The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V

[Brant Gaede]

From the horse's mouth:

I don't publish folks' private e-mails, but supported Diana's right to do so...

Has anyone ever heard of a right to publish private emails?

Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo preaches such a right by his own admission.

This is Objectivism?

Michael

If you had quoted the whole sentence you'd have revealed him as a self-described pragmatist, which in his case is still implicit grandiosity.

That's some tar baby Perigo has latched onto. He keeps saying nasty things about Barbara as if they were life preservers. I hope Barbara forgives me for not wanting him--on one level--to stop that; it says nothing about her and everything about him. Contra, that SOLOP thread is like wrestling in a cesspool. I hope I don't feel the need to post on it again--or anywhere else on that site.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I have no problem with quoting a greater portion. Just because this dude claimed that the need of one person creates a right to the property of another, I don't see how this watered down that he preaches the right to publish private emails:

No embarrassment, Skanky Professor ...

.... just honor. I don't publish folks' private e-mails, but supported Diana's right to do so since it was the only way to expose Sciabarra's mendacity and back-stabbing.

For Perigo, Diana Hsieh's alleged need created the right for her to dispose of Chris Sciabarra's property as she saw fit. That is how he is now preaching individual rights, and he preaches this as Objectivism.

Now let me ask you if the following continuation is another reading problem or another lie (my bold).

Your mistress and pin-up smears, lies and blackballs, with your active support. Don't you talk about honor. You're scum.

Here you demand that I publish private e-mails ... and then say I'm hiding something when I don't.

Uhm... that's not right. Here is what Rober Campbell "demanded" of Perigo (speaking in the third person):

Mr. Perigo, Quit Insulting the Intelligence of Your Readers

Mr. Perigo needs to quit insulting the intelligence of his readers.

He needs to name the one who said, "This, from a complaint by a 'B. Branden.'"

"Name the one" who wrote an email that was used as a source to make an accusation is not the same thing as "publish private e-mails."

Any child knows that. But Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo thinks he can fool his readers, like always.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Gee, Michael, I didn't say or mean to imply you watered anything down. What I said had nothing to do with emails regardless. You really do seem to read too much too fast. It's understandable considering how much gets written here. It irritates me sometimes so I give you feedback like this. It's no big deal unless I let things accumulate. I let nothing accumulate.

If it's not right to publish private correspondence in a book without its author's permission, I doubt if it's okay to do it on the Internet. I can't figure out, however, if there is legal and philosophical--qua Objectivism--congruence and I am not exactly familiar with the apropos laws.

--Brant

Edited May 29, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I didn't even notice that my post could have implied criticism of you.

Maybe my writing is not clear. My target is another.

(btw - That's a quip...)

I'm just sick and tired of this dude always getting a pass whenever he accuses others of crap and does worse himself. So I'm on his case a little.

Hell, I don't even expect to convince anyone in O-Land. After the shouting dies down, I expect many who are silent now will be yacking up a storm with Perigo as if he were some kind of intellectual of merit and has not constantly promoted irrational malice (and even bigotry), all the while pissing all over everything Ayn Rand ever stood for. He talks the Objectivist jargon and that gets him by.

But OL gets crawled regularly by search engine spiders. Although I do not do SEO yet for the site, I do notice the bots around all the time. And when I peek at the stats, I see that OL has well over 4,000 pages indexed in Google.

This means that OL appears in the search results. If, for instance, you Google the following search terms:

solopassion

chris sciabarra diana hsieh

chris sciabarra lindsay perigo

objectivist liar

and so forth, you will find OL on the first page of Google's results. Type one in and you will see. There are oodles and oodles of more terms.

So newcomers who seek information certainly have it.

Wait until I start applying what I have learned...

(btw - I know I am behind in my IM course.)

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Mr. Perigo is at the "doth protest too much" phase.

