Queen Victoria on Solo


Recommended Posts

It seems Queen Victoria is alive and well on Solo (of all places!): suddenly we observe prissy, priggish, prudish fundies who are sooo indignant about innocent sex jokes - but of course only when they become themselves the victims (such jokes would no doubt be ok when directed against such evil people like the Brandens). As usual it started with Hsieh, when she wrote in a reply to Phil: Your endless crowing about your great victory is nothing but PREMATURE EJACULATION! And like the physical kind, it's embarrassing to watch!

I found Phil's reply very funny, while he takes her statement literally (and with the second sentence it's quite to the point): Diana, I'm really not interested in hearing admissions about the history of your sex life. You've done quite enough going public with private matters for several lifetimes.

However, the Queen was not amused...

Then another randroid snake called Phil a "slippery fucker".

Phil's reaction on RoR was:

> You wrestle with girls?

> 'Penelope' (who likes to call Phil a 'slippery fucker')

I didn't expect her to reveal our sexual history...I tried to hold on tight and stay engaged, I really did.

That was also a very witty repartee. Calling someone names like "slippery fucker" seems to be ok, but when the victim defuses the insult by turning it into a joke against the perpetrator the latter is suddenly offended...

Ladies, if you don't want to get hurt, you shouldn't play with fire.

As usual the biggest chutzpah comes from the suboptimal Perigo: Phil and ghastly soul(less)mates like Bissell engaging in sick sexual "humour" on Frord that is way different from the mischievous Chaucerian bawdiness of SOLO—but they can't tell the difference—with not a shred of remorse, even when called on it.

It's really unbelievable: Perigo suddenly doesn't like "sick sexual humour"! How low can you sink? Apparently he'll do anything to toady to his new girlfriend. Now if you want to see what Perigo thinks is real humour, you should read: http://www.solopassion.com/node/748

Hsieh's reaction is telling: Linz, I'm almost in tears from laughing so hard. Well, I wonder what her reaction (and that of the other randroids on Solo) would have been if someone posted that article with the names of Hsieh and her claque on Solo substituted for the "enemy" names. I think the howls of indignation could then be heard in Europe. Of course this doesn't really come as a surprise: the biggest hypocrites are always to be found among the fundies.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Great post, Dragonfly!

It's amazing that Perighoul can make an April Fool's Day joke about Barbara Branden bashing her poodle "Kilbourne" on the head with a frying pan, and the Hsiehster rolls on the floor with laughter -- but when Phil uses a play on words to turn a foul-language insult against him into a joke that one-ups the original perpetrator, boo-hoo-hoo, that's not nice. In fact, it's vicious and "soul-less" to even joke about having sex with someone who doesn't like you.

Hmmm, Atilla vs. Dionysus -- I'll take Dionysus, thank you. :-)

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites

Faux Victorian, to be sure.

Miss Penelope seems to be having a bit of difficulty getting her sea legs, which might have something to do with the fact that she clearly has a stick deeply stuck up yonder where the sun don't shine. "Some things are sacred." Maybe she should have published her rules of engagement before she let loose with the "slippery fucquer" salvo. If she's so proper, I imagine she languished over her keyboard for quite some time before she worked up enough kung fu and felt naughty enough to use "slippery" (oooh!) and "fucqer" (oooh!) as a phrase.

And then, The Master Curmudgeon. Lordy, where to start? I suppose he has laid down the preferred style manual, which has something to do with being bawdy and Chaucerian.

Glad we got that straight, albeit a bit late into the game. I guess that for sure means you can call Penelope a "wench?" Hard to say since the fading, curmudgeonly impresario is compromised to the point of changing the rules on-the-fly to better satisfy his extensive list of emotional needs.

Does that include "maggot," "slime," and the rest of his 'mudgeonly glossary? And why do I feel so convinced that if he got pinched too hard, he would start bawling? Probably just me wishing...

I'm pretty sure he'll be OK now, though, because he will at least for awhile have his ego occupied with his new cadre of youthful, developmental protoges. Until one of them goes outside of bawdy, or isn't bawdy enough, or ends up being a prime and easy pawn sacrifice for that Sea Goat. But even then, they remain of further use, because, for some (and he is one), there is no such thing as negative attention; so long as attention is had, it is Good<tm>. Impresarios stand where they do in the ring for a reason.

