Your TAS Dollars at Work

[Wolf DeVoon]

Appropo of nothing, from another forum:

I remember reading one commenter at some site saying that whenever he saw things like this he went out and bought more ammo.

Posted by: R.L. | Jan 8, 2008 3:27:30 PM |

Edited January 10, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Jonathan]

Michael Shapiro who's a music professional and fellow presenter, says he's interested.

I like Shapiro and his work. He's very talented. His interest in Pigero's speech, however, may be based on not knowing much about Pigero's views or methods.

Pigero's style is usually pure hype with little or nothing to back it up. He'll announce that he's going to do something or that he's going to prove a theory, then hype the hell out of it, claim that his appearance is going to be earth shaking and that you've just got to be there, and then, after all of the hype, when it's finally time for the Big Pigero Show: blah, fizzle, nothing of substance, followed by self-congratulations and then more hype.

He's a carnival barker, which, as I've admitted, can be entertaining. It's just not substantive.

Besides, if Linz doesn't demonstrate it, he can always be grilled in the Q and A.

"If" he doesn't demonstrate it? Heh. You actually think that there's any chance that he's going to be demonstrating what his speech's title proposes?

Let's be honest, if some the people here didn't hate Linz there would be no beef.

You're reversing cause and effect. I and others who have disagreements with Pigero dislike him (I personally wouldn't categorize my feelings as "hate") because we have a beef with his views and methods. To suggest the reverse is really pretty ignorant of reality.

Btw, your crush on him isn't anything I haven't seen before. It's really no longer a shock to me that otherwise intelligent people go gaga over Pigero, feel that they have to protect him when he's the one in attack mode, and confuse which parties are actually being hateful. Many good people before you have behaved just as foolishly after having been charmed by him.

This is basically my history with the Pigero gang, with you making your mesmerized appearance at the end:

Pigero: Artwork X is evil. It's disgusting. It means that existence is a cesspool. It represents philosophies of feces. It's about dwelling in shit. The artist who created it is scum, and anyone who likes it is anti-reason and anti-life.

J: I disagree. Let's take a closer look. The art contains...and, to me, means... [followed by several paragraphs of a polite, reasonable explanations of my views]. In fact, here are the artist's own words about his art and why he creates it...

Pigero: Fuck you, pomo. It doesn't surprise me that a scumbag, pusball, pomo asshole like you would stand up for such vile shit. You're despicable. You're the scum of the earth.

J: Do you have any actual arguments, rather than just attempts at intimidation as a substitute for argument?

Pigero: We're promoting great art, not wallowing in slime. How dare you come here with your hatred for the great art that we love, and try to talk us into liking the shit that you like, fuckface. Go to hell. Fuck off and die.

J: Who said that I hate the great art that you love? I share your passion for it. I'm not trying to talk you into liking anything, but just pointing out that I have different tastes and interpretations than yours, that my views are not based on an anti-life premise as you suggest, and that I've given well-reasoned arguments for my views.

Pigero: You're a sniveling, lying, slimy, ass-licking, limp dick sack of shit.

J: Just as I thought. More childish temper tantrums. No substance.

The Walking Hypnotized (including JHN): Jonathan, let's be honest, there wouldn't be an issue here if you didn't hate Linz. Why are you being so mean and hateful? Please, stop all the Linz-bashing. Linz is wonderful. He's a passionate voice of reason.

J

Edited January 10, 2008 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

JHN is a known Branden hater

Is this true? If so, then why is JHN on OL, where 'Branden Hater' is anathema? Why open the door to the enemies such as JHN?

WSS,

JHN likes NB's self-esteem works but buys into the PARC venom about his romance with Rand. JHN also thinks The Passion of Ayn Rand by Barbara was a smear job against Rand, although he does not voice this view too often. These are generally his stated views, although I have seen him flip-flop at times depending on who he is talking to.

We have nothing against him posting on OL. He is Branden-Hate Lite and generally compliant with the posting guidelines. Outside of Branden-related issues (and brown-nosing Perigo ), he is generally a pleasant and intelligent dude.

For the record, neither Kat nor I would allow Branden-Hate Fanatical have a voice on OL, just like we do not allow Rand-Hate Fanatical. And we keep watch on Rand-Hate Lite when it surges just to make sure it remains objective and does not degenerate into preaching.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Btw, your crush on him isn't anything I haven't seen before. It's really no longer a shock to me that otherwise intelligent people go gaga over Pigero, feel that they have to protect him when he's the one in attack mode, and confuse which parties are actually being hateful. Many good people before you have behaved just as foolishly after having been charmed by him.