-Neil Parille

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Back to topic for a second. I just came across this:

Wikipedia to Church of Scientology: You’re Banned!

by Ben Parr

May 29th, 2009

Mashable

From the article:

According to The Register, Wikipedia (Wikipedia reviews) has banned multiple IP addresses related to the Church of Scientology for extreme, one-sided editing...

For a moment I thought I was reading about...

Hmmmmmmmm...

Nah...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I am in stitches about something that went on at SLOP right now between Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo and a younger member of his flock who threatens to stray by checking facts. It is a perfect example of bullying, so much so that I am going to give it in play format.

The sins of the wayward lamb are twofold: (1) he is not accepting Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo on faith and is starting to show signs that he believes facts are objective, and (2) he has challenged Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo's authority over him. This last is a sin only if a person is an insider, a member of the tribe's inner circle. (This is typical of tribal thinking.)

The posts start here. I offer my apologies to Mr. Gregster for inadvertently including him in this. Despite some rather hostile declarations he has aimed in this direction, I have no quarrel with him.

Here goes, and I quote verbatim. Perigo starts by making reference to Robert Campbell. LDS is one of Perigo's campy-sounding acronyms that he always tries to float to see if it catches on. It means "Linz Derangement Syndrome."

OBJECTIVIST LIAR LINDSAY PERIGO: (to another poster) He has LDS too. There's a lot of it about.

GREGSTER: (to another poster) The Prof. has provided a bit of evidence for me to go over. Some worthwhile too.

OBJECTIVIST LIAR LINDSAY PERIGO: Oh Jesus Gregster. You too? What evidence is "worthwhile"? How could you think that? Hope you're happy in your betrayal of all things decent. Sign up with O-Lying. It's made for you. Ugh!

GREGSTER: I wouldn't go that far. It's interesting that reprints have left references to the Brandens out, edit: though understandable. No betrayal, just independent investigation. Come on Linz, less paranoia.

OBJECTIVIST LIAR LINDSAY PERIGO: Oh Gawd! If you've followed these debates, you'll know no one has been a greater opponent of airbrushing by Randroids than I. On that matter I am opposed to and have been opposed by James Valliant, Casey Fahy, Diana Hsieh and Galt knows who else. They march in lock-step to emotionally repressed, Randroid commands. But that doesn't validate the Brandroids. For fuck's sake, Greg, just look at the Brandroids' conduct re my invitation to speak at TAS!! Brandroids put Randroids to shame in the fascism stakes! What more do you need??!! You already know the answer. So again I say, sign up with O-Lying, marry Robert Skankbell. You deserve each other.

GREGSTER: Airbrushing nonsense. I've read all of the PARC threads and SOLO, and some SOLOHQ, from recent years only. Prior to that I was overseas and unaware of the site. (Linz - That's pleasing to hear your opposition to the airbrushing. Marry him? - I hardly know him.) The post below is the one I referred to earlier as an example for the Prof.

(gives example)

OBJECTIVIST LIAR LINDSAY PERIGO: Greg. You've seen what Babs wrote about me, no? You know me well enough to know it's crap, no? You know Campbell supports Babs's smears, no? So why do you ascribe an ounce of credibility to him about anything?

GREGSTER: Of course her exaggerated lowlife smears and falsities I've read. The credibility is not to the Prof. but to some of the information he pointed to.

OBJECTIVIST LIAR LINDSAY PERIGO: As I say ... Enjoy yourself wallowing in the sewer of falsehood. You deserve it.

GREGSTER: Oftentimes some shit must be waded through to get to the truth. I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree over my wallowing in the sewer of falsehood.

OBJECTIVIST LIAR LINDSAY PERIGO: Cut the crap. I expected better of you. Giving Campbell a blow-job? Please!

This speaks for itself. If you make it up, people say you are exaggerating.

Michael

[Michelle]

If someone did turn Galt's Gulch into a reality, it would tear itself apart with all of the bickering and in-fighting going on.

