For the Record re PARC


Ellen Stuttle

Recommended Posts

I'm answering Robert Campbell's post #182 and Neil Parille's post #188 from the "New Developments re Harriman Induction Book" thread on a separate thread so as not to continue deflection from the Harriman book on the original thread.

[....]

Ms. Stuttle, whose activity on SOLO's global warming threads had long been fitful, failed to sustain the ego boost she anticipated from being recognized as Valliant's latter-day defender and seeing several of his and her adversaries kicked off the site. Instead, Valliant quietly departed and Perigo's decay is now visible to all.

There would, alas, be no further opportunities to announce that Valliant's heartfelt expressions of gratitude were making her blush.

For the record: What I anticipated in saying anything favorable about PARC was to be castigated by certain parties. I didn't anticipate -- I was surprised and dismayed by -- the lengths of distorting to which Robert Campbell would go in response.

I had nothing to do with Robert's and Neil's being banned from posting on SOLO and no idea that Linz was going to ban them. The attentive might have noticed that I then responded here to Robert and Neil and others.

I might have inadvertently been instrumental in the earlier banning of Jonathan -- which wasn't PARC-connected. Linz might have thought that if he got Jonathan out of the way, I'd discuss with him on-list my criticisms of his "Music of the Gods." He was wrong, if that's what he thought.

As to whether "Perigo's decay is now visible to all," since I haven't even been reading SOLO, it isn't visible to me if indeed, as Robert claims, it is to others.

As to "Valliant's heartfelt expressions of gratitude [...] making [me] blush," damned right, I blushed at that post, by which I was completely taken by surprise. He apparently didn't notice that I still think the book needed so major an overhaul as to be a different book (except in the direct quoting of Rand's diaries).

Robert,

Perhaps Valliant could answer a couple questions:

1. Who, other than Leonard Peikoff, knew Rand well and has praised PARC?

2. How come ARIan reviewers who have commented on the new biographies (such as Binswanger and Mayhew) have failed to mention PARC?

I'm not holding my breath.

-Neil Parille

I know of some people who knew Rand well who share my opinion of the book -- that it makes some valid points which are hard to find and which unfortunately were lost in the lousy execution, that it should have been written so as to emphasize the defense of Rand instead of emphasizing "the case against the Brandens." Those people haven't spoken publicly. I wish they would speak publicly, but for whatever reasons of their own, they don't want to be involved in the controversy.

My belief as to why Binswanger hasn't mentioned PARC is because he objects to paying any notice to the Brandens. He reputedly objected to PARC's being published in the first place. (I have no idea regarding Mayhew's opinion or reason for silence.)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Ms. Stuttle wouldn't have much minded being "castigated," if only she had been able to obtain in another forum the lasting deference that she will never get here.

Ms. Stuttle responded to Jonathan at OL after "inadvertently" getting Lindsay Perigo to ban him from SOLOP. (Yeah, real inadvertent—she publicly applauded the banning on SOLO and even defended it here.)

So what would have prevented her from privately encouraging Mr. Perigo to ban Neil Parille and me, then responding to us over here?

If Jim Valliant were still hanging out at SOLO and praising her efforts, Ms. Stuttle would still be there, absorbing whatever flattery the last few Perigonians might yield up—and witnessing Perigo's continuing decay. (Having ridiculed me and others for predicting that Mr. Valliant would "flounce" from SOLO, she has yet to comment on his absence from that venue.)

While kissing up to Mr. Valliant, Ms. Stuttle managed to excuse or overlook nearly all of his "lousy execution." Mr. Valliant's boneheaded fanaticism, sophistical argumentation and bad writing were integral to his project—he got the green light from Leonard Peikoff after Peikoff saw and approved of what is now Part I of the book, featuring page upon page of lousy execution—so it is extraordinarily difficult to find any good ideas in it that were spoiled or obscured by all of his "execution."

There is a need for a book that reproduces Rand's diaries from 1967-1968 in a reliable manner, including any items that Valliant chose to omit, and approaches them from an intellectually responsible perspective. But this is the sort of book that Leonard Peikoff has no intention of allowing during his lifetime.

