would like to quote a Maori proverb, which emphasizes teamwork.

Kaua e rangiruatia te hâ o te hoe; e kore tô tâtou waka e û ki uta.

Do not lift the paddle out of unison or our canoe will never reach the shore.

Thank you SOLOists and Happy Holidays!  Smiling

No reira, tena koutou, tena koutou, kia ora, kia kaha, tena koutou katoa.

assisting candidates

Phil Howison's picture

I made it clear I was available to help candidates with their speeches and speech-making skills (not taken up)

If I had known about that offer I would have taken it up.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

BTW, how was Bernard's ass after he left your apartment?

Virginity intact. I am very conscientious about non-initiation of force, even when it would do the recipient good (face-in-the-pillow therapy and all that). Eye

Though I spanked it, in full public view in the Beehive restaurant. That's part of the ritual of the passing-on of Libz leadership. There's a photo of it somewhere.

Those were the pre-anal-retentive days of Libz when they knew how to have fun and the importance thereof. Now it's the Goode/Howison Sensitivity Training School!

That's Howison, Luke, not Howison, Phil, of course. Eye

I did not know that...

Jameson's picture

"I handed the credit card court case to Bernard so that Libz would get the publicity and the credit."

So even their greatest achievement can be attributed to you! ... AND they turned down free media training from one of the best?! Yes, one slip from Saddamy alright.

BTW, how was Bernard's ass after he left your apartment? Smiling


Lindsay Perigo's picture

My debate with Linz over music, wartime civil liberty, etc. I would never place in equal importance with the defense of the all-but-forgotten notion of individual liberty.

But we've never debated music, only what you mistake for it. Eye

It is important not to let personal animosities blind us to what we're all here for. Joe let his antipathy towards me get the better of him, to the point of smearing me. That was a pity.

In the case of me and Libz, naturally I'll continue to support their policies (at least until such time as they become a Saddamite party, which is where I fear they're headed), but it'll be arms-length supportiveness. In recent times I was as supportive as ever as leader emeritus. I handed the credit card court case to Bernard so that Libz would get the publicity and the credit. I hauled Bernard's ass round to my apartment to shunt it into the leadership in the first place. I got him on air once a week during my last stint on Radio Pacific. I donated $1000 to Libz' election advertising. I made it clear I was available to help candidates with their speeches and speech-making skills (not taken up). When the response consists of my being moderated on the libertyloop for specious and KASSless reasons, I naturally have no wish to associate with the folk who would do, or tolerate, that.


mvardoulis's picture can always borrow *my* tin foil hat if you've misplaced yours (I'm ocassionally accused of being a nutter as well, you see). You wrote: "In other words, simple common sense. That's been around for years, just like people's tendency to ignore it, in favor of self-justification, which is rampant in Objectivism." I would say that's a fair generalization; one which I was alluding to. I confess to it myself! Smiling

Here is some more common sense: I'm not going to let my disagreements with Linz (which are more than one might think) get in the way of the all-to-critical defense of individual liberty and reason that Linz, this site, and precious few other outlets provide. My debate with Linz over music, wartime civil liberty, etc. I would never place in equal importance with the defense of the all-but-forgotten notion of individual liberty.

Oh dear...

Jameson's picture

Aaron has misplaced his tinfoil hat...

Long indeed the road ahead,

Aaron Williams's picture

Long indeed the road ahead, turning, turning, turning, old roads forgotten, new ones paved, 911 was an inside job, a bit of pleasure tossed in. Long road ahead.

No I take it back

gregster's picture

And you just proved my omniscience is flawed. You have a long, meandering road ahead.

"Objectivism merely provides

Aaron Williams's picture

"Objectivism merely provides the tools that you could put to work towards your happiness. There is a rational basis to the Philosophy which would leave you confident that your decisions were to be made to the best of your ability and knowledge."

In other words, simple common sense. That's been around for years, just like people's tendency to ignore it, in favor of self-justification, which is rampant in Objectivism.


gregster's picture

You display a belief in the omniscient Objectivist. My, you do have an exalted opinion of Objectivism at least.

Put aside your concerns with your faults or those of others. Objectivism merely provides the tools that you could put to work towards your happiness. There is a rational basis to the Philosophy which would leave you confident that your decisions were to be made to the best of your ability and knowledge.

You have, for the first time as far as I can tell, raised a valid topic.

"Linz is all- knowing. As is every other Objectivist." If you weren't being facetious here I would point out the contradiction in your stated claim of 'infallibity' of Objectivists and the faults of all that would negate the statements you make.

Well done though, I omnisciently believe you're becoming hooked.

Everyone has faults? Which

Aaron Williams's picture

Everyone has faults? Which faults are those? Can you list the specific faults that every individual person has? Or are you admitting that we all have faults we're unable to realize we have, which I personally agree with? The latter would bring an end to your Objectivist stance, since it would mean that no Objectivist can know if he's correct, given that "we all have faults." Objectivists in-fight. Who's correct? How can you know? I agree that we all have faults, and that's the problem with Objectivism, or at least its fanatics. The only answer, after realizing this, is to relax and step back, lay off and understand the brain already! Oh, but hang on, I forgot ... each Objectivist needs to feel his view is correct, that it isn't possible we're all flawed, that one person is without flaws and sees utter truth. Linz is all-knowing. As is every other "Objectivist".

Hey, now, Joe...

mvardoulis's picture

...Linz may be a musical elitist who probably tolerated Eli and gave him the benefit of the doubt more than he should have (I kind of did the same, chalking up some of Eli's questionable comments to a bad sense of humor which I might not be fully grasping half a world away), but having known Linz for 14 years now and having hung out with him in person many times I can honestly say you're accusation is very much out of character. Everyone has faults, outspoken Objectivists are perhaps more obvious in theirs, but if Linz was easily seduced by money he'd still be a lefty-interviewer towing the braindead NZ on Air line.

I'm not saying I agree with everything Linz says or does (far from it at times!), and he definately has crumedgeoun tendencies, but he's not one of the bad guys. You can call me a Linz-ass-kisser (yuck- no offense Linz) as well, but I know Objectivism, and FOR CERTAINLY l(L)ibertarianism will be better off because of him.

Greg, re "Randroid":

Ellen Stuttle's picture


"Randroid," at least as I use the term, refers to persons who try to mimic Rand as a role model, either in general behavior or more locally, especially in regard to artistic tastes.

