Wagons Being Circled

[Rich Engle]

Ted,

Mr. Fitts' review in The Objective Standard won't come online till Monday the 20th.

However, this blog post of his obviously gives us a preview:

http://inductiveques...w-of-james.html

Robert Campbell

Bob,

I just read that thing. What a groaner. He seems thoroughly programmed and droid-like. And only "studying Objectivism" for four years now! Can you imagine what he's going to be like in another four? We'll have to encase him in dry ice and shoot him into outer space, or something.

[Robert Campbell]

You simply can't credit the possibility that -any- of your strongest adversaries - Hsieh, Valliant, Perigo - could be honest and honorable but mistaken.

Phil,

Much of what is wrong with Jim Valliant's approach to things can be readily inferred from reading his book.

Have you read The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics?

In turn, his book attempts to discredit The Passion of Ayn Rand and Judgment Day/My Years with Ayn Rand.

And it would be impossible to catch some of his misrepresentations without having read The Passion of Ayn Rand in particular, and making side-by-side comparisons between passages in that book and passages in Valliant's.

It would be even more impossible to catch some of Valliant's lies and dodges while promoting and defending his book, unless you were familiar with all three.

Have you read Barbara Branden's biography? Nathaniel's memoir?

Robert

[Dennis Hardin]

Ted,

Mr. Fitts' review in The Objective Standard won't come online till Monday the 20th.

However, this blog post of his obviously gives us a preview:

http://inductiveques...w-of-james.html

Robert Campbell

Here’s a little sampling of Fitts’ brilliant insights. Look at what he calls a “revelation.”

But none of this prepares the reader of PARC for the revelation that Branden uses Rand as a psychotherapist for years right up until the end of their relationship (Part 2 of PARC), something that Branden (for decades, on up to the present) never discusses when he is dismissing Rand's understanding of psychology...

Some revelation. I don’t happen to have a copy of NB’s My Years with Ayn Rand handy at the moment, but here’s a couple of quotes from Barbara’s bio:

[Ayn] wrote lengthy papers on her analysis of his psychology, on the meaning and solution to what appeared to be tormenting him, they discussed her papers and her theories for long and futile hours…

The romance whose meaning to her had been the enjoyment of life on earth, was deteriorating into endless psychological sessions….

The Passion of Ayn Rand (1986) p. 335

Neither Branden made any effort to conceal the fact that Rand attempted to do “therapy” with her young protégé. It takes about five minutes of web surfing to verify this.

This is one example of all the things which, according to Fitts, PARC “proves.”

What a pathetic farce.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Mr. Fitts meretricious review is regurgitated "I've-been-saved" swill. Diana Hsieh did a much better, much more thorough job of it. It's all about religion, you know, the world according to Lenny.

--Brant

Have you seen the actual review, or do you mean Fitts' blog entry? I read the latter. I don't agree that it's "meretricious" or "regurgitated" or "'I've-been-saved' swill." Or with your other two comments either.

The Fitts blog entry comes within the near perimeter of being my own view -- although of course I'm aware of all the details of misquoting which Fitts doesn't appear to have noticed.

-

Neither Branden made any effort to conceal the fact that Rand attempted to do “therapy” with her young protégé. It takes about five minutes of web surfing to verify this.

This is one example of all the things which, according to Fitts, PARC “proves.”

What a pathetic farce.

What's revealed in the diaries is that Nathaniel was seeking the therapy sessions, as part of his attempt to keep the truth from Ayn. Where in either of their books or on the web does either Branden say that?

-

Are you familiar with Valiant's behavior at wikipedia? I read every single one of his edits on the Ayn Rand article and reverted many of them myself. The edits themselves were often dishonest representations about the facts. He was dishonest about his own identity. He was dishonest about his desire to present a neutral description of events. And as I have said repeatedly, even the cover of his book was a doctored photograph intended to make NB look shifty.

Most of the edits were done by Holly, whose project it was to improve the Wikipedia articles about Rand. You didn't revert near so "many" of the edits as you imply. You aren't exaggerating to quite the extreme extent Robert does in his claim -- see post #32 on the "For the Record re PARC" thread -- that "those changes largely amounted to [JV's] inserting references to [his] own writings." But you are exaggerating. (JV says that none of the references to PARC were inserted by him. However, there were such references inserted but no where near so many as Robert claims with his "largely.")

I agree about the cover of the book.

