The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V

[Robert Campbell]

Trying to catch up on the circus, I just spotted this post:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/6242#comment-72937

Given the lying your pin-up did about me when you were both campaigning to have me dumped as a TAS speaker and the vicious fantasies spun by your O-Lying cohorts like Jonathan, I assume it's the latter.

Does anyone have a clue what Pigero's talking about here? What "vicious fantasies" does he imagine I've spun?

J

Jonathan,

Who the hell knows?

During the hullabaloo over his invitation to speak at the 2008 TAS Summer Seminar, Mr. Perigo repeatedly accused me of telling Ed Hudgins and Will Thomas that he was an alcoholic, and of predicting that he would fall down drunk during a speech.

I never said a word about his drinking habits, but Mr. Perigo has repeated his charge on a number of occasions.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Another step has been taken in the Grande Dame's forthcoming embracing of PARC (with proper qualifications for face-saving, of course).

Look at the crap she just wrote—see here (my emphasis):

In exploring what had been going on, I came to a viewpoint which strongly differs from that of Robert Campbell, MSK, and Neil Parille. And so I said so. I'm under no illusions that animosities between those persons and various persons on SOLO will be any the less. They might even be more. Assuming that my interpretation is correct, or at least largely correct, I don't anticipate that Robert Campbell and MSK will ever forgive me. Or that they'll become any less negative about James Valliant.

In other words, Robert Campbell, I and Neil Parille are so committed to a lie that we will never forgive her for finding the real truth.

Total bullshit.

On the tidal flow of Stuttle towards embracing PARC, the rationalization is now in place. It will be, "I found one hidden truth. How many more did I miss and now people are missing?"

(And I am not saying she found any hidden truths in the present discussion, especially as regards what she supposes the Valliants think.)

I don't mind facts. It even sounds funny to my ear to say that because I can't imagine any other way to judge something correctly. I am certain Robert and Neil feel the same.

But I don't forgive the Grande Dame. She got that part right. I don't forgive her for throwing away her character for vanity at the cost of Barbara Branden, Nathaniel Branden, Chris Sciabarra, Jim Peron and a few others.

I see her sucking up to Perigo and Vallaint in the same light as if she were to go to Venezuela and suck up to someone like Hugo Chavez because he had a small social program that worked and people were trashing it. Then those around her in that setting could ooh and aah at how intelligent she was.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Another step has been taken in the Grande Dame's forthcoming embracing of PARC (with proper qualifications for face-saving, of course).

Look at the crap she just wrote—see here (my emphasis):

In exploring what had been going on, I came to a viewpoint which strongly differs from that of Robert Campbell, MSK, and Neil Parille. And so I said so. I'm under no illusions that animosities between those persons and various persons on SOLO will be any the less. They might even be more. Assuming that my interpretation is correct, or at least largely correct, I don't anticipate that Robert Campbell and MSK will ever forgive me. Or that they'll become any less negative about James Valliant.

In other words, Robert Campbell, I and Neil Parille are so committed to a lie that we will never forgive her for finding the real truth.

You're so committed to hatred of James Valliant.

And I did not include Neil Parille, please note. You boldfaced the sentence; try reading it.

Ellen

___

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle,

What precisely are you committed to?

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan,

Oh, no, they aren't still doing what was being done then. It's like comparing a teaspoonful of something with a bitter taste to a tumblerful of hydrochloric acid. What gets said on SOLO isn't in the league of what went on then.

The comparison -- the sense of proportion -- that I had in mind had more to do with what TheValliants® are being accused of, or suspected of, and based on what evidence, versus what TheBrandens™, as well as countless others, who are called "scum," "filth," "pedophiles" etc., are being accused of, and based on what evidence. I can't say that I have a problem with your sense of fairness regarding the details of the Wikipedia case. What's conspicuous to me, however, is your silence regarding much harsher and much more frequent condemnations of significantly greater numbers of people based on less convincing evidence, or no evidence at all.

J

Jonathan,

I am under no obligation to bother with correcting every damn exaggerated claim Linz Perigo makes, or that anyone else makes on SOLO -- any more than I was under obligation to bother with correcting every damn exaggerated claim and foolishness, etc., MSK or anyone else made here when I was posting regularly here.

I have several times told Linz that I do not agree with his evaluations on numerous issues. Linz, recall, announced years back, at the time of the "Drooling Beast" incident: "This Boy's Not for Changing."

He means it; he isn't for changing.

Ellen

PS: As to what he's referring to regarding your fantasies, I presume your elaborately exaggerated parodies.

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

You're so committed to hatred of James Valliant.

And I did not include Neil Parille, please note. You boldfaced the sentence; try reading it.

Ellen,

Oops. Sorry about including Neil.

No, I don't hate James Valliant. I hate what he did (and does) and how people allow themselves to get taken in by it and then damage good productive people.