Jonathan,

For instance, me.

Thank God that phase of my life ended.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

I was never taken in by Mr. Perigo's charisma, though I understood how his grand gestures might impress others.

When I first became active on the old SOLOHQ--this was before "Drooling Beast" and Mr. Perigo's sudden cozying up to Mr. Valliant--I tried to avoid close interaction with him. I just had this feeling that he wanted me to endorse all of his opinions and praise him inordinately for them--and if I failed to come through with the expected adulation, he aimed to draw me into a shouting match instead. No thanks.

Kind of like my reaction to Bill Clinton. The first time I saw Bill on TV, when he was still just the hairball governor of Arkansas, I had the guy pegged as a Class A bullshitter.

I'm not claiming that my bullshit detectors are 100% reliable--far from it. It's just that Mr. Perigo is able to bypass the bullshit detectors of a lot of smart and otherwise sensible people.

Robert Campbell

[Dragonfly]

I'm not claiming that my bullshit detectors are 100% reliable--far from it. It's just that Mr. Perigo is able to bypass the bullshit detectors of a lot of smart and otherwise sensible people.

That never ceases to amaze me, that such people don't see that he's just a noisy obnoxious gasbag and not the "passionate voice of reason". It reminds me of those women who always seem to fall for the wrong kind of man.

[Brant Gaede]

Nathaniel today has become rather an embarrassing old person talking of things such as ESP, really offputting to someone with Jim's background.

___

The implication is he believes in ESP. If that is what you think, please reference it. He has rather recently started using Energy Field Therapy (EFT) techniques in his psychotherapeutic work, which I can neither relate to nor evaluate. Nathaniel has always had a big scientific blind spot, which no one with a decent liberal arts education should have, but there is hardly such an education available in the formal liberal arts' world. You also imply he's in his dotage. You know more than I do. BTW, I am not going to get involved in any back and forth here about him beyond this message. I no longer consider him to be a public figure. I think that's a choice he made, his recent appearance at TAS to the contrary notwithstanding.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

The implication is he believes in ESP. If that is what you think, please reference it. He has rather recently started using Energy Field Therapy (EFT) techniques in his psychotherapeutic work [...]. BTW, I am not going to get involved in any back and forth here about him beyond this message. I no longer consider him to be a public figure. I think that's a choice he made, his recent appearance at TAS to the contrary notwithstanding.

Brant, neither am I going to get involved in any back and forth about him. Briefly: Re ESP, there was a big flap about some things he said in an interview, I'm forgetting with whom, at one of the summer conferences. NB's wording was careful; he's good at wording things so as not quite to say something while hinting at it. His use of EFT isn't that recent, definitely more than 10 years, since he was already practiced at using it when I started corresponding with him in 1997. We had some fairly extensive discussion on the subject of EFT. He uses it judiciously; it is useful, judiciously. He's aware that TFT, Callahan's techniques, a sub-type of EFT, doesn't live up to Callahan's claims.

The whole subject is an enormous can of worms. I probably shouldn't have made reference to the ESP hints. I hope I'm not going to regret that I did. It is an issue Jim H-N has mentioned with distaste on SOLO and on which I had some brief exchange with him when I posted for a short while on SOLO. That was in the immediate months after the split of Rowlands' and Perigo's lists.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

The implication is he believes in ESP. If that is what you think, please reference it.

On the Branden discussion list he wrote in 2005 the following in reply to a skeptical post by Michael Moeller:

I have the immpression from your remarks that you have never read any of

the serious scientific studies concerning what is sometimes called "anomolous

perception," such as Arthur Koestler's "The Roots of Coincidence. You might

find it worth your while to check this out

Within a few months a new book will be published by Stephen Schwartz,

entitled "Limitless Self," which provides reports on detailed scrupulously research

in support of what is called "non-local awareness." This book is truly

ground breaking.

Of course you can believe what you wish, but if you want to hold a serious

opinion on this subject you really ought to do some seriously homework. Reading

"Flim-Flam" isn't enough.

I have no interest in eantering into debates on this subject, so I will

simply say that if the foremost principle of Objectivism is respect for facts,

there is plenty of information available today that is "required reading" for

those who want to base their position on knowledge.

Well, if you think that a book by Koestler (who even believed that Uri Geller was a genuine psychic!) is a "serious scientific study"...