For instance, I think of the Rand admirers who promptly got rid of their Maxfield Parrish prints upon Rand's pronouncing Parrish "rubbish." Or another example to convey the flavor: Back in the mid-70s it became known to some O'ist friends of mine that a young girl named Julie was going to try to get AR interested in Beethoven. One of those friends, Evan Picoult (who well knew of my love of Beethoven), told me in despairing tones, "Oh, I hope that [Rand] doesn't come out in favor of Beethoven, because then I'll never know who really loves Beethoven!"

Since Rand is no longer around as a direct role model, it's harder today to try to imitate her general behavior. Nor do I think that today there's nearly the extent of attempted copying of her artistic tastes as there once was. (After all, even Leonard Peikoff admits to liking Beethoven.)

I don't agree with the opinion expressed by Bob Mac and quoted by me in the post you linked, that Rand was "an angry venemous narcissist." However, I understood what he was talking about in regard to persons who found in Objectivism a justification for being "angry, narcissistic, condescending." Again, I think that this pattern occurs much less frequently today.


Lord Baron...

Olivia's picture

You're welcome.

Off topic for a moment, in Ivanhoe, there is a character named Cedric the Saxon- Ivanhoe's father. If ever a character was embellished with a similar disposition and manner to yours, it is he. After reading it, I'm even more convinced that Lord Baron is as apt a nick-name for you as any.

I'm yet to find out his fate, but I've got a feeling it will be a good one.

"Do not go gentle into that good night
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

Randroid / Brandroid

gregster's picture

Is it merely convenient to write Brandroid, Ellen herself uses Randroid e.g. here?

Just below is more smearing, this one from MSK.

But from Ellen: "I could easily be wrong about the past of it, since I wasn't paying more than occasional notice prior to all the fuss starting to be made over PARC. But recall that Linz even resisted reading PARC, and he was the first to post defending Barbara on the initial SOLOHQ thread. (I'll look up the URL in a minute.) It seems to me that the situation abruptly changed when he had his falling out with Barbara; his tune then became AR champion against "smearer-in-chief."

I'm by no means applauding the cult stuff which surrounds Linz himself. But I'm not at all convinced that there was AR-as-goddess worship going on there until recent history."


Lindsay Perigo's picture

How dramatic to see himself as a victim of lynch mobbery. The unglamorous truth is, there are quite a few people who very much dislike Linz, among them some long-time IOS/TOC/TAS supporters who felt badly insulted when Linz was invited to talk at the Summer Seminar. Linz tells a story flattering to himself as to why those people dislike him and why they felt as they did. I consider his story mythic.

"Lynch mob" is exactly what it was, right there on O-Lying, screeching and baying, some of them behind pseudonyms, none of whom actually knew/knows me from Adam, none of whom bothered showing up for TAS's SS having effected their lynching. My being invited had a lot to do with my being the top-rated speaker at the 2004 SS. It was about bums-on-seats, and burying hatchets, on a "without prejudice" basis. Topics were arrived at by me and Will, and presumably approved by Ed before Will signed off on the deal. None of O-Lying's business. Attendance was not compulsory, after all; folk were free to boycott ... but I would have bet money on standing room only. Eye Pity it wasn't allowed to proceed.

Lady S ... thanks for the support!

A point of clarification

Ellen Stuttle's picture

about my views on the TAS invitation to Linz:

I wrote in an earlier post (here, #61906; you have to scroll down -- I'm changing the wording of references to Linz to 3rd-person instead of 2nd-person form):


"I was among the objectors to Linz's being invited to talk at TAS -- on the particular subjects which he slated. (There were possible other subjects he might have been invited to talk on without objection from me.) I objected to the idea of anyone's being invited to give the music talk Linz proposed -- and to his in particular being invited to give the 'what's wrong with O'ists?' talk, since I consider him a sterling example of the problems."


I'll add that I didn't approve of Ed Hudgins' rescinding the invitation in a manner which put the blame on Linz. I think that the error made by TAS was to leave the choice of topics to Linz's discretion, and that, in rescinding, Ed should have done one of two things: He either should have said that TAS goofed entirely and apologized to all concerned; or he should have changed the terms of the invitation so as to require Linz to submit topics and outlines for TAS approval or veto (a condition which might not have been acceptable to Linz).

Also, I'd have had no objection to Linz's giving either or both of his originally proposed talks as Contributed offerings.

That about sums up my opinions on the issue.


Two further points:

Since Linz in effect (4 posts down the queue) makes my agreeing with his opinion of Barbara a requirement for "reasonable discussion" by his standards, and since I on the other hand consider his employing such locutions as "uncritical groupies" and "mindless cheerleading" unacceptable, conversation between him and me, at least on the TAS issue, appears to have reached its end.



I think that Barbara shouldn't have written the letter. I said so at the time. Nonetheless, I think it expressed her sincere opinion. I disagree about Barbara's being a conniver.

As to Linz's mythologizing, that particular word choice -- "vile smears" -- wasn't a good one to use as an example. A fair case could be made of the letter's being a smear. His repeated "lynch mob" charge, though, is an excellent example of what I'm talking about. How dramatic to see himself as a victim of lynch mobbery. The unglamorous truth is, there are quite a few people who very much dislike Linz, among them some long-time IOS/TOC/TAS supporters who felt badly insulted when Linz was invited to talk at the Summer Seminar. Linz tells a story flattering to himself as to why those people dislike him and why they felt as they did. I consider his story mythic.



Olivia's picture

The language you use makes reasonable discussion with you impossible: "lynch-mob," "vile smears." You and your mythology.

If I may chime in here;

Mythology? That's unfair. Barbara's very tangible letter is nothing short of a vile smear. She psychologises Lindsay so shamelessly and her conclusions are simply untrue. To call it a vile smear is actually an understatement. I'd call it libel. To deny that the letter is a "vile smear" is to commit a gross act of evasion.

Remember that this letter was written to achieve a result which was successful. Barbara is worse than a lying, smearing, low-life bitch, she's a conniver of great competence, who makes a show of standing on some noble set of principles in the name of Objectivist benevolence. It is little wonder that she projects these motives onto others.

"Do not go gentle into that good night
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

Yup ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

He's still unwell. Gonna be a long haul.

... it vindicated

Mark Hubbard's picture

... it vindicated Valliant.


I miss his posts. Is his health still not well?


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I allow no possibility that BB could have been sincere because it's not possible for a human being to smear another human being so viciously, "sincerely" ... in good faith. The simple expedient of checking out my recent radio and TV appearances, or picking up her phone and calling me, or talking to anyone who, unlike her, knows me, would have told her, or anyone tempted to believe her, that I am not a train-wreck, out of control, befuddled by alcohol and all the rest, including all that ridiculous psychologising about "demons" and similar psychobabsle. Her base and baseless attack on me was beyond disgraceful, as was the silence in the face of it by her uncritical groupies (a silence broken only by mindless cheerleading in the cause of "Dump Linz!"). Reasonable discussion is impossible with anyone who won't acknowledge that.

