The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

There's an idea!

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

OK, I did a search of this thread for mentions of Durban House.

Here is my very rough timeline. Michael will need to fill some things in, make corrections, etc.

Date of foundation for Durban House is unknown to me.

2002. Holly Valliant posts a review on amazon.com under the name "Durban House Publishing." Follows up in 2003 with a single in-house puff piece for a DH book. Final appearance is a negative comment, in 2007, on Dragonfly's adverse review of PARC.

2003-2004. Holly Valliant promotes books by at least two authors who have published with Durban House.

2004. Durban House is the topic of adverse discussions on writers' market fora. The charge is made that authors have to pay $25,000 up front to get their books published and promoted. John Lewis, then listed as publisher, makes at least one forum appearance trying to defuse the charges.

2005. Durban House publishes The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. Blurb on back from DH editor (probably the only DH editor) Robert W. Middlemiss.

2006. Durban House no longer listed in Writer's Market.

2007. Durban House is acquired by some other entity (a distributor). Publisher's name briefly changed on listings for PARC.

At some point (when?), DH goes out of business altogether, and/or is acquired from the successor entity. If acquired, did Jim and Holly Valliant become the new owners?

2009, April 27. Weird promotional blurb for PARC from Holly White & Associates.

2009, May 10. MSK notes on this thread that Durban House has a website again, but it is a really cheap site hosted by Apple.

2009, May 19-21. Pelagius1, as part of a campaign to rehabilitate PARC at Wikipedia, claims that DH is out of business and that Jim Valliant has not made a dime on the book.

2009, May 20. Jim Valliant makes his proclamation on SOLOP. The claim of careful editing is clearly a lie. The claim that DH was a "liberal" publishing house may be a smokescreen. The claim that he personally fronted no money may be true but misleading.

So what's in the garage at Castle Valliant? Cars, or ceiling-high stacks of dusty books?

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Could you lay out a timeline for Durban House? For instance, during what period of time was PARC temporarily said to be published by someone else?

Robert,

I thought I had posted the publisher (Midpoint Trade Books) on OL perviously, but apparently I had not. I had to consult old emails. Here is an edited portion of one of my emails (to a party unidentified for now) dated November 27, 2006 and another dated June 21, 2007:

... I just came across an EXTREMELY interesting item about Valliant...

I was discussing PARC with Kat and for some reason I brought up PARC at the Amazon site on the computer. I now have an additional feature on my browser that gives me various prices and it popped up saying that there were 3 retailers for comparison. I decided to see who else was selling PARC.

One of them, believe it or not, was Wal-Mart. I started thinking, what on earth is Wal-Mart doing selling PARC? This book is not for their public. So I went there. Here is the link:

http://www.walmart.com/catalog/product.do?...de=cii_16776730

Notice that they give the publisher as:

Midpoint Trade Books Inc

not

Durban House.

So I started digging. If you go to the Midpoint Trade Books site from a Google search, you can find PARC advertised here:

http://midpointtradebooks.com/detail.php?bk_id=6707

Midpoint apparently is a jobber for independent publishers, but if you search for Durban House on the Midpoint site, you will be advised that there is no information available.

Google has a cache feature where you can see where Durban used to be represented by Midpoint:

http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:AE433...t=clnk&cd=5

I went to several other sites and discovered that PARC is being advertised as being published by Midpoint. See, for instance, at the following:

http://www.bestprices.com/cgi-bin/vlink/1930754671.html

http://www.vanstockum.nl/?page=%2Fproduct.php%3Fid%3D2230155

http://www.ecampus.com/bk_detail.asp?isbn=...f2bd320d3--4d14

http://www.bookbyte.com/product.aspx?isbn=1930754671/

It is usually listed as out of stock at these places. This leads me to believe that the extra sites now selling the book are due to a blanket deal with Midpoint for all its books.

I have the feeling that it just bought Durban House.

Amazon still lists the book's publisher as Durban House, but it is still in stock there (and there are over 30 people offering to resell their copies).

PARC's ISBN number has remained the same for the new publisher.

Note: As of this posting, the Walmart link (the first link mentioned) still works, but none of the others do.