Ellen

[Jonathan]

What's revealed in the diaries is that Nathaniel was seeking the therapy sessions, as part of his attempt to keep the truth from Ayn.

How would you know that Branden's seeking therapy from Rand was part of his attempt to keep the truth from her? I don't think we can conclude anything about Branden's motives from Rand's diaries. Her account of the events, even if 100% accurate, doesn't allow us to get inside his head and identify his motives.

I think that previously you've said that Branden, at the time, had bought into Rand's views on sex, which included her opinion that he should have continued to have been sexually desirous of her, no matter how old or physically unappealing she might have become, because of who and what she was. So, isn't it possible that Branden was seeking therapy with her because he believed that his dwindling sexual response to her indicated that there was something wrong with him according to her theory?

We can't assume that his involvement with Patrecia is what diminished his attraction to Rand -- that he wouldn't have lost sexual interest in Rand even if he hadn't gotten involved with someone else. So, if he had never developed a relationship with a younger, sexier woman, but had still lost interest in continuing a sexual relationship with aging Rand, don't you think that he would have still sought therapy from her? After all, since he believed her views on sexuality, what else could he do, other than turn to her? No one else was qualified to counsel him on the sexual theories that he had absorbed.

Just because he was deceiving Rand by not informing her of one of his violations of her theory of sexuality (his relationship with Patrecia) doesn't mean that his intent was to deceive her when seeking therapy for another violation (his failing sexual response to Rand). He was in a position where his failing sexual response to Rand couldn't help but be revealed to her, and he had to know that, once it had become an issue that she was aware of, he would be expected to seek her advice on how to root out his alleged errors and find a cure for his diminishing appetite for her, no?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

NB was seeking therapy to dupe Rand and poor Rand merely went along because she was stupid from being blinded by love.

Sorry, but that version doesn't hold water, not in light of NB's personality, nor in light of Rand's.

It's all speculation, anyway.

But to speculate, much more likely is that NB and Rand agreed to give him therapy sessions as a form of truce during a fight. Then, just like what happened with the affair, once it started, it grew into something more than they intended.

Now that sounds plausible.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As a footnote to the last post, there is one thing I really find epistemologically offensive in the whole mentality behind Valliant's arguments. It is the idea that events happen statically, without growth in the individuals (unless it's Rand gradually discovering the evil of NB). In his world, people don't change their minds--they merely reveal what they already are.

Thus he can time-travel in attributing virtues and shortcomings and simply wish away things that don't fit.

And he can do some of the sloppiest and sleaziest work in print because he considers himself virtuous and does not need to learn better standards. Er... that's not precise... It's not that, in this mentality, he does not need to learn better standards. It's that, to him, he can't. He's already where he needs to be and the rest is merely details.

There is no such thing as growth in standards to him. You are either good or bad. If you are bad, that makes everything about you bad, even the good stuff (since it is probably an act anyway). And if you are good, that makes your mistakes and blunders not important--at least not important enough to bother with.

I call this boneheaded thinking.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Major Topic: How Improper Moral 'Judgmentalism' Works

Sub-Topic: Emotionalist Non-Objectivity Rather than Dishonesty/Immorality

> And it would be impossible to catch some of his misrepresentations without having read The Passion of Ayn Rand in particular, and making side-by-side comparisons between passages in that book and passages in Valliant's. [Robert]

There have been tons of posts and quotes on all of this. Enough for me to tell whether someone could be misguided but honest - especially when I assessed the "evidence" that is supposed to prove in a smoking gun manner that he, Peikoff, Hsieh, Perigo...and other adversaries are dishonest.

In each case that I recall, I have often found P, H, P, V, etc saying dumb or foolish things or using bad reasoning or being 'emotionalist' .... just like you when you call people names ... but NOT ONCE has ANY of it been a proof of dishonesty.

It would be bitterly ironic if it weren't so sad and bemusing to outsiders how heatedly and with what apocalyptic outrage each of the two wings of Objectivism is calling all the major figures on the other side dishonest and immoral!!

What a lot of (a) what you and Michael and others on this site in the one camp do and what (B) the other camp has lots of people doing is a single mistake:

1. Being blinded by rage. Emotionalism, rather than calm, fair, objective assessment in judging those you despise. Peikoff is a good example. Blinded by rage, he can't see clearly anything relating to David Kelley. Or the NYC Mosque. To give two examples.