He has rather recently started using Energy Field Therapy (EFT) techniques in his psychotherapeutic work, which I can neither relate to nor evaluate.

It's pseudoscience. It is an extension of the Thought Field Therapy (TFT) invented by Callahan (which was also hotly discussed on that list). One of the most prominent promotors of TFT, Monica Pignotti, was later courageous enough to revise her opinion on the basis of her observations, and she became one of the harshest critics of the method (which implied a $100000 training course for a special telephonic therapy, even Peikoff could learn something from that!).

Edited January 11, 2008 by Dragonfly

[Jonathan]

I just got a bootleg copy of the 2008 Summer Seminar schedule, and everything is making more sense now. It appears that there's an entire day dedicated to presentation styles similar to Pigero's.

[Ellen Stuttle]

He has rather recently started using Energy Field Therapy (EFT) techniques in his psychotherapeutic work, which I can neither relate to nor evaluate.

It's pseudoscience. It is an extension of the Thought Field Therapy (TFT) invented by Callahan (which was also hotly discussed on that list).

No, Energy Field Therapy isn't "an extension of" TFT. You have it backward. EFT is the far wider field and includes actually useful techniques. NB has years since become disenchanted with Callahan's claims.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

No, Energy Field Therapy isn't "an extension of" TFT. You have it backward. EFT is the far wider field and includes actually useful techniques. NB has years since become disenchanted with Callahan's claims.

Whatever. Energy fields are also nonsense. And I've never heard NB publicly renounce Callahan's claims, or did I miss it?

[jordanz]

I just got a bootleg copy of the 2008 Summer Seminar schedule, and everything is making more sense now. It appears that there's an entire day dedicated to presentation styles similar to Pigero's.

Excellent

[Brant Gaede]

I just got a bootleg copy of the 2008 Summer Seminar schedule, and everything is making more sense now. It appears that there's an entire day dedicated to presentation styles similar to Pigero's.

Excellent

The information is not complete. "Dinner" should indicate that pies will be available for throwing.

--Brant

Edited January 12, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Roger Bissell]

I just got a bootleg copy of the 2008 Summer Seminar schedule, and everything is making more sense now. It appears that there's an entire day dedicated to presentation styles similar to Pigero's.

Damn, Jonathan, did you do that yourself? That's flat-out, uproariously funny! :rofl:

The finest touch of all is in the "key," where you include "bloviation" and, no surprise, all the presentations are in that category. That's just great! Three cheers for the funniest post I've seen in days/weeks! :cheer:

REB

[Dragonfly]

Very funny Jonathan, that program of The Anti-intellectual Society. Especially Thomas' contribution is a nice touch!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

If I ever make a Lampoon show, you will be on first call with an offer.

LOLOLOL...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Exposing the Bully's Yellow Streak on His Own Turf

I just woke up and saw two highly interesting posts by Robert Campbell over on SOLOP. I want to make sure they stay on record, so I will reproduce them below.

But first, I want to make an observation. Anyone who has ever followed Perigo's blustering knows he is prone to make a constant dare to the world, something along the lines of "Let them come and say such-and-such to my face. They won't of course because they are cowards." This happens so often that I don't particularly want to spend time finding a quote. If it becomes an issue, I will post several quotes by Perigo to back this up.

Well, someone did go over there and say some things to his face. Here are the two posts by Robert:

Objectivist voices with strong opinions

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Thu, 2008-01-10 22:49.

Jim (Heaps-Nelson, that is),

Since you've decided to carry the topic onto this list, I'm going to respond to you here. (Don't get your hopes up, Messrs. Perigo and Valliant; I have no interest in waiting around for your warm welcome.)

You say, "TAS needs to stick with this decision and the attendees should hear as many Objectivist voices with strong opinions as they can."

All right, how far does your principle extend?

Regi Firehammer is an "Objectivist voice" (or so he deems himself). And he certainly doesn't lack for "strong opinions." His following, at the present date, is rather small, but probably no smaller than Mr. Perigo's. Should TAS invite Mr. Firehammer to speak at a Summer Seminar?

The alleged moral depravity of homosexual behavior would be a suitable topic; Mr. Firehammer, we may surmise, would be happy to expatiate. After all, those who don't like what he has to say on the subject can skip his talk.

Peter Schwartz is certainly an Objectivist voice, and he certainly hasn't hesitated to express himself. His following is much greater than Mr.Perigo's; ARI, after all, is pretty large, and no ARIan would dare to say a bad word about him. Suppose Pope Leonard I gave Mr. Schwartz a special dispensation so he could go out and perform missionary work among the heathen. Would it be appropriate, then, for TAS to invite him to speak?