I know of some people who knew Rand well who share my opinion of the book -- that it makes some valid points which are hard to find and which unfortunately were lost in the lousy execution, that it should have been written so as to emphasize the defense of Rand instead of emphasizing "the case against the Brandens." Those people haven't spoken publicly. I wish they would speak publicly, but for whatever reasons of their own, they don't want to be involved in the controversy.

The burden of proof is on Ms. Stuttle to say who those people are and document that they share the opinion of Valliant's book that Ms. Stuttle professes in September 2010.

Otherwise, there is no reason to take this assertion any more seriously than Valliant's boasts about the people who support his opus.

It's true that Harry Binswanger appears to disapprove of Rand biography as a project, at least until she's been dead for a century.

But Bob Mayhew hasn't expressed that view. Why would he not cite Valliant in an ARI-affilated publication, while panning Jennifer Burns' Goddess of the Market, unless he thought little of Valliant's book? (And having been given three different bits of Rand to rewrite for the Estate and singing the praises of the man he says taught him how to edit, Mayhew must be thoroughly aware of Peikoff's personal sponsorship of Valliant and his opus.)

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Ms. Stuttle wouldn't have much minded being "castigated," if only she had been able to obtain in another forum the lasting deference that she will never get here. [Robert]

More psychologizing and resorting to mind-reading about motives.

Robert, unlike perhaps some others on this list, you are an intelligent enough man to know better and that you should focus on attacking the ideas rather than the person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

Have you read Ms. Stuttle's former criticisms of Mr. Valliant's book? Have you read her more recent apologetics for it?

The material in question can be found on SOLOP, or right here at OL.

If you have read through it, you should be in an excellent position to show how I never criticized Ms. Stuttle's ideas, just went for her motives.

And you should also be in an excellent position to show how wrong my judgments of her motives are.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might have inadvertently been instrumental in the earlier banning of Jonathan -- which wasn't PARC-connected. Linz might have thought that if he got Jonathan out of the way, I'd discuss with him on-list my criticisms of his "Music of the Gods." He was wrong, if that's what he thought.

Ms. Stuttle responded to Jonathan at OL after "inadvertently" getting Lindsay Perigo to ban him from SOLOP. (Yeah, real inadvertent—she publicly applauded the banning on SOLO and even defended it here.)

Wow, you two are really mischaracterizing and diminishing the scope of what happened to me. I was lynched by a bloodthirsty mob which had first waged a public smear campaign of vicious lies against me! It was an event of epic proportions. As I recall, there was a lot of fire, explosions, and horrific instruments of torture, and I was almost killed. Yet you make it sound as if I was merely banned from a website.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow, you two are really mischaracterizing and diminishing the scope of what happened to me. I was lynched by a bloodthirsty mob which had first waged a public smear campaign of vicious lies against me! It was an event of epic proportions. As I recall, there was a lot of fire, explosions, and horrific instruments of torture, and I was almost killed. Yet you make it sound as if I was merely banned from a website.

That's nothing compared to what LP reduced it to: your refusal to post your picture (a lie).

I tried to find a thread over there, but when you get banned on SOLOP no one can access your author's page except the people who run the site ("You Are Not Authorized to Access This Page"), so your old threads can't be tracked.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny, I was banned from SOLOP when Linz posted a thread telling airhead Americans to shut the fuck up. I told him it was a good thing he both gratuitously insulted his readers and added a vulgarity, or no one would have taken him seriously. In response, without ever asking me for one--which I would not have provided--he announced he was blocking me for not having a picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms. Stuttle responded to Jonathan at OL after "inadvertently" getting Lindsay Perigo to ban him from SOLOP. (Yeah, real inadvertent—she publicly applauded the banning on SOLO and even defended it here.)

I'm not finding any post of mine responding to Jonathan on OL about his banning or even referring to it. Maybe there is such a post, but I don't turn it up using any search terms I tried.

I commented about it in a post on SOLO, the first part of which I'll quote. The second part was addressed to Linz and pertained to his music thesis and to my repeating that although I'd been (past tense) willing to discuss it off-list, I wasn't willing to pursue it on-list.

