The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V


Neil Parille

Recommended Posts

"Atheism" simply means being a non-theist. That means no guy in the sky. It does not eliminate spiritual thought. She had nothing on that. Check.

It means not believing there is a Guy in the Sky, for there is no substantial evidence to support the claim that there is a Guy in the Sky.

From a purely logical p.o.v. there is nothing contradictory about there being an Intelligence much greater than ours or anything we can readily conceive of. On there other hand there is no evidence to support the assertion that such an Intelligence exists.

I prefer going with natural causes even if doing so leaves many questions unanswered. Answers will come in their own good time.

I reject prayer (other than as a form of meditation) because it is a wish or hope that things are not what they are. Such a hope is absurd. The world is. The world is what it is. The world will never be what it is not.

I do not reject keeping the Commandments which have ethical content. They are, by and large, a sound guide to ethical behavior. The Commandments pertaining to ethical matters are an elaboration of The Golden Rule (don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you). If I were not brought up Jewish, I would accept the Noachic Laws as a reasonable guide to behavior.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The publication date on Anne Heller's book seems to be firm now. Amazon actually moved the book's predicted ship date up a week.

Before the 50th Anniversary event in Washington, Anne Heller was at the 2006 TAS Summer Seminar. You know, the one that sparked Mr. Valliant and Mr. Perigo's counter-event... I believe she did some interviewing while she was there.

I'm pleased to see she'll be at FreeMinds09. How many OL participants are planning to attend?

Robert Campbell

PS. The Wikipedia editors' decision is richly deserved. Now the question is whether the Ayn Rand Institute can find a face-saving way to drop Mr. Valliant's opus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see that Mr. Perigo is upset that Mr. Valliant's book has been deemed less than reliable by Wikipedia.

What has Mr. Perigo or anyone else done in the last couple of years to defend Mr. Valliant's book, if it is such a good source?

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil,

Because of your post, I went to Solo Passion. I found Perigo's post:

Babs the Book-Burner?

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2009-05-19 06:40.

Apparently as a result of a complaint by one "B. Branden," all references to James Valliant's PARC are being removed from the Wiki Objectivism entry on the grounds that it's not reliable. If this be true, it's a travesty. And who could be less reliable than B. Branden?

The really weird thing is that I went all over Wikipedia and I could not find any "B. Branden."

I wonder if Perigo did not post a link because he is lying through his teeth as usual and hoping it sticks. At the very least, he shows signs that he did not read the Wikipedia crosstalk at all.

Vallliant and Perigo are certainly birds of a feather. They just squawk differently, but they squawk for the same reasons (or lack thereof).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's further help out the hapless Perigo. He claims he doesn't read ths site, but I know people next to him do. So here goes.

Instead of finding a "B. Branden," like he claims, I did find a page where the editors discussed Mr. Valliant's IP number and decided to block it for 6 months. It's funny that "B. Branden" is not mentioned. At least I couldn't find it.

Here is the quote:

72.199.110.160: topic specific ban request

Resolved.

A six-month topic ban of this IP from Ayn Rand related articles has been enacted. The editor may still contribute on the Talk pages of these articles. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Now why would mean old Wikipedia do that? Because of a "complaint" and "travesty" from "Babs the Book-Burner"? Why no. Here is what one of the editors gave as reasons. I didn't include the large volume of links he gave, but if any reader is interested, here is the link once again: 72.199.110.160: topic specific ban request

(I decided to bold a few things.)

Now consider the case of 72.199.110.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · abuse log · block user · block log). The anon IP has been editing Wikipedia since 7 October 2008. The user has roughly 1,300 edits under its belt, dispelling any notion of being ignorant of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.

An analysis of the user’s edits reveals that it is largely a single-purpose account used for the editing of Ayn Rand-related articles [65]. Indeed, 160 has edited the Ayn Rand article more than any other editor [66]. By themselves these facts would not be problematic were it not for the following:

1. The “abuse filter log” indicates the new user has removed verifiable content over 30 times in the past few months alone.

2. The user has been blocked for edit warring and disruption. The first time on 26 April 2009 by MBisanz for a period of 31 hours. The measure was ineffective.

3. The user does *not* discuss its edits on Talk pages. Rather, it chooses to edit unilaterally forgoing discussions leading up to WP:CONSENSUS.

4. The user persistently and aggressively reverts edits it dislikes. example, example, another example . (Note: there are many more examples).