2. This can also be accompanied by a second mistake -- judging secondhandedly: relying on the testimony of those on your side, being swayed by groupthink. When Peikoff relies on what somebody else told him about the libertarians (S's essay), or when he relies on intermediaries (or out of context email) to report to him what McCaskey supposedly said against Objectivism.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Robert Campbell]

Major Topic: How Improper Moral 'Judgmentalism' Works

Sub-Topic: Emotionalist Non-Objectivity Rather than Dishonesty/Immorality

> And it would be impossible to catch some of his misrepresentations without having read The Passion of Ayn Rand in particular, and making side-by-side comparisons between passages in that book and passages in Valliant's. [Robert]

There have been tons of posts and quotes on all of this. Enough for me to tell whether someone could be misguided but honest - especially when I assessed the "evidence" that is supposed to prove in a smoking gun manner that he, Peikoff, Hsieh, Perigo...and other adversaries are dishonest.

In each case that I recall, I have often found P, H, P, V, etc saying dumb or foolish things or using bad reasoning or being 'emotionalist' .... just like you when you call people names ... but NOT ONCE has ANY of it been a proof of dishonesty.

[…]

2. This can also be accompanied by a second mistake -- judging secondhandedly: relying on the testimony of those on your side, being swayed by groupthink. When Peikoff relies on what somebody else told him about the libertarians (S's essay), or when he relies on intermediaries (or out of context email) to report to him what McCaskey supposedly said against Objectivism.

Phil,

You have to be kidding!

You're lecturing a bunch of people on "judging secondhandedly" and you haven't read the books under discussion?

Worse, you're claiming you don't need to read the books in order to make a meaningful contribution to the discussion?

PARC was published 5 1/2 years ago.

I didn't say one word about PARC in any forum until I had read the entire volume.

I wouldn't have presumed to judge whether PARC refuted the claims made in The Passion of Ayn Rand and in Judgment Day, without already knowing those books.

I refused to support those, like Robert Bidinotto, whose response to Mr. Valliant's opus was to condemn without reading.

How many times have you weighed into PARC-related discussions since that book was published?

Robert Campbell

[Rich Engle]

As a footnote to the last post, there is one thing I really find epistemologically offensive in the whole mentality behind Valliant's arguments. It is the idea that events happen statically, without growth in the individuals (unless it's Rand gradually discovering the evil of NB). In his world, people don't change their minds--they merely reveal what they already are.

Thus he can time-travel in attributing virtues and shortcomings and simply wish away things that don't fit.

And he can do some of the sloppiest and sleaziest work in print because he considers himself virtuous and does not need to learn better standards. Er... that's not precise... It's not that, in this mentality, he does not need to learn better standards. It's that, to him, he can't. He's already where he needs to be and the rest is merely details.

There is no such thing as growth in standards to him. You are either good or bad. If you are bad, that makes everything about you bad, even the good stuff (since it is probably an act anyway). And if you are good, that makes your mistakes and blunders not important--at least not important enough to bother with.

I call this boneheaded thinking.

Michael

Sure! That is the nature of tabloid journalism. More like "historical tabloid journalism." Mucking around in an ancient, semi-high profile split-up. The somber, moralistic tone that only comes from having not been there. It is very easy to do. And, you know, the Hell of It for him has to be in the knowing that, were he to ever go through a divorce, it wouldn't be even as un-newsworthy as this thing is (was).

In any event, it is a lot easier to feast off the old and the unfortunate sadnesses, rather than to innovate. B- or C-grade piker stuff, on a good day. For what does he think he is positioning Himself? This is, in the larger scope of things, extremely insignificant. If he is such an all-fired Great Writer (and I don't think he is), then he is picking a very small drop out of the ocean with which to work.

rde

Edited September 18, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Robert Campbell]

The Fitts blog entry comes within the near perimeter of being my own view -- although of course I'm aware of all the details of misquoting which Fitts doesn't appear to have noticed.

Fitts' review won't be available (to subscribers) till next Monday, September 20.

Ms. Stuttle is still dodging and wiggling, but this "near perimeter" language suggests an endorsement of Mr. Fitts' blog entry, due allowance made for Ms. Stuttle's inevitable need to condescend.

Here are three specimens of Roderick Fitts' manner of thinking about the issue. Bolding was added by me:

As Valliant shows in PARC, both of the Brandens deceived Rand and other Objectivists since the beginning of their nearly 20 year relationship with her, all the while feigning an advocacy for Objectivism.

