My farewell to SOLOPassion

[Robert Campbell]

My dosimeter has turned an ugly color, so it's time for me to finish my limited tour of duty over at SOLOPassion.

Here are my two final entries:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/881

and

http://www.solopassion.com/node/882

Cognitive science is a far more rewarding subject to discuss than any of the matters I've been embroiled in for the last two weeks plus. I look forward to at least occasionally commenting on it here at OL.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

This is very good news. You were giving that place an audience it didn't deserve.

Some of the college kids could write a decent term paper, I guess, but the rest of the hardcore people haven't really done much in life - and when they did something, the results have been highly mediocre.

Watching you over there was like watching a thoroughbred racehorse pulling a junkyard cart.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

You are causing me to break some rules set for myself about engaging in forum salvos, but I can't stop laughing.

Perigo just answered you here and finally he wrote something funny. Perigo threatened you and God knows how many people with who knows what. And such an ominous tone coming from him is funny, because, well, he's a loser and you can't take him seriously. How on earth can a washed-up has-been declare war on anything and make any kind of difference in the world? Dayaamm!

Oh, he will do his petty little posts and offline email and phone intrigues, but I can assure you of one thing you will never see from this guy: high-quality work of lasting value. Let me repeat that. Perigo will not do any high-quality work of lasting value.

People say the Free Radical is an achievement, and it is something at least. But the visual is horrible and the content is highly uneven. After 10 years, it still relies on unpaid contributions for content and the subscriber base is tiny. So where is the achievement? I see precious little.

The Free Radical is more of a historical curiosity than a magazine that will change anything anywhere, I don't care how often those folks writes "XX number of blows for freedom" on the cover. I have written about this on RoR.

For the record, here are some of edited thoughts from that post. I am including a part on rudeness because of the boneheaded manner that Dizzy and the Gang construe rudeness as "rational passion."

On the Free Radical

The Free Radical is an Objectivist magazine that has been in existence for 10 years. Perigo has been the editor since the beginning. Some think this is a success because it has survived so long and others think it is not a success because of the low number of subscribers and circulation. Also, most of the content is not paid - thus after 10 years of existence, it still functions as a charity publication.

One thing sure can be evaluated - the contributors. If you go to the Free Radical site, take a look at the articles and authors in the back issues. Don't take my word for it - look for yourself. Something stands out: there is an extremely high number of people who wrote articles for that magazine who are now enemies of the editor.

When these authors wrote their articles for free, they were called "rational heroes" or NEM'S or whatever, but they all became "scumbags," "limpdicks," "wankers" etc. after awhile. It seems reasonable to ask why. There are only 4 choices from what I see:

1. All these people actually were rational when they wrote for the magazine and later turned into irrational evil slime;

2. Perigo was fooled by all these irrational evil scumbags for awhile, but then he saw the light after they had written for the magazine;

3. Perigo took what he could get because he does not/cannot pay his authors, but after he got their articles, he saw no reason to be nice anymore to irrational evil slime; or

4. Perigo did not convince the authors of anything and they don't like to be called irrational evil slime because they disagreed with him, so they moved on.

The facts are observable. People can come to their own conclusions. For running a magazine, I personally call it incompetence and mediocrity.

On rudeness

I completely reject the rude approach as the norm for rational discussions. Call it "passionate," KASS, "righteous anger" or whatever euphemism for temper tantrum that can be dreamed up, the only good I have seen come of this has been that some inconvenient people leave online forums at times. Nothing else really changes for the better. (And, unfortunately, I used to be guilty of embracing this manner, but I stopped.)

On the negative side of rudeness and yelling, there is the possibility of using it for crowd control. I have witnessed the group of the moment become manipulated and swayed because of an angry fit that was thrown by one person or the other (usually peppered with sayings from Ayn Rand). What is interesting is that after the dust settles, all the people who become "suddenly convinced" (with many joining in to throw stones at the hapless villain of the moment) normally and gradually go back to their previous way of thinking. NO ACTUAL CONVINCING GETS DONE BY THROWING TEMPER TANTRUMS.

So on that point, rudeness is highly ineffective. (I am not talking about the standard Randroid moral condemnation, which is more sneering than yelling and, also, is not effective, but in a different way. I am using rudeness here to mean outright insulting a person with foul language.)

It is true that the audience tends to swell some when voices get loud, but that kind of audience rarely stays around for the ideas later. These people are there to see a fight, not think.

In my judgment, rudeness is not good for convincing anybody. It is only good for getting rid of people - at least making them go away. (And some come back swinging.)