Durban House was a small start-up press when PARC was published (DH was founded in 2001). By the time PARC came out in 2005, it had a widespread reputation as a subsidy press because of (1) its habit of collecting fees from many of the authors it published (the figure of $25,000 was the most cited on the Internet) and (2) conflicting interests, since the owner's wife acted as the writer's agent for many of their publications. It was dropped from industry publications like Writer's Market for such practices. At the end of 2006, Durban House was absorbed by Midpoint Trade Books Inc. It is still listed as a publisher once in a while on works published prior to the takeover, but it has no other industry presence—not even an Internet site. Essentially, PARC was published by a start-up publisher with no stability and a reputation for poor business practices, one that did not have the stamina to remain in business for long.

. . .

At the end of last year (around November), PARC and other Durban House publications started receiving a lot of online promotion and was sold at places like Wal-Mart and a large number of major retailers. The only catch was that it was advertised as being published by Midpoint and no longer by DH.

Now (now in June) PARC is sold online almost exclusively at Amazon and the publisher's name is listed as Durban House.

. . .

I was able to find other mentions of PARC in a couple of catalogs, but no inventory. There is an interesting addition to those places: "Holly White & Associates." This must be Holly Valliant because "Holly White & Associates" appears connected with Andrew Bernstein's books.

Here is what I think happened. The owner of Durban House, John Lewis, got into some kind of trouble with Midpoint, even after selling Durban House to them. Either that, or he became in hock to them during Durban's representation period with Midpoint. There is no reason for Midpoint to drop the Durban House name altogether like it has done, since it has not done so with other publishers. I also believe that James and Holly (or someone close to them like Fred Weiss) acquired the legal entity from Midpoint for a song so they can say that PARC was not published by a publisher that wrecked its reputation, then went under belly-up a year after publishing PARC. They might have acquired some backlog inventory, also. I am almost certain they bought the back stock of PARC, or signed a consignment agreement for it.

Technically, Durban House probably still exists on paper as a legal entity. As an active publisher, all indications are that it is dead.

There is a really weird thing in the the Walmart link that still works from my 2006 email. Take a look at the screenshot below, which I took just now on July 1, 2009 (with my markings in red).

The publisher listed is "Natl Book Network." Not Durban House. The Walmart number is 1930754671, although it does not show up in the screenshot. I did not have room for it (at the bottom) and the Walmart name at the top on my computer screen at the same time when I took the screenshot.

So who the hell is "Natl Book Network"? If anyone is interested, here is the link to its site: NBN. I just now found a couple of links on Google giving PARC's publisher as "Natl Book Network," but they are strange. One is a used book seller, another is a foreign bookseller and only one is a normal bookseller. If these links don't last very long, that's because few links involving this project on the sales end ever do last.

Anyway, I understand that National Book Network is a distributor for publishers. I am not fully intimate with all the technical nuts and bolts of the publishing world, so I am not sure why a distributor would put its name in advertising as the publisher when the publisher is another.

Another interesting thing on the Walmart site given above is that if you click on the link in the main ad called "See all books by Valliant, James S.", you come to the following page. I just now took this screenshot on July 1, 2009. (This part is not all that informative, but it feels really good to put it up. )

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Thanks for digging up that material.

Newer and better timeline now goes as follows:

2001. Durban House opens for business. Any connection with Holly White Valliant at this date?

July 2002. Holly Valliant posts a review on amazon.com under the name "Durban House Publishing." Follows up in 2003 with a single in-house puff piece for a DH book. Final appearance is a negative comment, in February 2007, on Dragonfly's adverse review of PARC.

2003-2004. Holly Valliant promotes books by at least two authors who have published with Durban House.

2004. Durban House is the topic of adverse discussions on writers' market fora. The charge is made that authors have to pay $25,000 up front to get their books published and promoted. John Lewis, then listed as publisher, makes a couple of forum appearances trying to defuse the charges. The charge is also made that Karen Lewis, John Lewis's wife, is an agent who steers all of her authors to Durban House.

2005. Durban House publishes The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics. Blurb on back from DH editor (probably the only DH editor) Robert W. Middlemiss.

2006. Durban House no longer listed in Writer's Market.

November 2006. Durban House is taken over by Midpoint Trade Books, which had been its distributor.

