Ayn Rand and the World She Made


Brant Gaede

Recommended Posts

Heh.

One day M. Xray will learn how the program works. Until then, she will keep saying it doesn't.

I used to believe it was a lost cause, but I believe one day she will actually get it. For no other reason than she keeps trying to make the reality of it fit with the fantasy of it in her head.

All that effort has to pay off some day.

So I try to practice the virtue of patience.

Michael

Michael -

Clearly something in the combination of program and Xray is failing, consistently. I think it's pretty obvious to most of us that it's not the software.

Regards,

Bill P

Speaking as someone who writes software I wouldn't discount that it has a few bugs. :)

I have written software, also, GS. But if you're wondering about this, read Xray's descriptions of the "software problems" she is encountering. That will make it clear that she is either confused, or attempting to confuse.

Bill P

Remember the discussion on the other thread where you it became clear that you had not understood the algorithm at work here?

I does have bugs, and believe me if it was possible I'd invite both you and MSK over here so you can see for yourself that one part of the software obviously does not know what the other is doing.

Xray -

Correction - - - you made it clear that YOU did not understand how the algorithm works.

These things seem so hard for you.

Bill P

Edited by Bill P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 554
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Here is Valliant's latest:

PARC pointed out, in two different contexts, N. Branden's public opposition to the publication of Rand's journals (in his memoir), and that's a good place to start. But even at the recent Cato function with Prof. Burns and Ms. Heller questioners asked, with an indignant tone of voice, if the authors thought that Rand would have wanted her journals published and suggested that their release was motivated by money. This is is just some of the flak.

1. Nathaniel Branden never objected to the publication of the Journals. He objected to publishing certain parts of them, which he deemed personal. I pointed this out in my first OL critique and in TPJVC. I believe the pages in PARC are 11 and 87. It refers to page 364 of My Years with Ayn Rand.

2. Why is the tone of the questioners at the Cato Burns/Heller event significant? It's another example of Valliant's "bombard with irrelevancies" approach.

I can see why Perigo banned me and Robert and why WSS' posts aren't getting through.

-Neil Parille

P.S. I stand corrected on my claim that Ellen never took exception to Perigo's description of Barbara.

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I does have bugs, and believe me if it was possible I'd invite both you and MSK over here for a demonstration, so you can see for yourself that the software obviously can't count to five.

I strongly agree with the first four words. :)

MSK, I have a suggestion. Temporarily limit my number of posts to 5 like Xray. I will start a new thread and try to figure out how the limit works. Apparently the messages Xray sees are not consistent with the background logic that decides whether or not she is allowed to post, and how many post she could make, at a particular time. I suspect that the background logic works as I described here.

I will report my experience on the new thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well..."rescinding" is a gentle description. She changed the story, making the onset of problem drinking later with each version.

And, no, I didn't put the word "rescinding" in Barbara's mouth.

Stuttle,

This is crap.

Trying to pull the technicality crap, now, Stuttle, like Valliant does all the time? Bicker over words to get away from the meaning so you can slip an agenda in?

Do that crap over on SLOP where they eat that stuff up. I ain't going for it.

Basically the story Barbara changed to in rescinding her claim in Passion that Frank began drinking "as a way of life" in 1955.

If that is not saying that Barbara made some kind of statement rescinding her story, I don't know what is. When you rescind something, you say, "I no longer hold to that." Rescind means repeal, annul, cancel officially. But you know that. And you know Barbara never did it.

You are doing the same thing Valliant does: attribute your meaning to Barbara's words, attribute your interpretation to other statements by her, then crow that you found something.

Well, you didn't find squat.

The only real inconsistency, which has been mentioned several times in the past, was whether the booze bottles were cleaned out weekly or after Frank passed away. And for the life of me, I can't understand why both could not have happened.

Valliant always tries to win his agenda-peddling Branden-attacking statements with "argument by repitition." You are now doing the same and I find it disgusting. Repeat an insinuation enough times and in enough places and people start to believe it. You know better than that. But that's your choice. Be advised that if you want to do that stuff on OL, I am going to be all over you like a fly on shit. And I remind you to check out the posting guidelines because they apply just as much to you as to anybody.

No Branden-bashing.

Disagree with the Brandens all you want. But no Branden-bashing.