5. The user has been asked multiple times by multiple editors to take its contentious edits to the talk page for the purpose of discussion and consultation. [67] [68] [69] [70] [71] [72]

6. The editor is known to be uncivil, rude, and disruptive.[73][74] [75][76]

7. If it disagrees (which is often), the anon IP loves to shout at other editors in BOLD CAPS. One of too many examples to cite here: [77]

8. The user assumes bad-faith of others who edit collegially. [78]

9. Now there is talk on the Wikipedia Review that anon IP 160 is none other than James S. Valliant himself, the author of a minor partisan work, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, which received absolutely no attention in either the media or academe according to JSTOR, LexisNexis, Google News and Google Scholar. Should this IP verification prove correct, anon IP 160 might be in breach of a conflict of interest.

10. Indeed, should this IP trace prove correct, anon IP 160’s repeated re-insertion of Valliant’s work throughout the Ayn Rand-related articles makes a great deal of sense. The conflict of interest alone should garner serious consideration as the user is unable to edit neutrally.

Overall, my recommendation is to enact ArbCom’s ruling and ban anon IP 160 from Ayn Rand-related articles. Currently, the user is blocked for a period of 1 week [79]. The block is insufficient. The history of this user suggests that further disruption to Ayn Rand-related articles is inevitable. Thank you for your time. J Readings (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Over 1300 edits? Including deleting "verifiable content over 30 times"?

LOL... Hell. I'm impressed. Busy busy busy busy busy busy busy busy busy busy...

It's a one man propaganda history-rewriting machine! Could it be "Valliant the Book-Burner"?

Wikipedia, trying to be fair, suspects—but is still not sure whether—72.199.110.160 is the IP number of James Valliant.

Over on Daniel Barnes's blog, Daniel made the following very interesting post dated May 20, 2009:

Author of His Own Misfortune

From the post:

Long time Rand-watcher, occasional ARCHNblog commenter and sometime Valliant correspondent William Scherk has now alerted the ARCHNblog team of analysts to the fact that the emails he had recently received from James Valliant just happen to have the very same IP number as the mysterious "IP 160":

ValliantIPnumber.png

Busted.

Busted indeed.

This is the way James Valliant defends the honor of Ayn Rand.

May someone defend his honor this way someday!

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a certain party, one certain Pelagius1, who is now claiming to be Valliant's roommate and author of all 1300 edits.

Heh.

See the discussion here (you have to scroll down).

It is worth observing that all the "unlogged in edits" from this household, even from another computer, have now been ascribed to Pelagius!.

Obviously the anonymous Pegalius1 himself/herself is doing the "ascribing."

Is this the way ARI is run?

They seem to endorse this kind of crap.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a certain party, one certain Pelagius1, who is now claiming to be Valliant's roommate and author of all 1300 edits.

Heh.

See the discussion here (you have to scroll down).

It is worth observing that all the "unlogged in edits" from this household, even from another computer, have now been ascribed to Pelagius!.

Obviously the anonymous Pegalius1 himself/herself is doing the "ascribing."

Is this the way ARI is run?

They seem to endorse this kind of crap.

Michael

Could be his wife. I don't think he's been well enough to be so active, unless his health is a lie. Frankly, some of the described behavior simply doesn't sound like James Valliant. I'd bet on the wife.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

If we were discussing normal people, I might go along with you. But all 1300+ edits? Coming from the Valliant household?!!

Gimme a break.

I will agree that some might have been done by wife or roommate.

What is not acceptable with these folks is to accept them at their word. They have zero credibility.

They are liars and manipulators, and this whole Wikipedia episode is one more demonstration of that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

It gets worse. I used to have a modicum of respect for these people, even though I strongly disagreed with them. But now, even on the most simple thing I have serious doubts.

For instance, one of the editors at Wikipedia stated that, despite the reputation of Durban House being very complicated and negative, if Valliant published a statement somewhere, even on Solo Passion, that he did not do vanity publishing with DH, the editor would take him at his word. So...

With all due righteousness and tone of martyrdom that is typical of Valliant's more boneheaded pronouncements, in order to respond to the editor's wishes, he just now wrote on Solo Passion (see here):

What a Farce

Submitted by James S. Valliant on Wed, 2009-05-20 21:00.

And, in that discussion, I am told it has become important for me to say, here and in public (one more time), that my book was not "self-published" or "vanity" published in any way, shape or form. I state as a matter of record that I signed a standard "two book" deal with Durban House, with a standard royalty agreement, and that I paid nothing to have it published -- nor would I have. It was Durban who shelled out even what PR moneys were spent on the book -- not me. I went with Durban House precisely because it was liberal publishing house that believed in my work. They were careful editors, as well, demanding substantial verification for each of my claims.