Also, rude does not equate with "passionate" or all the other jingoism. That idea is pure crap. Is there any person more rationally passionate in his beliefs than a Jehovah's Witness, for example? I have seen them up close and I know how rationally passionate they are, despite the irrational Biblical premise. (They make strong and elaborate use of reason once the unsound premise is accepted.) A JV member is purposely not rude and that organization grows by leaps and bounds in soft polite voices.

Rude is rude. Period. Sometimes it's fun, but ultimately it serves very little purpose.

That's enough for now. I should not indulge this urge to write about unimportant matters, but what the hell. Sometimes you have to scratch the fleabites.

Michael

[Aaron]

Last year on SOLOHQ I believe I said Linz's own comments generally weren't informative or constructive - but that didn't mean SOLOHQ itself wasn't a good thing. Now it seems sensible to make the same distinction concerning SOLOP. I stopped reading the site a few weeks ago from a combination of user interface and low SNR for topics I care about. However, that doesn't mean the site or its participants are generally mediocre or cannot be worthwhile to others, especially to NZ locals. Whatever else can be said about Linz, I still also respect his keeping moderation or banning rare, and still allowing dissent on the forums (and from a dissent standpoint, Robert really has nothing on that odd cartoonist or Krishna fellow ).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Aaron,

We are all free to have our opinions, and I have never told anyone to stop posting anywhere or stop liking anyone. However, the way your comment was phrased alerted me to the need to make a clarification.

I am not collectively calling a group of people mediocre nor am I against the existence of the forum. Just because a person posts on Perigo's site doesn't mean he/she is mediocre. That is not what I am trying to say.

I am reserving very harsh judgment for the core group - and what they produce - only. My basis is the following: Objectivism is a philosophy that holds high regard for competence. That has been an integral part of the philosophy from its very inception.

When a person takes it on himself to call a very long list of Objectivists or Objectivism-friendly people "slime" and so forth over time because he claims he is defending Ayn Rand (whose virtue is partially expressed by her devotion to high literary quality and who worked like a dog at it), the absolute minimum you can require of such a person is that he practice the philosophy - i.e., be competent at his own work. At least try. At least that. Well this guy isn't competent and he usually doesn't try. When he does, his work is mediocre at best.

Since the man likes to call others foul names in the name of Objectivism, but produces and promotes mediocrity and crap, he soundly deserves the title of hypocrite.

Hell, the guy can't even get his own audience for his yearly meeting - he has to lean on TOC's seminar for that, otherwise he would lay an egg in public. And don't think he doesn't know that, either. He and his gang know it quite well. They are counting on TOC to provide them with the unearned.

I have nothing against the Internet forum in itself and nothing against people who post there. I just got fed up with all the mediocre pretentious BS coming from these particular so-called Objectivist movement leaders, that's all.

If their quality improves, my opinion will improve. I don't expect that to happen, though.

Michael

[jordanz]

I, too, will no longer visit SOLO Passion nor Noodle Food. For those who care ;)

[Philip Coates]

> Cognitive science is a far more rewarding subject to discuss than any of the matters I've been embroiled in for the last two weeks plus.

Robert, I agree! I get the sense that you had been holding back for a long time (even as far back as OWL) and now you just turned from MMCR to REV for a time and had to let out all the things you needed to say, give no quarter, let no charge or attack go unanswered, etc.

Without reopening the whole thing, I agreed with some of your criticisms and points and disagreed with others. But I think the wrong or mistaken things done by and views held you saw in front of you basically fall in the categories of:

mental blind spots, cognitive disfunctions, honest error, compartmentalization...and, most importantly being blinded by rage, seeing a "red flag" whenever the opponent speaks, etc.

--as opposed to: venality, dishonesty, cowardice, conscious evasion, etc.

<rewritten 1:17 PM>

> My dosimeter has turned an ugly color...at SOLOPassion.

That's a funny and clever way to put it...I may steal that line from you and use it at some point. You were clearly beginning to show signs of radiation sickness which consisted of parts of the body falling off of you :-)

<rewritten 1:23 PM to remove excessive humor>

[Kat]

Watching you over there was like watching a thoroughbred racehorse pulling a junkyard cart.

My thoughts exactly. The lovable loudmouths in that group are just haters and smear merchants. Linz embraced Valliant and Diana and look at how much hate they generate using teamwork. Since its launch in December 2005, their list of targets has grown, starting with the Brandens (especially Barbara), anyone who has any respect or admiration for the Brandens (that includes MSK, myself and OL in general), Joe Rowlands/RoR, TOC and now JARS/Sciabarra. I really didn't expect TOC and JARS to be targeted like that.