That I hate.

I feel about the same towards Hugo Chavez.

But I don't expect you to understand that vision when you have some oohing and aahing to forward to.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ms. Stuttle,

What precisely are you committed to?

Robert Campbell

Certainly not to hatred, Robert. What a foolish, foolish thing to be committed to.

An aphorism which someone -- I forget who -- posted on NB's old webforum back in late '05-early '06 has kept replaying in my mind reading your crusade on SOLO:

"Forgiveness is letting go of the hope for a better past."

Do you really think you're doing Chris Sciabarra any good with any of it, or could do him any good with any of it? If you succeeded at seeing James Valliant and Linz Perigo on their knees apologizing for their roles in the "Dialectical Dishonesty" charade, would that make anything better for Chris?

I haven't dared to write to him -- we haven't been in touch for several months -- since I couldn't "catch up" without making mention of the Valliants-on-Wikipedia stuff, and I've been hoping against hope that he doesn't know about it. I figure you've probably told him. My bet is that he needs your continued vendetta about as much as another hernia.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ellen,

You still don't get it.

Nobody gives a damn whether Valliant and Perigo go down on their knees begging for forgiveness.

This is just another of your total misunderstandings of what Robert writes. (He said he would stop giving them hell if they apologized. That does not mean that an apology is what he is after. He's intelligent enough to know that this will never happen.)

These malicious people generated an audience for spreading vicious smear campaigns and the poison was starting to spread. So another view is being presented to let people see clearly through the bullshit and decide for themselves.

If Valliant and Perigo apologize, good. If not, it doesn't matter one whit. They are being discredited to the general public, at least to whoever gets curious and starts reading this crap.

The damage to productive people is being stopped dead in its tracks.

God! Are you into a power trip...

Now you want to think for Chris Sciabarra!

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Ellen,

I asked what you were committed to.

I never said I was committed to hatred. Nor was it my intention to ask whether you were.

You speak of forgiveness, but you have not offered it to Jim Valliant and Lindsay Perigo, in a forum where they will pay any heed to it.

I predict they will find such an offer unbearably insulting. They both affect to believe that everything they did, during the "Drooling Beast" imbroglio, during Mr. Valliant's marathon promotion of PARC, during "Dialectical Dishonesty," was good, right, honest, and above-board.

But if you really mean the forgiveness thing, make your offer on SOLOP, instead of preaching about it here.

If you really believe that what you are doing will help Chris Sciabarra, you ought to be asking yourself how he is likely to react to learning that you are making excuses for Jim Valliant, and kissing up to Linsday Perigo.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

In answer to what the Grande Dame was committed to, she responded:

Certainly not to hatred, Robert. What a foolish, foolish thing to be committed to.

An aphorism which someone -- I forget who -- posted on NB's old webforum back in late '05-early '06 has kept replaying in my mind reading your crusade on SOLO:

"Forgiveness is letting go of the hope for a better past."

I am impressed with this wisdom.

We don't have to go far to start. Let's step away from the present animosities until the dust and high emotions settle a bit, and let us let The Grande Dame of St. Referee lead the way on a former hate-filled crusade of her own.

She could draft a beautiful inspiring public message to Victor Pross and let him know she no longer hates him, that she forgives him and that she no longer hopes for a better past...

It doesn't have to be here.

SLOP would be just fine.

Hatred is such a foolish, foolish thing to be committed to...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just in case this caused an undue impact, that one was for Stuttle, the moral beacon to teach us by example, not to change OL policy.

My positions have not altered and will not.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

You still don't get it.

Nobody gives a damn whether Valliant and Perigo go down on their knees begging for forgiveness.

This is just another of your total misunderstandings of what Robert writes. (He said he would stop giving them hell if they apologized. That does not mean that an apology is what he is after. He's intelligent enough to know that this will never happen.)

Well, for one thing, he isn't giving them hell. They don't take him seriously enough to be given hell by him. And I think he did speak of their apologizing in public.

Robert was asked why he was pursuing this. He said, as I recall, because of the "Dialectical Dishonesty" issue -- an issue which has zero relevance to who was doing what on Wikipedia.

Since you know exactly what he said, why don't you post the quote. I'm not going to take the time to look for it.

The damage to productive people is being stopped dead in its tracks.

Oh, is that what's happening? And then you talk about a power trip. (Laughing.) And, my, how much power you credit Linz and JV with.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

You speak of forgiveness, but you have not offered it to Jim Valliant and Lindsay Perigo, in a forum where they will pay any heed to it.

Robert, I do not have the animus toward JV and Linz which you have, never have had. I was angry with them about Chris, and was glad that he was expressing hatred -- helped to keep his resolve up; he's forgiving to a fault.

Nor am I preaching. I'm commenting on the futility of your crusade.