(P.S. It'll be curious to see how Wikipedia handles critics -- and honesty.)

So Valliant says that he didn't pay for anything.

Notice what he left out.

He did not say that his wife didn't pay Durban House's "publicity subsidy fee," or that a friend didn't pay for it...

And he didn't address the poor reputation of Durban House at all.

Before I never would have entertained this kind of thought. Now, Valliant's word is mud with me and I think my speculation is vastly more probable than not.

P.S. I am not curious as to how Valliant (and Perigo for that matter) handles honesty. I already know.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

It gets worse. I used to have a modicum of respect for these people, even though I strongly disagreed with them. But now, even on the most simple thing I have serious doubts.

For instance, one of the editors at Wikipedia stated that, despite the reputation of Durban House being very complicated and negative, if Valliant published a statement somewhere, even on Solo Passion, that he did not do vanity publishing with DH, the editor would take him at his word. So...

With all due righteousness and tone of martyrdom that is typical of Valliant's more boneheaded pronouncements, in order to respond to the editor's wishes, he just now wrote on Solo Passion (see here):

What a Farce

Submitted by James S. Valliant on Wed, 2009-05-20 21:00.

And, in that discussion, I am told it has become important for me to say, here and in public (one more time), that my book was not "self-published" or "vanity" published in any way, shape or form. I state as a matter of record that I signed a standard "two book" deal with Durban House, with a standard royalty agreement, and that I paid nothing to have it published -- nor would I have. It was Durban who shelled out even what PR moneys were spent on the book -- not me. I went with Durban House precisely because it was liberal publishing house that believed in my work. They were careful editors, as well, demanding substantial verification for each of my claims.

(P.S. It'll be curious to see how Wikipedia handles critics -- and honesty.)

So Valliant says that he didn't pay for anything.

Notice what he left out.

He did not say that his wife didn't pay Durban House's "publicity subsidy fee," or that a friend didn't pay for it...

And he didn't address the poor reputation of Durban House at all.

Before I never would have entertained this kind of thought. Now, Valliant's word is mud with me and I think my speculation is vastly more probable than not.

P.S. I am not curious as to how Valliant (and Perigo for that matter) handles honesty. I already know.

Michael

Michael -

I see it a little differently. I don't know any basis for the suggestion that Valliant's wife paid a publicity subsidy fee, or that a friend did. I may have missed it - has that been documented.

I would say instead . . . . Valliant has been documented by Parille and many others as a deceptive speaker and twister of words in his book, PARC. I see no reason to trust what Valliant posts in an online forum to be a more true and competent presentation of fact - and hence I give his posts no creedence.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it a little differently. I don't know any basis for the suggestion that Valliant's wife paid a publicity subsidy fee, or that a friend did. I may have missed it - has that been documented.

Bill,

Hell, that's easy. You yourself have, as of this posting, 1170 posts. So you have an idea of what that means.

Now imagine over 1300 edits to Wikipedia and endless crosstalk in about a year. All of it anonymous and all of it coming from Valliant's household (as admitted by a person claiming to be living there). And all of this effort trying to sneak in mentions of PARC all over Wikipedia wherever Ayn Rand or Objectivism is mentioned, or trying to delete proven facts.

Now think about the present affirmation on Wikipeida from Valliant's house guest, that all of this was done by that person living at Valliant's house, but it was not him. And there is a strong insinuation in this person's statements that Valliant did not really go along with this, when he was aware of it. (Start reading the links to Wikipedia crosstalk if you want to see this.)

Enough La-La-Land already!

How stupid do these people think everybody else is?

Now extend this pattern.

Unfortunately you do not know all the history, but if you look up Durban House, it is not pretty. It is a proven subsidy press, but not a vanity press. This means that authors subsidize publicity, but not the printing. Durban's normal fee to authors was about $25,000 as per several reports.

A year or two after the publication of PARC, DH was sold to another publisher, with a name change on PARC's ads on Amazon and everything. But then, suddenly, matters reverted back to Durban House and then Durban practically disappeared. I strongly suspect that Valliant's wife or some crony or other are the new owners. All this is documented in the PARC section here on OL.

My previous research indicates that Ms. Holly (Valliant's wife) was the contact for the publisher in the first place. At least she is a person with media penetration.

I have an enormous number of patterns like this I can cite, but the best thing is for you to read the PARC section rather than me trying to raise all that old stuff up again.