Valliant and that sick agenda of his is not going to slip in by proxy on this forum under your skirt.

And I repeat, shame on you.

Now, about being tight with the Blumenthals. After a person makes 50 gazillion posts saying "Allan told me this," and "When I talked to Allan, he said that," and "When I met Joan," and "Joan and Allan believe this," and "Today Allan would say this and that," on and on and on and on and on, a pattern of intent kinda emerges. Like maybe you want people to get it, that you were tight with the Blumenthals. And if nobody notices, maybe they'll think you still are.

That's how the game is played and you play it. I've dealt with destructive phony people like you all my life. I know you. And I am not going to let you get away with your little games over here. Play elsewhere if you want to get away with it. It ain't gonna happen here.

You used to come off as intelligent to me. I used to admire you for that. Not anymore. Now I see you as cunning, which means intelligent + deceptive, and vain. But what's worse, you are modeling Valliant's rhetorical methods. The very methods you used to blast as poor logic.

It takes a really stupid person to do that, so I truly wonder about the intelligent part.

When I look at what someone says and what he/she does, I go with what they do. What you currently do has nothing to do with what you say, i.e., the hairsplitting meanings and technicalities and insinuations you try to get away with as opposed to your prancing and preening and presenting yourself constantly as the insider.

To tell the truth, I don't believe you ever were tight with the Blumenthals. I believe you talked to them a few times and leveraged this to insinuate some kind of friendship that never existed.

And I believe you know exactly what you are doing when you do that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK, I have a suggestion. Temporarily limit my number of posts to 5 like Xray. I will start a new thread and try to figure out how the limit works. Apparently the messages Xray sees are not consistent with the background logic that decides whether or not she is allowed to post, and how many post she could make, at a particular time. I suspect that the background logic works as I described here.

I will report my experience on the new thread.

Merlin,

Done.

I changed your user group and checked the user group settings to make sure all was in order (it is), so this should do it.

One thing. In this user group, you will only have 60 minutes to edit a post, not 24 hours like everybody else.

Please let me know when you want to be changed back.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of Valliant's "Frank-got-off-on-it" theory of The Affair, it is curious that this is barely mentioned, as the evidence for this is next to non-existent, even compared to the ambiguous evidence of Frank's drinking. Yet it strikes me as a far more controversial claim, and just as potentially slanderous, being seemingly manufactured from whole cloth by Valliant purely for the purposes of trying to make the situation consistent with Rand's ethics.

Indeed. Why is it acceptable to Rand's "defenders" to make claims, without any evidence, about something as personal as Frank's sexual predilections and libido? If Frank were alive, he might find the "Frank-got-off-on-it" theory to be much more disgusting and invasive than accusations of alcohol abuse. For all we know, he would find the "defenders'" statements to be smears of his reputation, and to be the equivalent of their asserting that he liked to have sex with farm animals (I suppose that if there were a situation in which the claim that Frank had sex with farm animals might save Rand's reputation from a worse accusation, her "defenders" might be proudly standing up for Frank's right to choose to do whatever he wanted with his own livestock, and suggesting that lots of good people have sex with critters, and otherwise trying to imply that bestiality is a very common and completely uncontroversial lifestyle choice.)

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is not saying that Barbara made some kind of statement rescinding her story, I don't know what is. When you rescind something, you say, "I no longer hold to that." Rescind means repeal, annul, cancel officially. But you know that. And you know Barbara never did it.

I agree. Why would anyone claim that Barbara "rescinded" her claims about when booze bottles were found? The fact that she referred to reports of bottles being found after Frank's death is not the act of "rescinding" her reporting of bottles being found while he was alive.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You can make 5 more posts today. This restriction is in place until you have 98376 more approved posts".

"Five more posts today" clearly indicates the beginning of a new five-post-cycle, right?

For it explictly says 'five more'.

After writing that one post to you, seconds later, when pushing the reply button to another post (I did this for a test), I get the message:

"You can make 3 more posts until Today, 11:31 AM. This restriction is in place until you have 98375 more approved posts."

This has has happened several times already. Often, I don't even get to make those three left, but when making one of the three, I get the message there's now only one left (instead of two).

I first thought it has to do with counting editing as posting (I almost always edit my posts), but for the test now I deliberately did not edit, and regardless of that, it counted one post as two.

