Exposed!

[dan_edge]

Victor Pross has "exposed" me as a plagiarist on the (unmoderated) Ayn Rand Meetup forum.

--Dan Edge

[Laure]

The guy is such an unbelievable loser!

[bmacwilliam]

The guy is such an unbelievable loser!

Well, this was pretty clear to me quite some time ago in the Romance section and I caught much venom because I held the same opinion you do. Let me be the first to say:

Atoedeso!

B)

Bonus points to anyone that gets the reference.

[Laure]

Well OK Bob. Let me be the first to say "you were right." (Hey, even a broken clock is right twice a day! )

[Ellen Stuttle]

Victor Pross has "exposed" me as a plagiarist on the (unmoderated) Ayn Rand Meetup forum.

--Dan Edge

No, he "exposed" you as a PLAGERIST [sic] who employs "the good old doubled [sic] standard" and is "cleaver" [sic] in your swipings, e.g.,, from LEORNARD [sic] PEIKOFF.

Ellen

___

[Dragonfly]

No, he has exposed you as a "plagerist". At least his spelling is original!

[Dragonfly]

Ah, our posts crossed. I didn't plagiarize you, Ellen!

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Unbelievable! Dan, thanks for your excellent work at tracking down Victor's plagiary!!

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Dragonfly,

I'll apologize to you for my initial comments a while back not wanting you to pile on. I've seen other people reform when presented with evidence of their misdeeds. Sadly, it's probably not possible in this case.

Jim

[Dragonfly]

Jim, no need to apologize, you were just more optimistic than I was.

[Daniel Barnes]

I've seen some intensely stupid people on the internet in my time, but the Moronic Inferno that is Victor Pross must be setting some new standard for self-immolation

[Greybird]

Well, here it comes, my being one step away — quite obviously — from being banned myself, for even expressing these opinions:

Very little traffic has been posted recently, other than further documenting, with relish and Schadenfreude, that Victor Pross has been plagiarizing. I was under the impression, apparently a deluded one, that this had already been demonstrated sufficiently, so much so that he has been permanently banned from posting.

Since this past weekend, this site has become the Two Days' Hate of Pross venue, and I just don't see the point. "Moronic inferno"? "Intensely stupid"? "Unbelievable loser"? Is personal abuse now being tolerated? When did that happen?

For some inexplicable reason, a turning of the knife is seen to be appropriate, and not just toward Victor. MSK has this feeling that he, on behalf "of OL," has to acknowledge and apologize in all directions for the behavior of one poster. As if he is, in some aspect, personally responsible for all instances of Victor's misbehavior.

No message board works that way, morally or legally, beyond the mods generally setting the discussion tone, nor should it work that way. I had this further delusion that Rand's ethics talked about not accepting unearned guilt. When did that change?

Victor has gone against any sense of having been a reasonable participant in objective discussions, certainly in regard to issues beyond his own work or his personal life. Nobody disputes this. MSK had wanted to deal with this in a low-key manner. I thought that was ending up being too protracted, given his saying that he had rules to which all were genuinely expected to adhere, but he finally brought this to a resolution.

Now, all that's out the window, and the pile-on is in effect, complete with personal slurs. It's looking like the aftermath of The Big Objectivist Break 39 years ago. Or one of the dregs from Peter Schwartz's hard disk.

Victor Pross is no longer a part of this community. What is the point of going beyond this, and — to allude again to Nineteen Eighty-Four — making sure that everything is needlessly apologized for and morally "corrected," as if this were Winston Smith's desk at Minitrue, covered with dictype slips?

He's been dealt with already. Isn't it time to move on to something productive?

[Dodger]

Well, here it comes, my being one step away — quite obviously — from being banned myself, for even expressing these opinions:

Very little traffic has been posted recently, other than further documenting, with relish and Schadenfreude, that Victor Pross has been plagiarizing. I was under the impression, apparently a deluded one, that this had already been demonstrated sufficiently, so much so that he has been permanently banned from posting.

Since this past weekend, this site has become the Two Days' Hate of Pross venue, and I just don't see the point. "Moronic inferno"? "Intensely stupid"? "Unbelievable loser"? Is personal abuse now being tolerated? When did that happen?