By June 2007. Midpoint has dropped the Durban House titles. When available, PARC is now said to come from Durban House (even though that is no longer an active publisher) or (more recently) from the National Book Network.

Has someone connected with Jim and Holly Valliant now acquired the mortal remains of Durban House? Have Mr. and Mrs. Valliant acquired them?

2009, April 27. Weird promotional blurb for PARC from Holly White & Associates. Publisher said to be Durban House.

2009, May 10. MSK notes on this thread that Durban House has a website again, but it is a really cheap site hosted by Apple. (It also says "Durban House Press" instead of "Durban House Publishing," for what that's worth.)

2009, May 19-21. Pelagius1, as part of a campaign to rehabilitate PARC at Wikipedia, claims that DH is out of business and that Jim Valliant has not made a dime on the book.

2009, May 20. Jim Valliant makes his proclamation on SOLOP. The claim of careful editing is clearly a lie. The claim that DH was a "liberal" publishing house may be a smokescreen. The claim that he personally fronted no money may be true but misleading.

Robert Campbell

--Edited to show that National Book Network is now showing up on some online listings for PARC. When NBN started being mentioned, instead of Midpoint or Durban House, is unclear.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

By June 2007. Midpoint has dropped the Durban House titles. When available, PARC is now said to come from Durban House (even though that is no longer an active publisher) or from the National Book Network.

Robert,

Just one clarification. I did not notice the "National Book Network" thing until today. Your post could give the impression to a not-so-careful reader that this could have been the case back in 2007. (It might have been, I suppose, but I have only seen Durban and Midpoint up to today.)

Otherwise, great timeline. It shows a really ugly picture of cheap public manipulation and dubious ethics of those involved in the PARC project (including the author) instead of some kind of heroic struggle against all odds.

Michael

[Selene]

This is how Mr. Perigo plans to escape New Zealand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YsLy9Y7KsVI <<<<some of the out takes

Air New Zealand staff bare all to get flyers' attention

Wed Jul 1, 2009 8:36pm EDT

WELLINGTON, July 2 (Reuters) - Air New Zealand (AIR.NZ) has hit on a novel way to make sure even the most jaded flyers keep their eyes glued on its flight safety briefing.

The national carrier's safety video for domestic services on its Boeing Co (BA.N) 737 planes show pilot and cabin crew dressed only in body paint.

But the safety message is kept seemly by carefully chosen camera angles. A copy of the briefing has been posted on the popular Internet site, YouTube. ">here

The safety video follows the same tactic as the airline's recent marketing campaign for its low-priced fares, which featured staff, including chief executive Rob Fyfe, adorned in only body paint. (Reporting by Adrian Bathgate; Editing by Valerie Lee).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Well, it's July 2. Here is an update of the poll on SLOP that was supposed to show the overwhelming impact of PARC and the new vitalized public perception of Barbara Branden's depravity.

It appears we have had the massive number of two more whole voters since the last notice on June 19.

Since this groundbreaking poll was set up on June 8 and kept on the front page of SLOP to make sure it got all due impact, we now have the following statistics, which must be making the Brandens (especially Barbara) cringe in their very skins :

Total voters: 25

Voters choosing one of the two the "trash the Brandens" options: 11

Views (including repeated visits): 638

Wow!

SLOP is turning out to be quite the intellectual trend-setter.

As SLOP's owner and Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo once said, "Whole lotta shakin' goin' on."

Tremble and despair, Brandens. Tremble and despair!

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Yesterday, WBUR (the NPR station in Boston) ran a fairly substantial interview segment with Jennifer Burns, the author of a Rand biography that is due out in October of this year.

Quite listenable, despite a few rather silly remarks by the interviewer.

http://www.hereandnow.org/2009/07/rundown-71/

From the few remarks Dr Burns makes about the affair between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden, I doubt her book will meet with a whole lot of approval over at SOLOP.

Robert Campbell

Posting from Free Minds 09

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I am green with envy...

I know you didn't have time to see it, but I already made a mention of this (copied below). Ms. Burns registered as a member of OL and posted a charming comment on the thread where this post came from.