As far as Penelope, well... it's sort of like when a college girl gets lost on party nite and walks into the wrong kind of bar. She is moments away from becoming a passaround partygirl.

rde

"May we dance wif yo' dates?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Following a query post on SOLP (sister site: mariolanzasbastardstepgrandchild.com) by a reconnecting O-person regarding how the camps are laid out, Miss Penelope unknots her oh-so-tightly-crossed legs, and issues forth a mighty and thunderous quiff, casting our heretic souls into the void:

"Objectivist Living is basically where all the dishonest people who've been run out of the Objectivist movement go to die. It is just a website, though...thank gawd!"

Hmmm... I wonder if she knows that she is broadcasting from deep within a tomb.

rde

More wine, more quiffing, more Chaucerian Bore, wench!

Link to post
Share on other sites

A universal human failing is for a person to damn others for precisely the same sins which one has.

This can be illustrated as follows:

"I am determined; but today, I reconsidered my position.

You are stubborn; but today, you changed your mind.

He is obstinate; but today, he went back on his word."

And where better to illustrate the point, than on that particular list.

I wonder if Penelope isn't the Junior Queen to Diana? Both of them have Greco-Roman names.

Link to post
Share on other sites

She's a hypocrite who doesn't know she is a hypocrite.

As soon as she called Phil a "slippery fucker" (as in, Phil is deviously crafty, as in questioning Phil's ethical integrity), it was on. That was the glove in the face, the rules of engagement were on the table. Anywhere non-sanitized in forum world, it's on- at that point he could call her a dirty whore if he so chose. Instead, he gets spanked by Perigo for not being as Chaucerian and Bawdy-licious as using, say, "slippery fucker."

But then, when Phil went over into (her) sacred ground (suprise, sexuality), she yelled foul- Phil should have intrinsically, nay, telepathically realized that he had crossed an inviolable, based-on-reality line; the Sacred, The Holy.

Phil broke one of the (her) Prime Directives. Clearly, she is a woman of many rules- rules that she reveals at her discretion anytime after she has been countered.

Playing-the-victim behavior, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see dead people!

Hee, hee, hee!

Hurray! The ghosts of SOLOpast are here and kick'n!

Boy, Penelope Pitstop is profound!

As far as the sacred ground of her sexuality? It would not suprise me if she has entertained a pilgrimage or two!

Bad gary! Bad, Bad, Bad! You know nothing of her nether regions! Nor will you ever!

Bad, Bad, Bad gary!!!!!!!!

gary's Lawyers note- The above hypothetical situation concerning a hypothetical entity known as Penelope is strictly hypothetical.

Why is it that when I go to "mariolanzasbastardstepgrandchild.com" I only get updates on when Brokeback Mountain is going to be released on DVD?

(No. I will not let it go.com)

One last thing to all the invent-a-homophobe enthusiasts.

Why are you not harping over this statement -

However, the Queen was not amused...

Did you not get the joke? (It was a very good one) You humorless twerps?

Of course if you want to pounce on this...

If you are looking for a fight...

I'm your Huckleberry.

gw

Link to post
Share on other sites

This young woman gets a lot of attention for reasons of being young and nubile. From the poor quality of her pondered pronouncements so far, give it a few years and the attention should fade.

Other young and nubile lasses always have a habit of appearing over time while the former ones get older. The male attention then goes to the newcomers as the older ones have to start settling for what they can get.

A girl can be dumb and still get noticed if she is young and nubile. As she gets older, the charm of not ever having anything of importance to say wears thin.

For a gem of just plain dumbness, see this blossoming damsel's proclamation of some kind of mystical knowledge about Barbara's life here.

It's a hoot.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

MSK finds the fountain of dumbness, and she's not even a blonde:

"Objectivist rage? The problem is the only exposure to Objectivists Ms. Branden has is when they discuss her and her ol' husband, which DEMANDS Objectivist rage! She has absolutely NO experience with Objectivists beside that, unless she disguised herself Jean Valjean style and showed up at some Objectivist club in Nowheresville Indiana. I doubt she did that."

Probably was glowing over her scary bad-ass Le Mis reference. Oooh!

