dan_edge

Banned
  • Content Count

    62
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About dan_edge

  • Rank
    $$

Profile Information

  • Location
    Pomona, NY

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. MSK, I read the entire Locke report today, along with Peron's article in Unbound. My conclusions on the issue (and regarding you personally) can be found here. Please delete my membership from your website. --Dan Edge
  2. The PDF link for unbound at "http://jimperonunbound.bravehost.com/" doesn't seem to be working... *Correction @ 1:55pm: the Locke Report Link Works, the Unbound link seems not to. --Dan Edge
  3. Last post on this comment: I just checked SOLO for the first time in a while to see what you were talking about. Pergio hasn't changed at all! If anything, he's gotten more poetically malevolent than ever before. You'll have to work hard to match that degree of vitriol, MSK. --Dan Edge
  4. MSK, I don't follow SOLO any more. Maybe you shouldn't either; maybe that's what's driving you up the wall! --Dan Edge
  5. MSK, I don't have the energy for a marathon debate here. Nor do I care much about the issue, I just saw something I thought unusual and commented on it. Suffice to say that your style of defending Peron does more to incriminate than exonerate. My advice: either present all relevant evidence or delete everything. All this referencing to secret information, which is no longer available publicly, but which you have, and which you may share, but which you don't want to post too much about here so the "hate-mongers" can't sink their teeth in. It all seems so damned conspiratorial. And your style of argumentation has grown more and more the splitting image of Perigo's. Presumptuous psychologizing and constant character attacks on presumed (imagined) motives -- this in place of polite and reasoned argument. Maybe take a break from all this? It's getting to you... --Dan Edge
  6. MSK, Why not delete my mess, and post Unbound? Let everyone judge for himself. Since when is the buttocks not a "private part?" When next we meet, can I cop a feel on you down there? Can I touch your wife down there? I mean, c'mon, splitting hairs. And accusing your dissenter of lying, as usual. Lord, MSK, have you gotten older and grumpier too? Seems to be going around. I don't think I've ever seen you respond to the whole "boy lover" defense Peron puts in the article. Isn't that there, or am I remembering it wrongly? Isn't it important? In any case, I don't need to know all the detail's of the man's private life, nor pass judgment on him personally, to decide that there's good reason to scrutinize a *public figure* who wrote this kind of thing. Note: I never said that Peron's a bad man, ought to be railroaded, kicked out of country, nothing like that. Maybe so, but I don't know enough about the situation. I said he deserved to be *seriously scrutinized*. He was. --Dan Edge
  7. Uh...what? Your rude sniping has gone over my head. I have no idea what you're talking about, but I presume you're trying to make some personal issue (probably from years ago) a public issue in the interest of dishonestly attacking my character. Were you always this much of a punk, Jef? If so, I forgot. Maybe you've just gotten older and grumpier. In any case, I wouldn't recommend speaking to me in such a way in person. Feel free not to respond to any more of my pontifications; and certainly make no attempt rationally to dissect what I'm trying to say. I'll return the favor. Wow, I'm never this sarcastic, you really know how to bring out the best/worst in a man, Jef. Bravo! --Dan Edge
  8. Sorry, Jef, was I pontificating (def. expressing opinions in a pompous and dogmatic way)? Am I positioning myself as oh so knowledgeable about Perron's trials and tribulations? I don't think so, Jef, but you're welcome to your own opinion. A simple, polite correction would have sufficed. Misspelling of names may be intensely irritating to you, but unnecessarily rude behavior is intensely irritating to me. I do not abide by it. I suggest you go hang out with Perriggo, where you will find your malevolent attitude more in tune with the company. --Dann Edgee
  9. Jonathan, I don't have many strong opinions about age of consent laws except that they should exist in some form. A 4-year-old, for instance, cannot rationally consent to sex. And this consent can't be delegated to parents. The law's got to draw the line somewhere. Where? That's more of a technical legal question which I am not qualified to answer. Age 16 makes sense, maybe younger, maybe as high as 18, though that would be pushing it. But that issue in completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand: Was Perron smeared? Did he deserve the scrutiny and the criticism? I am surprised that four pages of discussion have gone on here without specific reference to Perron's article about "boy love." I know you mentioned it in passing, MSK, but the contents of that article are crucially relevant to this discussion. I assume that this article is one of the "secret documents" you have available that you don't want to publish here. If it doesn't