4/24/2009 ~5:06:28 am [EST]

SOLO - Whispering Campaigns

"It has been pointed out to me that" (see the note below for the text I'm mimicking)...we have one of those cute little distorted list-tales in the making.

On OL, Jonathan writes:

~~~

Link

It has been pointed out to me that Pigero has revealed here [*] that there was a behind-the-scenes whispering campaign waged against me which led to a lynch-mob getting me banned from SOLOP:

"In the private note to which you refer you said you didn't want to continue the discussion publicly while a certain third party was getting in the way. That's no longer the case, so I'm up for it if you are."

[*] He linked to Linz's comment-70007, which [at that time was] 10 posts down the queue. [The post is on the "Music of the Gods" thread - link. Direct links to posts no longer work on SOLO after a post has gone off the first page.]

~~~

Before the OL whispering and tongue-clicking gets well underway, here is the exact full text of the private note I sent to Linz; Linz did not reply to the note:

~~~

4/15/2009, 10:15 pm edt

Subject: "Tonal drama" is what makes your case. ;-)

I'll write -- off-list -- with some details in the next few days. I want to do it off-list because (1) I don't want it to look adversarial: I'm not trying to argue with you; I'm trying to help with the musical features; (2) I don't want Jonathan in the way.

Ellen

~~~

I had no thought of getting Jonathan banned -- although I will say that I think Linz was justified in banning him. Issues (1) and (2) were separate issues; issue (1) still pertains. I am still not desirous of discussing the issue with Linz on-list, and at this point I'm not desirous of discussing it off-list either.

So what would have prevented her from privately encouraging Mr. Perigo to ban Neil Parille and me, then responding to us over here?

Only that I wouldn't have done that, which Robert doesn't believe. In any case, I didn't do it.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[....] In response, without ever asking me for one--which I would not have provided--he announced he was blocking me for not having a picture.

Did you never read the posting rules there? Posting a current picture is one of the rules. And I'm just about sure there were warnings to you about that.

That's nothing compared to what LP reduced it to: your refusal to post your picture (a lie).

No, it isn't a lie. Neither of the user photos Jonathan used complied with the list photo requirements.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More psychologizing and resorting to mind-reading about motives.

It doesn't even reach the level of psychologizing and mind-reading. It's inventing a fictional character whom he calls "Ms. Stuttle."

The title of this thread should be: "For the Broken Record re PARC."

Since Robert appears set on continuing to play the broken record, it might as well have its own thread where it can spin without disturbing the other threads.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it isn't a lie. Neither of the user photos Jonathan used complied with the list photo requirements.

Oh, I wasn't aware of that. In what way did my second photo not comply?

Initially, I had thought that the SOLOP guidelines only required that I post a real photo of myself ("As a sign of good faith, please sign on and post under your real name with photograph, which you can upload when you register an account."). The original image that I posted was indeed a real photo of me, albeit one from when I was a tot. At some point, I think one or more of the SOLOP lynch-mobbers said that I had to have a current photo of myself, so I posted a current one. I don't remember there being any requirements about size, or any prohibitions on silhouetted lighting, if those are the things which you think made my photo noncompliant.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: For the Record

Just as a matter of record w regard to Linz and bannings:

He claims to run an open site and to be very magnanimous about people airing criticisms. And if people go away they are 'flouncing'. How many people has he banned?

There's me, Robert Campbell, Jonathan, Wm. Scherck. Who else?

I want to compile a complete list so it can be flung in the hypocrite's face from time to time.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phillip:

I have never had any dealings with him personally, but if his personality is what y'all have described, you will only empower him by that list.

Personality types like his, if accurate, thrive on negative attention.

Additionally, it would be a waste of your valuable time.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

Me.

He offered to remove the ban when discussions started heating up over something or other and I said... er... what I said...

Here, let me find the post...

I did. It's kind of hard because of the SLOP software. Here's the link to Perigo's post, but it now goes to the opening post by Valliant. The post number is 72920, dated "2009-06-21 04:04," and titled "Good Lord!" In the excerpt below, "Sewer" is me, "Babs" is Barbara Branden, "Chris" is Chris Sciabarra, and "the Prof." is Robert Campbell.