Mr. Schwartz could explain to the assembled multitude how David Kelley has chucked objectivity and, with the help of his inherently dishonest associates, Ed Hudgins, Will Thomas, and Robert Bidinotto, successfully inveigled most of those present into dispensing with moral judgment. And surely it would be improperly suppressive to complain if Mr. Schwartz publicly referred to TAS as an organization whose leaders have surpassed all ordinary forms of immorality and earned a place on "lowest rung of hell." No one's being roped into attending his talk, after all.

Or could it be that neither of these worthies counts, because Mr. Perigo despises them both?

Well, then, how about Mr. Valliant, who surely counts himself among the most zealous advocates Objectivism could ever hope for? He has a few strong opinions, as we all know. Some folks have bought his book; in some circles effusive praise for it has become a condition of membership in good standing in the Church of Ayn Rand.

Should TAS invite him to instruct the attendees on the perfection of Miss Rand, the serpenthood of "the Brandens," and the reprehensible laxness of an organization that in the recent past provided a forum for "the Brandens," while failing to urge its members to read and endorse Mr. Valliant's book?

Your stated reason for including Mr. Perigo on the TAS speaker list doesn't seem, then, to support the position you've taken. By your criterion, even a Randian who promotes crank physics could qualify as an Objectivist voice with a strong opinion--and you've made your opposition clear to putting anyone like that on the roster of Summer Seminar speakers.

It seems to me that you are, instead, assuming that there is a special positive contribution that Mr. Perigo can make, and Messrs. Firehammer, Schwartz, et al. cannot.

So what is it? Why is TAS so badly in need of someone who says, "Better and better if we all smile enough, a la The KASSless Society"? (See the poll at the left side of this page.)

Robert Campbell

Mr. Perigo's topics

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Fri, 2008-01-11 02:59.

Why should TAS not be inviting Mr. Perigo to give talks on romantic music and how Objectivists are harmful to Objectivism?

First, because Mr. Perigo appears to be claiming that only his aesthetic preferences are valid. Nothing of his that I have ever read on this site indicates that he can deliver on that claim. All I've seen is a lot of derogatory language directed at music that Mr. Perigo dislikes, and at fans of such music.

I've given two music talks at TAS events. I've attended several others, including Michael Shapiro's superb presentation on Mussorgsky in 2006. At none of these has the speaker impugned the intelligence or morality of persons who prefer other kinds of music.

TAS has never sponsored exercises in "aesthetic policing" before. There is no reason for it to lapse into that kind of behavior now.

Second, because it is the height of hypocrisy for Mr. Perigo to be criticizing Objectivists for bad or self-defeating behavior when he has become a poster boy for such behavior.

Let's see what's happened since Mr. Perigo gave his "Elixir of Youth" talk in 2004. Indeed, since the middle of 2005, Mr. Perigo has:

-- Launched into a stentorian vendetta against Barbara Branden, which he appears bent on pursuing for the rest of his life.

-- Struck up an alliance with Jim Valliant, the author of a badly researched, badly written book whose unstated premise is that Ayn Rand was perfect and whose explicit thesis is that "the Brandens" are Satanic.

-- Acted as cheerleader to Mr. Valliant and Casey Fahy in "defenses" of Mr. Valliant's opus that consist of dodging, changing the subject, or heaping verbal abuse on anyone who criticizes the book.

-- Made paranoid attributions, to the effect that anyone who defends "the Brandens" or criticizes Mr. Valliant's book must be taking orders from Barbara Branden.

-- Driven off his business partner, Joe Rowlands, who had apparently become tired of seeing the SOLOHQ site functioning as a vehicle for Mr. Perigo's personal feuds. Made unsubstantiated charges of fraud (occasionally watered down to deceit) without ever specifying who was financially responsible for the old SOLOHQ, who contributed the software used for the site, what the terms of the agreement were, etc.

--Effectively demolished the old SOLO organization that had been painstakingly built up in the first half of the decade.

-- Aided and abetted Diana Hsieh in her 12,600-word public denunciation of Chris Sciabarra. Ms. Hsieh has long since departed from SOLOPassion, as has another former ally, Joe Maurone, but Mr. Perigo and Mr. Valliant stand by this denunciation. When he and Ms. Hsieh and Mr. Valliant and Mr. Maurone were involved in it, Mr. Perigo defended the publication of private emails from Dr. Sciabarra without consent. Yet he recently threatened to ban one of his old associates for quoting one line of a private email from Mr. Perigo.

