The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V


Neil Parille

Recommended Posts

Ted,

The O'Reilly interview with Peikoff.

I think O'Reilly asked him what about innocents if we used nukes, but I would have to check the question. The general context definitely was that, though.

O'Reilly ended up asking him if he was Dr. Strangelove.

Michael

Michael; Dr. Strangelove had more class.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

The O'Reilly interview with Peikoff.

I think O'Reilly asked him what about innocents if we used nukes, but I would have to check the question. The general context definitely was that, though.

O'Reilly ended up asking him if he was Dr. Strangelove.

Michael

Michael; Dr. Strangelove had more class.

Chris -

Good one.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo, caught with his pants down, is apparently feeling really cornered.

I know I shouldn't post this, but people keep taking this dude seriously and giving him one pass after another, thinking he will eventually turn around or that he doesn't really mean all that irrational stuff he says. So I want this stuff on record for now. Later I can point to it when I need to.

But he means it—all of it—and his neurotic needs are greater than his exercise of reason. If this dude were ever to face himself in the mirror for what he really is, I believe he would melt down like James Taggart did at the end of Atlas Shrugged. So self-denial and scapegoating everyone else is at a premium in his soul and in his acts. And acting like a martyr and wallowing in self-pity.

Here is his latest attempt to salvage some relic of credibility. I believe this rant is more to himself than to others, since he already shows signs of understanding that he has lost credibility in the eyes of most others in the Objectivist and Objectivism-friendly subcommunity. He seems to be perplexed about it, but he knows it.

And some people, Brant ...

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Mon, 2009-05-25 10:32.

... get dirty by turning the other way when their pin-ups fight dirty. That's you. You know she's exactly what I've called her: a lying, smearing bitch, and a champion of a champion of Namblaphilia. This latter is of more significance than anyone yet realises, given that Brandroid Sciabarra's backstage back-stabbing of me on Babs's behalf was in part an attempt to downgrade the Namlaphile's evil to mere "issues." Said Namblaphile's mentors at ISIL treated it the same way, and spirited him out of NZ. Sciabarra told me he understood what this meant.

Mr. Valliant has evidence of Ms. Branden's involvement in the Wiki matter. I have it too. I've already made that clear. The source would astonish you. It did me. No way are we going to reveal it, and you'll just have to trust me there's good reason for that.

As a matter of interest, does Babs deny it? I don't follow O-Lying, so I'm reliant on sycophants like you for such information.

Mind you, in the scheme of things, instigating moves to have James hauled off Wiki wouldn't be the worst thing Babs ever did. I'm told that sort of thing goes on all the time on Wiki. I'm just wondering where the much-vaunted commitment to open honest debate is? The point is, it's Babs, not Ayn, who's the intolerant, embittered wannabe autocrat intent on suppressing dissent. Babs! With a nano-fraction of Ayn's talent. Babs, of whose connivings Nathan wrote, "My, we're all operators now." Babs, who excised that line from the next edition of Nathan's memoirs.

She is the woman with serpent's tongue who blackens goodness not just in its grave but in its live headquarters.

Question: just where do you, Brant, get off on this? We know Mr. Parille is a "humanity-diminisher." He told us. We know Prof. Campbell thinks hero-worship is inappropriate for human beings. He told us. We know the Prof is a compulsive liar prone to the most bizarre conspiracy theories. He presented them here. We know Mr. Scherk is a pauper's Dracula for whom the concept of good faith is a stake through the heart he doesn't have. He's made it clear every time I've misguidedly given him the opportunity to demonstrate a modicum of sincerity. We know he and Jonathan have Linz Derangement Syndrome, along with most others on O-Lying, since they make no effort to conceal it. We know the highly unintelligent Michael Sewer Kelly undulated his way into Babs's approximations to affections, by the most shameless genuflection—that all happened on SOLO. So ... this is the kind of company you keep. Why?

There is one point I want to emphasize here that might not be clear. There is a rhetorical device at work.

When people fight in public, this attracts audience. It's just human nature.

Perigo, knows this and when his ratings get real low, like at the present, he attacks a lot of people all at once to see if anyone will show up and increase audience interest.

