For the Record re PARC


Ellen Stuttle

Recommended Posts

[...] or because she had taken appointed herself counsel for the defense when Jim and Holly were caught pseudonymously inserting references to his book into Wikipedia articles...

Ignoring the rest of Robert's distortions, I'll comment on that one.

People here continue to describe the Wikipedia thing as a "caper," etc., and to present an image of the purpose having been to insert references to PARC.

I don't agree as to what was being done, or who was doing it. The project was Holly's idea, although Jim helped some as it proceeded. It wasn't undertaken to advertise PARC but instead to try to correct the Wikipedia mispresentation of Rand. That references to PARC were inserted as sources is hardly suspect, given that of course Holly thinks that PARC is the best source on issues it discusses.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[....] 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.

The rule was instituted at some time after I had established my membership. I am sure you can verify that. There was apparently some controversy at some point while I was not actively posting. I was not offered the option to post a picture, which is academic, since I was not about to do so. List owners have their motives. Linz is just your average Objectionist, unable to brook criticism civilly stated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

What is there in PARC or Valliant's defense of it that leads you to believe he is honest, or even sincerely interested in the truth about Rand's life?

1. In PARC Valliant, not once but on numerous occasions, makes his sources say the exact opposite of what they say. We all make mistakes in copying and quoting, but to make someone say the opposite takes work. How can someone innocently transform Barbara's contention that Rand's use of diet pills was no big deal into a claim that she speculates it caused paranoid symptoms?

2. When I started pointing out to Valliant all his mistakes did he admit they were mistakes? No, he accused me of being not only mistaken but dishonest. Take his erroneous claim that Barbara doesn't tell her readers that it was the Blumenthals who left Rand. Even now he says it wasn't such a big deal because Doherty allegedly misunderstood Barbara. Well, I contacted Doherty and he said he understood Barbara perfectly well.

3. Valliant's claim that all sorts of people support his book, which he repeated in July 2010. Who are these people?

4. Valliant's insinuation that Anne Heller was going to support PARC. That's rather suprising given that Heller's book is as "negative" as Barbara's if not more.

5. Valliant's claim that Durban House is liberal. Funny given that DH published a Peikoffian review of Truth and Toleration on Amazon.

6. Valliant's claim that the PARC was heavily edited. Has Valliant ever said by whom and what the changes were? I know RC asked him and he never answered.

7. Valliant, because of his sponsorship by Peikoff, had complete access to the Archives. He didn't look at a single interview. Does this indicate to you a person who is interested in the truth? If LP gave you the keys to the Archives wouldn't you read Eloise's interview, or Ventura's, or Fern Brown's, or . . . .

Here's a challenge for you. Ask Valliant for a copy of the internet essay that formed the basis of the first part of PARC and the draft he submitted to DH. Then tell us if it betrays signs of substantial editing.

-Neil Parille

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Jonathan's interpretation of the photo requirement isn't ingenuous.

I didn't "interpret" the requirements. I complied with them.

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.

No, he couldn't have, unless I was expected to comply with requirements that Pigero hadn't made but only wished he had made. My photos complied with the actual, stated requirements.

When a speed limit sign says 65 mph, am I supposed to "interpret" it to mean 50 mph?

Plus the persistent (and as best I recall consistent) insulting spelling of the list host's name provided a banning reason at any time.

Sure, but if calling people names was a banning offense, then almost everyone at SOLOP, especially Pigero himself, had been in almost constant violation of the "rules" prior to my showing up, and should have been in line for banning before me (and I don't recall any of the rules specifying that Pigero and those who agree with him are exempt from following the rules). My use of "Pigero" was very mild compared to the rules violations that have been going on since SOLOP began.

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

I don't recall any "pranking," but there was some caricaturing, along with other methods of ridiculing Pigero's idiocy, but I don't recall caricaturing or ridiculing idiocy being prohibited by the rules. Anyway, my style or manner of posting wasn't what got me lynched, nor was my calling Pigero "Pigero." The tenacity and effectiveness with which I challenged his lies, his subjectivism and his intellectual slop are what got me lynched.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any defense of Lindsay Perigo's decision to ban posters forfeits all credibility if it cites his "must have a photo" rule.

That's because Perigo has enforced that rule only when he's felt like it.

For instance, Richard Laurence (RL0919) has been allowed to post on SOLOP without providing a photo.

For another instance, "Lindsay Blair" was allowed to post on SOLOP without providing a photo.

Richard Laurence is for real. Lindsay Blair wasn't.

Not that Perigo cared, one way or the other.

