PARC Wars, Extended Dance ReMix

Neil Parille's picture
Submitted by Neil Parille on Mon, 2009-06-22 11:33

It's time to start a new thread.


Fourth-Rate Claquery

Robert Campbell's picture

Gregster,

You are doing Jim Valliant's cause no good with your fourth-rate claquery.

I doubt that even Mr. Valliant would welcome it. Compared to you, his old sidekick, Casey Fahy, was a master of the argumentative arts.

In fact, anyone following these threads would be tempted to conclude that you are dumber than paint.

I will refrain from further indulging you, here or elsewhere, until you quit talking out your fundamental aperture.

Robert Campbell

Gregster

Neil Parille's picture

Until you respond to my criticisms of PARC, I do not intend to dialogue with you.

-Neil Parille

Pariah

gregster's picture

I was going to refrain from indulging you, on your new thread, but when faced with: "When his jiggery-pokery was exposed."

You remain a bullshit artist, and not of great skill.

Tell me where the "jiggery pokery" happens, or fuck off.

Murder She Wrote

Neil Parille's picture

Ellen,

No one is attempting to frame James Valliant for murder or anything close to it.

James Valliant defended his book in underhanded ways.

He (and perhaps his wife) went on Wikipedia to continue his jiggery-pokery.

When his jiggery-pokery was exposed he engaged in some more right here on SOLO to cover his tracks.

Not murder, but not what an Objectivist should do.

-Neil Parille

Crimes, Sins and Sleaze

Neil Parille's picture

Ellen,

I agree with Prof. Campbell that Mr. Valliant's conduct is rather sleazy. As I've said before, there are a lot worse things. But Mr. Valliant's conduct, taken as part of a four-year campaign to defend and pump his book by less than above-board techniques, is unfortunate. At times it has bordered on this dishonest. At times it has been dishonest.

I'm sure you will recall what Mr. Valliant's response was when I pointed out basic mistakes in his book (such as his absurd claim that Barbara doesn't tell her readers that Dr. Blumenthal left Rand rather than the other way around). He accused me of being the one who was distorting things.

And, as Prof. Campbell notes, Pelagius1 appeared once IP160 got in trouble. Pelagius1 was Jim and/or Holly's sockpuppet. I don't trust people who create sockpuppets.

The long and short of it is that I don't think Jim Valliant is credible. To be blunt:

1. I don't think he spoke the truth when he told me he didn't know who was adding the references to PARC in Wikipedia.

2. I don't think he told the truth when he said on SOLO that he didn't make any of the Wikipedia edits that mentioned PARC.

3. I don't think Valliant told the truth when he said that PARC was "heavily edited" by Durban House. I bet that when I get a copy of the original version of PARC that was posted on the internet I will be able to demonstrate this quite easily.

-Neil Parille

The Flaw in Ms. Stuttle's Defense

Robert Campbell's picture

Ellen Stuttle has asked Neil Parille, on the other thread at

http://www.solopassion.com/nod...

Of what, specifically, are you accusing the Valliants? Of adding references to PARC without stating their connection to the book? Was this a crime (or at least a sin)?

Speaking for myself—not, of course, for Mr. Parille—I accuse Jim and Holly Valliant of sleazy, underhanded activity. Adding references to a book written by yourself (or by your husband) without disclosing that fact is a violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest policy. It doesn't pass the smell test, even when no one has adopted a formal rule against it.

Sleaziness is not a crime, and Objectivists don't believe in sin. Let's just say that such behavior falls short of exemplifying the virtue of honesty.

And you have no evidence that James was adding the references; on the other hand, you have both his and Holly's denial that he was.

Mr. Valliant's denial and $1.50 will buy you a cup of coffee. The exchange rate for Mrs. Valliant's denial is about the same.

Does Ms. Stuttle really need reminding that Mr. Valliant has a long history of sleazy behavior where his book is concerned, or that on his last visit here he refused to answer some questions and contradicted himself in response to others?

Plus there's one stretch of the proceedings -- after Holly had joined the Talk pages -- in which there's evidence that he was asleep, ill, while she was posting. Not hard to imagine that there were other similar times.

The "evidence" is Pelagius1's declaration that Jim Valliant was asleep, ill, or otherwise not in a position to know about the posting.

No more likely to defray the cost of your next cup of Joe.