It's a ploy. I believe he means the nasty stuff, but he knows enough about public manipulation to use it as a ploy to generate audience, too. Notice how he emphasizes that everything happened "on Solo." He's actually calling for people to show up since he is tanking.

As to any evidence or fact to back this irrational rant? I quote Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo from this very post: "... you'll just have to trust me..."

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gee; I thought he was just going to let that thread die. I don't know if he's worth replying to. He sort said what needed to be said in that regard.

I guess James Valliant isn't going to show up to help him out. It's interesting he disappeared for a long time on SOLOP ostensibly for health reasons, but it appears now out of avoiding the embarrassment of not getting Neil into the ARI Rand archives. I mean, he apparently, along with his wife, had time and energy enough to do 1300 plus edits of the Rand/Objectivism material.

For the record, Barbara Branden noticing strange goings-on in Wikipedia--if she did--and alerting some friends about it who did something about it, wouldn't have been doing anything wrong--assuming she did anything at all. But if you or I make legitimate additions and alterations to Rand Wikipedia material and the Valliants swoop in and delete and alter your work without justifying their actions you and I won't need Barbara Branden to get highly pissed off and complain about it.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Probably everyone whose edits were deleted or overwritten by Mr. Valliant (er, Anon IP160) complained at one time or another. 1300 edits will generate a high volume of complaints...

A couple of the regular Wikipedia editors who participated in the online discussion of the Rand pages (they all use handles; I don't know their names) are obviously distrustful of Rand and Randians. Under any circumstances, they would jump very quickly on "edit-warring" and other violations of Wikipedia rules if Rand was the subject.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice how he emphasizes that everything happened "on Solo." He's actually calling for people to show up since he is tanking.

All the more amazing, when five of the folks that Mr. Perigo is trying to summon have been banned from SOLOP: Barbara, Jonathan, Neil, WSS, and yourself. Chris Sciabarra may not have been given the boot, but he's never coming back. So Mr. Perigo wants Brant and me to mix it up with him? ;)

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice how he emphasizes that everything happened "on Solo." He's actually calling for people to show up since he is tanking.

All the more amazing, when five of the folks that Mr. Perigo is trying to summon have been banned from SOLOP: Barbara, Jonathan, Neil, WSS, and yourself. Chris Sciabarra may not have been given the boot, but he's never coming back. So Mr. Perigo wants Brant and me to mix it up with him? ;)

Robert Campbell

Barbara Branden has an open invitation from Lindsay Perigo to post on SOLOP regarding something or another, I don't recall what. She apparently has not been banned. I can understand why she won't show up even though LP said she won't be abused regarding that--I think--altho that's all he does regarding her in the meantime. Sorta reminds me of The Godfather when Tesla says Michael will "be safe" to have a meeting on his territory.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice how he emphasizes that everything happened "on Solo." He's actually calling for people to show up since he is tanking.

All the more amazing, when five of the folks that Mr. Perigo is trying to summon have been banned from SOLOP: Barbara, Jonathan, Neil, WSS, and yourself. Chris Sciabarra may not have been given the boot, but he's never coming back. So Mr. Perigo wants Brant and me to mix it up with him? ;)

Robert Campbell

He must be lonely.

He kicked out the most lucid, properly focused, incisive mind there--Billy Beck--in order to keep in Amy Peikoff's good graces, but she's disappeared along with a lot of others. I think they have, but don't know for sure, for I've stopped reading most of the SOLOP threads. SOLOP and OL share one important commonality, however: too many posters seem purblind to what's going on in the world and how bad it's going to be. Our own government is acting for the destruction of this country and our enemies will soon be able to do an incredible amount of damage with a small amount of effort. In 10-20 years the US we know today may hardly even exist.

--Brant

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It didn't take a Wikipedia junkie to notice that someone had been adding references to PARC and Valliant. I noticed it myself and it would not have been surprising if Barbara noticed it. If she mentioned it someone, that's no big deal. In fact, all LP and Valliant have said (to the best of my knowledge) is that she was "involved," a rather nebulous claim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well one thing is for sure.