Robert Campbell

Note added on October 15, 2010: I'd originally said that "Lindsay Blair" was probably Ben Bayer, a philosophy professor currently at Loyola University in New Orleans. Dr. Bayer has emailed me, denying that he ever posted on SOLO or used this particular uncreative pseudonym. So I can't claim to know who used "Lindsay Blair" as an alias, but someone definitely did.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No, Ms. Stuttle would have done no such thing.

She doesn't tell people how much she despises them at the very moment when she is extracting praise from them.

The expressions of despisal come later.

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.

More Stuttlian bafflegab.

On the very rare occasions that she said anything positive about PARC before she appointed herself defense counsel to the Valliants, Ms. Stuttle never mentioned the "repression-and-alienation theme" (which in any event would require signing on to most of the philosophico-psychological diagnoses that Ayn Rand put forth in her diaries, and would hardly support her latter-day claim that the book was incorrectly framed as a "case against the Brandens").

Never mind. The next time Ms. Stuttle offers an excuse, it will have mutated again.

If Ms. Stuttle really thought there were any redeeming features to PARC she would, at the very least, have been able to express herself clearly as to what they are.

Instead, she shuffles and waffles, offers implausible defenses of the book's author and even more implausible defenses of his book, and slimes everyone not named Ellen Stuttle who dares to criticize any aspect of it.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People here continue to describe the Wikipedia thing as a "caper," etc., and to present an image of the purpose having been to insert references to PARC.

I don't agree as to what was being done, or who was doing it. The project was Holly's idea, although Jim helped some as it proceeded. It wasn't undertaken to advertise PARC but instead to try to correct the Wikipedia mispresentation of Rand. That references to PARC were inserted as sources is hardly suspect, given that of course Holly thinks that PARC is the best source on issues it discusses.

Yeah, right.

Ms. Stuttle has never explained how she knows who did what during the regrettable episodes at Wikipedia. She merely chose to believe Jim Valliant's excuses when it suited her. In fact, she used to deny that Jim even "helped some" with Holly's clandestine editing.

Like hell that editing wasn't undertaken to "advertise PARC."

Has Ms. Stuttle forgotten what lines of work Holly Valliant has been in for much of her adult life?

If I were to make a bunch of editorial changes at Wikipedia, without ever identifying myself, ever adopting a handle, or ever checking my user pages or the comment pages on the articles I was editing, and those changes largely amounted to my inserting references to my own writings... would Ms. Stuttle conclude that my actions were excusable because, naturally, I believe that my articles are the very best on the subjects they cover, and no other source is more worth citing when errors or misrepresentations might need clearing up?

She wouldn't.

If, after being chastised for such behavior at Wikipedia, I were to reappear under a pseudionym and pretend to be naively ignorant of all the rules against such, umm, well-meaning editorial activities, would Ms. Stuttle buy my excuse?

She wouldn't.

Ms. Stuttle ought to quit insulting the intelligence of her readers.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Jonathan's interpretation of the photo requirement isn't ingenuous.

I didn't "interpret" the requirements. I complied with them.

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.

No, he couldn't have, unless I was expected to comply with requirements that Pigero hadn't made but only wished he had made. My photos complied with the actual, stated requirements.

When a speed limit sign says 65 mph, am I supposed to "interpret" it to mean 50 mph?

I'm reminded of one of the cartoons on a pin-up board in our kitchen:

On the left a door opens into a lab. On the door is the sign "Primate Speech Lab." A pizza delivery man who's come through the open door is handing a pizza to a researcher dressed in a white lab coat. The researcher, while reaching out to take the pizza, is looking over his shoulder at a grinning gorilla in a cage. The caption reads:

"Don't play dumb with me. I didn't order a pizza. And if I had it wouldn't have been a bannana pizza."

Sure, that silhouetted back-lit threatening-hulk-intruder photo you use is "in compliance."

Did you have the photo ready to hand, or did you make it specially for the purpose?

Note, I didn't say that you were banned because of the photo issue. Only that you could have been at any moment for that reason. Probably why you were banned when you were banned was because Linz mistakenly thought that with you gone I'd discuss his music essay with him on-list.

Plus the persistent (and as best I recall consistent) insulting spelling of the list host's name provided a banning reason at any time.

Sure, but if calling people names was a banning offense, then almost everyone at SOLOP, especially Pigero himself, had been in almost constant violation of the "rules" prior to my showing up, and should have been in line for banning before me (and I don't recall any of the rules specifying that Pigero and those who agree with him are exempt from following the rules). My use of "Pigero" was very mild compared to the rules violations that have been going on since SOLOP began.