Their shitlist includes pretty much everyone in Objectivism outside of ARI, but wait, scratch that, doesn't ARI stand for the "Anal Retentive Institute?" Who's next...hmmmmm...Not many Objectivist groups left.... maybe the Atlasphere. (Watch out, Joshua!)

Something is seriously wrong with that bunch. They go after the goodguys.

Michael and I were both banned early on, I don't know who else has been banned. Nutters like Krishna that Linz banned from SoloHQ do not get banned and viciousness towards fellow Objectivists is encouraged. I don't blame good people for leaving. I sure would have left if I had not been banned.

Kat

[Aaron]

Ah, didn't realize you guys had actually been banned instead of just left.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Aaron,

So long as I am airing it all, the reason Kat and I were banned from SLOP is because we have Barbara on OL. Period. All the rest is window dressing. Perigo's whole anti-Branden crusade is because Barbara rejected him.

SHE REJECTED HIM!

OH, THE HORROR!!!

And here he has set himself up as some kind of badass OBJECTIVIST LEADER. How can he be LEADER when one of the core people in the founding of the philosophy REJECTED HIM?

He can't get over it. And he can't get her back. Well, he'll show the world.

Ha!

Perigo will prostitute his reason if necessary to feed a delusion that he has some kind of power to take her down. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL... (Sorry... the idea of this washed-out has-been having power to destroy is funny - not sarcastic funny, for real funny.)

Anyway, the only way to save a LEADER image is swing to the other side. And Tarzan couldn't do better swinging. And the only card left to play is the martyr-for-truth card. So it is being played.

Is it about the ideas? About Rand? Hell no! It's about carving out a position as intellectual LEADER. Now, a REJECTED intellectual LEADER. (And further rejected by the RoR crowd and others in the Objectivist world.)

I say he is being rejected for incompetence. Pure mediocrity. Note that highly competent people in their respective fields are the ones rejecting him.

According to a recent announcement, this dude will be giving a speech against Barbara while mooching off the TOC Seminar for unearned audience. I had some fun with this - you can check it out on this link.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

I have to say i agree with MSK about Linz in terms of performance. He does show heart, and occasionally some real bright light in his writing.

But that's about it. If you do a good old fashioned Ben Franklin balance sheet on Mr. Perigo, I'm not sure it would be pretty. He is his own worst enemy; only he knows whether he is aware of that or not.

He was, once, a pretty good impresario- he knew how to stir the soup. Now, not so much. Matter of fact, I don't see near the vibrancy in either of those sites.

The thing about most impresario types, or call them people that present themselves more as a personality than a person is that almost always, it has no staying power. And more often than not, bridges are burned, and ugliness goes down- maybe not only on the outside, but inside the impresario himself.

If you want to talk about social metaphysics (or maybe this would be "microsocial" metaphysics), look at what has happened with all this, and the remaining cast of characters. Heavens to Betsy!

rde

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Setting the record straight.

Perigo continues to lie and manipulate facts. He just wrote the following crap about my darling Kitten:

To see Kat join in is sad. She now claims she too was banned from here. In fact, she resigned. Twice:

In actual fact, Kitten resigned her SLOP staff position - not membership. Her member account was canceled. She was banned as a user.

More lies and crap from the mediocre Objectivist guru wannabee.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just when you think the BS is abating, here comes more.

Hsiehm just posted a repudiation of Chris Sciabarra on SLOP and the same thing at the House of Hsiehm.

This has to be her most mediocre effort to date. The writing is horrible, and it reminds me of a religious tell-all "witnessing." I will be dealing with that piece of trash later. For the present, let me just say that Chris Sciabarra is a magnificent human being and a benefactor of these petty little people that they do not deserve.

But to top it off, some dude opened an account on SLOP under a pseudonym and wagged his finger at Hsiehm. Now people are popping up saying that this dude is me.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...

Don't these dudes know that I do stuff with talent? Dayaamm! The saying is: Sometimes you have to run with pigs. The secret is never to eat with them.

So I read SLOP at times. I would never post there anymore under any circumstance. Also, I don't post anonymously anywhere. Others may need to do this, but I certainly don't.

Michael

[Roger Bissell]

Say what you will about Dyin' O'Shame, but personally, I think she is incredible. I mean that literally, of course.