Peikoff's thirty years with Ayn Rand is an instructive example against the claims of the Brandens. Peikoff's early years with Rand were spent unraveling all of his confusions and bad mental methods, particularly rationalistic thinking. (Peikoff states in one of his podcasts that he had written various essays on the phenomenon of rationalism and ways to combat it.) She didn't want Peikoff's blind obedience, or the agreement of a second-hander, she wanted him to learn the right method of thinking. He didn't distort or repress what he knew: if he had a disagreement or counter-point or confusion, he let Rand know up front, and thus was a paradigm of intellectual honesty. When Nathaniel and Barbara Branden had confusions or criticisms of Objectivism, they never told Rand about them…

Besides demonstrating the truth about Rand's character and the Affair, PARC also discusses some nuances of Objectivism in its applications to one's life. Learning about terms like "meta-selfishness," "stylized universe," and of two technical meanings of "being oneself" was totally unexpected, and a real treat for me. A "stylized universe" results from the actions of a "stylized person," which Rand describes as a "person who lives in reality according to his highest values, who takes nothing less, accepts no substitutes, and struggles to translate his values into reality, no matter what the difficulties." Since Objectivism advocates pursuing ones values and furthering one's life as a moral endeavor and as morally right, an obvious extension of that fundamental view would be a principle counseling one to work to live in reality according to one's values. "Meta-selfishness" is an extension of the Objectivist idea of a "hierarchy of values"—of an interrelation of higher, more important values and of lesser values: when you're choosing a particular value, like a car or job or a girlfriend, the actual propriety or prudence of that choice depends on the end-goal of acquiring that value—on what's really in it for you, as Valliant clarifies. Lastly, "being oneself" has two different meanings, depending on the perspective being personal or social. In the social realm, being "oneself" means being "psychologically visible" to someone else, someone who is understood and appreciated for one's character and values; in other words, we allow a person to "be himself" when we understand a person for who and what that person is, and thus he doesn't have to engage in conscious actions to give us evidence of who he really is. In the personal realm, being "oneself" means a person insofar as he relies on the automatized processes of his mind, on his present knowledge subconsciously held, including his sense of life perspective.

If that last sycophantic paragraph wasn't enough to make you want to toss your cookies (you know, if "stylized universe" and "meta-selfishness" were such great ideas, how come Rand didn't make sure to impart them to Leonard Peikoff, so that Mr. Fitts would have been taught them before he read Vailiant's book), here is Mr. Fitts' conclusion:

All in all, I wish such a book had not been necessary. I wish Barbara Branden hadn't felt the need to "break the presumed link between the validity of Objectivism and the perfection of Ayn Rand," as she says in an essay defending her book from 2005. I wish the Brandens' hadn't felt the need to present Rand's imperfections, if that meant resorting to the kind of dishonesty we're now in the position to appreciate. The facts, however, are the facts. To know the validity of Objectivism, one must consult the works, and judge it for oneself. But to understand that Rand had achieved moral perfection as Objectivism understands it in her own life and person, PARC is certainly without substitute. I whole-heartedly recommend it.

No doubt Ms. Stuttle will be eager to relate to us how all of this gullible zealotry "comes within the near perimeter."

Especially when she has repeatedly denied believing that Rand was morally perfect, as Objectivism understands it or as any other system of thought understands it.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle continues to claim to know, in great detail, which of the Valliants did what at Wikipedia.

For instance

Most of the edits were done by Holly, whose project it was to improve the Wikipedia articles about Rand.

Ms. Stuttle has refused to provide her evidence.

Let her produce the email she claims to have sent to Jim Valliant—the one with the "trap" questiions in it.

There is no reason not to produce it. Mr. Valliant's permission is not required unless his answers are included.

By contrast, it is easy to understand why Ms. Stuttle wouldn't want to produce the email: if it never existed—or if it obviously failed to fit Ms. Stuttle's description of it.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Mr. Fitts meretricious review is regurgitated "I've-been-saved" swill. Diana Hsieh did a much better, much more thorough job of it. It's all about religion, you know, the world according to Lenny.

--Brant

Have you seen the actual review, or do you mean Fitts' blog entry? I read the latter. I don't agree that it's "meretricious" or "regurgitated" or "'I've-been-saved' swill." Or with your other two comments either.

The blog entry--which said it was the review. I knew you wouldn't agree with me because as I once said elsewhere, you are the cultural anthropologist of Objectivism. You observe, study and comment on this occupied future "Motel of the Mysteries." Since we've a long way to go before we need archeology, your remarks aren't comedic or ridiculous, but the basic divergent, subjective course, is set.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> you haven't read the books under discussion?