But on other occasions, it has in fact counted editing as a posting. Mostly, I have not been able to edit the last post in the 'five' series - for the program locked up after the post.

I have also gotten different info on different threads regarding the posts left.

It looks like one part of the software does not know what the other is doing.

It would also interest me how much time posters have now for editing. Didn't MSK change it again recently?

Here's my post from another thread: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8176&st=0&p=89001entry89001

I see that a new 'five post cycle' has started as I have just logged in now.

It says:

"You can make 5 more posts today". This restriction is in place until you have 98374 more approved posts"

I'll push my "add reply" button now without editing, then will go to another post here, push 'reply' and am curious which message I'll get.

Back now after a few seconds and and, lo and behold, what does it say:

You can make 2 more posts until 25 January 2010 - 05:31 AM. This restriction is in place until you have 98373 more approved posts

So after I make the one post, the first of the "five more posts today" cycle, (so there should be four to go left), it says I now can make only two more until the next day??

Message 1 does not add up with message 2.

If that isn't a glitch in the software, I don't know what is.

Here's a summary of the messages I have gotten today:

Before making the first post today, it said:

"You can make 5 more posts today. This restriction is in place until you have 98376 more approved posts".

After post 1, it said:

"You can make 3 more posts until Today, 11:31 AM. This restriction is in place until you have 98375 more approved posts."

Logging in again after a few hours, it says:

"You can make 5 more posts today". This restriction is in place until you have 98374 more approved posts"

You can make 2 more posts until 25 January 2010 - 05:31 AM. This restriction is in place until you have 98373 more approved posts

The glitch is in the message which says as I log in "You can can make five 'more' posts today". This is clearly wrong and therefore misleading. "Today" is the calendar day Jan 24 from 00:00 until 24:00.

Correct would be if it just said "You have left x post(s) from your 24-hour 'five post cycle' [which transgresses the date limit].

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jonathan,

I think the claim is that Barbara "rescinded" her claim that Frank drank excessively from the mid 50s to cerca '68.

She said in PAR that Frank's drinking became (or started becoming) a "way of life" in the 50s. In later statements she emphasizes more his later drinking.

I don't think she has rescinded anything, though if you looked at her later statements you might wonder just how much she thinks Frank was drinking in the 50s.

-Neil Parille

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

MSK, I have a suggestion. Temporarily limit my number of posts to 5 like Xray. I will start a new thread and try to figure out how the limit works. Apparently the messages Xray sees are not consistent with the background logic that decides whether or not she is allowed to post, and how many post she could make, at a particular time. I suspect that the background logic works as I described here.

I will report my experience on the new thread.

Merlin,

Done.

I changed your user group and checked the user group settings to make sure all was in order (it is), so this should do it.

One thing. In this user group, you will only have 60 minutes to edit a post, not 24 hours like everybody else.

Please let me know when you want to be changed back.

Michael

I guess Merlin, knowing he was about to be restricted anyway, decided to be proactive and earn some Michael brownie points for later.

--Brant

Michael, restrict me to 100 posts a day and I'll report back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. Have you asked Jim Valliant if he has done any archival research on this or other matters since PARC? He likes to imply that he is "tight" with Peikoff and the archives.

No to all. The only correspondence I've had with Jim Valliant was last summer over the Wikipedia business. (Side note to Brant: Holly did most of the Wikipedia editing, and he was extremely ill, in the hospital several times.)

In other words, Ms. Stuttle didn't ask Jim Valliant any tough questions.

Only softball questions.

And she continues to take his answers to those at face value.

I don't mean about his being hospitalized on a number of occasions.

I mean about Holly Valliant doing "most" of the Wikipedia editing (in public, he said it was all, not most).

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I've been banned, so I can't ask any questions of Valliant

I have suggested to Ellen two or three that she could ask Valliant. So far as I know she is still of the opinion that PARC does a poor job of summarizing sources and drawing conclusions from them. Why the softballs?

For example:

1. Jennifer Burns says that RR story goes back to Rand. Does James Valliant still think it was fair to call Barbara and Fern Brown liars about this?

2. The Holzers recently said that Rand kicked them out (though she "left the door open"). Does Valliant stand by his report in PARC that they left voluntarily?