[Michelle]

Back to topic for a second. I just came across this:

Wikipedia to Church of Scientology: You’re Banned!

by Ben Parr

May 29th, 2009

Mashable

From the article:

According to The Register, Wikipedia (Wikipedia reviews) has banned multiple IP addresses related to the Church of Scientology for extreme, one-sided editing...

For a moment I thought I was reading about...

Hmmmmmmmm...

Nah...

Michael

Good. The CoS is a criminal organization.

Not like banning a few accounts will do anything, but it is nice to see Wikipedia taking a stand against the Church's bullying.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Michelle R

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

When you lay them out like that, Mr. Perigo's exchanges with Gregster make quite a script.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

It looks as though Jim Valliant has kept his most important sponsor.

I was amazed, on checking my inbox a few minutes ago, to find an email from Leonard Peikoff. I have never emailed Dr. Peikoff and was, as you might imagine, not expecting to hear from him.

The email is addressed to Jimmy Wales. Of course, it asks him to reverse the recent editorial decision to treat Mr. Valliant's book as an "unreliable source" at Wikipedia.

I'll quote one sentence:

My understanding, which may not be correct, is that one of the instigators of your new policy is Barbara Branden, one of the two persons identified in the Valliant book, with substantial corroborating evidence, as hostile to Ayn Rand.

The overall tone is authentically Peikovian.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

If someone did turn Galt's Gulch into a reality, it would tear itself apart with all of the bickering and in-fighting going on.

Yes Michelle, but it would be done profitably and efficiently! :super:

Damn, I am sooo glad I missed these internecine wars!

Adam

[Michelle]

If someone did turn Galt's Gulch into a reality, it would tear itself apart with all of the bickering and in-fighting going on.

Yes Michelle, but it would be done profitably and efficiently! :super:

Damn, I am sooo glad I missed these internecine wars!

Adam

I'm trying to remember that Dr. Seuss book where the two sides were fighting over some absolutely ludicrous thing, but for the life of me I can't remember what it was called.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I wonder if Mr. Peikoff is being ingenious or being misled about the accusation that Barbara solicited the exclusion of PARC from Wikipedia.

I shall guess at the result.

Mr. Wales will have the issue decided by Wikipedia's editors based on Wikipedia's TOS, as he does with all other issues.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

I'm trying to remember that Dr. Seuss book where the two sides were fighting over some absolutely ludicrous thing, but for the life of me I can't remember what it was called.

Michelle R,

The Sneetches.

It was one of my daughter's favorites, when she was around 4.

"Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches

Had bellies with stars.

The Plain-Belly Sneetches

Had none upon thars."

Robert C

[Michelle]

I'm trying to remember that Dr. Seuss book where the two sides were fighting over some absolutely ludicrous thing, but for the life of me I can't remember what it was called.

Michelle R,

The Sneetches.

It was one of my daughter's favorites, when she was around 4.

"Now, the Star-Belly Sneetches

Had bellies with stars.

The Plain-Belly Sneetches

Had none upon thars."

Robert C

Thanks. I'd forgotten about The Sneetches.

Thinking about it, though, I know what I was remembering now: The Butter Battle Book, where the Yooks eat their bread with the butter-side up, the Zooks eat their bread with the butter-side down, and this becomes the basis for a massive arms race where the two sides are ready to annihilate each other by the end. Obvious Cold War allegory, but I think it also applies to group in-fighting. Some minor differences arise between members of a group, and this leads to an increasingly vicious war where the two sides attempt to ruin the other.

This reminds me of why I admire Theodor Geisel so much. He was able to take complex subjects such as war, racism, group inclusiveness, the arms race, environmental destruction-- and create allegorical stories out of them so focused on essentials that even small children could understand them.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Michelle R

[Selene]

If someone did turn Galt's Gulch into a reality, it would tear itself apart with all of the bickering and in-fighting going on.

Yes Michelle, but it would be done profitably and efficiently! :super:

Damn, I am sooo glad I missed these internecine wars!

Adam

I'm trying to remember that Dr. Seuss book where the two sides were fighting over some absolutely ludicrous thing, but for the life of me I can't remember what it was called.