REB

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Folks,

I've been following this little drama against Chris Sciabarra by the drama queen (Roger, I like the name so I'm gonna use it), Dyin' O'Shame, but I never thought I would see an inversion like I am seeing now.

Back when SoloHQ was still a reality, Perigo and Rowlands played Good Cop/Bad Cop a lot. Perigo would be the Bad Cop, constantly softening some "victim" or the other up through rudeness and obscenity, then Rowlands would appear on the thread at a strategic moment to politely finish the dude off, talking philosophy and giving a lesson to all, implying that if the dude mended his ways he could... er... whatever - do or be something good anyway.

Now Dizzy is is teaming up with Dyin' O'Shame, except O'Shame is the Bad Cop and Dizzy is the Good Cop. Seriously. You can read it here.

After O'Shame's "witnessing" routine, Dizzy is talking all polite and shit, and even makes a call on Chris to save himself at the end.

Dayaamm!

Somehow the Good Cop routine doesn't come off with Dizzy doing it. It sounds cockeyed. Dizzy just ain't cut out for the part.

Anyway, I will address that piece of trash later also.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Gawd, MSK- those links led to some major lame. I need another shower, that was so icky.

And I love the revisionist crap on Kat. Nice touch. I was around through all that and I totally know what the score is. I don't remember if they took her account down right after the resignation, or if they slapped her on moderation for awhile, and it doesn't matter which. Idea: maybe Linz was just having a senior moment. Or something or another is wiping out his brain cells.

It's like Linz is trying to do Hedda Hopper, or Page 6. It reminds me of stuff I've seen in high school newspapers. Actually, it's worse- you wouldn't be permitted to go quite that funk writing a high school column.

And then, the "C'mon Chris you can do better..." Says who? Perigo? Eff him. Compared to Chris, and I do mean this, Linz can't write his way out of a freaking pay toilet. He doesn't even do schtick well anymore, because he's in such recycle mode.

I really want to start referring to him as a particular feminine hygiene product that was much more prominent in past days, before they went to disposable ones.

Three words: Emperor's New Clothes.

As far as Diana, she's a fundamentalist. Sad, really- I kind of remember when she wasn't. It's always sad to see a newly-minted fundamentalist, in any movement or religion. It's like their psyche demanded that they slap on the blinders. But it happens- some people absolutely have to go that way in order to keep it together- see it all the time. That is the complete antithesis of what freethinking is about. Oh well- she can go have it.

Sheesh.

rde

[jordanz]

I've made a commitment not to go to those sites anymore - it's bad for my mood. Given what everyone is saying here, I think I'm making the right choice.

My only hope in all this is that somehow Diana is somehow channeling Francisco D'anconia and is really doing some underground work... uh, right.

[Roger Bissell]

Ah, the good old days.

I remember when I first got on the Internet and started taking part in online Objectivist discussions (1995) and then, several years later, attended meetings at Nathaniel's house (1998-2000 or so). At that time, I became aware that Carolyn Ray and Dyin' O'Shame were partners in an enterprise near San Diego called "Enlightenment." Sort of neo-Objectivist, but with quite a bit of good stuff happening there -- involving Tibor Machan, Chris Sciabarra and others. All of my experience through 2000 or so led me to believe that while Carolyn Ray was a really nasty, vitriolic [fill in favorite "b" or "c" word here], Dyin' O'Shame was a level-headed, temperate, rational person. So I thought, anyway.

In the past year or so, since her conversion to the Arian Race and her alliance with the Brown-Shirt Attilas on So-Low Bashin', what I have seen of Dyin' O'Shame in terms of treachery, lies, manipulation, and power-lust puts Carolyn Ray's measly theatrics to...shame. She was actually cut from the same cloth after all -- merely a "late bloomer." She has now made up for it in spades.

You are all witnesses, folks -- the beginning of a campaign that will culminate one day (mark my words) in the coronation of a new "lady" Witch Doctor for the Arian Race. Some day, when LP goes the way of vinyl LP's, I fully expect to see Dyin' O'Shame sitting on the Throne of Ayn Rand. Once that happens, of course, Dizzy Vertigo and his Brown Shirt Brigade on So-Low Bashin' will be history. (They're already hysterical.)

Just remember one thing: Dizzy and Dyin' are SO lame, SO impotent, that the worst they can do to any of us is to quote our private, confidential emails out of context. If that is what they want to spend their time and energy doing, LET THEM! In the meantime, let's take our attention off the religious addicts (for that is what they are) and put it on OUR VALUES -- our work, our friends and families, and the pursuit of our happiness.