-- Reneged on a commitment to speak at the 2006 TAS Summer Seminar, allegedly on the grounds that he was being muzzled when Will Thomas asked him not to keep publicly blasting the organization. In fact, Mr. Perigo needed an excuse to back out, because neither Ms. Hsieh nor Mr. Valliant (at the time) approved of his involvement with TAS. Instead, Mr. Perigo made a speech at a Borders bookstore in Orange, California, plugging Mr. Valliant's book before a minuscule audience. (Anyone who thinks that Mr. Perigo presently has anything of positive value to contribute to a TAS Summer Seminar should listen to that speech.)

-- Relentlessly whittled away at his remaining following by banning participants from SOLOPassion or driving them off with his online tirades. The bans and schisms have now begun to thin even the ranks of his New Zealand-based disciples.

--Accepted a speaking invitation from an organization that he relentlessly scorns and condemns, in order to reach an audience that, for the most part, finds no value in SOLOPassion.

Mr. Perigo has no apparent positive regard for those who run TAS, or for those who contribute to it financially, and his professed scorn for the organization makes his decision to accept a speaking invitation hard to fathom. The hypothesis I find most plausible is that he is looking to seize control, running off his opponents there, and putting his associates (such as Mr. Valliant) in positions of authority. Such an effort is unlikely to succeed, but Mr. Perigo can do significant damage to TAS in the process.

Robert Campbell

PS. No need to fry up any epithets specially for me; I've already had my fill, thank you.

What was Perigo's response? The same as any bully when faced by a person who is right and not afraid of him: back off with his tail between his legs. Say it is all a joke. Whimper. Here was his response:

Dear Galt!

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2008-01-11 03:12.

If anyone wishes me to comment on any part of this, ask, and I shall. Otherwise I don't propose to waste any time on such nonsense, except to say two things:

1) A sad and characteristic lack of humour appears to be impeding certain folks' appreciation of the title of my music talk.

2) This takes the cake:

Mr. Perigo has no apparent positive regard for those who run TAS, or for those who contribute to it financially, and his professed scorn for the organization makes his decision to accept a speaking invitation hard to fathom. The hypothesis I find most plausible is that he is looking to seize control, running off his opponents there, and putting his associates (such as Mr. Valliant) in positions of authority. Such an effort is unlikely to succeed, but Mr. Perigo can do significant damage to TAS in the process.

I do believe this is the funniest thing I've ever read on SOLO, even though, of course, the humour is inadvertent.

James V, our diabolical plan is busted. We'll have to fast-track it. Can't wait for Portland. Please report immediately to the Air New Zealand Terminal at LA Airport for self-destructing new instructions. Hurry, before Hudgins sees this!

Saying something serious is funny is not an answer. It is an evasion typical of cornered bullies. Here is a pertinent quote about bullies from Donald Trump, and I fully agree with him:

Kat and I were at an event last weekend where we heard Donald Trump speak. He essentially said the same thing there as he did on a recent interview on Fox News,"On the Record ," aired on September 12, 2007. Van Susteren was asking him about his most recent book Think Big & Kick Ass, coauthored with Bill Zanker.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, you've given me the tease that you mentioned something about Rosie. So the viewers are going to want to know, too, is what do you mention about Rosie in this book that comes out in — actually, in a month?

TRUMP: Well, I talk about attitude and I talk about bullies. You know, Rosie is a bully. And a bully, I learned a long time ago when I was going to school, that when there is a bully and you're involved with a bully, you have to hit that person squarely and hard right between the eyes. And that's what I did with Rosie. And you know, she totally — I mean, she didn't even want to comment a couple weeks ago. She was someplace and they asked her, she said, I won't comment. I won't — well, if you look at what she did, she went after Kelly Ripa. And nobody fights back.

I mean, Kelly is a terrific person, but you know, I would have said maybe she should have fought back. And Kelly happened to be right on that. She went after Danny DeVito. She went after Selleck, Tom Selleck, a long time ago. I mean, this guy walks on her show, all of a sudden, she ends up trying to kill him.

Rosie is a bad person. Rosie is a bully. And I talk about bullies because the world is full of bullies, and you have to hit a bully between the eyes very, very hard and very solidly.

That's the way it works and the results are predictible, as Robert just demonstrated. We can judge people by what they say and what they do. When I look at what Perigo says and what he does, I see a huge disparity.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

Robert;

Do keep us informed.