Perigo will keep on being irrational, vulgar and dishonest in public, and will keep on trying to trash the reputation (online and off) of people of honor and achievement who reject him.

And I will keep on speaking out in public against this creep and watching with enormous satisfaction as his lack of credibility grows.

Maybe I have Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo Derangement Syndrome or something...

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a lot of nonsense going on, so I'd like to make a few comments.

First, the IP address 72 199 110 160 began editting the Ayn Rand and other Rand related Wikipedia articles at the end of 2008, I believe in November. At that time Steve Wolfer and I were actively editting the Ayn Rand article.

We noticed the large number of edits, and the fact that a substantial portion of them had to do with (1) adding supporting references from PARC and (2) pushing an obvious anti-Branden point of view on various articles.

Let it be said that according to Wikipedia policies, published books are considered reliable sources for the purpose of writing articles. While a case can be made that PARC is a biased source, and hence that its POV should be explicitly attributed as POV, and not necessarily objective fact, there is no case to be made to disallow that book's use as a source. Indeed, it would be wrong to edit any article to say something like "The Brandens, of course, have been shown to be evil monsters. (PARC, p. 42)" But it would be entirely appropriate to say "In what some see as a partisan manifesto, (OL, <url>) former district attorney James Valliant argues that....(PARC, p.123)"

The crusade to remove PARC as a source appears to be based more on certain editors' distaste for anything published by any self-described Objectivist than with any real Wikipedia policy.

PARC is objectionable to these people because Valliant is a known Objectivist, not because of any editor's knowledge of or opinion of the Brandens.

Also, the mere fact that there are 1300+ edits by IP 72 is not relevant. The large majority were typos, corrected spellings, attempts at alternate wordings and so forth. The editor should have been more careful, but the number of edits itself was only annoying but not inherently wrong.

That being said, The IP 72 edits were problematic because the editor was obviously pushing a POV, and doing so in a way that was detrimental to the proper form of the article. For instance, while the Ayn Rand article did no more than say Rand had written the screenplays for Love Letters and You Came Along (relevant material on Rand that could deserve more in depth treatment) the IP 72 edits were going into bizarre detail of dates and wording of he-said-she-said matters of no importance to a general reader, as well as portraying these matters as accepted fact, rather than an ongoing dispute. The IP 72 editor had the option of starting a new article about the Rand/Branden split, where he could have discussed the matter to his heart's content. But in this article those additions were being given undue weight.

The IP 72 editor did also add much material that was of value and which did not have to do with elaborating in a biased manner on the Rand/Branden split. But due to his editting style, it became impossible to retain those good edits while they were mixed in with bad ones.

I addressed IP 72 directly about this problem, (see the subsection "Avalanche" of the Ayn Rand talk page now archived in either December 2008 or January 2009) and Steve Wolfer and I invited IP 72 to discuss his edits, and to separate out the anti-Branden attacks from the helpful substantial editions.

We recieved no response.

We advised IP 72 that we would simply reverse any further edits made without comment or justification that served to push his POV or unbalance the article.

But Steve and I, largely for discussing that article here and in other fora, were ourselves banned from editting this year. Not one of our edits were shown to be inappropriate, only our motivation as Objectivists was objectionable. C'est la vie.

I have not read any comments by IP 72, since I stopped editting wikipedia some time before my formal banning. He was entirley silent and unresponsive while I was active. I was not aware, and did not suspect that, as it is reported, the edits were coming from the Valliant household. Indeed, I found the editting style so juvenile I figured I was dealing with a highschool student.

I do find the volume of ink spilled on this topic by people who refrain from actually attempting to improve Wikipedia articles themselves a bit ironic. I also find Steve's and my banning from the article ironic, since we were the main force stopping IP 72 from what amounted to his vandalism of the article. (Note also that several current commentators on the talk page of the Ayn Rand article are themselves banned from editting the article, and their opposition to PARC should neither be taken as friendliness to the Brandens nor as proof of their knowledge of the topic at hand or any expertise on Rand or Objectivism.) There is absolutely no justification for censoring PARC out of wikipedia - it should be used for what it is, documentation of the published POV of a certain partisan crowd within certain ARI circles and the like. Wikipedia's policy is "verifiablity, not truth" and that phrase seems perfectly suited to describe PARC.