And beware the Holocaust Fallacy. You have heard it said that "the only way for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing." This is correct. But if your life or the lives of others are not in jeopardy, then "being loyal to your values" and "doing something" does NOT require you to go into battle with evil people. Going into defensive mode in cases like the present only robs you of time and energy for doing things that create positive value in your life.

By all means, send Chris or whomever a private email of moral support, or call them in support. Even go on Solo Passion and make your public statement of support for Chris, for TOC, Kelley et al, or for Nathaniel and Barbara, if you are so moved, but SAY IT AND LEAVE. Don't stick around for the mud-fight. Don't make the mistake Robert Campbell did.

And whatever you do, do NOT trust Dizzy, Dyin', or anyone who has mistreated you or anyone you care about -- above all, do not trust them when they come, all civil and reasonable sounding, trying to probe for information so they can "understand" whatever, let alone trying to entice you into entering into a "dialogue" on So-Low Bashin' or wherever. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DIALOGUE WITH THESE PEOPLE -- ONLY TRAPS TO ROB YOU OF YOUR TIME AND ENERGY AND SERENITY. Value yourself and those you care about. Stay out of the snake-pits.

And remember one more thing, taught to me by my good friend Douglas Rasmussen: It is not your job to make sure that the next generation correctly understands Rand's philosophy. It is your job to understand it yourself and to be a good example of what you understand it to be, to the extent that that promotes your life and your happiness. YOU DO NOT EXIST TO SERVE OBJECTIVISM. OBJECTIVISM EXISTS TO SERVE YOU. It is a tool of YOUR survival. If others render the widely available form of Objectivism worthless for the human race, that does not have to rob you of what YOU know to be the truth about the world, knowledge, right and wrong, and your happiness.

REB

[JennaW]

I think Chris can handle his own. I support him, as I've stated here and on RoR. Yes, that's public, if that means anything. But I've had it for good with ever calling myself Objectivist. Blame Ms. H for casting such a positive light on it. Choices have consequences, and she has done negative work with me in "promoting the Objectivist movement". Please understand that I wish to not ever, in my entire life, have to deal with that kind of insanity from anyone, and not calling myself Objectivist is a very, very small price to pay for an ultimately joyful and selfish life.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dizzy and the Gang are getting desparate.

One of their own (something called lurker614) is now posting as if he/she/it were me:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/893#comment-7471

Even to the point of aping my mannerisms (but the style ain't quite right yet - whoever is doing this needs to practice some more).

I don't post anonymously. Anywhere. (I used to have a pseudonym "dchild342" that I used for Brazil stuff for a while. I only use that for my Yahoo messenger nowadays for fun. Everybody who knows me well knows that, too.)

Come on, guys. Gosh darn it. You can do better than that.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

I suppose it could be a voyeur/lurker that did their homework and now they wanted to get into the game.

But either way, it's just more crazy shenanigans<tm>

rde

After shenanigans, they will attempt "hijinks."!!!

[JennaW]

I heard thru the grapevine that she's targeting/targeted me.

Yes, yes, yes, I'm evil like Chris. Okay okay okay.

"As Gregor Samsa awoke one morning from uneasy dreams he found himself transformed in his bed into a gigantic insect." --Franz Kafka

[Rich Engle]

I suppose it could be a voyeur/enthusiast/lurker who simply did their homework.

Or, ummm...not.

Casey Fahy <---(God Voice), "I Accuseth Thee<tm>

Well no, I don't really, but I'm with the idea that it's somehow related to that clown cadre.

rde

Bring it on, boys: Daddy's hungry.

[JennaW]

Cognitive science is a far more rewarding subject to discuss than any of the matters I've been embroiled in for the last two weeks plus. I look forward to at least occasionally commenting on it here at OL.

Robert Campbell

It is. My studies in cognitive/psych. neuroscience has almost replaced ITOE. It is ever becoming one of the most rewarding decisions I've ever made--- to go into this field. Let's open up dialogue on this topic, Robert, if you're game. I'd like to learn and share knowledge with you. I don't meet many cognitive scientists.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the last post I will hopefully have to make on this anonymous issue:

Finally Jason Quintana did something I fully agree with:

Lurker614 has been blocked from posting further messages on SOLO.

We have just instituted a new policy requiring new users to provide a real name in their profile. V, I would appreciate it if you would identify yourself as well.

("V" is a poster who claims to be a "hard core ARI- supporter.") This issue is too serious for anonymous foolishness.

Michael