Campbell complains that the deck would be stacked against Sciabarra if Chris ever chose to respond to Diana and me here, Sewer being banned and all. Poor Chris if he had to rely on Sewer to defend him. That would make him as pathetic as Babs.

But Sewer can come here if he wishes. He was banned for gross bad faith. The Prof. posts in gross bad faith and he's not banned, so I may as well be consistent. Good faith, good will, good humour ... the Prof. demonstrates none of them, yet I put up with him, for some reason, so I may as well put up with Sewer.

Here was my response (on OL), one of my rare descents into gross profanity:

Dayaamm!

Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo unbanned me on SLOP (see here).

Just in case anyone is wondering, would I ever post there again?

Fuck no!

Can he or Valliant post here on OL?

Fuck no!

Not without some serious apologies to several people, and even then I would be hard pressed to believe them.

One Pross on my forum was enough.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it isn't a lie. Neither of the user photos Jonathan used complied with the list photo requirements.

Oh, I wasn't aware of that. In what way did my second photo not comply?

Initially, I had thought that the SOLOP guidelines only required that I post a real photo of myself ("As a sign of good faith, please sign on and post under your real name with photograph, which you can upload when you register an account."). The original image that I posted was indeed a real photo of me, albeit one from when I was a tot. At some point, I think one or more of the SOLOP lynch-mobbers said that I had to have a current photo of myself, so I posted a current one. I don't remember there being any requirements about size, or any prohibitions on silhouetted lighting, if those are the things which you think made my photo noncompliant.

J

My photo there was taken in 1965 and you cannot tell who it is. I read the thread at the time. He became exasperated with you so he used your lack of photo as an excuse to boot you. If it was a real issue he would have done it weeks before when you told him you wouldn't or given you a few more days with a notice. That was a cute baby picture. I guess that's why your parents didn't strangle you in your crib.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My photo there was taken in 1965 and you cannot tell who it is. I read the thread at the time. He became exasperated with you so he used your lack of photo as an excuse to boot you. If it was a real issue he would have done it weeks before when you told him you wouldn't or given you a few more days with a notice.

I don't remember it happening that way. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else, or maybe I wasn't following a thread on which Pigero was blowing a gasket about my user photo? If I recall, I was lynched for disagreeing with his opinion that Barbara had led a "campaign of lies" and a "lynch mob" against him. I don't recall the user photo issue having anything to do with it.

That was a cute baby picture. I guess that's why your parents didn't strangle you in your crib.

Yeah, my cuteness was probably the only thing that saved me.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to "Valliant's heartfelt expressions of gratitude [...] making [me] blush," damned right, I blushed at that post, by which I was completely taken by surprise.

I remember seeing Valliant’s post to the effect that he wrote PARC for you, and you said thank you. I’d have taken that as such an insult…it’s good to see you distancing yourself from it. It made me cringe at the time, I'm not going to look it up to review it now.

There's me, Robert Campbell, Jonathan, Wm. Scherck. Who else?

I think Neil, right? There's others too, I'm sure. Sister Jeffrina? Haven't seen him on OL in quite a while either.

Phillip:

...

it would be a waste of your valuable time.

Now here I must disagree. I know I can’t keep up with Phil the prolific, I nominate this as his new theme song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0YZTYci5yo

Oh god that’s so cheesy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Phil,

There's no point in putting together a list of people Lindsay Perigo has banned from his site. It would be too long.

And sometimes he's banned a poster, unbanned him, then re-banned him. Or banned a poster, un-banned him, then pretended he never banned him and threatened to ban others for daring to suggest there'd been any banning in the first place. Confusing...

Besides, Perigo is so ronery now, if you go on his site and complain he'll think you're there to keep him company.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't remember it happening that way. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else, or maybe I wasn't following a thread on which Pigero was blowing a gasket about my user photo? If I recall, I was lynched for disagreeing with his opinion that Barbara had led a "campaign of lies" and a "lynch mob" against him. I don't recall the user photo issue having anything to do with it.