Brilliant, babe...great stuff. Now get along and fetch Daddy another martini, OK? That's a good girl. If that 30 yr. old, dead horsie, Branden-fueled O-rage hits you again, just pop a couple Ultracets, and finish off the shaker- you'll be good to go.

I guess the two of them speaking at the summer seminar and taking Q&A doesn't....count...as...contact with Objectivists? >blank out<

Looks like blondes really do have more fun. Or, at least they are more fun than this jr. curmudgeon-in-training... ACK!

Pre-screening dates: very, very important or you're in for this kind of action.

Link to post
Share on other sites

n00b questions for the community:

(1) What was that babbling Penelope was doing about "integration?" At this point I must admit I'm unclear on the concept as presented in O'ism...but it didn't seem to have much to do with anything related to the specific claims and counterclaims from where I'm sitting. Or did it? It just seemed to be so straight out of cloud-cuckoo land that I'm now wondering if I'm the one missing something

(2) Was what Victor Pross quoted re: Integration plagiarism in your eyes or not? He didn't source it when he posted it, and when called on it just said he didn't claim it as his own. The feeling I get is that others would have been crucified had they pulled something like that, but as a good member of the SOLO P wolf pack he gets a free pass. Is that really how that place works?

(3) Has anyone yet even attempted a point by point refutation of the original post? The author's motives are impugned, he's called names, and all sorts of weird unverifiable nonsense is dumped into the thread. Yet nobody seems willing to bow their necks and take the charges on point by point. I grant that posturing like you're a WWF wrestler may have a certain amusement factor, but on that thread its starting to get really, really old. Or am I missing something here, too?

Patrick

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think integration hardly ever gets used substansively in O-world. As a matter of fact, I don't think it is understood all that well in O-world.

If you want to get integration, you have to read integrators- probably the best philosophical thinker of the integration style is Ken Wilber, and that is surely on the banned list because he is a Buddhist. I'm not even sure Koestler is legal tender.

It is fair to say that Rand utilized integration in developing her system. Whether you recognize integration or not, if you're building something it's going to be there. The problems are usually 1: How, and 2. Avoiding pathological episodes during the attempted integration.

Being Modern era, the challenge for Objectivism would be to check the pre-modern to modern integration, and as well look at the modern to postmodern integration point. Instead, you hear a lot of chest pounding about filthy pomo and such. The fact remains that postmodernism, for instance, has, as Wilber puts it, its great dignities and great disasters, just like everything else, including modernity.

Most likely the curmudgeonlet, she just throws the term around. A little integration here, a dash of Valjean there... la la la! Voila!

I want to see her talk about holons, and do it before cheating out on Google, too.

rde

Integrate this, you harpie.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do a Google search of curmudgeonette's name (Penelope Beach).

I suppose it could be real but heavens, that reeks of pseudonym.

Couldn't possibly be, not with that heavily-stated integrity.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Grinder said

2) Was what Victor Pross quoted re: Integration plagiarism in your eyes or not? He didn't source it when he posted it, and when called on it just said he didn't claim it as his own. The feeling I get is that others would have been crucified had they pulled something like that, but as a good member of the SOLO P wolf pack he gets a free pass. Is that really how that place works?  

That would be called hitting the proverbial nail on the head.

When called upon it, he gave some lame excuse of not wanting to provide a link because it would cause people too much work or some crap to that effect. With all the acumen and knowledge he claims to possess I am much surprised he doesn't know hot to do a simple cut-and-paste coupled with using quotation marks, or more than likely he does which really adds to the lameness.

You ask "is that really how that place works?" I would never ask you to take my word for it alone, but just go over to the beginning of the thread and see how Fred Weiss responds to Mark, a person seemingly siding with Phil on the issue. Look at the way he begins his post by referring to Phils post as an "attack on Diana" instead of a rebuttal which if I remember correctly would be called "poisoning the well". He then immediately launches into an ad hominem attack on Mark as Laure Chipman pointed out on ROR, to try and discredit him for being anti Israeli(supposedly) as if that has anything to do with the discussion at hand. When I ask a question about being Objective in regards Diana's original essay he says if you don't agree with it then you are not an Objectivist and that's that as if he has the final say on all things, which is followed by another attack this time on Phil which doesn't have a damn thing to do with my original question.