One of the sad things is that newcomers of good will (like you) have a hard time trying to accept that people like these folks exist in O-Land and promote their monkeyshines in the name of Ayn Rand. And all they need to do to present themselves to newbies is keep repeating the same old crap. They wear the previous folks down by sheer repetition.

But underneath it all, this is real loon stuff. These are nasty, nasty people who are totally bonkers.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see it a little differently. I don't know any basis for the suggestion that Valliant's wife paid a publicity subsidy fee, or that a friend did. I may have missed it - has that been documented.

Bill,

Hell, that's easy. You yourself have, as of this posting, 1170 posts. So you have an idea of what that means.

Now imagine over 1300 edits to Wikipedia and endless crosstalk in about a year. All of it anonymous and all of it coming from Valliant's household (as admitted by a person claiming to be living there). And all of this effort trying to sneak in mentions of PARC all over Wikipedia wherever Ayn Rand or Objectivism is mentioned, or trying to delete proven facts.

Now think about the present affirmation on Wikipeida from Valliant's house guest, that all of this was done by that person living at Valliant's house, but it was not him. And there is a strong insinuation in this person's statements that Valliant did not really go along with this, when he was aware of it. (Start reading the links to Wikipedia crosstalk if you want to see this.)

Enough La-La-Land already!

How stupid do these people think everybody else is?

Now extend this pattern.

Unfortunately you do not know all the history, but if you look up Durban House, it is not pretty. A year or two after the publication of PARC, DH was sold to another publisher, with a name change on PARC's ads on Amazon and everything. But then, suddenly, matters reverted back to Durban House and then Durban practically disappeared. I strongly suspect that Valliant's wife or some crony or other are the new owners. All this is documented in the PARC section here on OL.

My previous research indicates that Ms. Holly (Valliant's wife) was the contact for the publisher in the first place. At least she is a person with media penetration.

I have an enormous number of patterns like this I can cite, but the best thing is for you to read the PARC section rather than me trying to raise all that old stuff up again.

One of the sad things is that newcomers of good will (like you) have a hard time trying to accept that people like these folks exist in O-Land and promote their monkeyshines in the name of Ayn Rand. And all they need to do to present themselves to newbies is keep repeating the same old crap. They wear folks down by sheer repetition.

But underneath it all, this is real loon stuff. These are nasty, nasty people who are totally bonkers.

Michael

Michael -

We are in agreement about the "bonkers" status of Valliant. That is not at issue, for me - it is very well documented.

And I have no reason to doubt the assertion about Valliant doing the changes.

My issue is very focused. I am merely asking whether there is a basis for the notion that Valliant (or his wife or someone acting on his behalf) paid publicity fees. That is all. Is there some such documentation in the PARC section (which I have read before - but I may have missed or forgotten a documentation about actual fees paid by Valliant, his wife or someone on his behalf to Durban House). Is there anything specific on this? Or is the evidence of the form "DH acts in specific, documentable ways, as a vanity publishing house. Valliant published a book through them. Therefore, he or someone acting on his behalf must have paid DH to do it, in some fashion?"

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

My statements about Valliant's people paying Durban House's fee to authors for PARC are educated guesses.

There is no solid fact I have seen like a contract. There are only public cases of disgruntled Durban House authors, the weird history of the publisher and the present Apple-hosted website, and the dishonest demeanor of Valliant and those around him, especially Vallaint's constant doublespeak in forum discussions.

So when they deny paying to play, I personally don't believe them.

That's only my opinion, though.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

My statements about Valliant's people paying Durban House's fee to authors for PARC are educated guesses.

There is no solid fact I have seen like a contract. There are only public cases of disgruntled Durban House authors, the weird history of the publisher and the present Apple-hosted website, and the dishonest demeanor of Valliant and those around him, especially Vallaint's constant doublespeak in forum discussions.

So when they deny paying to play, I personally don't believe them.

That's only my opinion, though.

Michael

Michael -

As I conjectured. I think the notion that Valliant is not to be trusted is well established through the misrepresentations and lies in the book. Through the amazingly obtuse attempts to distort what the Brandens have said . . . and equally creative interpretations of Rand's diaries, also.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have received an email pointing out the anti-Rand bias of some Wikipedia editors. I've even tangled with some of them myself.

I agree that some of those folks do not like Rand, but still, the founder, Jimbo Wales, is an Objectivist (or very Objectivism-friendly).