Calling people names isn't my point. It's deliberately insulting the list owner by twisting his name. Linz provides that list. Posters there are his guests. What do you think would happen if someone here were deliberately to address MSK using the distortion of his middle name commonly used by Linz and others?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ms. Stuttle has never explained how she knows who did what during the regrettable episodes at Wikipedia. She merely chose to believe Jim Valliant's excuses when it suited her. In fact, she used to deny that Jim even "helped some" with Holly's clandestine editing.

Where did I do that? I think what I said was that she did the bulk of it.

I have explained how I know, but you disbelieve the explanation.

1) I noticed on first looking through the list of IP#___'s edits (I've forgotten the IP#) that some of the peak editing periods were during times when Jim had been reported as being in the hospital.

2) I thought he was telling the truth in his posts, though in a garbled way -- fuzzy-headed with his medications.

3) I read through the entire sequence of 1500+ edits. I then sent Jim an email with a dozen or so questions which contained little traps pertaining to details of the editing sequence and of the attempts of the administrators to entice IP#___ onto the Talk Pages. He tripped into none of the traps. I.e., he didn't know what I was referring to.

[...] and those changes largely amounted to my inserting references to my own writings.

A very small percentage of the changes were inserts of references to PARC.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

No, Ms. Stuttle would have done no such thing.

She doesn't tell people how much she despises them at the very moment when she is extracting praise from them.

The expressions of despisal come later.

I repeat, I was completely taken by surprise by that post of his. "Extracting praise," indeed. Hardly believing my eyes.

I do not despise James Valliant, FYI. Instead, I've come to like him.

And I did tell him, and Linz, and Casey Fahy (in a private exchange) later the extent of my continuing criticisms of the book. They don't think I'm right, of course.

[...] Ms. Stuttle never mentioned the "repression-and-alienation theme" (which in any event would require signing on to most of the philosophico-psychological diagnoses that Ayn Rand put forth in her diaries, and would hardly support her latter-day claim that the book was incorrectly framed as a "case against the Brandens").

I'm not finding anything on-line about it before January 2010.

I don't understand your further comment.

Never mind. The next time Ms. Stuttle offers an excuse, it will have mutated again.

What is it you think I'm excusing? Not agreeing with you?

And while I'm asking questions -- typically your specialty:

Why do you care what I think of PARC? What difference does it make to you?

OK, you hate James Valliant and you want him to suffer, as payback for Chris Sciabarra. And you hate PARC. But of what significance is it to you if I don't share your attitude?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

You write:

I do not despise James Valliant, FYI. Instead, I've come to like him.

I don't despise Jim. I like him. ValliantQuoats and ValliantLogic have given us all more than a few laughs.

BTW, how about taking up my challenge?

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you care what I think of PARC? What difference does it make to you?

OK, you hate James Valliant and you want him to suffer, as payback for Chris Sciabarra. And you hate PARC. But of what significance is it to you if I don't share your attitude?

Stuttle,

You don't seem to get it. I don't speak for Robert although I strongly suspect he will agree with me. There's a bit of payback for what Perigo/Hsieh and that other kid did to Chris Sciabarra, but nobody wants Valliant to suffer. Where on earth did you get that idea?

That idea in itself is sooooo Vallinat-like it hurts.

Valliant is now discredited (and justly discredited) for holding a boneheaded approach to scholarship and logic, especially as he constantly allowed his adoration of Rand coupled with his hatred of the Brandens to cloud his judgment about common sense kinds of things (this includes both PARC and his Internet activity).

A good example is his claim that Rand did not feel jealousy like normal humans. Not that she dealt with it differently. She did not feel it. That is akin to claiming that Rand was not a human being at all. I could go on example after example, without even getting to things like his piss-poor talent in simply copy-pasting material (or retyping what someone else wrote). It's awfully hard to get that wrong on a consistent basis, but he does--over and over.

My own view is that crap has to be discredited. If being discredited for poor performance makes Valliant suffer, I can't do anything about that. I'm certainly not interested in his feelings one way or another, but, as I do not want any human being to suffer, on that level I don't want him to.

I am interested in his actions and the damage they were intended to cause people I care about, especially Barbara. I will admit to one point where I do hope he suffers, but I am not sure he qualifies. Since he was woefully incompetent at damaging the Brandens and making them suffer, if his own impotence at doing nothing more than laying a rotten egg in public that did not get the job done causes him to suffer, I say good. If he chose that crap as a primary value, he deserves all the suffering that comes to him from his dismal failure.