[editted]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find the volume of ink spilled on this topic by people who refrain from actually attempting to improve Wikipedia articles themselves a bit ironic. I also find Steve's and my banning from the article ironic, since we were the main force stopping IP 72 from what amounted to his vandalism of the article. Note that several current commentators on the talk page of the Ayn Rand article are themselves banned from editing the article, and their opposition to PARC should neither be taken as friendliness to Objectivism nor as proof of their knowledge of the topic. There is absolutely no justification for censoring PARC out of wikipedia - it should be used for what it is, documentation of the published POV of a certain partisan crowd within certain ARI circles. Wikipedia's policy is "verifiablity, not truth" and that phrase seems perfectly suited to describe PARC.

Ted,

I have an account on Wikipedia, which I opened with the thought of eventually trying to straighten out their entry on Jean Piaget. I haven't used it yet. I would have to have a lot of spare time to be able to take on such editing and while fending off the inevitable attempts to replace it with less accurate information. And Piaget doesn't draw the crazies...

I never had any intention of getting involved with Rand-related items on Wikipedia. I figured, quite accurately according to your account, that this would bring a lot of grief for absolutely no compensation.

FWIW, I also agree that Mr. Valliant's book should be considered a reliable source—for the point of view that prevails among completely unhinged Rand-worshipers.

I have not read any comments by IP 72, since I stopped editting wikipedia some time before my formal banning. He was entirely silent and unresponsive while I was active. I was not aware, and did not suspect that, as it is reported, the edits were coming from the Valliant household. Indeed, I found the editing style so juvenile I figured I was dealing with a highschool student.

Maybe you haven't had the misfortune to deal much with either Jim Valliant (when he chose to identify himself...) or Holly Valliant. Juvenility is exactly what I'd expect from either of them in this context.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil: "It didn't take a Wikipedia junkie to notice that someone had been adding references to PARC and Valliant. I noticed it myself and it would not have been surprising if Barbara noticed it. If she mentioned it someone, that's no big deal. In fact, all LP and Valliant have said (to the best of my knowledge) is that she was "involved," a rather nebulous claim."

I do go to Wikipedia occasionally, but not very often, and I have not been reading references to Rand and Objectivism. So I was not aware of what I now understand to be the many references to PARC and Valliant. Thus I have not been in any way, shape, or manner involved, either directly or indirectly, in the banning of Valliant by Wikipedia.

Barbara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things heated up on the weird thread on SLOP we are discussing. Here are a few highlights for those who prefer not to go there. I have linked to the posts in the titles within the quotes when the posts are given in full.

Link to Barbara Branden's 2nd statement

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Tue, 2009-05-26 23:37.

Those less phobic or priggish than Linsday Perigo can read Barbara Branden's second statement here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...280&view...

Jim Valliant needs to produce his alleged evidence.

And it can't come from one of his imaginary friends.

If he continues to withhold it, any sensible person will conclude that Mr. Valliant and Mr. Perigo are both liars.

Robert Campbell

This is enough to show that there is a serious issue regarding Perigo's bad faith with his readers. But then one of the Wikipedia editors appeared:

Bizarre theories

Submitted by J Readings on Wed, 2009-05-27 07:56.

I normally dislike participating in these types of chat fora topics because they attract all kinds of cyber-lunatics and unproductive netizens. It's not worth my time.

Unfortunately, Mr. Perigo's constant leveling of accusations against Barbara Branden and (more importantly) Wikipedia in defense of James Valliant's opus are so bizarre that I thought -- as the filing editor against anon IP 160 a few weeks ago -- that it would be appropriate to mention two pertitent facts.

