For the Record re PARC

[Selene]

Sorry, I just couldn't resist!

Edited September 17, 2010 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Actually, Phil,

It's not defensive.

It's humor, plain and simple.

Unfortunately, you give off confused messages and nobody takes you seriously when you try to be bossy.

But folks like you, so they joke.

I, myself, do wonder at times how you get so much wrong about the human character and motivation.

But you do. And you are you. And you are an original.

I swear, if you did not exist, someone would have to invent you...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I like Phil because there is not one ounce of phony in him and if that's not true I like him because he's such a great actor of sincerity it might as well be.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

I attended the Sincerity College of Drama but I S*C*D at it.

Sincerely,

P.C.

trying to post silly one liners like Brant

[Rich Engle]

P.C.

trying to post silly one liners like Brant

Something foul is afoot. I saw this thing here, right on the heels of another thread where Phil, at the last line of a post, no less, ended a sentence with a preposition.

Phil, I think you are morphing, and this disturbs me deeply--there is so little left to hang onto, in these dark days. Come clean, man: what is it? Green Chartreuse in your morning coffee? Freezing 5 Hour Energy Drinks into popsicles? Are you another White Boy on the Pipe?

There is a piece of me that likes it, but at what cost? You're working without a net, Phil, and for that you should be admired. Just don't burn out in a quick flash of Glory.

rde

I'm There For You, Buddy.

[Ellen Stuttle]

The "question" from Robert was originally post #16 on the "Why all this infighting?" thread.

Without his faith in Pope Leonard's ex cathedra pronouncements, "Fact and Value" chief among them, would James Stevens Valliant ever have been motivated to produce PARC?

Valliant didn't have "faith" in Peikoff's dismissal of the Brandens' books. He decided to read them -- and he expected censure from Peikoff for discussing the books when he posted the initial material (which became the first part of PARC) on Casey Fahy's website.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Glad to see you acknowledge that on the one occasion when it's known JV made an edit, what he was doing was inserting a reference to a book which isn't supported by ARI.

Mr. Valliant has a history of trying to co-opt David Kelley's book whenever he is not making a direct pitch for ARI. For instance, he tried it over on Richard Dawkins' forum.

If Ms. Stuttle wants anyone to believe that Mr. Valliant inserted no other references during his career at Wikipedia, let her at the very least provide the email she sent him with all the supposed "traps" in it.

I didn't say he inserted "no other references." Please try to read.

Robert, I repeat, what you believe is your concern. I think you're using a deliberately insulting description which isn't accurate and that she wasn't acting.

Oh, yeah.

Holly White Valliant has spent her career as a literary agent or a PR person. Among her PR clients were a group of computer hackers who go around informing the public about the security lapses they've uncovered. Her contributions at SOLOHQ were nearly all made under a pseudonym. And from this we're supposed to conclude that she was completely naive about the way things work at Wikipedia.

Re the pseudonym, so now are you going to start condemning Dragonfly and others who post on a list only under a pseudonym?

Your point about Holly's PR clients is absurd. As if conference organizers necessarily, or even usually, know the subject matter of the conference. Conference organizers of a physics conference sponsored by a university department, or similar cases, know the subject matter. But usually professional organizers know how to organize conferences. E.g., one with whom I'm well familiar is the excellent conference organizer in Budapest who has organized each of the 3 international symmetry conferences I've attended there. The woman is really good at her job. She knows nothing about the subject matter.

JV told me, btw, that Holly's almost as ignorant of anything pertaining to computers as he is -- he's very ignorant.

Once again, Ms. Stuttle must hold her audience in complete contempt, if she expects us all to swallow such whoppers.

But I repeat myself. We already know that Ms. Stuttle holds her audience in complete contempt.

I hold one person among the audience on this subject in contempt. Would you like to guess who? (There are other subjects on which I think you have good stuff to say, e.g., the induction threads.)

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

Valliant didn't have "faith" in Peikoff's dismissal of the Brandens' books. He decided to read them -- and he expected censure from Peikoff for discussing the books when he posted the initial material (which became the first part of PARC) on Casey Fahy's website.

More BS.

First, I cited "Fact and Value" as the key Peikovian pronouncement in which Jim Valliant has faith—not Peikoff's declaration that he would never read The Passion of Ayn Rand.

I made this comment in support of my view that the purpose of PARC is to promote the moral perfection of Ayn Rand, the Satanic nature of TheBrandens, and the Papacy of Leonard the First and Only.

Is Ms. Stuttle now going to pretend that Mr. Valliant doesn't believe in all three?

Is she going to pretend that Dr. Peikoff doesn't promote all three?

As for Mr. Valliant's fear of being denounced, I'd like to see independent corroboration. He was a long-time member of Peikoff's entourage. He also has a more recent history of shilling for ARI, while pretending to have no affiliation.

When the ARI and ARC op-eds stopped appearing on SOLOP, everyone knew that Valliant was gone for good.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle keeps right on misleading.

When Holly Valliant posted as "The Magenta Hornet," she was keeping her identity secret so that other posters wouldn't know that she was Jim Valliant's wife, his literary agent, and his companion in zealotry. Some of her statements about PARC would have been received quite differently had her audience known at the time that she was Mrs. Valliant and Jim's literary agent.

What of comparable importance is Dragonfly (whose real name I happen to know) hiding from the other posters here?

JV told me, btw, that Holly's almost as ignorant of anything pertaining to computers as he is -- he's very ignorant.

Right.

And this is more credible than Mr. Valliant's customarily smarmy, addled declarations on SOLOP?

What makes it so?

The only difference is that we know that Mr. Valliant really said the things he posted on SOLOP.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle continues to withhold her email to Jim Valliant—the one she alleges was full of "trap" questions about Anon IP160 and Pelagius1.

Let her produce it.

Otherwise, we have in hand all the proof we will ever need of her contempt for her audience.

I will not respond, and I don't see why anyone else should ever respond, to one more of Ms. Stuttle's posts about the highly elusive, ever-shifting "true point" of PARC, or the vaporware book she imagines herself fashioning out of its remains, until she puts this email on the table.

Meanwhile, there's no point in competing to escape the contempt of a narcissist.

Nor is there any guesswork involved.

For narcissists hold everyone in contempt, except themselves.

Robert Campbell