As to why anyone should care what you think of PARC, I admit I used to care--and I was even influenced by you--when I thought you were moved by interest in truth over interest in audience. We judge people by what they say and what they do. After observing what you have done and seeing it so often at odds with what you say, I conclude I was wrong in my evaluation. So now I, personally, don't care. I'll let Robert speak for himself as to whether he cares or not.

But, let me be clear about something. I will go after any attempt you make to validate PARC as a book with merit. That's not because I hate Valliant or hate you. It's because I am intimately familiar with PARC and I judge it to be nothing more than cheap pseudo-intellectual propaganda of the worst quality. And if you want to validate that kind of crap to the public, I want to make sure the public gets another view--one that cuts through all the doublespeak and lets them see the crap that it is in all its glory.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sure, that silhouetted back-lit threatening-hulk-intruder photo you use is "in compliance."

Did you have the photo ready to hand, or did you make it specially for the purpose?

It was an existing photo that I cropped down – I was originally in the background of a much larger image.

Note, I didn't say that you were banned because of the photo issue. Only that you could have been at any moment for that reason.

I understand that you didn't say that I was banned because of the photo issue. And, again, I disagree that Pigero could have legitimately banned me for it. The photo complies with SOLOP's photo requirements.

Probably why you were banned when you were banned was because Linz mistakenly thought that with you gone I'd discuss his music essay with him on-list.

I don't think that Pigero wanted to discuss his music essay with you, but instead wanted the distraction of being able to gush over any common musical tastes that you might have with him -- he wanted to exchange inconsequential observations on his favorite music with a fellow music enthusiast -- as a means of avoiding having to back up any of his most controversial assertions with philosophical substance. Chatting about some technical aspects of music with someone who was promising not to be "adversarial," and promising that she was "not trying to argue," but to "help with the musical features," was right up his alley. Somehow he had convinced you to set aside your most significant disagreements with him and to sweetly chat about niceties, and I think he liked the appearance that that can give.

Your approach with Pigero was like politely disagreeing with a cannibal about his preference for flat toothpicks rather than round ones, which gives the impression that you don't mind his cannibalism, or that any disagreement that you have over his cannibalism is so insignificant as to be less worthy of discussion than one's choice of toothpick.

Calling people names isn't my point. It's deliberately insulting the list owner by twisting his name. Linz provides that list. Posters there are his guests. What do you think would happen if someone here were deliberately to address MSK using the distortion of his middle name commonly used by Linz and others?

Well, you're mixing apples and oranges. MSK is usually a polite and reasonable guy. Pigero is not. MSK follows the rules/guidelines of his own site, and tends to lead by example, where Pigero does the opposite. If MSK had spent the past decade deliberately insulting his guests and calling them the type of names that Pigero calls his, I really couldn't see MSK then getting upset about someone calling him names in return.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as expressions of disrespect go, Michael Stuart Kelly isn't going to let anyone call him names on his site.

If Lindsay Perigo had established a strict policy against people calling him names, I expect things would have worked out quite differently at SOLO.

Instead, Perigo has operated on the assumption that others can call him any names they want as long as he can call them any names he wants.

Until he gets so angry at some poster that the trembling finger reaches for the red button...

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) I read through the entire sequence of 1500+ edits. I then sent Jim an email with a dozen or so questions which contained little traps pertaining to details of the editing sequence and of the attempts of the administrators to entice IP#___ onto the Talk Pages. He tripped into none of the traps. I.e., he didn't know what I was referring to.

Perhaps Ms. Stuttle has forgotten that others have read through all of those edits and ended up drawing very different conclusions. Or that on one occasion Jim Valliant admitted to William Scott Scherk that he'd just been doing some Wikipedia editing.

If Ms. Stuttle wants us to believe this, she can provide us with a copy of the email she sent to Jim Valliant. Otherwise, there's no reason to credit her story.

Ms. Stuttle used to present her excuses in more dramatic form, such as speculating that Holly was "the headstrong wife" doing vast feats of editing behind her husband's back.

What ever happened to those stories?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3) I read through the entire sequence of 1500+ edits. I then sent Jim an email with a dozen or so questions which contained little traps pertaining to details of the editing sequence and of the attempts of the administrators to entice IP#___ onto the Talk Pages. He tripped into none of the traps. I.e., he didn't know what I was referring to.

Perhaps Ms. Stuttle has forgotten that others have read through all of those edits and ended up drawing very different conclusions. Or that on one occasion Jim Valliant admitted to William Scott Scherk that he'd just been doing some Wikipedia editing.