First, Mr. Perigo insists that "Babs" (I assume he means Barbara Branden) "reported" on May 16 the following quote:

"All references to James Valliant's book, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, are now being cut from Wikipedia because the book is not a 'reliable source.' See the following in 'Cross-Talk for Ayn Rand and Objectivism Articles' on the Wikipedia site:"

Anyone following the discussion on the Objectivist Living portal at even a cursory level (and I admit that I rarely follow to even that extent) would only have to check the quote and the date to learn that Michael Stuart Kelly was the author of that comment. See post #49:

As for "B. Branden" and her alleged involvement in this unpleasant episode, let me state for the record that at no time did I speak with, contact, exchange e-mails with, or discuss with anyone affiliated with "B. Branden" the topic banning of anon IP 160 or the eventual consensus to remove the shameless self-promotion of the book, The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, throughout Wikipedia.

Best regards,

J Readings

Oops. That one wasn't expected.

With his pants fully down around his ankles and his shortcoming flapping in the wind for the world over to see, Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo now bleats:

I'm inclined on reflection to believe that, contrary to what I've been told, she did not personally instigate a complaint against Valliant since I know she's not particularly Internet-savvy and probably has little clue as to what Wiki is.

On reflection? Like when you get bludgeoned over the head with reality? That needs reflection? Just how dense is this dude if he needs to reflect over what he just read from Barbara and Wikipedia's editor?

Perigo is stupid, but not that stupid. He's too cunning to be that dense. I think that comment is a perfect indication of his ill intent in twisting facts to promote an agenda and his total lack of respect for his readers. If he had not been caught, does anyone doubt he would be citing today the "fact" of Barbara's dark influence on Wikipedia?

Caught bullies are never pretty. They find someone to scapegoat and this is playing out true to form. Here is another bleat:

And I'm contemplating the possibility that I've been quite intentionally misled that it was she who laid the complaint. If I find this to have been the case, believe me, I shall shout it from the rooftops. And I intend to find out.

Shout it where? From which rooftops? SLOP?

Heh.

(Is he going to shout out against Valliant? Or whom? How can someone mislead Perigo if an email to Valliant is the source?)

And just so no one can accuse this dude of inconsistency in acts (although his reasoning and statements are all over hell and back), see here.

On SLOP, their normal policy when cornered or when attacking people of productive achievement, is to post verbatim in public the private emails they have received. They did this with Chris Sciabarra, for instance, in a really shameful display of irrational malice.

Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo is usually careful and normally lets others do this kind of dirty work for him. He just hosts it so his own hands don't get dirty. But this time, he is doing it himself. (Anyone emailing this dude, be advised that this is his proven policy.)

The ironic part, for me at least, is that I had no part in the email, but I was the author of the text. :)

What a mess!

This is blasting right along in all its glorious mediocrity by a group purporting to promote a rational philosophy for living on earth...

I guess I am part of it, too. Hell, who doesn't like a little gossip?

:)

Michael

EDIT: Robert just posted over there while I was posting this. His thoughts complement my own and even raised a funny thought I had not entertained. Here is the post in full:

Lindsay Perigo: Complete Idiot or Shameless Liar?

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Wed, 2009-05-27 15:42.

So Mr. Perigo's alleged evidence against "Babs" consists of ... Barbara Branden's email of May 16?

Good God amighty.

Either Mr. Perigo is a complete idiot or he is a shameless liar.

I also received that email. I expect it went to a bunch of people. Its contents were not news to me, as I'd already heard from Neil Parille that Mr. Valliant had been banned from editing Rand-related articles at Wikipedia.

From behind the 8 ball, Mr. Perigo can be heard blustering:

I'm contemplating the possibility that I've been quite intentionally misled that it was she who laid the complaint. If I find this to have been the case, believe me, I shall shout it from the rooftops. And I intend to find out.

What if it was Mr. Perigo who "quite intentionally misled" himself?

Is he going to shout that from the rooftops?

Is he going to ban himself from SOLOPassion?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't find LP's crap entertaining in the slightest. If he lived in the United States and had some money Barbara Branden could probably sue the beJesus out of him. I'd bet that New Zealand's libel laws are more like Britain's than America's which'd make him even more vulnerable to a suit. I'm not recommending that or necessarily think it would be right, but I am amazed to see LP acting like a deer that shot itself dead but still managed to hang itself up and dress itself out and cook itself for dinner.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anyone with any sense had, at least in gut-feeling form, the knowing that Miss Branden didn't do that. That was flat-out monkey-business.