It all had one salutary effect, though, for anyone who cared to make the connection: it vindicated Valliant.

"whispering campaign"

Ellen Stuttle's picture

Linz, I think that you have no more evidence for the charge that Barbara conducted a whispering campaign than MSK has for his belief that you allowed Elijah back on SOLO from financial motives.

For the record: I received no backstage instigation from Barbara, and I'm confident that none of the others who objected required instigation in order to object. There was no "lynch mob." There was a group of people, each of whom individually considered the invitation an offense.

What makes reasonable discussion impossible with you in this issue (and in so many others) is your insistence on posing terms in such a way that anyone who disagrees with you is pushed into a defensive situation by being negatively labeled off the mark -- and often group-classified as well. E.g., your post title "the standard Brandroid fallacy," as if I am a "Brandroid."

I didn't support Barbara's statement, but you allow no possibility that Barbara could have been sincere. "[C]alling these lies what they are makes reasonable discussion with me impossible," you describe me as having said, which of course isn't what I said.

There's no point in discussing with someone who pulls that stuff.


The standard Brandroid fallacy ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... whereby it's OK to make vile smears; it's not OK to call them vile smears. Here again is BB's public culmination of her whispering campaign behind the scenes as leader of the lynch mob to get me dumped. Every conclusion about me is a lie, and/or gratuitous psychologising. Now you say calling these lies what they are makes reasonable discussion with me impossible. I'm happy for readers to judge for themselves what it is that makes reasonable discussion impossible:


Ed, I have read your statement, “The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar,” very carefully and thoughtfully. I want to say that I very much admire your good will and benevolence, as I have admired them during our conversations and through observing you over the past couple of years – that I am in full agreement with you that the goals of The Atlas Society are reasonable and appropriate -- and also that I think I understand you in the matter of the invitation to Perigo as I did not until now.
I believe I have grasped the difference between us in this matter, which was bewildering to me before. I think it is not the case that we have a similar estimate of the man, but that we differ on whether TAS should extend an olive branch to him and can reasonably expect that he will change his behavior. I have followed Perigo to some degree for the last few years, as you have not and had no reason to do; I have done so not because of his continuing attacks on me, but because I’ve been fascinated by the psychological phenomenon that is Lindsay Perigo. You apparently see a man who might be open to reason if he is brought to grasp that his irrationality is self-defeating; I see a man driven by demons, by malice and by hatreds that make him Impervious to reason when his self-image is at stake. And that self-image is, above all, of Perigo the Beleaguered Rebel – the rebel against everything conventional (whether a particular convention is good or bad), whose life is dedicated to a battle with the “Kassless” Babbitts of the world and who is prepared to go down to lonely defeat if he must. In a word, he believes he is doomed to martyrdom, and in some real sense relishes that fate and is determined to bring it about because it will establish his superiority to the rest of us and his dedication to his principles.
And I see a man often befuddled by alcohol, which serves to make him still more grandiose and still more irrational. As you may know, he has very often in the past excused one or another of his forum tantrums by saying he had had too much to drink; apparently he hasn’t done that lately, because even his cronies were not taking it seriously any longer. Now, he defends his invective-filled tantrums as “rational passion.”
Nor do I think you realize the extent of his deterioration since he last spoke at TAS. I agree with you that he once was a very good speaker, who could attract a large audience. But did you hear the talk he gave (the one that was supposed to be a refutation of my “Objectivism and Rage” talk -- which I had not yet given)? I suggest you listen to it; you will see what has been happening to him. His deterioration has vastly accelerated since that disastrous speech that almost no one attended — and that constituted a humiliation for him for which he never will forgive TAS or me.
This is a man who is out of control, and If he agrees to your terms you will have on your hands a pathetic, (yes, even I can see the pathos of his deterioration) severely emotionally disturbed man who can be set off into total irrationality by any perceived slight – and who perceives slights in the least disagreement with his positions on any and all subjects.
You have stated the terms you demand if he is to appear at the Summer Seminar. I see two possibilities: 1) He will feel that he would be “Kassless” if he acceded to you terms, and he will back out in a fury of invective; 2) He’ll say he agrees to your terms, intending to do his work through conversations with Seminar attendees and through planting questions in the question periods following his talks that will clearly “require” him to discuss the evil of TAS and “the Brandens.” I believe you underestimate Perigo’s deviousness, and the amount of backstage plotting he and his cohorts do. As one example, in advance of anything said publicly, he carefully orchestrated the scurrilous attack on Chris Sciabarra, which came from Perigo, Diana Hseih, and one or two others. One could tell it by the similarity in wording of many of their posts, a similarity too great to have been accidental. You can be sure that if Perigo goes to the Seminar, he will do everything possible to arrange methods for the achievement of his purposes.
I realize that to anyone who is not familiar with Perigo’s excesses, this may seem an exaggerated, even hysterical, attack on a flawed man who is nevertheless dedicated to the principles of Objectivism. But to those who have followed his activities and his writings, it is if anything rather mild. Ask Robert Campbell or Robert Bissell or Michael Kelley – or Robert Bidinotto – or several dozen others who characteristically tend to be slow to condemn anyone.
Here are just a few quotes from his posts to his forum that will give you the flavor of Perigo’s communications:
1. Discussing the Objectivist Center’s change of name to The Atlas Society:
“…that motley collection of cowardly weasel-worders, those evasive sponsors of smearers and Rand-diminishers, they who are embarrassed by and are an embarrassment to the word ‘Objectivist,’ will no longer be using it [the name ‘Objectivist’]… What a relief! Even more edifying is the probability that this is the last nail in their lice-ridden coffin. Mealy=mouthed appeasement doesn’t rule. How could it – except at TOC, its natural home?”
2. Perigo on Nathaniel and Barbara Branden:
“The Brandens’ place in history is secure… as lying, conniving, gold-digging, parasitical manipulators of an innocent and epochal genius.”
“Those two wrote the manual on insincerity, informed by Iago-like malice and cunning.”
And about me:
”The lying, smearing, low-life bitch!”
Ed, Perigo’s vendettas have nothing to do with ideas, everything to do with his hatred of whoever crosses him. As an example, here is what he wrote about me before he decided that I had crossed him:
“Barbara Branden. One of the world’s great exemplars of the art of writing. Peerless in her elegance and eloquence, invariably leaves her readers, crusty Founder included, moist-eyed and wistful for more. Will go down in history as Rand’s definitive biographer. Told the truth, lovingly, fearlessly. Kept her head while all about her were losing theirs. Honoured by Founder as ‘Majesty.’”
I echo Michael Kelly’s question to you, here on Objectivist Living, about Perigo:
“What I don't get—and this is not offered in a sense of hostility, I am genuinely perplexed—what I don't get is what makes you think that this time will be any different?
“As a child I learned that you judge a person by what he says and what he does. And if he keeps doing wrong, but saying each time, "This time I learned my lesson and I will be good," you soon stop believing him. How many times does it take and why does Perigo get a free pass, anyway? He's an adult, not a child....”
Because of his embrace of martyrdom, because he has never learned the difference between rational egoism and vanity, Lindsay Perigo is the suicide bomber of Objectivism. I do not want to see him take The Atlas Society with him.
I want to comment briefly on your attempt at a rapprochement with ARI through Yaron Brook. Whatever the accomplishments of ARI, and I do not deny that there have been notable accomplishments, there are at least two particular issues that I see as being so beyond the pale, so appalling that they should make any rapprochement unthinkable. (These criticisms are not directed at the members and students pf ARI, many of whom. when they make public statements, are merely echoing the words of their teachers, and many of whom are unsympathetic to the policies I’ll name; they are directed at those who are the setters of policy and the voices of that policy.)
The first is the ARI position on foreign affairs. Are you aware that their writers have said, again and again, that we ought – today – to level Teheran and to kill its many millions of inhabitants with nuclear weapons? Do you know that they have said that those atomic weapons should be aimed not only at Teheran’s government buildings and military establishments, but also at mosques and schools? – a horror even Hitler did not contemplate. This attitude has caused ARI to be widely seen as a organization of vicious cranks and cultists; and has caused me to conclude that any association of TAS with such ideas could only greatly – and legitimately -- damage the fine reputation TAS has earned.
Secondly, do you know that the Ayn Rand archives held by ARI are open only to those who are proven devotees of ARI and that legitimate non-ARI scholars are refused entrance? Do you know about the ARI “air-brushing” of Nathaniel’s work? Do you know that in some of her published writings, Ayn Rand’s credit to Nathaniel for one or another concept has been removed? Do you know that Tara Smith, an ARI writer, in a chapter on Rand’s concept of self-esteem, gives credit to Leonard Peikoff for developing the concept, and that Nathaniel’s name is not so much as mentioned? – despite the fact that Rand had said that his work on self-esteem, as published in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist, consisted of his own identifications and was an integral part of Objectivism? I think you can imagine the disgust all of this – and I’m only scratching the surface -- would cause among scholars and writers were it to become known. And that it, too, would greatly damage TAS’s reputation should TAS be associated with ARI. And surely it is only a matter of time until this will be known publicly.
You wrote that the open approach of TAS “assumes a community of generally well-intentioned and intellectually honest individuals.” Do you think that Perigo’s vendettas and ARI’s appalling lack of humanity and of the rudiments of scholarship are the hallmarks of generally well-intentioned and intellectually honest individuals? Surely you and the other TAS principals have worked too hard and too long to establish TAS’s reputation as an organization of civilized, reasonable people to allow yourself to be associated in the public mind with the likes of Perigo and ARI.
You wrote that: “We want to build a benevolent community of Objectivists and a benevolent culture and society based on reason and rational, responsible self-interest.” Ed, you will not accomplish this by allying yourself with Perigo or ARI.
About both Perigo’s invective and ARI’s bloodthirstiness and lack of integrity, I would say -- to quote your words:
“The widespread perception that Objectivists are fanatical ideologues who speak of reason but do not practice it, and who are instead irrational, screaming loonies, continues to be fueled by such public statements and actions, which do incredible harm to the spread of the philosophy.”
With all good wishes,