JHN;

Should the people Robert mentioned be invited. If not why not.

Edited January 11, 2008 by Chris Grieb

[merjet]

Re post #235 TAS regrets to inform you that Merlin Jetton measurably omitted himself from the agenda. Taking his slot, Roger Bissell will bloviate on Tetrachotomies: Love 'Em, Hate 'Em, KASS 'Em, or Blow Your Own Horn.

[Roger Bissell]

Exposing the Bully's Yellow Streak on His Own Turf

I just woke up and saw two highly interesting posts by Robert Campbell over on SOLOP. I want to make sure they stay on record, so I will reproduce them below.

But first, I want to make an observation. Anyone who has ever followed Perigo's blustering knows he is prone to make a constant dare to the world, something along the lines of "Let them come and say such-and-such to my face. They won't of course because they are cowards." This happens so often that I don't particularly want to spend time finding a quote. If it becomes an issue, I will post several quotes by Perigo to back this up.

Well, someone did go over there and say some things to his face. Here are the two posts by Robert:

Objectivist voices with strong opinions

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Thu, 2008-01-10 22:49.

Jim (Heaps-Nelson, that is),

Since you've decided to carry the topic onto this list, I'm going to respond to you here. (Don't get your hopes up, Messrs. Perigo and Valliant; I have no interest in waiting around for your warm welcome.)

You say, "TAS needs to stick with this decision and the attendees should hear as many Objectivist voices with strong opinions as they can."

All right, how far does your principle extend?

Regi Firehammer is an "Objectivist voice" (or so he deems himself). And he certainly doesn't lack for "strong opinions." His following, at the present date, is rather small, but probably no smaller than Mr. Perigo's. Should TAS invite Mr. Firehammer to speak at a Summer Seminar?

The alleged moral depravity of homosexual behavior would be a suitable topic; Mr. Firehammer, we may surmise, would be happy to expatiate. After all, those who don't like what he has to say on the subject can skip his talk.

Peter Schwartz is certainly an Objectivist voice, and he certainly hasn't hesitated to express himself. His following is much greater than Mr.Perigo's; ARI, after all, is pretty large, and no ARIan would dare to say a bad word about him. Suppose Pope Leonard I gave Mr. Schwartz a special dispensation so he could go out and perform missionary work among the heathen. Would it be appropriate, then, for TAS to invite him to speak?

Mr. Schwartz could explain to the assembled multitude how David Kelley has chucked objectivity and, with the help of his inherently dishonest associates, Ed Hudgins, Will Thomas, and Robert Bidinotto, successfully inveigled most of those present into dispensing with moral judgment. And surely it would be improperly suppressive to complain if Mr. Schwartz publicly referred to TAS as an organization whose leaders have surpassed all ordinary forms of immorality and earned a place on "lowest rung of hell." No one's being roped into attending his talk, after all.

Or could it be that neither of these worthies counts, because Mr. Perigo despises them both?

Well, then, how about Mr. Valliant, who surely counts himself among the most zealous advocates Objectivism could ever hope for? He has a few strong opinions, as we all know. Some folks have bought his book; in some circles effusive praise for it has become a condition of membership in good standing in the Church of Ayn Rand.

Should TAS invite him to instruct the attendees on the perfection of Miss Rand, the serpenthood of "the Brandens," and the reprehensible laxness of an organization that in the recent past provided a forum for "the Brandens," while failing to urge its members to read and endorse Mr. Valliant's book?

Your stated reason for including Mr. Perigo on the TAS speaker list doesn't seem, then, to support the position you've taken. By your criterion, even a Randian who promotes crank physics could qualify as an Objectivist voice with a strong opinion--and you've made your opposition clear to putting anyone like that on the roster of Summer Seminar speakers.

It seems to me that you are, instead, assuming that there is a special positive contribution that Mr. Perigo can make, and Messrs. Firehammer, Schwartz, et al. cannot.

So what is it? Why is TAS so badly in need of someone who says, "Better and better if we all smile enough, a la The KASSless Society"? (See the poll at the left side of this page.)

Robert Campbell

Mr. Perigo's topics

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Fri, 2008-01-11 02:59.

Why should TAS not be inviting Mr. Perigo to give talks on romantic music and how Objectivists are harmful to Objectivism?

First, because Mr. Perigo appears to be claiming that only his aesthetic preferences are valid. Nothing of his that I have ever read on this site indicates that he can deliver on that claim. All I've seen is a lot of derogatory language directed at music that Mr. Perigo dislikes, and at fans of such music.