We can go with the Frank Gorshen Star Trek with the half black half white face!

Also, I have started to plausibly deny that O'Bama is the first black President on two grounds. [No Gulch not on that one! B) ]

First, the progressives have argued that Jefferson was "black".

Second, I point our that he is only half black and half white and that is how I consistently refer to him and it infuriates some marxists! They are so thin skinned the poor babies.

Adam

Edited May 30, 2009 by Selene

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I was amazed, on checking my inbox a few minutes ago, to find an email from Leonard Peikoff. I have never emailed Dr. Peikoff and was, as you might imagine, not expecting to hear from him.

The email is addressed to Jimmy Wales.

Robert,

This is setting off warning bells in my head.

We already know that the people surrounding this issue play dirty in trying to skew public results. Them taking it one step further and pretending to be Leonard Peikoff is well within the bounds of credibility to me.

Apropos, I can just hear the howling that you published a private email. Before the howling starts, let me go on record as saying that I understand the snippet you posted to be in accordance with the Fair Use provision in the USA Code. Besides, if the email ends up being a hoax, I see no reason not to post the entire thing. What rights are thus violated?

Do you have an IP number on the email you received?

Michael

[Michelle]

If someone did turn Galt's Gulch into a reality, it would tear itself apart with all of the bickering and in-fighting going on.

Yes Michelle, but it would be done profitably and efficiently! :super:

Damn, I am sooo glad I missed these internecine wars!

Adam

I'm trying to remember that Dr. Seuss book where the two sides were fighting over some absolutely ludicrous thing, but for the life of me I can't remember what it was called.

We can go with the Frank Gorshen Star Trek with the half black half white face!

Also, I have started to plausibly deny that O'Bama is the first black President on two grounds. [No Gulch not on that one! B) ]

First, the progressives have argued that Jefferson was "black".

Second, I point our that he is only half black and half white and that is how I consistently refer to him and it infuriates some marxists! They are so thin skinned the poor babies.

Adam

How was Jefferson black?

Well, debating about 'race' is a lost cause, since 'race' doesn't exist, merely certain physiological differences and the skin color.

He is, I believe, the first visibly dark president, however.

Who cares, though, besides the socialists? I don't care if he's green and has an antennae coming out of his head. Our first black president? Sure. Now let's forget that and focus on policy.

[kiaer.ts]

If Peikoff is cc'ing third parties with whom he has no relationship and is not requesting anonymity/privacy it amounts to an open letter.

[Selene]

:thumbsup:

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just received a private message giving an idea that sounds more than plausible.

Since Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo has proven to the world that, in addition to constantly misleading his readers and bullying his acolytes, he has a grave reading disorder, someone trying to support him is pulling a prank to fool Robert.

Then they can ask why Perigo is not allowed to be mistaken by a misleading email and Robert is.

From everything I have learned about Leonard Peikoff, he has his faults, but I judge that he is not in the habit of CC'ing third parties with whom he has no relationship of his own private correspondence.

EDIT: The funny part is that if this is true, it will be people lying to protect a liar in order to pretend to the public that the liar is honest.

All in the name of Ayn Rand and Objectivism, of course.

Michael

[Michelle]

God, would someone really go to this much effort to protect the reputation of Perigo?

I mean, why? What's the point? What's really at stake? Not his credibility. If he were credible, they would not have to lie to protect him. In fact, if he was credible, he could probably just protect himself.

Edited May 30, 2009 by Michelle R

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

It occurred to me after just a little while that the thing might be bogus.

I responded to the sender. If I don't get any response back, I will email Leonard Peikoff through another channel and ask him whether the email is for real.

The IP is 75.71.203.159

If the thing turns out to be a hoax, I will of course publish it in its entirety, down to the last relay header and html tag.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

If this letter turns out to be a prank, it should be remembered that no one used it as evidence that Dr. Peikoff was privately contradicting a public statement on his website.

-Neil Parille