Maybe it was Ted Keer.

--Brant

banned in Boston

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to "Valliant's heartfelt expressions of gratitude [...] making [me] blush," damned right, I blushed at that post, by which I was completely taken by surprise. He apparently didn't notice that I still think the book needed so major an overhaul as to be a different book (except in the direct quoting of Rand's diaries).

Ms. Stuttle's post, from December 2009, is here:

http://www.solopassi...6#comment-82326

[Jim Valliant:]

"Will you accept my apology and my sincerest thanks?"

Yes, of course -- and thank you both for the apology and thanks and for your other remarks.

I'm sitting here blushing and rather at a loss for words -- I signed on to post something about [Don] Ventura, which I will post in a moment, and had no expectation of seeing such a statement as you wrote; I'm taken aback by surprise.

What can I say? May the truth emerge victorious?

And on with the quest...

Ellen

So how, precisely, did Ms. Stuttle earn what she now wants us to think was Mr. Valliant's misplaced praise?

It mustn't have been because she had pretended not to find sophistical arguments in his book, or because she had gone on a long run of ridiculing and sliming his critics, or because she had appointed herself counsel for the defense when Jim and Holly were caught pseudonymously inserting references to his book into Wikipedia articles...

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to "Valliant's heartfelt expressions of gratitude [...] making [me] blush," damned right, I blushed at that post, by which I was completely taken by surprise.

I remember seeing Valliant’s post to the effect that he wrote PARC for you, and you said thank you. I’d have taken that as such an insult…it’s good to see you distancing yourself from it. It made me cringe at the time, I'm not going to look it up to review it now.

No, I'm not "distancing" myself from it. It made me blush with the effusiveness, also because, as I said in the post here from which you quoted:

[....] He apparently didn't notice that I still think the book needed so major an overhaul as to be a different book (except in the direct quoting of Rand's diaries).

He hadn't been posting for some while and hadn't been following the threads about PARC, so I think he was seeing me as more supportive of the book than I was.

The reason I'd signed on -- it was early am here -- was to post with my discovery about the discrepancy between Heller's account of the circumstances in which Ventura met Frank and Ayn and Barbara's citing Ventura as her witness for Frank's drinking in 1955.

I'd probably have cautioned Valliant against over-estimating the degree to which I'd come to think he was making some good points if I hadn't been posting in a hurry.

One thing which I think keeps getting lost in all the either outrage or applause for my stages of evaluation of PARC is that I always thought a few points Valliant made were good ones, especially pertaining to the repression-and-alienation theme. I think I said so on this list. It isn't that I thought he had nothing of merit to say in the book. It's the way the book is approached, its flaws as a book, which set me on edge for a long time. I am a former editor. I think "book" in a sense separate from content, how a book is done. I needed a lot of time, thinking, remembering actual experiences of Rand, and re-reading before I started to see that he had other good points besides those I noticed on first reading.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My photo there was taken in 1965 and you cannot tell who it is. I read the thread at the time. He became exasperated with you so he used your lack of photo as an excuse to boot you. If it was a real issue he would have done it weeks before when you told him you wouldn't or given you a few more days with a notice.

I don't remember it happening that way. Maybe you're confusing me with someone else, or maybe I wasn't following a thread on which Pigero was blowing a gasket about my user photo? If I recall, I was lynched for disagreeing with his opinion that Barbara had led a "campaign of lies" and a "lynch mob" against him. I don't recall the user photo issue having anything to do with it.

Brant might be mixing up Jonathan and Ted. I don't recall if Linz even mentioned the photo issue when he banned Jonathan. I wasn't saying that that was the reason Jonathan was banned, only that both photos Jonathan used were in non-compliance -- I think Jonathan's interpretation of the photo requirement isn't ingenuous.

Linz could have banned Jonathan at any time because of the photo issue and called the banning a rules issue if he'd wanted to. Plus the persistent (and as best I recall consistent) insulting spelling of the list host's name provided a banning reason at any time.

Jonathan, are you really forgetting all the pranking and caricaturing you pulled on the music threads?

Ellen

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