So-- is this business as usual? I may be somewhat guilty of "poisoning the well" myself, but please read it for yourself and decide and then look and see how long it is before he addresses any part of Phil's rebuttal in an objective way.

I am *not* saying everyone over there is that way, but he seems to be a point man for somebody or some organization. You make up your own mind.

L W

Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember when she came on and she accidentally uploaded her picture full size as a post? Then all the drooling started...

You gotta wonder. No bio information. That name has got to be fake; either that or her parents had a ruthless sense of humor. That's why I Googled it- the name seemed off. The whole package seems contrived.

rde

I didn't do it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Penelope:

…the only exposure to Objectivists Ms. Branden has is when they discuss her and her ol' husband, which DEMANDS Objectivist rage! She has absolutely NO experience with Objectivists beside that…

Assuming this is true:

This means that Barbara Branden never knew Ayn Rand. What else can we make of the statement that Barbara Branden has "absolutely NO experience" with Objectivists? Unless, of course, we don't consider Ayn Rand herself to have been an Objectivist. Which is a contradiction.

But let'ts run with this thought: it follows from the above quote ; and that thought must bring the cheers to Penelope and her side of the story, because we can therefore write off EVERYTHING in The Passion of Ayn Rand.

But wait, there's more.

This means that James S. Valliant is ALSO wrong to say that Barbara Branden "lied to Rand." Remember, she never knew Ayn. But perhaps we shouldn't blame Mr. Valliant. After all, there are Ayn's journals. Was Ayn lying to mention knowing Barbara Branden? Was Ayn lying to mention Barbara's association with her in "To Whom it May Concern"? Ayn stated in public print that Barbara Branden was "no longer associated" with her, Ayn, or with Objectivism. [emphasis mine]

Would Penelope insist that Ayn Rand was also lying, or possibly deluded? or would she admit that she made a mistake in what she, Penelope, said?

Actually, there is a third possibility:

"Chrys Jordan is being willfully dishonest. Look where he posts, and look at the nice things he said about Barbara Branden. He said he BELIEVES what Ms. Branden said, showing how biased he is. I never read Passion myself, because I know it's dishonest. Dr. Peikoff says so. He surely knows what he's talking about. As for Jordan, he must be a Brandroid. He's incapable of thinking for himself, because if he were, he'd agree with my BASIC position. Obviously he doesn't understand what I MEANT as opposed to what I SAID. I suggest we put a stamp on Mr. Jordan and mail him to Zimbabwe."

The above is similar to the response I'm likely to get, should Penelope read anything I've written here. Then again, why should she come here? Does she not already know that this board is immoral, dishonest, et cetera? So I'm off the hook, at least for now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Makes you wonder if she isn't a complete hoax, with fake photos and all. She's just too absurd, even for Solo. Perhaps it's some evil OL'er having fun...? It would be an excellent joke!  //;-)) //;-))  //;-))

I don't think she is a hoax, Dragonfly. She's TOO bad at philosophizing to be someone who knows better and is pulling a stunt. As I expect you know, playing off-key if you're a trained musician is very difficult. In similar vein, if a person is philosophically informed, it would be very difficult to give a convincing performance as a philosophical neophyte.

Ellen

___

Link to post
Share on other sites

Her fundamental is simple: If Dr. Peikoff said something, it has to be true.

When she was trying to tear up Phil's rebuttal/analysis, she did a classic O'ist logical boildown, and it came to that same thing. She assumes that if it comes out of Dr. Peikoff, it is true.

I'm not saying Dr. Peikoff is a liar. She doesn't allow for errors of memory, 2nd hand accounts, etc.

I wonder how well "she" even knows any of those she so readily worships or attacks.

www.penelopebeach.com

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ellen Stuttle wrote:

As I expect you know, playing off-key if you're a trained musician is very difficult.

No, it's not! I and the musicians I work with are quite adept at doing so. It is distressingly easy to do, and it is very convincing and/or amusing, if you are bored or trying to mock someone who isn't doing very well. I assume that not everyone trained in music can or likes to do this, but it is not a rare "talent." I also assume that the parallel ability is not rare in writing prose, as in email posts. So...

REB

Link to post
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