Robert, it's not the books that were under discussion but the mistake of judging the character of the people using the excerpts you and others have posted on these boards.

I made it quite clear to you that -the excerpts- don't justify your moralizing condemnations.

I don't need to have read every word written to say that -the excerpts- don't justify the conclusions....nor do they motivate me to read further.

Got it straight now?

BTW, your not getting this simple point straight is an excellent example of the sloppy - and emotionalist - thinking done on each side which leads the other side to levy the very accusations I was talking about.

Robert, what you really need to do...as do Peikoff, Valliant, and all the other emotionalists...is to clearly, calmly, carefully read the arguments of their opponents.

[Robert Campbell]

Regurgitating directly from the book whose je ne sais quoi she professes to deeply admire—while she remains uninterested in any of its detailed arguments, and inclined to deplore its execution—Ms. Stuttle announces

What's revealed in the diaries is that Nathaniel was seeking the therapy sessions, as part of his attempt to keep the truth from Ayn. Where in either of their books or on the web does either Branden say that?

Hmm, let's see what other plausible explanations might apply.

Here's one....

If the person offering you therapy is your business partner, your lover, and, effectively, your boss, and you decline the offer outright, or prefer to seek the services of another therapist—where precisely is that going to leave you?

Nowadays it is considered unethical to provide therapy or counseling to business partners, lovers, or employees.

I wonder why.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

I made it quite clear to you that -the excerpts- don't justify your moralizing condemnations.

I don't need to have read every word written to say that -the excerpts- don't justify the conclusions....nor do they motivate me to read further.

Got it straight now?

Phil,

You are being intellectually irresponsible.

Worse, you are condemning me and others as "emotionalists" while shouting out the conclusion that you have repeatedly failed to establish.

If you don't care to read biographies of Ayn Rand, fine. Some people, even in Rand-land, aren't interested.

But if you won't read them, you're best off keeping your opinions to yourself.

Robert Campbell

[kiaer.ts]

Are you familiar with Valiant's behavior at wikipedia? I read every single one of his edits on the Ayn Rand article and reverted many of them myself. The edits themselves were often dishonest representations about the facts. He was dishonest about his own identity. He was dishonest about his desire to present a neutral description of events. And as I have said repeatedly, even the cover of his book was a doctored photograph intended to make NB look shifty.

Most of the edits were done by Holly, whose project it was to improve the Wikipedia articles about Rand. You didn't revert near so "many" of the edits as you imply. You aren't exaggerating to quite the extreme extent Robert does in his claim -- see post #32 on the "For the Record re PARC" thread -- that "those changes largely amounted to [JV's] inserting references to [his] own writings." But you are exaggerating. (JV says that none of the references to PARC were inserted by him. However, there were such references inserted but no where near so many as Robert claims with his "largely.")

I agree about the cover of the book.

Ellen

Perhaps "I participated in having a lot of their edits reverted" would be more informative. I participated in discussion of the edits and started the first thread pointing out their tendentious nature. Once this was pointed out, editors hostile to Rand were happy to revert him themselves, since they thought of his edits as "pro-Rand." I never would have guessed that Valiants were actually the people behind the edits. I seriously thought it was a high school student with poor people skills.

[kiaer.ts]

Phil, the cover of PARC is a doctored photo. The original shows Rand and NB in two entirely separate conversations. The PARC cover version shows NB as if he were standing behind Rand, listening to her speak, but focused on something else. The effect is a wonderful piece of after the fact stage direction. Instead of the correct interpretation, that Branden is actually talking to someone else, you get the impression that he is standing behind Rand, scheming, as she chats on oblivious to his apparent disrespect.

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

One more thing.

How can you keep maintaining that Jim Valliant is honest when his book makes misquotattions from, and erroneous attributions to, Barbara Branden's book The Passion of Ayn Rand?

These have been documented in great detail by Neil Parille.

How do you write for publication that The Passion of Ayn Rand failed to note that Allan and Joan Blumenthal ended their relationship with Ayn Rand, instead of being expelled—when it is precisely The Passion of Ayn Rand that correctly reported that the Blumenthals ended their relationship with Ms. Rand?

An author who does this kind of thing repeatedly is either a liar or an incompetent.

Add to this his refusal to admit even the smallest error, over matters where he's been caught red-handed, one pretty much has to conclude that Valliant was lying.