Ellen Stuttle's picture

The language you use makes reasonable discussion with you impossible: "lynch-mob," "vile smears." You and your mythology.

At least you've acknowledged that there are some on OL who don't "hang on every word uttered here, [yours] in particular." I think you'd find, if you examined the situation fairly, that few on OL take an interest in SOLO.

Btw, you forget that I for one disagreed with Barbara's attributing your behavior to alcohol.

(On the other hand, I am the one who analogized your being invited to talk about what's wrong with O'ist behavior to Arafat's being awarded a Peace Prize, a remark you subsequently made much of by taking it out of context and altering the meaning.)


Yes -in fact, school's

Callum McPetrie's picture

Yes -in fact, school's finishing for the year tomorrow. To mark the occasion, a PR will be written.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

Ah, Callum ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

There they go again.

Think of it this way. The time spent paying them any heed could be spent on a press release. Which is the better use of one's time? Eye

Anyway Linz...

Callum McPetrie's picture

Brant Gaede has posted this:

"The Linz implosion continues. Adults who behave like children are perceived as neither. The best poster on SOLOP is that 15-yo Callum kid. He was pretty good as a 14-yo too. It's a shame what someone like that is being exposed to there."

Of course, I thank him for the compliment -although I'm not too sure of the benefits of OL to SOLO? Outside of the verbal war (which, needless to say, is prevalent on both sites) I find SOLO a friendly and intelligent forum. In my own evaluation, I am better off for being here than not.

And Jonathan says this:

"Little Callum McPetrie is obsessed with me [he then quotes my above post]

Yeah, the fact that some of us here at OL sometimes have a good laugh about our bloated Kiwi Objectivist hillbilly cousins is "proof" that we are "obsessed" with SOLOP.

Anyway, if Callum took offense at the post of mine that he linked to, then I'd want him to know that my actual view of him is that I think he's a very bright youngster. Hell, he'd be bright for an oldster. I think he'll probably go very far in life."

To Jonathan (who will read this):

As above, thanks for the compliment. However, there is a difference between posting in good and bad faith, and I struggle to see how something like this, is in good faith (from the same thread as before):

"> recent press releases <

* Society for International Socialism: "Genocide, war, loss of jobs, and impoverisment are caused wherever worldwide capitalism is in power. The greedy hold the levers of power and keep raising prices. We are running out of energy because of self-interest and irresponsibility. For these reasons, there needs to be public ownership of the means of production."

* Committee for a Religious Revival: "When Man turns away from God, he also turns away from honesty, love of family, and respect for virtue. God makes people behave more responsibly. For these reasons, we need to rediscover religion and a sense of order and duty."

* Solo 'Passion' International: "Pusillanimous prissy Pussies. Kassless Kowards. Bad Faith gutter dwelling Whores. Lowlifes and Bitches. For these reasons: Suck my patootie, you transmogrified, tetanus-filled, teat-eating evading liars.