'Cause what, exactly, was Pelagius1?

Pelagius1 was a fictitious identity specifically created to carry on the work of the banned AnonIP160.

In other words, either Jim Valliant's sock puppet, Holly Valliant's sock puppet, or their jointly operated sock puppet. Hiding your identity, in order to escape or circumvent sanctions for previous underhanded, sleazy activity, is also sleazy and underhanded.

Why are any statements from a sock puppet to be deemed credible? Sock puppets are created in order to misrepresent.

Ms. Stuttle refers to none of the obvious untruths enunciated by Pelagius1, such as

- Jim Valliant must have made a significant impact with PARC, because Chris Sciabarra is maintaining an open invitation to Mr. Valliant to publish in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies

- The review of PARC at the Autonomist, a fringe site in Rand-land that Mr. Valliant later publicly condemned in the strongest possible terms ("What vile phreaks"), is proof of the book's impact

- A large number of "scholars" at The Atlas Society were persuaded by Mr. Valliant's book to convert to ARIanism (who, besides Bill Perry?)

Pelagius1 told these documentable lies. Why credit any other statement from such a source?

Until Mr. and Mrs. Valliant come clean about their activities at Wikipedia, the wisest course of action is to consider anything that emanated from Pelagius1 to be a deliberate falsehood for which the two of them are jointly liable. The burden will be on them to show otherwise.

Robert Campbell

PS. Isn't Ms. Stuttle more than a little uncomfortable about being complimented for her advocacy by Lindsay Perigo? After all, Mr. Perigo deems backbiting and negative gossip to be crimes, at least when he believes himself to have been the target. Mr. Perigo is on record, at this site, accusing Chris Sciabarra of "initiating force" against him. No one has accused Mr. or Mrs. Valliant of initiating force against anyone.

Durban House Is Liberal?

Neil Parille's picture

James Valliant or Pelagius1 (I don't recall which) told us that Durban House is "liberal." It looks like Durban House is in fact Objectivist. This is from Amazon's reviews of David (not to be confused with "Sewer") Kelley's Truth and Toleration.

***

20 of 50 people found the following review helpful:
Wide Open Mind, July 21, 2002
By Durban House Publishing (Dallas, TX) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand (Paperback)
Kelley endorses a concept of "tolerance" that includes the "toleration" of the comprehensive dishonesty of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. A "Big-L" Libertarian is almost by definition one who uncritically embraces the Brandens or Rothbard in their dishonest slams on Ayn Rand, just as Kelley has now embraced the Brandens.

Politically, the valid concept is "rights." Morally, the concept of "tolerance" is meaningless. Debating, discussing or working with someone depends on having an honest colleague or rival to do it with, whatever you agree or disagree about. Nothing positive can come from cooperating with the dishonest. "Tolerating" the dishonest, in any non-political sense, means endorsing it -- voluntarily giving it the very credibility it does not deserve. Would Kelley debate flat-earth advocates or those who deny the Holocaust, if he found in a particular case, he wasn't totally sure whether the advocate was evading or not...? Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this | Permalink
Comment

***

25 of 47 people found the following review helpful:
Rand is Not for the Morally Squeamish, April 26, 2002
By James Valliant "jsvalliant" (San Diego, California) - See all my reviews

This review is from: The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand (Paperback)
Immoral conduct has something to do with what used to be called "bad character." Rand knew that beneath it all, our habits, emotions, and characteristic attitudes are largely the result of our thinking or failure to think. If Rand was right -- if thinking is a volitional choice -- then, of course, EVERY idea one believes is either honest or dishonest (taking into account the context of available knowledge, of course.) EVERY belief is, therefore, moral or immoral -- no matter how difficult this may be to determine in a particular case. Dishonest thinking is morally bad even BEFORE it is acted on, precisely because it helps shape behavior. ... Rand believed that intellectual dishonesty of this kind is the result of volitional choices and that intellectual dishonesty of this kind is causally related to bad behavior. It is, all by itself, a bad thing. One might even say that the simple-minded confusion between political "tolerance" and moral "tolerance" by smart people is likely to be dishonest. It also shows just how much damage the Popper-Hayek crowd has inflicted on the libertarian capacity to think. Another bad result of bad thinking, hmmm ... Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you? Report this | Permalink
Comment (1)

Comment viewing options

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