3. Valliant claims Rand told the truth in '68 and that the Brandens lied. Neither Burns or Heller gives credence to Rand's implication that Branden enaged in fraud. Does Valliant still stand by what he wrote in PARC?

I expect more softballs from Ellen to her new friends.

-Neil Parille

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've told him [Perigo] several times that I don't agree with his assessment of Barbara. There's no more point spinning wheels arguing with him about that than there is arguing with MSK's assessment of Perigo, with which I don't agree either.

I see.

So Ms. Stuttle spends roughly equal amounts of time kissing up to Lindsay Perigo and Michael Stuart Kelly...?

After all, she doesn't agree with either of them.

O'ists do tend to spend a lot of time ripping each other to shreds. Trying to get them to stop would be a futile endeavor.

But strategically aiding and abetting the shredding, for purposes Ms. Stuttle would prefer not to name in public, is a whole 'nother matter.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I loved Ayn Rand. I liked Frank quite a bit.

If so, Ms. Stuttle has a funny way of showing it.

And I've been fascinated by Ayn Rand as a person ever since I first read Atlas Shrugged in June 1961, when I was eighteen and a half.

Fascinated, in particular, by the occasional signs that Ms. Rand felt contempt toward many of her followers?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like attributing excessive drinking to a dysfunctional relationship, this is also a perfectly reasonable hypothesis. People often turn to drink for reasons such as physical decay and the concomitant sense of failing life. "Put the car away; when life fails/What's the good of going to Wales?" as Auden wrote, capturing the feeling perfectly.

I can guess why. Furthermore, I will make a prediction. That should anyone put this new narrative forward and clearly defend it, it will get little or no support from Valliant or the ARI flavoured Objectivists who have put so much time and energy into attacking the Branden/Burns/Heller thesis.

Why not? Because this variation conflicts with their basically idolatrous doctrine. That Rand's husband ended his days whiling away his time drinking alone in his studio is not exactly what John Galt would have done. Further, one has to ask the question where was his "soul mate" (as Valliant calls her) while this was going on? Given that they supposedly shared the same "sense of life", right down to the marrow, did Rand approve of Frank's response to this unfortunate turn of events? And so forth. I believe all these questions mean that this version will prove just as unacceptable to True Believers as the idea he turned to drink in the face of The Affair. But I could be wrong, we'll have to see.

The only reason this narrative could be marginally more acceptable to the Zealotry is that, because it no longer makes Frank O'Connor's drinking a reaction to The Affair, at least Nathaniel Branden no longer plays a role in it—and some of the more obviously distasteful aspects of The Affair can be downplayed.

But no, no one among the Zealotry will be going to the barricades on account of it.

Ms. Stuttle may now claim to endorse this narrative, but I agree with Daniel that she won't be getting Jim Valliant to join her.

I also can't see how people who are "out to get Rand", which I suppose includes critics like me, would be averse to this version. It seems a fairly realistic scenario

Less lurid than "The Affair drove him to drink," but still inconsistent with Frank O'Connor the Objectivist hero on strike ...

Speaking of Valliant's "Frank-got-off-on-it" theory of The Affair, it is curious that this is barely mentioned, as the evidence for this is next to non-existent, even compared to the ambiguous evidence of Frank's drinking. Yet it strikes me as a far more controversial claim, and just as potentially slanderous, being seemingly manufactured from whole cloth by Valliant purely for the purposes of trying to make the situation consistent with Rand's ethics.

In Jim Valliant's book, there is no argument for this claim at all—just appeals to whatever Frank O'Connor had to be like, in order for him to be useful to Jim Valliant.

You'd think that if, on his visits to the Archives, Mr. Valliant had come across letters or notes or still-unpublished diary entries to support "Frank got off on it," he'd have loudly publicized them.

It's been six years since JIm Valliant was allowed into the Ayn Rand Archives and he has yet to provide any substantiation.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Less lurid than "The Affair drove him to drink," but still inconsistent with Frank O'Connor the Objectivist hero on strike ...