Michael

Interview with Jennifer Burns

I just listened to a delightful interview (about 16 minutes) with Jeniffer Burns on the show Here & Now with Robin Young (in Boston): Ayn Rand & Economic Collapse.

(Hat tip to Neil Parille.)

I looked up Jennifer Burns because I have seen her name pop up now and then, but I knew nothing about her:

Ms. Burns teaches history at the University of Virginia. Here is her website, where you can get podcasts and information on her and her publications: Professor Jennifer Burns

She is the author of the upcoming Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right, which will be out later this year.

I read somewhere that Prof. Burns was one of the few scholars allowed access to the Ayn Rand Archives.

I find her no-nonsense approach to Rand very similar to my own. She takes the good in Rand, but also notices the problem of scope I sometimes write about, except she calls it "what she left out." This means that what Rand got right she got right, but sometimes applicable only to a part of living, not applicable to the whole picture of living.

This interview is also one of the first times I ever heard an independent voice say that Rand is a great starting place for intellectual development. I, for one, am going to read her book.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Over at SOLOP, I put up 26 questions for Holly Valliant:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/6242#comment-73573

It will be interesting to see how long they sit there unanswered.

Maybe we need an Answer Clock?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The Answer Clock keeps ticking.

And now three blurbs for Anne Heller's forthcoming biography can be seen at amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0385513992/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

The chances are growing that Jim Valliant will have a new book to denounce.

Robert Campbell

[Selene]

The Answer Clock keeps ticking.

And now three blurbs for Anne Heller's forthcoming biography can be seen at amazon.com:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0385513992/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

The chances are growing that Jim Valliant will have a new book to denounce.

Robert Campbell

Thank you Robert:

"...packaged and peddled her beliefs as Objectivism." Interesting choice of words.

Adam

[Robert Campbell]

Neil Parille pointed me to a site where, for a limited time, you can listen for free to Leonard Peikoff's entire 1987 Ford Hall Forum appearance, with question and answer period.

http://www.facetsofaynrand.com/additional/thirty_years_with_ar.html

The question and answer period is the second half of Part 2, starting at 21:37 and running to 39:59.

I've taken the liberty of transcribing two of Dr. Peikoff's answers that have been discussed at OL on a number of occasions.

The third question was posed at 23:09.

Q: Would you please comment upon Mrs. Branden’s book, particularly with reference to her references to Ayn Rand’s alleged affair with Dr. Branden?

A: Yes [wearily]… I’ll be happy to comment on that.

I did not read Mrs. Branden’s book. [throat clearing]

I didn’t, because I discount — you know, the technical term is not lie, which I would regard as inaccurate—I regard her book as non-cognitive. Uh… By this I mean, I do not think that it has reached the realm of cognition to be evaluated as true or as false.

Umm… I happened to know the author of that book extremely well, being related to her and having known her for a long time—also Nathaniel Branden, and many of these other people that I alluded to in my talk. I know entirely what they are capable of, and I would not put any credence in anything that they say.

So I did not refrain from reading the book because of being afraid to face facts. On the contrary, by my best definition of “fact,” I would have no means whatever, including the fact that something was in quotes, of determining whether it ever occurred. And to show you that I am consistent on this point, I do not either believe or disbelieve this view that Miss Rand took her name from the typewriter Rand, which someone has referred me to. I have no source for that other than that book; therefore, as far as I’m concerned, I’m in the exact position with that ascription of the word “Rand” as I was before I heard it. It just doesn’t come up in my mind. I don’t say it’s a lie; it has no more status, if you know, uh, my lectures on Objectivism, than the sounds coming from a parrot. If Barbara Branden or anybody else gives an internally logical argument such as “2 and 2 is 4, etc. etc., therefore,” then her character and so on is entirely irrelevant. But I … I …didn’t gather that she was [doing] an exercise in mathematics. It was supposed to be testimony, of a factual sort, and that is precisely why I wouldn’t dream of considering from that source.

Now with regard to the affair with Nathaniel Branden, I’d like to tell you my exact, uh, state of mind with regard to that, setting aside, huh, the Barbara Branden book and the Nathaniel Branden book which is forthcoming, and who knows what else.