I've given two music talks at TAS events. I've attended several others, including Michael Shapiro's superb presentation on Mussorgsky in 2006. At none of these has the speaker impugned the intelligence or morality of persons who prefer other kinds of music.

TAS has never sponsored exercises in "aesthetic policing" before. There is no reason for it to lapse into that kind of behavior now.

Second, because it is the height of hypocrisy for Mr. Perigo to be criticizing Objectivists for bad or self-defeating behavior when he has become a poster boy for such behavior.

Let's see what's happened since Mr. Perigo gave his "Elixir of Youth" talk in 2004. Indeed, since the middle of 2005, Mr. Perigo has:

-- Launched into a stentorian vendetta against Barbara Branden, which he appears bent on pursuing for the rest of his life.

-- Struck up an alliance with Jim Valliant, the author of a badly researched, badly written book whose unstated premise is that Ayn Rand was perfect and whose explicit thesis is that "the Brandens" are Satanic.

-- Acted as cheerleader to Mr. Valliant and Casey Fahy in "defenses" of Mr. Valliant's opus that consist of dodging, changing the subject, or heaping verbal abuse on anyone who criticizes the book.

-- Made paranoid attributions, to the effect that anyone who defends "the Brandens" or criticizes Mr. Valliant's book must be taking orders from Barbara Branden.

-- Driven off his business partner, Joe Rowlands, who had apparently become tired of seeing the SOLOHQ site functioning as a vehicle for Mr. Perigo's personal feuds. Made unsubstantiated charges of fraud (occasionally watered down to deceit) without ever specifying who was financially responsible for the old SOLOHQ, who contributed the software used for the site, what the terms of the agreement were, etc.

--Effectively demolished the old SOLO organization that had been painstakingly built up in the first half of the decade.

-- Aided and abetted Diana Hsieh in her 12,600-word public denunciation of Chris Sciabarra. Ms. Hsieh has long since departed from SOLOPassion, as has another former ally, Joe Maurone, but Mr. Perigo and Mr. Valliant stand by this denunciation. When he and Ms. Hsieh and Mr. Valliant and Mr. Maurone were involved in it, Mr. Perigo defended the publication of private emails from Dr. Sciabarra without consent. Yet he recently threatened to ban one of his old associates for quoting one line of a private email from Mr. Perigo.

-- Reneged on a commitment to speak at the 2006 TAS Summer Seminar, allegedly on the grounds that he was being muzzled when Will Thomas asked him not to keep publicly blasting the organization. In fact, Mr. Perigo needed an excuse to back out, because neither Ms. Hsieh nor Mr. Valliant (at the time) approved of his involvement with TAS. Instead, Mr. Perigo made a speech at a Borders bookstore in Orange, California, plugging Mr. Valliant's book before a minuscule audience. (Anyone who thinks that Mr. Perigo presently has anything of positive value to contribute to a TAS Summer Seminar should listen to that speech.)

-- Relentlessly whittled away at his remaining following by banning participants from SOLOPassion or driving them off with his online tirades. The bans and schisms have now begun to thin even the ranks of his New Zealand-based disciples.

--Accepted a speaking invitation from an organization that he relentlessly scorns and condemns, in order to reach an audience that, for the most part, finds no value in SOLOPassion.

Mr. Perigo has no apparent positive regard for those who run TAS, or for those who contribute to it financially, and his professed scorn for the organization makes his decision to accept a speaking invitation hard to fathom. The hypothesis I find most plausible is that he is looking to seize control, running off his opponents there, and putting his associates (such as Mr. Valliant) in positions of authority. Such an effort is unlikely to succeed, but Mr. Perigo can do significant damage to TAS in the process.

Robert Campbell

PS. No need to fry up any epithets specially for me; I've already had my fill, thank you.

What was Perigo's response? The same as any bully when faced by a person who is right and not afraid of him: back off with his tail between his legs. Say it is all a joke. Whimper. Here was his response:

Dear Galt!

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2008-01-11 03:12.

If anyone wishes me to comment on any part of this, ask, and I shall. Otherwise I don't propose to waste any time on such nonsense, except to say two things:

1) A sad and characteristic lack of humour appears to be impeding certain folks' appreciation of the title of my music talk.