For some inexplicable reason, a turning of the knife is seen to be appropriate, and not just toward Victor. MSK has this feeling that he, on behalf "of OL," has to acknowledge and apologize in all directions for the behavior of one poster. As if he is, in some aspect, personally responsible for all instances of Victor's misbehavior.

No message board works that way, morally or legally, beyond the mods generally setting the discussion tone, nor should it work that way. I had this further delusion that Rand's ethics talked about not accepting unearned guilt. When did that change?

Victor has gone against any sense of having been a reasonable participant in objective discussions, certainly in regard to issues beyond his own work or his personal life. Nobody disputes this. MSK had wanted to deal with this in a low-key manner. I thought that was ending up being too protracted, given his saying that he had rules to which all were genuinely expected to adhere, but he finally brought this to a resolution.

Now, all that's out the window, and the pile-on is in effect, complete with personal slurs. It's looking like the aftermath of The Big Objectivist Break 39 years ago. Or one of the dregs from Peter Schwartz's hard disk.

Victor Pross is no longer a part of this community. What is the point of going beyond this, and — to allude again to Nineteen Eighty-Four — making sure that everything is needlessly apologized for and morally "corrected," as if this were Winston Smith's desk at Minitrue, covered with dictype slips?

He's been dealt with already. Isn't it time to move on to something productive?

Agreed.

I do not understand the motives behind such personal attacks when the man can't even post anymore.

It is as if everyone is looking for validation in their opinions of Victor.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Steve,

You have a horrible habit of pretending you know what people think, then proclaiming this as fact, then ranting and railing against it.

You know nothing and I will not rebut your attempt (once again) to set my policies.

Michael

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Steve,

There is no way you would be banned for expressing this opinion.

Jim

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I do not understand the motives behind such personal attacks when the man can't even post anymore.

It is as if everyone is looking for validation in their opinions of Victor.

Mitchell,

If you notice, I do not make harsh slurs against Pross. I am livid that he polluted my board with an enormous quantity of plagiarisms and very irritated at myself for not investigating it more at the time, since I knew he had a serious psychological/moral problem. Now I have a mess I have to clean up in order to sleep well at night.

OL is not a place where people gleefully lynch scapegoats, but there is something you should take into account. The posters venting their anger right now are highly intelligent people of goodwill, independent honest thinkers, who have wrestled with intellectual issues in public, reaching from the depths of the best within themselves to discuss matters with Pross. This takes a huge amount of effort and often a post takes hours to get it right. They are now discovering that they were being conned and that all their efforts and goodwill at the time were not spent on a serious discussion. What's worse, Pross insulted and mocked many of them precisely for their best thinking.

They were used as patsies in some kind of sick game and they are pissed. I have no problem if they let off some steam in this case. I want to myself, but I refrain. I want to sanitize my forum more than let off steam. I feel like someone has come into my house and shit all over the place, in practically every room and in every nook and corner.

I am explaining this to you because I sense your goodwill and genuine perplexity. What is unfolding here is not kicking someone who is down and it is not lynching anyone. It is honest people expressing anger at being duped and incredulousness at the sight of Pross not only refusing to admit being caught red-handed, but using another board to make an inept copycat attempt to accuse his accuser of the same immorality he practiced. Read his accusations and see if he produces quotes side-by-side.

Not only is there a problem with Pross's plagiary, there is a problem with his incompetence and ongoing malice displayed in public.

The good news is that this affair has a beginning, middle and end. After it is over, I doubt anyone will talk about this guy anymore. Unfortunately I cannot delete all of his posts wholesale without making hash out of some of the discussions. Yet to maintain the work of others under his name is wrong, so I am grateful to those who identify it. It is a selective job, but thankfully there is a finite number of posts.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

There is no way you would be banned for expressing this opinion.

Jim,

Correct. Steve is playing games.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Steve,

You did not have the entertainment of attempting to carry on a discussion with Victor Pross in the way. Also, even for those of us who were aware that he was lifting material from all over the place, the amazing extent of his borrowings is a bit of a shock. He even borrowed some apparent reports of personal experience from others. And his borrowing from George Smith, who had given him an advertising quote for his caricature work, is incredible.

Furthermore, excuse me, I was there in the aftermath of the split 39 years ago, and there's no legitimate comparison. (As to the Peter Schwartz whatever it is you're referring to, I don't know what that is, but judging from such experience of Schwartz as I have, I doubt there's legitimate comparison to that, either.)