A final argument: Your sister is a crack addict and you are in the pocket of child-molesting communist unitarians. Liar. Liar. Liar. Cock on fire."

Admittedly, this wasn't said by you, so I won't blame you for it. However, a post like this isn't poking fun in good faith. The intention of a post like this is malevolent.

That being said, there is a good reason for my non-participation in this verbal war (this is for SOLO, as well): there is no point to it. It isn't about bringing out the best in people -quite the opposite- and I don't see how that is compatible with Objectivism. I have not attempted to take up arms -that is a waste of my time. Simply put, there are far more important problems than the bickering over rather unimportant areas of Ayn Rand's life.

(Also, in regards to "obsession": I rarely visit OL. Whilst it's true that that can be said for most posters on OL visting SOLO, on my visits I find that more members there go out of their way to mock SOLO, whereas that's generally a rarity here on SOLO (unless there's already some relevance in the topic). I don't think I've seen one thread here on SOLO devoted purely to the loathing of OL, which I can't say for OL, I'm afraid.)

That's just my thoughts.

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand


Lindsay Perigo's picture

The only time OL gets mentioned here is when MK goes off on one of his smear-offensives. We pay no attention to what OL gets up to generally, but it's clear folk there (by which I don't mean every single person) hang on every word uttered here, mine in particular. Don't they have lives?

It was an OL lynch-mob to which Hudgins was capitulating when he rescinded a done-and-dusted speaking invitation. And I don't believe a single person there protested at the renewed and new vile smears uttered against me by Barbara Branden during the lynch-mob's campaign. By their silence they were implicated.


Ellen Stuttle's picture

Thanks, Peter, for the correct spelling -- and the name of the book on which the movie is based.

I could of course have looked it up, but I was in a hurry. Eye


"their obsessions"

Ellen Stuttle's picture

It is not true that the members of OL in general have any obsession with Linz. A number of the posters there find him of no interest, and if you were to do a percentage break-down of threads, you'd find that Linz isn't even remotely the subject of the vast majority of threads.


There is one example of why I'm not a fan of Linz's. What, actually, would you call different between MSK's taking advantage of any opportunity to try to discredit Linz and Linz's habitual smearing of every poster on OL with such descriptions as "lying" and "obsessed" by him and Rand-diminishing?


Joe, I've wondered why

Duncan Bayne's picture

Joe, I've wondered why Lindsay put up with Eli for as long as he did - especially given his trip-wire temper with respect to other people.

But it is utterly wrong for you to accuse Lindsay of abandoning his principles to gain either SOLO or Libz money. Notwithstanding the fact that Lindsay abandoned a very lucrative career with TVNZ rather than compromise his principles, you ought to have some damn strong evidence to make such a serious claim.

But what do you have? "No secret insight?"

If you're going to accuse someone of such a thing, you need to have more than that. To make such an accusation without being able to substantiate it puts you on a worse level than Branden & MSK with their 'alcoholic' smear.


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


Lindsay Perigo's picture

I don't visit that vile place on principle, and Jonathan is a pomowanker from way back. If there's anything I ought to know about, I'm sure you'll tell me right here. Smiling

Indeed, OL does have an

Callum McPetrie's picture

Indeed, OL does have an obsession with SOLO amounting to no less than some sort of disorder. For proof, look at this thread by "Jonathan":


That doesn't even involve any argument on SOLO's behalf, yet they still go after Lindsay and SOLO (not to brag, but me too; even after my complete non-involvement in this ongoing verbal war).

"Socialism may be dead, but its corpse is still rotting up the place." -Ayn Rand

Thank you Greg!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

the re-admitting of Elijah to SOLO was after the silly man had been put out to pasture, and having attended an evening in Parnell, Auckland, to which Lindsay could not make due to fog (if I remember correctly), the host reconnoitred with Lindsay by phone to Wellington for a purely social call.
Eli was granted grace to return with reminders to 'act in good faith,' and 'none of that racial stuff.'

It was as simple, spontaneous and unsinister as that. I'm glad an eyewitness has finally furnished this detail. Thanks Greg!


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Directed at Cockroach:

I don't know why I even bothered trying to argue the point, or put forth why and how you were wrong, it clearly does not matter to you. It doesn't matter to you WHAT the smear is or how much truth there is in it, if you can get mileage out of it by either provoking reaction and/or smearing Linz it's all that matters to you isn't it?

It's why I call that place O-Lying. Lies and smears, Rand-diminution, and its fixation with SOLO and Linz are its raison d'etre. Don't feel ashamed of having gotten hot under the collar; just shows your decency, in which quality they're so utterly lacking. You've pointed out the facts and the evidence in the matter at hand, on the off-chance that they proceed on the same good faith that you do. They don't. So yes, ignore them from now on. Don't feed their obsessions. Take a good strong g&t out into the garden with you. Eye And thanks for your staunchness, friend.

So MSK now carries it on by

Lance's picture

So MSK now carries it on by gloating over the list of epithets directed at him. Perhaps I should have kept a cooler head and not let it get to me... meh.

What irks me though is there is no attempt to justify the accusation or seriously back it up beyond his musings, hunches, smells, "filters" and viewing the situation through special "contexts". It's just baseless "I don't like Linz so I want this to be true" smearing. No evidence, not even any particular reasoning offered, just nasty and malicious gossiping and rumour mongering. Whether he realises it or not that slung mud sticks to me too, which is my stake in this beyond Lindsay's friendship and why I have reacted so strongly and hot-headed.

It's bloody insulting Michael! I don't care how the Objectivist greats may have just laughed off such accusations, I know it to be untrue and find it bloody offensive and it makes me bloody angry! That slung mud sticks to me too.

I don't know why I even bothered trying to argue the point, or put forth why and how you were wrong, it clearly does not matter to you. It doesn't matter to you WHAT the smear is or how much truth there is in it, if you can get mileage out of it by either provoking reaction and/or smearing Linz it's all that matters to you isn't it? Sad

Harumph, I'm going to spend the afternoon in my garden in the sun and warm air and think about happier things.

Indeed, Glenn...

Ross Elliot's picture

...I felt mine tightening in a very alarming manner.

Billy Connolly suggested God created the scrotum after he found he had too much elbow skin left over. He then went on to describe it as looking like a hairy brain.

Regardless, it is a very fine thing. We need to put up a monument to the glorious ball bag... an erection of some kind.

And for the record I'd love

Lance's picture

And for the record I'd love to make lots of money out of doing this.

I'd also point out I wasn't

Lance's picture

I'd also point out I wasn't half as angry when Joe said it, because I believed he was in error. MSK on the other hand is just a fucking obsessive, lying, creep. Perpetuating Joe's baseless, mistaken musings since they align with his agenda.