I never asked Miss Rand whether she slept with Nathaniel Branden. Wehh… she never volunteered that information to me. We respected each other’s privacy; we had a personal but not a, uh, how shall I put it, psychoanalytic, uh, relationship.

However, I am the heir of Ayn Rand, and I have access to all of her papers. And I have not read the book, my wife has. And she tells me that there are papers that indicate that there was an affair between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. In fact, I understand that there are lengthy documents in Ayn Rand’s handwriting recounting the salient, uh, facts, motivations, manipulations, lies and other … evils, let us say, to which she was subjected, that were, of course, written for herself as part of her own thinking.

You may wonder why I didn’t rush to read these papers. My wife is sorting out the Estate, which is why she did. I don’t see any philosophic or moral significance in the issue. And so, not that I’m not curious, but I just didn’t get around to it yet.

To elaborate on this briefly, I have for [a] long time as a standard Objectivist lecturer answered questions entirely independent of Ayn Rand to the effect of that it is not an absolute that you can never be sleeping with two men in the same period of your life. Of course, we do not advocate that as the rule of human relationships, but there are contexts and circumstances in which that can be done perfectly properly. Which the example that is obvious and is used in ethics texts is, uh, a woman is in love with her husband, he goes to war, she hears that he’s dead, she falls in love with somebody else, and he comes back. Now, even there, there are many options, but there are situations in which it, that, is conceivable and perfectly proper, assuming … many conditions, including that they both are extremely great values to her, that all three people know about it, etc.

I think there was, in this instance, an exceptional circumstance—I’m entirely speculating here, simply from my knowledge of Ayn Rand and her life—which was that she wanted a man with a mind equal to hers. And she knew that, as wonderful a person as her husband was, he was not her intellectual equal. I think the tragedy of her, huh, life, if you want to put it that way, was that she couldn’t find the mind and the soul in the same person. And, uh, she did think extremely highly of Nathaniel Branden at that period, as did all of us around her at that time. She thought he was an extraordinary genius, and, uh, leave [off] that that is wrong but I’m not here to attack him now, whatever rightly or wrongly, my explanation of the thing is that as the story was told it was perfectly open to everybody.

Well I see I have told you what I have to say. I think it is a terrible thing that a situation like this would be turned into food for scandal—I don’t think it is scandalous. And, uh, if there is anybody left in this country, uhhh, who is not, uh, eager to find some more mud to throw at a woman who was very able to defend herself in life and was never attacked until she died and couldn’t speak—I say if there’s anyone left, before I die, everything that she wrote is going to be published.

So you will hear the facts of her life from her side, which may after all be relevant.

I have only one last thing: I wish that these biographies of her—if I could have one wish granted, it would be that they would not pose as being balanced and impartial and so on, that they identified their venomous hatred in the preface, and then you could judge accordingly. Unfortunately, the dishonesty, ehh, would prevent that, that’s all I can say.

At 31:04, the fourth question was shouted from the audience “about her husband’s alcoholism.” It is followed, on the recording, by a dropout, and some desultory discussion between Dr. Peikoff and the moderator, some of it off-mike, before Dr. Peikoff gives his answer.

A: Can I comment on that? Just in a word—I have to ask his ghost to forgive me.

Umm, he was certainly not an alcoholic—uh, I gather that that’s a charge that’s been raised against him. I saw that man regularly day and night. In my entire life, I saw him have too much to drink once. And the manifestation of it was that he overtipped the waiter, which Ayn Rand asked him in some length why he did… I defy an alcoholic to survive 20 minutes in her apartment!

I believe, if you want some idea of objectivity in biography, the source of that was … story, so far as I can pin it down, was a cleaning woman who found empty liquor bottles in his studio after he died. He used those bottles to mix paints in.

Now you judge for yourself. Well, I’m, I’m insulting you and myself to refute these things, because it’s too disgusting to comment on—but I couldn’t let it go once people heard it.

Dr. Peikoff's answer ends at 32:38. Two further questions were addressed before the event wound down.

Robert Campbell

[Barbara Branden]

Robrt, I've never seen this excerpt from Peikoff's lecture before. I'm stunned by it. I could make a better case against me than he does. This is sheer comedy.