I seriously doubt anti-Rand bias was the main cause for Valliant's pseudonym (IP 160) being banned, although I agree it might have been in the mix. From what I have read of the anti-Rand editors, some of them are repulsed by the cult-like zealot behavior displayed by some of the people in our little community. Unfortunately, in some of the comments I read, they extended this observation to all Rand supporters, which is obviously false.

But in Valliant's case, he walks like a zealot, acts like a zealot and quacks like a zealot. The logical conclusion is that he must be a zealot.

James Valliant is gradually becoming the laughing-stock of the Objectivist movement. I am speaking about his public image. He already is a laughing-stock for many Objectivists and Objectivism-friendly people.

The standard I am using for judging this Wikipedia affair is that the anti-Rand bias of one person does not excuse the pro-Rand zealotry of anyone.

Valliant/IP 160 deserved to be banned from Wikipedia for a host of reasons—lack of credibility and conflict of interest (TOS violation) being the strongest.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

Just as a weirder thing, I skimmed over the discussion on Wikipedia again. There is a thread called "Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism." A section within that thread is called Valliant Revisited. Go to this link if you wish to get tired. But scrolling down, here is the most curious statement by "Pelagius1":

I was the agent for the book, so I happen to know, personally, that he got a standard (non-vanity) contract for the book. He paid nothing. This liberal (yes, liberal) house sincerely believed in the book. Pelagius1 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pelagius1 claims to live with Valliant and "IP 160" has proven to be Valliant's IP. Pelagius1 also claims credit for IP 160's edits. Now Pelagius1 claims to be Valliant's agent for PARC.

I think it is reasonable to assume that Pelagius1 is either Holly Valliant or Casy Fahy (who was also involved in the beginning—he even hosted a first draft of the first half of PARC on his website for a long time before the book came out).

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bill,

Just as a weirder thing, I skimmed over the discussion on Wikipedia again. There is a thread called "Wikipedia:WikiProject Objectivism." A section within that thread is called Valliant Revisited. Go to this link if you wish to get tired. But scrolling down, here is the most curious statement by "Pelagius1":

I was the agent for the book, so I happen to know, personally, that he got a standard (non-vanity) contract for the book. He paid nothing. This liberal (yes, liberal) house sincerely believed in the book. Pelagius1 (talk) 17:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Pelagius1 claims to live with Valliant and "IP 160" has proven to be Valliant's IP. Pelagius1 also claims credit for IP 160's edits. Now Pelagius1 claims to be Valliant's agent for PARC.

I think it is reasonable to assume that Pelagius1 is either Holly Valliant or Casy Fahy (who was also involved in the beginning—he even hosted a first draft of the first half of PARC on his website for a long time before the book came out).

Michael

Casey Fahy disappeared from SOLOP some time ago. I thought it might have something to do with him getting his novel publushed. He supposedly got a million dollar advance for it. Since they are best friends I can imagine all three sharing the same house, but I'm betting on Holly championing her man and keeping busy as I haven't a clue about what else she has to do.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If anyone is interested, I just received a private message to a minor plot twist in the Valliant-Wikipedia soap opera. This backstage stuff is kinda fun! (Thanks to you know who you are...)

Pelagius1 threatens to take his/her marbles back and go home.

(yawn...)

(Dayaamm! Why am I even posting this? :) )

Michael

You're having fun.

Valliant doesn't write like that, nor does Fahy. I'd bet the ranch on Holly. She might go outside every once in a while and get some fresh air. A case of cabin fever if I ever saw one.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst part was in the beginning, how well-embraced he was. I wasn't the only one that smelled rat but it took a lot of beating to flush him out.

I mean, a douche is a douche: easy to spot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neil,

Because of your post, I went to Solo Passion. I found Perigo's post:

Babs the Book-Burner?

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2009-05-19 06:40.

Apparently as a result of a complaint by one "B. Branden," all references to James Valliant's PARC are being removed from the Wiki Objectivism entry on the grounds that it's not reliable. If this be true, it's a travesty. And who could be less reliable than B. Branden?

The really weird thing is that I went all over Wikipedia and I could not find any "B. Branden."

I wonder if Perigo did not post a link because he is lying through his teeth as usual and hoping it sticks. At the very least, he shows signs that he did not read the Wikipedia crosstalk at all.

Vallliant and Perigo are certainly birds of a feather. They just squawk differently, but they squawk for the same reasons (or lack thereof).

Michael

For the record, I have not communicated with Wikipedia or with anyone there at any time or for any reason, nor have I ever posted there or filed a complaint.

Barbara

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