Yeah, I bet that's the first thing you think of at this juncture in your life, Barbara: I'll go to Wiki and start doing funk revisions on a minor figure involving something more mighty (and sad) than anything a portrayer could ever experience.

Tell me I'm wrong, Barbara. I bet you value your days more than that.

Oh, and send me an email. I want to give you at least one love song off my album. rdengle@msn.com

You're up!

rde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo appears to have gotten to the bottom of it to try to save his ass. It isn't working, but he is trying...

Now he bleats out his innocence, that not just the unimpeachable bonehead James Valliant is his source, and not just the infamous but anonymous razzle-dazzle source who will astound everyone still on board, but now there is even a third person involved who was confounded along with him. And he bleats that one of these others wrote the "B. Branden" part. He just didn't notice.

So how many in all are there sending emails to each other? This thing just grows and grows...

Isn't this the same dude who accuses others of whispering campaigns?

Anyway, here is the newest bleating:

There was nothing in Babs's e-mail to indicate she was quoting Michael Sewer Kelly. It got to three others before reaching me. None of those folk pollutes himself by going to O-Lying, so none recognised her report as being a cut-and-paste of Kelly. We all thought it was exactly what it looked like: an e-mail from Babs. One of the three others said, "This [meaning the deletion of Valliant from Wiki], from a complaint by a 'B. Branden.'" I've not been able to ascertain why he said that, but don't believe it was his intention to mislead me.

But we can be sure that Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo's intention was to mislead his readers.

That's what he does.

Michael

EDIT:

LOL... Robert and I posted at about the same time once more. This is getting to be fun... Here is his post, since it details some other thoughts I didn't think of for those who don't want to go there:

Mr. Perigo, Quit Insulting the Intelligence of Your Readers

Submitted by Robert Campbell on Thu, 2009-05-28 00:46.

Still feeling uncomfortably cramped behind that 8 ball, Mr. Perigo whines:

There was nothing in Babs's e-mail to indicate she was quoting Michael Sewer Kelly.

So what?

Who, in the first place, would interpret Ms. Branden's email as indicating that its sender had personally arranged for Mr. Valliant's book to be declared an unreliable source?

No reasonable person would.

Mr. Perigo didn't either.

Otherwise, on finding out that Barbara Branden was actually copying a post by Michael Stuart Kelly, Mr. Perigo would have concluded... that it was Mr. Kelly who got Mr. Valliant's book written off as unreliable.

Somehow he managed to suppress this inference.

The text of Mr. Kelly's item in no way, shape, or form implicates either him or Barbara Branden in getting Jim Valliant's book declared an unreliable source. As "J. Readings" reminded us, Mr. Kelly's item quotes directly from an editing thread on Wikipedia, replete with local jargon and editors' pseudonyms. Neither Barbara Branden nor Michael Stuart Kelly was a participant in that thread. Nothing in the email suggested that either of them was.

It got to three others before reaching me. None of those folk pollutes himself by going to O-Lying, so none recognised her report as being a cut-and-paste of Kelly. We all thought it was exactly what it looked like: an e-mail from Babs.

Utterly irrelevant whining, for the reasons already given.

Also bullshit. Mr. Perigo visits Objectivist Living when it suits him. He might as well admit it.

Are any of Mr. Perigo's alleged sources more punctilious than their wayward spiritual adviser?

One of the three others said, "This [meaning the deletion of Valliant from Wiki], from a complaint by a 'B. Branden.'" I've not been able to ascertain why he said that, but don't believe it was his intention to mislead me.

This unnamed individual offered an interpretation completely unsupported by Barbara Branden's actual email.

So, is Mr. Perigo a complete idiot? A complete idiot might believe the completely unsupported interpretation.

Or is he a shameless liar? How do we know that he actually received a forwarded email with the alleged phrase added?

Mr. Perigo needs to quit insulting the intelligence of his readers.