Oh, the "on strike" hypothesis...;-) That seems an equally absurd exercise in what the Scholastics used to call "saving the phenomena", thanks for reminding me of it. "On strike" against what exactly? That his wife was a famous and successful novelist? Against the allegedly morally and intellectually bankrupt society that had nonetheless somehow given her the aforesaid fame and success? "On strike" against the fact that movies didn't want to hire him? (Incidentally, you're not "on strike" when someone doesn't want you to work...) AFAICS there was nothing overt to stop him from doing anything "heroic". Being handsome, wealthy, and with a plethora of connections via Rand he could have achieved pretty much whatever he wanted to.

He may have been a perfectly nice guy, but the idea that Frank was somehow a "hero", "on strike" against an inimical world is a truly desperate hypothesis.

Edited by Daniel Barnes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well..."rescinding" is a gentle description. She changed the story, making the onset of problem drinking later with each version.

And, no, I didn't put the word "rescinding" in Barbara's mouth.

Stuttle,

This is crap.

Trying to pull the technicality crap, now, Stuttle, like Valliant does all the time? Bicker over words to get away from the meaning so you can slip an agenda in?

Do that crap over on SLOP where they eat that stuff up. I ain't going for it.

Basically the story Barbara changed to in rescinding her claim in Passion that Frank began drinking "as a way of life" in 1955.

If that is not saying that Barbara made some kind of statement rescinding her story, I don't know what is. When you rescind something, you say, "I no longer hold to that." Rescind means repeal, annul, cancel officially. But you know that. And you know Barbara never did it.

As I said, "rescinding" is a gentle description. What she actually did is to say that she hadn't said what she wrote.

Here again are the statements:

link

I did not say he was an alcoholic when the collective was reading ATLAS. It happened much later, only beginning in the final years of my relationship with Ayn.

[Technically, she's correct that *she* didn't say in Passion that Frank became an alcoholic in the mid-50s. She only cites an unnamed drinking buddy opining that. What she precisely says is that "[Franks'] drinking began to be a way of life" then.]

link

I left in 1968, and I've been told that his really debilitating drinking began after that time.

She is technically correct that she didn't outright say, as her own opinion, that Frank became "an alcoholic" in the mid-50s, but she did cite the opinion of an unnamed drinking-buddy witness (whom she later identified as Ventura) that Frank was an alcoholic, and she said, in her own words, that his "drinking began to be a way of life" at that time.

Later she said that he only became an alcoholic "beginning in the final years of [her] relationship with Ayn" (by which time, addressing a detail Jonathan brings up about the meaning of "during those years" in Passion, Ventura had been gone from the O'ist scene for 4-5 years) and still later that she'd "been TOLD [emphasis added] that his really debilitating drinking began after [1968]."

I do consider this rescinding her depiction in Passion of Frank's drinking in the mid-50s. What word would you use for the changed story?

The only real inconsistency, which has been mentioned several times in the past, was whether the booze bottles were cleaned out weekly or after Frank passed away. And for the life of me, I can't understand why both could not have happened.

Both could have happened, as I've said multiple times. The disparity in Barbara's descriptions could simply be an inconsistency -- and might even result from her not having known about the posthumous find at the time when she wrote Passion. As I've said, I wonder if the first she heard of that was via someone's telling her what Leonard Peikoff had said in his 1987 FHF Q&A.

--

Now, about being tight with the Blumenthals. After a person makes 50 gazillion posts saying "Allan told me this," and "When I talked to Allan, he said that," and "When I met Joan," and "Joan and Allan believe this," and "Today Allan would say this and that," on and on and on and on and on, a pattern of intent kinda emerges. Like maybe you want people to get it, that you were tight with the Blumenthals. And if nobody notices, maybe they'll think you still are.

Michael, 'tisn't my fault if you acquired an impression from not reading carefully.

To tell the truth, I don't believe you ever were tight with the Blumenthals. I believe you talked to them a few times and leveraged this to insinuate some kind of friendship that never existed.

I have never insinuated some kind of friendship which didn't exist. I've stated exactly the circumstances under which I talked to Allan, with whom I talked a lot of times about psychological issues and about music and Rand's tastes in music in the first half of the '70s when I was taking courses with him, and with whom I talked numerous times post his and Joan's break with Ayn. The only things I recall ever mentioning Joan saying were either via report from Allan, in his description of why he and Joan broke with Ayn, or via what Barbara wrote in Passion, or quotes from Joan's Full Context interview, and a mention of how I remember that the last session of the post-break course I took with Allan occurred just after the 1980 election (I remember he and Joan making some remarks about Reagan's speech).