Note to MSK:

That's what makes me angry you moron. Not that it matters since you aren't interested in "getting it". Not if getting it means you can't get creepy obsessive "Linz/SOLO mileage" out of it. Seriously get a new hobby, develop some integrity and move on.

MSK goes on to perpetuate

Lance's picture

MSK goes on to perpetuate the accusations on his site. Even after acknowledging they are without evidence. But it's okay because he's "a bit jaded from watching events unfold in many different kinds of contexts."

Notice that successful people who admire Objectivism are never bothered when someone accuses them of selling out for money. The Brandens, Greenspan, Aglioloro, Silver, Ditko, Goodkind, etc., even Rand herself. Look how they react. They laugh it off because they know better and, anyway, they use money for something grand.

Getting offended and angry when a compulsive liar and obsessive creep publicly proclaims a betrayal of principle has occurred, with no evidence, makes me a bad Objectivist? I'm crushed. Thing is, I don't mind false accusations per se. Not if I can deduce they are genuinely made in error, say if the evidence is stark, and arriving at a given conclusion is reasonable. But when malice drives a piece of filth like MSK to produce such outrageously insulting accusations based upon the flimsiest of deductions...


Jameson's picture

smells like a thoroughly bad egg indeed... Evil

Ellen - why, may I ask, are you not a fan of Lindsay's?

Ellen, it was "Smilla's

Peter's picture

Ellen, it was "Smilla's sense of snow", based on Peter Høeg's novel Frøken Smillas fornemmelse for sne.

Of course Ellen

gregster's picture

the re-admitting of Elijah to SOLO was after the silly man had been put out to pasture, and having attended an evening in Parnell, Auckland, to which Lindsay could not make due to fog (if I remember correctly), the host reconnoitred with Lindsay by phone to Wellington for a purely social call.

Eli was granted grace to return with reminders to 'act in good faith,' and 'none of that racial stuff.'

Mr Perigo was I remember very witty talking to all of us by speakerphone.

MSK's "sense of smell"

Ellen Stuttle's picture

The subject line is a deliberate take-off on the title of a movie which I think was called "Smila's Sense of Snow."

I liked the movie. ("Romantic" it wasn't, folks; be warned.)

MSK's "sense of smell" -- his "I smell money" -- however, leads him oft-astray.

For instance, the final straw resulting in my leaving OL was MSK's implying that my own husband, along with the likes of Dick Lindzen and Fred Singer and others of whom the charge is equally absurd, objects to the AGW hysteria from financial motives.

Tell me another.

Probably it's obvious that I'm no fan of Linz's; thus possibly my evaluation might be of interest as coming from someone outside the circle of Linz admirers: I think that MSK's charge of financial motivation being opperative in Linz's re-admitting Eli to SOLO has been shown to have no evidential support.


I have a scrotum

Jameson's picture

and he's very upset at your moral equivalence!! Smiling

I think...

Olivia's picture

Joe has proved that he is not "all there." His accusation is as petty as it is daft.

And MSK is an absolute scrotum, in fact that would be to insult the word scrotum. Let's just say that he obviously doesn't possess a pair.

Elijah made his way back onto Solo via social circumstances where, because of his unique and charming disposition, he was given the benefit of the doubt. As Lindsay says, on Solo, people are allowed to be wrong in good faith... and good faith was what was afforded him. Big fucking deal.

"Do not go gentle into that good night
Rage, rage against the dying of the light."

I stand corrected

Lance's picture

I stand corrected

Actually ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... Brant is correct. I did block Joe yesterday after saying that whereas I'd always welcomed him back in the past, that wouldn't be the case this time. He's shown bad faith unambiguously, and he's gone.

But you're quite correct about the cultural chasm. That lot reserve the right to smear and lie about folk with impunity; if the smeared party responds with a profanity, it's "Aaaargh!!!!! Vulgarity!!!!!!!" Or merely unprofane anger: "Aaargh!!!!!! Anger!!!" They're warped.

Glad to know SOLO still brings meaning to their benighted lives, though. Eye

Brant Gaede: Linz has now

Lance's picture

Brant Gaede:

Linz has now banned Joe Maurone.

I'll go with the assumption that this is a genuine error rather than a deliberate lie, since using the "track" function is often slow and will occasionally time out. Joe has NOT been banned. His account is active and unmoderated.

It's a cultural chasm that I

Lance's picture

It's a cultural chasm that I cannot fathom!

"Lies lies slander smear smear smear insult smear lies Evil "

"What?! Excuse me, but fuck you asshole!"

"Ugh! Vulgarity! Shocked "

Derangement Syndrome...

Robert's picture

There seems to be a disease sweeping through America: [fill in the surname of your enemy] Derangement Syndrome.

The symptoms are that the patient decides that it isn't sufficient to hate their opponent for whatever slight he/she visited upon them. Instead of just giving the person the fingers and resolving never to speak to them ever again, they spend their time coming up with ever more ludicrous accusations in order to paint their enemy as the reincarnation of Lucifer.

It isn't cool just to dislike someone for being a dick any more. Oh No! An important person like MSK has to have an important reason to hate someone.

I miss the old days when you called a guy a gobshite and then you were done. Those days were quiet.

MSK says: When the only

Lance's picture

MSK says:
When the only thing you read is denial screamed in a loud voice and a barrage of vulgarity and cussing, you know you hit the mark

Ummm no, actually. What you had previously suggested is not just incorrect it is in fact outrageously false and grievously insulting. Carry on clutching at straws though.

"Aha! Gotcha! Ooooh look! Gosh and golly! Gossip! LOLSOLOP!"

I'll amend my earlier suggestion: Get a different hobby creep. Making up stuff about Linz (and when it comes to the administration of SOLO, by proxy myself) is just a whole new kind of crack for you ain't it? Look I get it you don't like him... he hurt your feelings at some point. That does not give you any ground to make up the utterly stupid stories which half the time sound like a projection of your own behaviour. I recall your accusation that Linz was buying garbage traffic hits to bump Alexa rankings, at the time SOLO was maintaining steady growth - an increase of a few percent here and there as is normal for a site of this size. Yet OL was experiencing growth in numbers in several hundred if not thousands of percent. Hmmmm...


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Linz, it's plain that you were wrong to take Elijah back and defend him. However, I'm sure you were wrong in good faith and I'm more than happy to say that loudly and proudly so as that MSK can soak it in.

I didn't defend him. I took him back because folk are allowed to be wrong on SOLO. I made it clear a zillion times where Eli was wrong. But he's hardly the only one. You, after all, defend the revolting Obama, and refuse to defend your position as resolutely as Joe does his defence of headbanging.