He needs to name the one who said, "This, from a complaint by a 'B. Branden.'"

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keystone Cops, without the budget, or the aesthetics.

Would a man expect less?

Backsliding is excellent entertainment, but only for about a half-minute: that's all it can sustain.

The worst part (and I maintain this) is that The Creature<tm> <--that's Perigo, for newbies)~ continues to remain a horrible writer.

What makes a horrible writer?

Many things, but first off-rip: not evolving, not creating new techniques, riffs, perspectives.

He just sits back there with his fuck-ass NZ home-fire accent, and hope he catches someone with his oh-so-ranked-out hackney.

Meaning, he doesn't work on his own craft, but expects others to consider him an expert.

Try practicing, ass-clown: that's what professionals do in all quarters.

rde

At least I look up words and try to check stuff.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich,

Actually your observation about Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo's writing skills is quite astute. He used to be better stylistically.

For example, in one of the most recent exchanges on SLOP in the thread under discussion, Robert started a post entitled:

Lindsay Perigo: Complete Idiot or Shameless Liar?

Perigo responded with a "devastating" repartee entitled:

Robert Campbell: Complete Idiot AND Shameless Liar

This is like a child in kindergarten who gets called a pooh-pooh head.

Child 1: You're a pooh-pooh head.

Child 2: No. You're a pooh-pooh head.

Clever clever clever clever clever...

He has been doing a lot of this stuff lately. I attribute it to too much deceit, too many emails, too much self-pity and probably too much booze.

Some writers can handle their hooch, even flourish, and some lose their edge, especially as they get older.

(All right... that was catty... but still true... :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maestro,

What people do in their in-between time does not concern me at all. You could be jacked out of your skull on meth, even, and if you rip out some good meaning, I'd be OK with that. Of course, unfortunately, that will make a man die. That's not the point.

None of us are "perfect."

But, you know, it's how you sidle up to a public place... Patrick Swayze, Roadhouse... "Be NICE..." (I'm paraphrasing, I never get this one right).

"When is it time to not be nice?"

"When I say so."

You get the drift.

rde

Working on his right lead, which is looking pretty good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo is now scraping the bottom of the intellectual barrel and showing how bullies act when they are thoroughly discredited.

It is so self-explanatory that none of Robert's posts are needed to give context. Just look at this thing:

Spot the Diiference

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2009-05-29 01:57.

Prof. Campbell whines:

I asked Mr. Perigo a simple question.

Who forwarded Barbara Branden's email of May 16 to him, with the appended comment, "This, from a complaint by a 'B. Branden.'"?

To which I say, mind your own fucking business.

RobertCampbell-terrorist.jpg

I have a question of my own: on the left is the skanky professor, who wages Jihad against Ayn Rand and heroism. On the right is Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who wages Jihad against America. Were they by any chance separated at birth?

This is all Perigo has left.

The mockery of bullying.

He has no answers because he is lying.

Perigo abandoned reason long ago, but he is usually cunning enough to keep up appearances. Here he gave up all pretense at being rational and showed the world the real evidence he has for accusing Barbara Branden of soliciting James Valliant's ban at Wikipedia: "... mind your own fucking business."

And he presents a mocking image comparison of the questioner to a terrorist in an attempt to shock and change the subject.

In other words, the question stings and he has no evidence. Or if he has something, it makes him look like a total fool.

This man, Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo, is the man who wants to tell others how to live and what to think in the name of Ayn Rand, but behold how he lives. Behold his thinking, "... mind your own fucking business."

This man, Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo, claims he burns with rational fire in his gut and something called value swoon in his heart. Well behold the rational fire. Behold the value whatsamajigger.

This man, Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo, dreams of being a fearless Objectivist leader, a savior of mankind. Well behold... er... there is nothing to behold...

If only he had some talent left, he might have pulled this ruse off. The Objectivist world is notoriously quick to turn the other cheek with accusation junkies and give them a pass.

Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo knows this. He counts on it. He trades in it.

Even so, can anyone imagine Ayn Rand writing trash like Perigo's post quoted above?

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now