Again, 'tisn't my fault if you acquired an impression from not reading carefully.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that is not saying that Barbara made some kind of statement rescinding her story, I don't know what is. When you rescind something, you say, "I no longer hold to that." Rescind means repeal, annul, cancel officially. But you know that. And you know Barbara never did it.

I agree. Why would anyone claim that Barbara "rescinded" her claims about when booze bottles were found? The fact that she referred to reports of bottles being found after Frank's death is not the act of "rescinding" her reporting of bottles being found while he was alive.

J

Couldn't tell you, Jonathan, "Why would anyone claim that Barbara 'rescinded' her claims about when booze bottles were found?" That isn't what I said. Please read the first part of the post above.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4. Have you asked Jim Valliant if he has done any archival research on this or other matters since PARC? He likes to imply that he is "tight" with Peikoff and the archives.

No to all. The only correspondence I've had with Jim Valliant was last summer over the Wikipedia business. (Side note to Brant: Holly did most of the Wikipedia editing, and he was extremely ill, in the hospital several times.)

In other words, Ms. Stuttle didn't ask Jim Valliant any tough questions.

Only softball questions.

And she continues to take his answers to those at face value.

I don't mean about his being hospitalized on a number of occasions.

I mean about Holly Valliant doing "most" of the Wikipedia editing (in public, he said it was all, not most).

Robert Campbell

I asked him a set of detailed questions in an off-list inquiry before I left for Budapest last summer. His answers convinced me that Holly did by far the bulk of the editing. (Obviously, answers to questions, none of the specifics of which you know, won't convince you; merely reporting that I was convinced by his answers.)

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ellen Stuttle' date='24 January 2010 - 06:05 PM' timestamp='1264374334' post='89031'

Again, 'tisn't my fault if you acquired an impression from not reading carefully.

Nope, so far as I can determine Ms. Stuttle's latter-day detractors have generally been reading her statements with care.

In the meantime, Messrs. Valliant and Perigo have repeatedly exhibited advanced cases of reading disorder. One wonders why Ms. Stuttle isn't over on SOLOP chiding them.

Could it be such chiding might threaten to interrupt the regular delivery of Ms. Stuttle's narcissistic supplies?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert,

I've been banned, so I can't ask any questions of Valliant

I have suggested to Ellen two or three that she could ask Valliant. So far as I know she is still of the opinion that PARC does a poor job of summarizing sources and drawing conclusions from them. Why the softballs?

For example:

1. Jennifer Burns says that RR story goes back to Rand. Does James Valliant still think it was fair to call Barbara and Fern Brown liars about this?

2. The Holzers recently said that Rand kicked them out (though she "left the door open"). Does Valliant stand by his report in PARC that they left voluntarily?

3. Valliant claims Rand told the truth in '68 and that the Brandens lied. Neither Burns or Heller gives credence to Rand's implication that Branden enaged in fraud. Does Valliant still stand by what he wrote in PARC?

I expect more softballs from Ellen to her new friends.

-Neil Parille

Neil,

I'm aware that you suggest questions which you would like to see Valliant asked.

The problem with your trying to get me to ask the questions is that I don't care about your grievances with Jim Valliant and your continuing desire to get him to admit to errors in PARC.

The ballgame you want played doesn't interest me.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I asked him a set of detailed questions in an off-list inquiry before I left for Budapest last summer. His answers convinced me that Holly did by far the bulk of the editing. (Obviously, answers to questions, none of the specifics of which you know, won't convince you; merely reporting that I was convinced by his answers.)

Ellen

All this means is that Ms. Stuttle found it convenient to credit Mr. Valliant's answers (assuming that he provided any to begin with).

Robert Campbell

Added at 8:34 PM on January 24: If Ms. Stuttle expects to be believed on this issue, she will need to produce her entire email correspondence with Mr. Valliant, so we can see what she asked, how he answered, and what other negotiations, if any, were taking place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I just find it curious that once you were as critical of Valliant's book as I was.

Since Valliant apparently has done some archival work recently and claims to be tight with the archives, it would be interesting what he has to say.

-Neil Parille

Edited by Neil Parille
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now