I wonder if you ever did read through the whole set of 1500* edits -- I'm talking about those done on the IP#___ account. I know you read the ones on the Pelagius1 account. And, Robert, notice, I didn't say he did none of the editing. What he did was occasional things adding information. You might also notice that the occasion on which he "admitted," as you put it, to WSS that he'd been doing some editing was at the tail end of the IP#___ account. It was that instance which alerted WSS to the IP#. What JV's edit consisted of was adding a reference to David Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses.

If Ms. Stuttle wants us to believe this, she can provide us with a copy of the email she sent to Jim Valliant. Otherwise, there's no reason to credit her story.

Robert, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what you believe. I give a damn what I believe. Credit the story or not, up to you. I'm not providing you with a copy of the email.

Ms. Stuttle used to present her excuses in more dramatic form, such as speculating that Holly was "the headstrong wife" doing vast feats of editing behind her husband's back.

What ever happened to those stories?

No inconsistency. I think she did do some long stretches of it when he wasn't there or was asleep. She is reputed to be headstrong, and both she and he (she in some of the Pelagius1 entries) indicated that there was disagreement about her project. (In one entry she specifically said that he didn't want her doing this.)

Ellen

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you care what I think of PARC? What difference does it make to you?

OK, you hate James Valliant and you want him to suffer, as payback for Chris Sciabarra. And you hate PARC. But of what significance is it to you if I don't share your attitude?

Stuttle,

You don't seem to get it. I don't speak for Robert although I strongly suspect he will agree with me. There's a bit of payback for what Perigo/Hsieh and that other kid did to Chris Sciabarra, but nobody wants Valliant to suffer. Where on earth did you get that idea?

I don't believe that Robert doesn't want him to suffer. Not given the way he keeps posting about the fate of PARC and the things he says in doing so. Plus, if he didn't want Valliant to suffer, why wage the kind of campaign he waged at all?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably why you were banned when you were banned was because Linz mistakenly thought that with you gone I'd discuss his music essay with him on-list.

I don't think that Pigero wanted to discuss his music essay with you [...].

I think you're wrong, that he wanted to know my criticisms -- what I was telling him was that he had flubbed the job of presenting a case -- but he wanted the discussion on-list instead of off-list where he might have seriously had to listen and where he wouldn't have had his audience available to make rhetorical replies in front of.

Somehow he had convinced you to set aside your most significant disagreements with him and to sweetly chat about niceties, and I think he liked the appearance that that can give.

No, he hadn't. It was precisely my criticisms that I was offering to give some detail about.

Your approach with Pigero was like politely disagreeing with a cannibal about his preference for flat toothpicks rather than round ones, which gives the impression that you don't mind his cannibalism, or that any disagreement that you have over his cannibalism is so insignificant as to be less worthy of discussion than one's choice of toothpick.

I don't share your opinion of him.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if you ever did read through the whole set of 1500* edits -- I'm talking about those done on the IP#___ account. I know you read the ones on the Pelagius1 account. And, Robert, notice, I didn't say he did none of the editing. What he did was occasional things adding information. You might also notice that the occasion on which he "admitted," as you put it, to WSS that he'd been doing some editing was at the tail end of the IP#___ account. It was that instance which alerted WSS to the IP#. What JV's edit consisted of was adding a reference to David Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses.

Yes, I read through the edits done by the AnonIP160 account. And, yes, on the occasion that he emailed WSS Jim Valliant was inserting a reference to David Kelley's book.

Robert, frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn what you believe. I give a damn what I believe. Credit the story or not, up to you. I'm not providing you with a copy of the email.

Why wouldn't Ms. Stuttle provide her email to Jim Valliant (as opposed to providing his back to her, which on a forum not run by Lindsay Perigo or Diana Hsieh requires his permission)?

Because it doesn't exist?

Because there were no tough questions in it?

This is the same Ms. Stuttle who publicly applauded Jim and Holly Valliant's refusal to answer questions about such matters as their relationship with Durban House prior to 2005 and whether the publication of PARC was conditional on a bulk buy.

She is reputed to be headstrong, and both she and he (she in some of the Pelagius1 entries) indicated that there was disagreement about her project. (In one entry she specifically said that he didn't want her doing this.)

And everyone else is supposed to fall for the "Pollyvalliantanna" act? Why?

We do know that whoever authored each of the Pelagius1 items (looks to me like Jim and Holly Valliant shared the duties), many of those posts were dishonest or disingenuous.

Robert Campbell

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