I most assuredly didn't accommodate him for money. Thank you for saying you know that. The point here is that Joe, and MK, will believe and propagate anything at all, no matter how dishonest or vile, about me, because of my anti-headbanging esthetics.

The thing is Matty, very few

Lance's picture

The thing is Matty, very few people were in fact defending him. The only example I can think of my own was in "the badges" thread where I conceded that was satire.

I spent most of my time arguing vehemently with him.

For the record

Matty Orchard's picture

I may be one of those he refers to as an 'appalled exception.' I love gloating as much as the next person and I am not above yelling 'na na na na naaaa' when I'm proven right. I was right about Eli and I'm feeling comfortably smug about it.

Having said that, all this shit about Linz apologizing for Elijah because he hoped for generous donations in return strikes me as just that, utter shit. Linz has put principle ahead of money time and time again, why should we assume this situation is any different especially with the absence of any evidence that he has abandoned his principles.

Linz, it's plain that you were wrong to take Elijah back and defend him. However, I'm sure you were wrong in good faith and I'm more than happy to say that loudly and proudly so as that MSK can soak it in.

And another thing...

Lance's picture

Beg pardon for the language, rage and lack of civility but epithets such as "cunt", "dumb fuck" and the like are no less polite than the accusations leveled at Linz (and indirectly at my good self as it happens) by MSK and Joe of being sell outs.

Seriously Michael get a hobby you fucking creep. Your addict's nature is showing.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

The Cockroach's interest in NZ politics at opportune moments is touching.

Eli was never promising to bankroll SOLO. Nor was he ever asked to. Can't cockroaches read?

The only person on O-Lying arguably more vile on that anti-Rand site than MK, aside from Babs herself, of course, is Robert Campbell. Joe lined up with him against me, such was his hatred of me. Now he's lined up with Cockroach. Soon enough, with Babs too, I expect.

Heroism will still win out in the end. Rand is so much larger than all of them added together and multiplied a millionfold.

His Royal Roachness and Liar

Lance's picture

His Royal Roachness and Liar in Chief said:

I remember there being some mockery about my suspicion at the time.

Well lo and behold, this racist person was not bankrolling SLOP, he was promising to do so. He also got involved in NZ libertarian party by promising to bankroll them.

Not even a million dollars, either.

And everybody, with a few appalled exceptions, has been calling Lineberry's racism a "quirk" and "idiosyncratic view" and so forth, claiming he really doesn't mean it. Now that the money ain't happening, Perigo is suddenly conflicted with Libz and Cresswell and Free Radical (and playing the melodramatic martyr once again), Lineberry is suddenly a racist according to everybody and the comedy rolls on.

People talk about principles, but they sure as hell sell out for cheap. You don't even need real money if you know how to make it sound good.

It's mostly laid out on this thread if anyone is interested in fringe NZ politics.


To be absolutely crystal

Lance's picture

To be absolutely crystal clear, for the dumb shits that may not get it:

Elijah has never promised to bankroll SOLO. I don't believe he has ever even promised to donate any amount of money at all.

Neither myself, nor to my knowledge Lindsay, have ever solicited money from Elijah for SOLO (or in fact any other purpose just to be absolutely crystalline for the dumb fucks in the cheap seats. I'm looking at YOU MSK.)

No discussion between myself and Linz regarding the blocking of Elijah's account or reinstatement of it has EVER, EVER, EVER, EVER included potential donations or "bankrolling" or money in any way, shape, form or figure (hi again MSK).

Any hesitancy to block Elijah from SOLO had occurred because of endorsements of his character by people who had met and socialised with him in person.

Joe said:   I'm done

Mark Hubbard's picture

Joe said:


I'm done defending Linz at any rate ...


I was either blinking, or drinking, when such an act happened.

But, now that Joe's sideshow has been put to bed, it would be great if someone from Libz leadership would put an official position on this thread. I reckon after this length of time, my support in 2011 is reliant on such an event. 


What ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

... has that lowlife claimed now? I refuse to go look.

Absurd, outrageous and

Lance's picture

Absurd, outrageous and utterly false.

*MSK can fuck off and die too. Honestly, his dribbling doesn't warrant a more civil response. Lying cunt.

*Added for the benefit of visitors from O-Lying.

Full moon ...

Lindsay Perigo's picture

.... or having his period, I've always made light of Joe's regular departures, and welcomed him back when the urge took him. Not this time. I'm about fed up with folk coming here and attacking my character.

It's his character that been shown up, by his levelling a dirty slur, then refusing to retract it.

Such is the nature of fans of headbanging caterwauling.

Linz's ass kisser...

Robert's picture

Yawn. Been said before and is entirely untrue as the wonderful young lass that I live with will attest. Notice Joe: eyewitness corroboration! Try it the next time you slur someone, and then maybe you won't look and sound like such a tool!

The fact is, that if someone had attacked Joe like this within my earshot, I'd defending him! Must be a full moon over Philly tonight.

Quite so, Robert

Lindsay Perigo's picture

And thanks for your staunch support here, even in the face of being called "Linz's ass-kisser." Appreciate it. You have pluck. Not much of that around.

Contempt for headbanging caterwauling

Robert's picture

So what? I can't stand rap music and most of the caterwaulers I used to listen to annoy me now.

I expect, as I get older and wiser, that my musical tastes will crystallize around the likes of Mario, Louis Armstrong, Otis Redding, the Four tops, Beethoven etc. with the occasional caterwauler sneaking in for purely nostalgic reasons...

It's a learning process and doubtless I'm going to get led up the garden path more than once. So what? Hardly worth getting your tits in a tangle over.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Answered that, about 20 posts ago. You're doing your moral equivalence number again. Can you tell me why Joe has flounced? Because I took bribes from Eli? Would you care to recount what actually happened? Do you think that's the real reason?


Luke H's picture

flouncing is easier, I guess

Now Linz,  I don't think you can talk about flouncing in the face of recent events.  Smiling

Nub of the Matter

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Clearly on the surface this doesn't make sense, any more than it did on the several other occasions when it happened. I believe the bottom line is that Joe just can't forgive me for my contempt for headbanging caterwauling, and is placing a halo around that unwillingness to forgive. He could, and should, have made an effort to reply to Music of the Gods, but believing the worst about me and flouncing is easier, I guess. 'Spose I need to check on what's being said about me on Wiki again. Eye

Not bothered over one incident?

Robert's picture

What incident? There was none.

You speak of inverted moral priorities. And yet you leave without retracting your slur. And you accused Linz of being a hypocrite...