2) This takes the cake:

Mr. Perigo has no apparent positive regard for those who run TAS, or for those who contribute to it financially, and his professed scorn for the organization makes his decision to accept a speaking invitation hard to fathom. The hypothesis I find most plausible is that he is looking to seize control, running off his opponents there, and putting his associates (such as Mr. Valliant) in positions of authority. Such an effort is unlikely to succeed, but Mr. Perigo can do significant damage to TAS in the process.

I do believe this is the funniest thing I've ever read on SOLO, even though, of course, the humour is inadvertent.

James V, our diabolical plan is busted. We'll have to fast-track it. Can't wait for Portland. Please report immediately to the Air New Zealand Terminal at LA Airport for self-destructing new instructions. Hurry, before Hudgins sees this!

Saying something serious is funny is not an answer. It is an evasion typical of cornered bullies. Here is a pertinent quote about bullies from Donald Trump, and I fully agree with him:

Kat and I were at an event last weekend where we heard Donald Trump speak. He essentially said the same thing there as he did on a recent interview on Fox News,"On the Record ," aired on September 12, 2007. Van Susteren was asking him about his most recent book Think Big & Kick Ass, coauthored with Bill Zanker.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Now, you've given me the tease that you mentioned something about Rosie. So the viewers are going to want to know, too, is what do you mention about Rosie in this book that comes out in — actually, in a month?

TRUMP: Well, I talk about attitude and I talk about bullies. You know, Rosie is a bully. And a bully, I learned a long time ago when I was going to school, that when there is a bully and you're involved with a bully, you have to hit that person squarely and hard right between the eyes. And that's what I did with Rosie. And you know, she totally — I mean, she didn't even want to comment a couple weeks ago. She was someplace and they asked her, she said, I won't comment. I won't — well, if you look at what she did, she went after Kelly Ripa. And nobody fights back.

I mean, Kelly is a terrific person, but you know, I would have said maybe she should have fought back. And Kelly happened to be right on that. She went after Danny DeVito. She went after Selleck, Tom Selleck, a long time ago. I mean, this guy walks on her show, all of a sudden, she ends up trying to kill him.

Rosie is a bad person. Rosie is a bully. And I talk about bullies because the world is full of bullies, and you have to hit a bully between the eyes very, very hard and very solidly.

That's the way it works and the results are predictible, as Robert just demonstrated. We can judge people by what they say and what they do. When I look at what Perigo says and what he does, I see a huge disparity.

Michael

Now it all becomes clear! Lindsay Perigo is the Rosie O'Donnell of the Objectivist Movement!!

OK, now is the Donald Trump of the Objectivist Movement going to step up to the plate and say "You're fired!"??

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Now it all becomes clear! Lindsay Perigo is the Rosie O'Donnell of the Objectivist Movement!!

Roger,

Rosie I am not so sure about, but he is light years away from being a Donald Trump. If for nothing else, Trump is an important person in the world, but mostly because Trump is a builder of values.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Perigo is trying "to seize control" of anything except legitimacy, but all he will do is bring TAS down for there is no getting this pup up.

--Brant

[Roger Bissell]

Now it all becomes clear! Lindsay Perigo is the Rosie O'Donnell of the Objectivist Movement!!

Roger,

Rosie I am not so sure about, but he is light years away from being a Donald Trump. If for nothing else, Trump is an important person in the world, but mostly because Trump is a builder of values.

Michael

I didn't mean that Lindsay Perigo is "a Donald Trump." I meant that like Trump telling losers (like Rosie) that they are "fired," an equivalent "builder of values" in the Objectivist Movement should show LP the door. I don't know if there's anyone like Trump at TAS. But just as Rosie is managing to self-destruct without the Donald directly tossing her on the scrap heap, LP, given enough rope, will likely do the same. In the meantime, I will stand well clear...

REB

[Roger Bissell]

Over on Pigerosie's stomping grounds, Robert Campbell wrote:

For the record, I don't give a hoot about Will Thomas's reaction to my proposal (if anyone should be pissed about being turned down, it's Roger Bissell, whose track record of publication and participation in TAS graduate seminars was given no acknowledgment whatsoever).

I appreciate that. But I'm well passed (i.e., over) being pissed off. Being an old cat-skinner from way back, I have already figured out several ways to disseminate my ideas on the tetrachotomy, and some of them will probably bring me a good bit more money than I would have seen from any presentation at TAS.

Anger can be a great motivator. But only so long as you don't remain fixated on what/whom you're angry at. Anger is the response to one's values being threatened in a way that impels you to fight, rather than run away. I decided rather than fighting (or giving up), I would re-conceive my reading/listening market, which I have done. More to come later...

REB