For instance, he says he regards Passion, which he claims he hasn't read, as non-cognitive, meaning that it's impossible to say that anything in it is either true or false -- and that my claim that Rand and Nathaniel had an affair is true.

He is quick to say: "I did not refrain from reading the book because of being afraid to face facts." Did I miss something, or did no one claim that that's why he didn't read the book?

He says Rand thought Nathaniel was an extraordinary genius, "and, uh, leave [off] that that is wrong but I’m not here to attack him now." I'm glad he's not there to attack Nathaniel -- except to say he wouldn't "put credence" in anything he says, and that "there are lengthy documents in Ayn Rand’s handwriting recounting the salient, uh, facts, motivations, manipulations, lies and other … evils, let us say, to which she was subjected."

This is silly stuff. Surely he had to know the question would come up one day and that he'd have to answer it. I'm surprised he was so unprepared.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

It's so sad about the bottles supposedly used to mix Frank's paints for the simple reason the paintings have never been produced.

--Brant

[Neil Parille]

Interestingly there is no claim in Dr. Peikoff's 1987 comments that the "cleaning woman" (who I gather was something of a full-time housekeeper) asserted that she was misrepresented or that the contention that the bottles were used to mix paint was her surmise as to their use.

So yet another misrepresentation in Valliant's book.

-Neil

Edited July 20, 2009 by Neil Parille

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

You presented the following (my bold) where Peikoff is no longer discussing Barbara's book but the affair itself between Nathaniel Branden and Ayn Rand.

You may wonder why I didn’t rush to read these papers. My wife is sorting out the Estate, which is why she did. I don’t see any philosophic or moral significance in the issue.

Given the history of the Objectivist movement and the entire PARC mess, this has to be one of the funniest statements in all of Objectivist history.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

He is quick to say: "I did not refrain from reading the book because of being afraid to face facts." Did I miss something, or did no one claim that that's why he didn't read the book?

Barbara,

The most famous example of this is Richard M. Nixon saying "I am not a crook."

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

For instance, he says he regards Passion, which he claims he hasn't read, as non-cognitive, meaning that it's impossible to say that anything in it is either true or false -- and that my claim that Rand and Nathaniel had an affair is true.

Barbara,

Well, he really was trying to maintain that when you said that Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden had had an affair, your assertion was arbitrary.

But that when he said that they had, his assertion was true.

And his thought process was entirely uncontaminated by anything that you'd said. It hadn't even motivated him to want to find out whether the affair had taken place.

In his 1997 lecture on "the arbitrary," he twists himself into comparable pretzels. Even if surveillance video showed that Harry Binswanger did, in fact, have a bunch of friends over to his apartment at 4 AM, and one or more them stated that they indeed were meeting to discuss Hegel's Logic, Dr. Peikoff insists that the original unsupported assertion to that effect would remain arbitrary.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Barbara,

Did you notice that to help justify the affair Leonard Peikoff made this little remark?

my explanation of the thing is that as the story was told it was perfectly open to everybody.

You were the only one who had told that story. (A little later you would be joined by Nathaniel, in his memoir.)

But everything that either of you said about the matter was supposed to be "non-cognitive."

Robert Campbell

[Barbara Branden]

Robert, wasn't it Nietzsche who said: "They muddy their waters in order to make them seem deep"?

Barbara

[Robert Campbell]

Barbara,

And it was Leonard Peikoff who quoted it, in more than one lecture...

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

Leonard Peikoff said in 1987 that he didn't read Barbara's biography. I'm wondering if he ever read it. Certainly reading PAR was necessary upon deciding to support a book attacking it.

-Neil

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

An observation about the arbitrary just occurred to me.

If we accept Peikoff's formulation about an arbitrary assertion having no cognitive content, what would you call the act of taking a legitimate concept and calling it arbitrary?

Isn't this what Ayn Rand called a blank-out?

Seriously...

That's how I understand it.

So, in other words, Peikoff blanked out Barbara's book.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Sure.

If you take a set of factual claims, which you may by no means be convinced are all true but all bear some relationship to evidence, and declare them to be arbitrary, you are blanking out.

Big time.

Robert Campbell