Robert's picture

Denouncing for what?! Withholding judgment?

For accepting a single dollar, no strings attached donation, from Elijah?

Jesus, if that's all it takes then you'd better denounce me too. I'm a 4-year employee of a government that has done more wrong then Elijah ever would or could.


Clear as mud....

Jameson's picture

WTF, Joe....? What have you clarified? You made a serious allegation of bribery, and now you're flouncing without fact.


Jmaurone's picture

 My allegation is my suspicion, yes. Not a concrete claim. Admitted. It's my suspicion. I may be wrong about that. But whatever the case is, whatever your motive, from what I've seen with your overall behavior, I believe you have an inverted moral priority and I simply want nothing more to do with you. I'm not bothered over that one incident, but your overall character, for reasons stated over and over. I had doubts about my assessment of you in the past, I do not have any doubts now. You asked me to clarify that in a previous post, I am doing so. 

 Linz, we've come to a standstill. I'm removing myself from this situation. Solo is yours, I'm leaving out of respect for that. Do with it as you will. That's the best I can offer you. 


Lindsay Perigo's picture

The simple fact is you have made an allegation against me that's 100% false. You have presented no evidence, and couldn't, because there is none. I and others have stated the facts. You are apparently happy to let the allegation stand and do another flounce/denounce or whatever it is this time as well. How honourable do you consider that? And why get so hot and bothered over something that happened only in your head? Don't we have better things to fight about?

No retraction expected

Jmaurone's picture

or wanted. I'm done with this place. I'm done defending Linz at any rate, I leave it to those with stronger stomachs.

And Linz, I'm not flouncing. I'm denouncing. See ya. 

One other possibility..

Robert's picture

The moral snap judgments I was talking about were mine, and any that you are accusing Linz of.

Snap judgments are a fact of human life. We try to avoid them, but for various reasons we sometimes fail. That's my point.

The difference between a honorable person and a irrational knob is that the former is willing to make amends if they turn out to be wrong. In my experience Linz is willing to make amends, if he believes he is wrong.

You two have crossed swords and some of his swipes have hit bone and you hate his guts. But you aren't going to elicit a retraction, for whatever pissed you off, by making up crap about accepting bribes from an odious creep like Elijah.

Nor will your petulant and evidence free accusation will not endear yourself to anyone else (including yourself when you look back on this) either.


Lindsay Perigo's picture

Thanks to those who defended my honour against this slur.

He ain't crazy

Jameson's picture

... but he might be poor - we just don't know for sure. Smiling


Jmaurone's picture

There's a saying: "when your poor, you're crazy...when you're rich, you're eccentric."


...A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile....


Jameson's picture

I have met Eliar in person on a number of occasions and he seemed harmless enough. I put his bizarre behaviour down to eccentricity. Later I downgraded his manner to an affected quirk, then lower still to try-hard contrarianism.

Now the benefit of doubt has completely evaporated he's just a plain old blow-hard; harmless to society, but a rogue torpedo to the integrity of the Libz.

Your soul

Dr. Evil's picture

And my soul is not for sale.

Not even for... ONE MILLION DOLLARS?!


Good Lord!

Lindsay Perigo's picture

Never read so much rubbish in all my life! Selling my soul to Eli? First, as someone noted, he was supposedly putting money up for Libz, not Linz. This was presented as a done deal by Ak Libz. It was I who got some Libz luminaries together to make sure it didn't proceed without adequate precautions and caveats. Second, there never was any suggestion, apart from by Michael Kelly on O-Lying, scarcely a disinterested or credible observer, that Eli would fund or was funding SOLO. He wasn't, isn't and won't be. And for the record, I've never asked him for a cent. My reference to the single dollar was that when he did choose to make a contribution, that was the extent of it, which seemed remarkable given his repeated claim to be ultra-wealthy. He said he was just testing the system!

I don't claim to be perfect, or perfectly consistent. Folk can find fault with how I treat X as opposed to Y, no doubt, especially if they trawl through the archives and find statements of mine that I myself have long since forgotten. I express my opinions on matters dear to me forcefully, sometimes too forcefully, or in terms too personal for some, no doubt. But this remains the most open Objectivist forum there is, by design, so there are bound to be some oddballs, nutters and phonies showing up, and a lot of slack is cut for everyone. It takes a lot to get booted. That's the way it will remain, with all the anomalies that throws up.

And my soul is not for sale.

For the record...

Jmaurone's picture

Robert, I did NOT make a snap-judgement of Eli. I had engaged him in conversation off-thread where he professed his "true" belief. Now, either he was being honest, for which I was right to condemn his racism. If he was NOT being honest, then he was, well...not being honest...that was enough justification for a moral judgement. 

..A SHOW OF HANDS: A Cautionary Tale of Heroes in Exile...

Moral Snap Judgements...

Robert's picture

Are a bane. And I ran the same risks as Linz did with my moral snap judgements of Elijah. Had Linz been proven right and I wrong then I'd be the one in the firing line. The difference being that I'm neither famous nor infamous. I'm easy to ignore and that'd probably be my fate whether I acknowledged my error (which I pride myself on doing) or not.

Now you're speaking sense...

Jmaurone's picture


Robert: "Joe, is it not a fact that these sorts of forums can distort the true nature of a person: those who are meek and mild in person come across as chest thumping barbarians online?

Given this, is it not reasonable to reserve your judgement until you've met your opponent several times in person.

Is it also not true that human beings can hold a variety of contradictions? That misconceptions can be corrected if the human in question is confronted with a truer set of ideas?"


 Yes, I agree, which is why many people gave Linz the benefit of the doubt about Eli for so long.

  It's a shame Linz doesn't hold himself to the same standards when making moral judgements... 


Having drinkies...

Robert's picture

Joe, is it not a fact that these sorts of forums can distort the true nature of a person: those who are meek and mild in person come across as chest thumping barbarians online?

Given this, is it not reasonable to reserve your judgement until you've met your opponent several times in person.

Is it also not true that human beings can hold a variety of contradictions? That misconceptions can be corrected if the human in question is confronted with a truer set of ideas?

Is this not the task you set yourself after Obama won?

Why would you condemn Linz et al. for trying to change Elijah right up until the point where they figured that it was impossible?

I speak as someone who condemned Elijah from the beginning. That isn't something I'm proud of actually. My words could have been better chosen - should have been better chosen. Not because he didn't deserve my anger, but because I believe that I am capable of better. And I need to be better for those occasions when I meet someone more honest and worthy than Elijah, but afflicted with the same bromides. That much of the Brandonesque politeness doctrine is true.

Comment viewing options

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