Ellen

___

[BAMF]

I feel ya, Steve Reed.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Kori

[Daniel Barnes]

Steve, you're overreacting. Victor is keeping the whole thing alive by now launching a hilariously absurd slander on Dan Edge, instead of, say, just admitting guilt and going and deleting his plagiarisms himself to make amends.

This new level of idiocy, while not all that unexpected by those who have come to know Victor's ways, is certainly unique enough to attract some level of comment, not to mention a little solidarity with Dan E here. I agree with Mike: it's small sideshow, and it would have passed even now if not for one clown.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I feel ya, Steve Gagne.

Kori,

You got the wrong Steve.

Let me get another thing out of my system. I have no problem with trying to resolve this issue low-key. In fact, this is exactly what I had tried to do repeatedly. I also have no problem with tolerance. I even once wrote an article on turning the other cheek, trying to unpack the cognitive issues from what I perceived as the danger of too much normative focus (see here).

The present case is none of that. Objectivism is a system of morality in addition to the other philosophical parts. Integrity is a good word and a good concept. What Pross is and has been doing flies in the face of Objectivist morality (and, frankly, most all other ethical systems) from just about all angles. Rather than get technical, let's say it like one does with little kids.

When you do something wrong, you should say, "Sorry," make amends where possible, keep your mouth shut and try not to do that again.

Pross is failing on all points. I can no longer keep this low-key because he will not let it stay low-key. I backed him for a long time hoping he would learn. He chose not to. My efforts ended up being appeasement and I learned a harsh lesson on how far tolerance and forgiveness should go. Look at the mess now on my forum (and Kat's).

As I have written in a couple of emails, does anyone know how to season crow? That is going to be my diet for a while.

Michael

[Jonathan]

Just a note to mention that I've edited my Post #718 on the Art and Subobjectivity thread in order to follow the format that others have used of posting side by side comparisons of Victor's posts with the sources from which he plagiarized.

I thought it would make it easier for others to see that in his post #178 Victor wasn't just borrowing someone's beliefs and the words they used to express them, which is bad enough, but he was also trying to pass off another's professional experiences as his own.

J

(Note from MSK: Thank you, Jonathan. Duly edited.)

[BAMF]

Oh shit! Steve Reed. I apologize. *blushes* *steps awkwardly out of thread*

EDIT: *steps a bit less awkwardly back into thread* Michael, here's a li'l suttin' suttin' for ya.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Kori

[Barbara Branden]

Despite his appalling dishonesty, Victor is not a stupid man. What I cannot understand -- and I wonder if anyone has a plausible explanation -- is the stupidity of his plagiarizing Objectivist writers on an Objectivist forum, plagiarisms that are so childishly easy to detect. It was inevitable that he would be found out. How could he not have realized that? Or did he realize it, and in some sick way want to be found out? His latest atrocity on the Ayn Rand Meetup Group seems to negate the latter possibility; he's still wildly trying to defend himself and the undefendable.

He has announced that he now intends to go after Michael. which I consider quite as depraved as his plagiarisms, if not more so. Michael, who has enormoous good will, did Victor an honor it turned out he didn't deserve: that of befriending him, supporting him, trying to help him, devoting a great deal of time and energy to instructing him. In payment, he is now trashing Michael. There seems no limit to how low this man will sink.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

Despite his appalling dishonesty, Victor is not a stupid man. What I cannot understand -- and I wonder if anyone has a plausible explanation -- is the stupidity of his plagiarizing Objectivist writers on an Objectivist forum, plagiarisms that are so childishly easy to detect. It was inevitable that he would be found out. How could he not have realized that? Or did he realize it, and in some sick way want to be found out? His latest atrocity on the Ayn Rand Meetup Group seems to negate the latter possibility; he's still wildly trying to defend himself and the undefendable.

He has announced that he now intends to go after Michael. which I consider quite as depraved as his plagiarisms, if not more so. Michael, who has enormoous good will, did Victor an honor it turned out he didn't deserve: that of befriending him, supporting him, trying to help him, devoting a great deal of time and energy to instructing him. In payment, he is now trashing Michael. There seems no limit to how low this man will sink.

Barbara

Michael has too much good will. That is not a virtue; it's a trap.

--Brant