Besides, he declared on SOLO that "they were careful editors" at Durban House, which would imply at least occasional fact-checking by the folks who published his book.

This looks like one more lie compounding the earlier ones.

When Neil Parille nailed Mr. Valliant misquoting John Hospers, Mr. Valliant tried to excuse his behavior by telling a cock-and-bull story about his college professor who taught him to put between quotation marks phrases and sentences that the person didn't say.

How did you think the talk about Valliantquoating originated?

And how many different stories did Mr. Valliant tell about his failure to check up on the issue, when he was confronted with evidence—available in the Ayn Rand Archives, where Mr. Valliant insisted he had an "access all areas"— that Barbara Branden really did meet with Ayn Rand one more time in 1981?

So if you really think Mr. Valliant is honest, where is your explanation of his track record?

But, then, you've read Leonard Peikoff's "him or me" email about John McCaskey—at least, I hope you've read it—and you couldn't draw the conclusion that Peikoff wanted to remind everyone at the Ayn Rand Institute how much weight he has to throw around.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

You know, I was thinking about your writings about PARC over the years and I am glad that the excerpts that Valliant and others have posted online from the book totally justify your moral condemnations.

They echo my own moral condemnations of that book and its author.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

That business about misusing quotation marks was an absolute hoot! Unbelievable ridicularity.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

Ah, let Ellen celebrate her memories. I notice they improve, with age. And get more and more detailed, too!

It reminds me a great deal of people you meet in the music business; meaning, they might have actually "been there" at some time or another, but it is amazing how much "mo' clearer" (and expanded) the, er, "details" emerge over time.

NB was the Mick Jagger of that world, it seems. Everyone either wants to know what is was like to do the deed, or they are wondering why they weren't chosen for so-doing.

NB, God bless him, has to be laughing his ass off on this, if he even bothers to do so.

Like I said, ancient historic tabloid nastiness. Someone ought to do an exhumation, and go for forensic data on the tunnel in question. Personally, I would recommend the British Press: they are experts at these things, what having to deal with the Royal Family and all. Did you ever notice how their libido was directly linked to the market price of Sterling?

But I digress.

But we all have to have our 15 minutes, I guess. Such is the nature of mythology--most of it is is based in some form of fact or another, I guess it goes. Or not.

That's the damn problem with hobbies based on old stuff--you just have to keep churning the charnel.

It will be even worse when they all die off. Then we'll get some serious rock and roll.

rde

The Hog Has Left The Tunnel

Edited September 18, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Neil Parille]

Robert,

For those who haven't seen it, here is Fitts' review of the book that he posted in May 2010:

http://inductivequest.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-being-ones-self-review-of-james.html

I assume TOS' review will be a version of it.

I asked Fitts if he thought Valliant was a careful writer (in terms of quotations from his sources and the like) and he admitted he wasn't always.

I'd say it's irresponsible to review PARC and not mention the new bios (which, unlike PARC, involved substantial archival and other research).

For the life of me I'll never understand why the typewriter issue is supposedly proof of theBrandens lying. Of all the things to lie about this has to be the most minor. It doesn't make them look any better.

-Neil Parille

Edited September 18, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

I don't think Robert or I ever said "look at PARC, the guy must be lying." We both gave him the benefit of the doubt.

The only way to excuse Valliant is to assume that he wrote PARC from memory (i.e, not consulting theBranden and other books when writing), then went back and hastily plugged in the page references. If he wrote in this fashion I could understand why he says Barbara speculates about Rand having paranoid symptoms because of her use of diet pills. Likewise, knowing that Rand booted out so many people, I could imagine Valliant misremembering the Blumenthal split as an excommunication.

Yet Valliant says the book was carefully edited, which would have caught these and many other problems.

So my conclusion is that he is lying.

-Neil Parille

Edited September 18, 2010 by Neil Parille

[PDS]

Hanlon's Razor: "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Or, in my humble life experience(s): incompetence, sloppiness, or perhaps, mere over-zealousness.

I have been in the Objectivist equivalent of an Okinawan Cave for the past 25 years, and it is really quite remarkable, over the past 6 months, to come out of the Cave and see the vitriol between and amongst Objectivists/Objectivist sympathizers. Forest and trees and all that.

Back in the Good Old Days, we were lucky if our campus signs for Peter Schwartz weren't torn down by the latter day Hippies. We certainly weren't concerned about fellow O's.