in any way incriminate Perron, then why not publish it? But it does incriminate him, at least in spirit. I don't remember the entire contents of the article, but here are some things I remember: Perron was abused as a child in some capacity. While still a child (exact age unspecified) some men taking care of him -- counselors, baby sitters, I don't remember -- would reach inside his clothes and caress his private parts. This made him feel good, emotionally safe, happy, etc. He argues that these "boy lovers" were a great benefit to his psychological health. "Boy lovers" should be honored, not hated. The end. Does this not seem like relevant information in evaluating Perron? Or his involvement with pro-NAMBLA writers? This is no smear job, this is what Perron himself wrote and published. If I've got the facts wrong please let me know, but I'm pretty sure I remember this correctly. I was shocked back then, and am still shocked today, that groups of people defend Perron to the hilt without reference to these crucially relevant facts. MSK mentioned earlier in this thread that no one had emailed him privately requesting his "secret files." If you want to set the record straight, dude, just post it all here. We're not talking about personal correspondence; again, this is an article Perron wrote and published himself. --Dan Edge
  10. Did you guys not find the Abuse: One Boy's Story article by Jim Perron (published in Unbound) just a little bit disturbing? He was promoting the beauty of "boy love" for Chrissake! I don't know enough about the issue to pass judgment, but clearly Perron was begging for punishment. He wrote a pro-"boy love" article, along side other writers with long pro-NAMBLA affiliations, all of which he published in a NAMBLA-sympathetic journal, published under his own printing company, with at least one meeting held on his own property. Those facts do not a pedophile make, but aside from getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar (so to speak), what else could he do to deserve good helping of hell? I feel bad for the guy if he's got psychological damage resulting from childhood abuse, including sexual abuse, but he was clearly taking that in a dangerous public direction, and should have been called on it. And he was. What's the problem? That Perigo did the calling, and exaggerated everything as he always does? Sure he did, but it doesn't change the fact that Perron had it coming from someone in some capacity. --Dan Edge
  11. Brant, I read that there have been conflicting reports about the Unknown Rebel, and that it hasn't been confirmed what happened to him. But I think I got that info from Wikipedia, so take that for what it's worth. Joel, Your denunciations only feed my fanaticism. Huzzah! :super: --Dan Edge
  12. Jonathan, I can't speak for the Moderators at Objectivism Online, but I don't blame them for banning you. Of the 3 initial posts you made on Objectivism Online, all were criticisms of Rand. It appeared that your only purpose in commenting on their forum was to bash Rand, goad others that you have predetermined to be rationalistic Rand-worshippers, then stomp off afterwards, decrying the injustice of your banishment. Based on your comments here, I'd say that the Objectivism Online Moderators were spot-on in their judgment of your motives. This was a self-fulfilling prophecy, Jonathan. You went to Objectivism Online looking for trouble, and found it. If you find it unpalatable that others would question your motives like that, then what does it say about you to make a blanket statement about these folks "protecting Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism?" You've been making very public claims like that for a long time. When you talk trash about people, they're not going to want you on their forum. Though I don't contribute much, I like the crowd at Objectivism Online. And when you make accusations like the ones above, I take it personally. I'm the kind of person you're talking about. Me and my friends. It's not like you hurt my feelings, but I hope you see how offensive your comments come off. --Dan Edge, Proud Defender of Saint Ayn and Holy Objectivism P.S. Check out my blog for evidence of my fanatic rationalism! - http://danedgeofreason.blogspot.com/
  13. This was an excellent interview. Kelly and I enjoyed it very much. Kelly especially was inspired by your story. I'd love to see Lovers Jumping when it's complete. The studies look fantastic. Best, --Dan Edge
  14. Greetings, Several months back, I wrote a 6-part draft on "The Psycho-epistemology of Sexuality." I aimed to prove this ambitious thesis: "The psychological experience of sexuality is rooted in one's positive evaluation of his sex as an integration of individuating elements of self -- and it is experienced to the fullest through psychological visibility in the context of a romantic love relationship." I never got around to re-editing, but in the mean time the draft can be found here. --Dan Edge
  15. Michael, You are correct that my comments were "for the record" and that I did not (and do not) intend to engage in polemics. Thanks for your comments. --Dan Edge