Nor is what I'm doing an attempt to "help Chris Sciabarra." As I said, that issue isn't relevant to the current issue. I would expect Chris to be sharp enough to see that it isn't.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

I don't hate Victor Pross, and have never hated Victor Pross. I don't know Victor Pross.

I despise plagiary and wanted a repeat offender who obviously was going to continue offending off this list -- and the people who in fact had written what he took credit for given credit.

Ellen

___

[Robert Campbell]

Ellen,

I am having trouble making sense of your last three posts.

It's occurred to me that you are now speaking cryptically because you have nothing but disdain for the audience here.

Still, I will assume that you were trying to say something constructive:

Are you recommending that I forgive Messrs. Valliant and Perigo? (While there is no need for you to do so, because you never hated them?)

Are you recommending that I cease criticizing anything that they do?

You say that Messrs. Valliant and Perigo do not take me seriously. You have even tried to echo one of Mr. Perigo's putdowns. Why do you care whether they take me seriously? Isn't that my worry, if it is anyone's?

Or is your goal to make sure that I no longer criticize anything that you post over at SOLOP?

Robert Campbell

PS. If Mr. and Mrs. Valliant's recent conduct at Wikipedia bears no relation to Mr. Valliant's involvement in "Dialectical Dishonesty," why did Pelagius1 run down the value of Chris Sciabarra's work? Do you think that Mr. Valliant really looks upon Chris Sciabarra's Notablog review of his book with equanimity?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And, my, how much power you credit Linz and JV with.

Ellen,

Perigo had enough backstage power to boot Jim Peron out of NZ in the sneakiest, most underhanded manner possible with a vile smear to boot.

The only reason this kind of damage was not inflicted on Barbara Branden, Chris Sciabarra, and others is because he couldn't pull it off. I, for one, am making sure that his kind of damage will not happen again.

As to Valliant, he crapped all over himself. But he went for the jugular vein with everything he had. The only reason he did not destroy his targets was because he was inept and had competent opposition. But not because he didn't try.

You are free to try to support these malicious losers and suck up to them if you like, but this destructive crap will no longer be done in the darkness and by intimidating people into silence.

They don't run things and you don't run things.

I intend to make sure all the viciousness and tidal drifts stay out in the open. I have earned the audience to make sure it does. And you can count on it that this will happen.

Michael

EDIT ONE DAY LATER: Good Lord! I originally wrote "juggler vein" instead of "jugular vein" above. It's corrected now, but dayaamm! Double dayaamm! Once upon a time I used to be good...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't hate Victor Pross, and have never hated Victor Pross. I don't know Victor Pross.

Grande Dame,

You don't know Pross, but for the rest...

Heh.

The emails I received from you were spitting venom for him.

But let's take you at your word. If it is true you don't hate Pross and your only problem was the plagiarizing, it should be no problem at all for a moral beacon of your stature to lead us by example and offer a beautiful and inspiring declaration of forgiveness for his transgressions. After all, he apologized for them and is gone for good. I am not sure, but I believe he has stopped plagiarizing and has learned his lesson about that. Moreover, this is how you say we should act (or at least how Robert should act).

So why not show what a big woman you are? Go on and forgive Pross and show everyone how you no longer hope for a better past with him.

I hunger for spiritual enlightenment through your high moral example, Grande Dame...

Hear the plea of a troubled heart...

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

I don't hate Victor Pross, and have never hated Victor Pross. I don't know Victor Pross.

Grande Dame,

You don't know Pross, but for the rest...

Heh.

The emails I received from you were spitting venom for him.

But let's take you at your word. If it is true you don't hate Pross and your only problem was the plagiarizing, it should be no problem at all for a moral beacon of your stature to lead us by example and offer a beautiful and inspiring declaration of forgiveness for his transgressions. After all, he apologized for them and is gone for good. I am not sure, but I believe he has stopped plagiarizing and has learned his lesson about that. Moreover, this is how you say we should act (or at least how Robert should act).

So why not show what a big woman you are? Go on and forgive Pross and show everyone how you no longer hope for a better past with him.

I hunger for spiritual enlightenment through your high moral example, Grande Dame...

Hear the plea of a troubled heart...

Michael

Can you at least take this to another thread, maybe in Objectivism in Dark Places?

Imagine I'm new to Objectivism. I go to google, and type in James Valliant Passion. The very first hit is this thread. I scroll to the most recent post. At the top of the page I read "Dediacted to Ayn Rand and the Art of Living Consciously."

Is this what Ayn Rand would have called living consciously?

Would Ayn Rand want this dedicated to her?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Can you at least take this to another thread, maybe in Objectivism in Dark Places?

No.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The tide drifts and brings the target closer (see here on SLOP)...

Btw, Robert and everyone else, there are things in PARC which I think are correct. And I have said that all along.

As the old saying goes: "Time and tide wait for no one..."

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Robert,

Specifically in regard to you, I wish you would ask yourself why you're doing it and what you think you're accomplishing. You said in a post, I'm just about sure -- I don't have stamina to find it at this point -- that your goal was to pay James and Linz back for Chris.

I'm trying to tell you that you aren't achieving that purpose, if that is your purpose. Nothing you're doing changes anything Chris went through -- and he's told me in past incidents that he doesn't like having it all brought back up again on the lists.

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

What an idiot you're being.

Re the Peron business: What you present about Linz's role isn't accurate. I know more about that whole business than you'll ever know, including from the inception of it with an off-hand careless comment made on Old Atlantis.

Ellen

___

[Jonathan]

Jonathan,

I am under no obligation to bother with correcting every damn exaggerated claim Linz Perigo makes, or that anyone else makes on SOLO -- any more than I was under obligation to bother with correcting every damn exaggerated claim and foolishness, etc., MSK or anyone else made here when I was posting regularly here.

I have several times told Linz that I do not agree with his evaluations on numerous issues. Linz, recall, announced years back, at the time of the "Drooling Beast" incident: "This Boy's Not for Changing."

He means it; he isn't for changing.

I agree that you're not obligated to answer every exaggerated claim that anyone makes. It's just that your quoting of Joan Kennedy Taylor's comment sounded more romantically heroic than you apparently intended. It has a sort of "Wherever there is injustice, you will find me" sound to it (with french horns in the background) -- "I WILL defend him, I WOULD come to his defense."

It sounds as if your actual view is considerably less romantic, that you reserve the right, but that you might or might not come to the pickpocket's defense, depending on whether or not his case was related to the latest intellectual explorations that you were finding stimulating, and whether or not you felt that those framing him for murder were open to the idea of no longer framing him. If they seemed to be really adamant about continuing to frame him, and they declared that they're not for changing, you might just remain silent about their false accusations, then hang out with them and chat and maybe even occasionally joke around about other subjects instead.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What an idiot you're being.

Re the Peron business: What you present about Linz's role isn't accurate. I know more about that whole business than you'll ever know, including from the inception of it with an off-hand careless comment made on Old Atlantis.

Ellen,

Who cares what you know or not? I know what I know. I don't need you to validate it.

I really don't care if you call me an idiot. I think you are acting in bad faith and I don't like your character.

And this last one takes the cake. I didn't expect the tidal drift to include joining in on the trashing of Peron, but bring it on. You maybe ain't there yet, but the drift looks like it started. Shame on you.

Like I said, this crap is going to be out in the open. I suggest you burn up the email route to lay your vain groundwork since nobody can see that. But if I catch wind of something, you can bet it will be out in the open.

I'm still waiting to see if you are going to practice what you preach for others to do and lead by example by making a statement of forgiveness to Victor Pross. Or is your moral sage posturing nothing but vanity?

EDIT: As a matter of fact, I am beginning to think you really are like Perigo. His hand in the Peron affair was to let other people do his dirty work while he threw gasoline on tiny flames to make them into a raging fire. (See here for a discussion of how this plays out.) I see you operating in this light. Except Perigo had his public political image as a value. The only thing I figure you for is personal vanity.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan,

The point of Joan's pickpocet/murderer analogy -- and my point in repeating it -- was/is nothing romantic. Instead, it was/is the discrepancy between the actual behavior and the fury of the charges.

I guess people who weren't around then have no real idea how intense was the rage against Nathaniel Branden.

Here's some further context from Joan via Walker. Walker repeated indiscriminately everything negative from every angle about anyone and everything, whether consistent or not, but this report is accurate to what Joan said the night I talked with her at length:

Taylor explains that she took Branden's side, "with qualification,...if I knew a pickpocket was being framed for murder I would come to his defense, and that was my view of what was going on. I was appalled by the lack of intellectual integrity exhibited by people calling up, passing off as gospel all kinds of rumors about Nathaniel Branden stealing money or not having written any of the articles he signed in the Objectivist. The whole thing was, 'You must decide to side with Ayn Rand without knowing the facts', and I refused to do so." [....]

Taylor recalls of the 1968 Break that what really shocked her was so many students acting in complete contradiction to a philosophy advocating that one make judgments based on the evidence, and on one's own independent thinking. She received phone calls demanding to know which side she was on and threatening to cut off all business dealings with her if she was on the wrong side, and this was even prior to Rand's making any comments on the matter.

[Walker also mentions, this not from Joan, but I did hear these things said]:

One Rand supporter maintained that Branden's only moral option was to commit suicide, another that he could hypothetically be assassinated without compunction.

Things were, in other words, exaggerated by comparison to any reality of the bad behavior.

Ellen