James Heaps-Nelson Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 When you get out of philosophy there's lots of genius-level beauty just waiting there.Jim,Amen to that.One thing many people in Objectivism could do to understand how little other people care about this stuff is to go read about schisms in other movements and feel your eyes glaze over.Double amen.Just for the record, I know how boring the schism subject is to the general public when I do my thing against Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo. My purpose is not to sway them. It is to discredit Perigo's efforts—within the subculture—when he tries to slime productive people. A contrary voice needs to be present for people to receive a different input to be offered a choice. Otherwise, since most people are too busy with their own affairs to do much research, they tend to go along with the trashing.That's just human nature. Boring for outsiders. But often very painful for the one being trashed. And even then, sometimes the poison and damage ooze to outside the subculture, like the NZ government's suspension of Jim Peron's visa over a misguided publication a few decades old that he took part in. Somebody has to stand up to that kind malice. Who? Whoever wants to step up to the plate.I stepped up.MichaelMichael,I've never been an Objectivist insider and never wanted to be. It seems to cut off the oxygen to people's brains. I don't understand the political BS associated with it, the crowd psychology and weird way people silo in this movement. I also don't know anything about the Peron thing except that Lindsay and crew don't seem to like him much. Unfortunately, I am naturally curious and that gets you into some strange spots in this movement. I've got a feeling this will just open a huge, ugly can of worms so I'll take a pass on this one.Jim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Jim,Here is my problem with Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo. Below is a paragraph from Galt's speech that he periodically presents in his speeches and articles, especially the don't "let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark," phrase, which is his crowd-pleaser part.In the name of the best within you, do not sacrifice this world to those who are its worst. In the name of the values that keep you alive, do not let your vision of man be distorted by the ugly, the cowardly, the mindless in those who have never achieved his title. Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. Do not let your fire go out, spark by irreplaceable spark, in the hopeless swamps of the approximate, the not-quite, the not-yet, the not-at-all. Do not let the hero in your soul perish, in lonely frustration for the life you deserved, but have never been able to reach. Check your road and the nature of your battle. The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours.So let's look at the irreplaceable sparks that surround Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo who have made some kind of achievement to speak of. Not the recent people, who can leave at any time, nor distant people. I mean the ones who have been by his side or openly supported and encouraged by him for years. Who are they? I can only think of one, Peter Cresswell, who runs a relatively popular blog called NotPC (PR6 with good traffic) in New Zealand. The rest of the regulars on SLOP are kids or newbies.Now look at a long line of people who used to be close to Perigo who now despise him and/or are despised by him. A long goddam line. People who are productive. Famous people and not-so famous. Branden-side, Kelley-side and Peikoff-side. Just look at the list of previous authors of the Free Radical. It used to be online somewhere. Where are they now?Are all these people scum? All of them? As Perigo would have readers believe? Why weren't they scum when they were close to Perigo? What has this little petty man done in each and every case? Most all of it is online. All you have to do is look and read.He has tried to extinguish their productive fire, "spark by irreplaceable spark." Time after time. Over and over. In harangue after harangue, email after email, attack after attack, intrigue after intrigue.Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo is not a producer. He is a person who tries to destroy producers.That is not Objectivism. That is despicable.Somebody has to say it. So I say it.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 :cheer: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Robert,On the SLOP thread in question (starting, say, here and going up), I am highly amused at the pretzels Ms. Stuttle is twisting herself into in order to get in the last word. That's what the lady has always done. That's what the lady will continue to do. At least she is in her game. Nothing pleases her more than when she can speculate all over the place and tell folks what she would have done instead of someone else—making herself the hero of course as opposed to the hapless soul she is criticizing.Also, there is a boy who is likewise turning himself into a pretzel trying to "prove" that your deleted post never existed. You know, the one even Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo said he saw. Doth the boy protest too much?Hmmmmmm... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Of Mr. Perigo's longtime supporters, only Peter Cresswell remains, as Michael noted.And Mr. Cresswell rarely posts on SOLOP any more.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Robert,To use Rand's own words from above, when reviewing the legacy of personal achievements Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo is leaving mankind, with the sole exception of some personal opinions about classical music and a small handful of interviews, which of the two statements most fit?1. "The ugly, the cowardly, the mindless."2. A man "whose proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads."For me, to imagine Perigo bearing "a step that travels unlimited roads" makes me guffaw. But be that as it may, a good portion of his body of work and his behavior is online for all to see. May each person look at it, and judge for himself or herself.Then we can discuss the extinguishing of sparks in a proper context...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 Incidentally, in May of last year, I wrote an essay entitled Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore. I didn't expect this to be proven on SLOP, but there is is.Two days ago, a poll was posted over there. I have no doubt a flurry of emails accompanied it, although I expect this to be denied. (I say this as once having been the recipient of such emails when I was actively on Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo's team.)With all the offline activity, with all the online discussion involving Peikoff's email to Wikipedia's CEO, with all the bluster, and despite the poll being on SLOP's front page, here are the results after 2 days:That's 17 people who voted with 400 views. Seven people out of the 17 selected one of the two "trash the Brandens" options.Yup, that pretty much sums up the real interest. Maybe after my post some more offline activity will happen to skew the results in a more interesting direction for the Branden haters, but the raw fact is that this is a party nobody wants to come to. And of those who do show up, most don't care.I made a similar point with a poll I made regarding 9/11 conspiracy theories: 9-11 - What's your take?Only 11 people voted in that one so far.Despite skewed results and yellers yelling all over the place in public venues, people eventually learn the true value of information coming from those kinds of yellers. People might show up at times to see the bickering like a side-show, but they really don't care.btw - In the ortho-Objectivist world, I hear thundering silence in response to Dr. Peikoff's public request to alter Wikipedia's policy...Who knows? Maybe nobody takes PARC seriously anymore...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted June 10, 2009 Share Posted June 10, 2009 He has a very limited repertoire, and in the end that will be part of what makes him go bye-bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) I bet the 35% part is vexing. Nothing like when your main racehorse gets rode too hard, too long, too many times put away wet and then you have to ditch your main marketing plan. He should have had his better monkeys on that; we've been saying ancient history for, well, a few years now.Duh.Suggestion: Pawn best airbaton and use funds to hire swanky new web marketing firm.Heh.rde Edited June 11, 2009 by Rich Engle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Grande Dame of St. Referee Ellen Stuttle opines to Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo:Among his entertainments, Linz, he proposed unholy matrimony between you and me."His" of course is your humble servant...moi....But such opining is just not right.I never said "unholy."I consider it a SENSE OF LIFE conjugal union (albeit a virtual one).Confucius say, "Those who swoon together are soon in tether..." Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 The first reaction to Dr. Peikoff's publication of his email to Jimmy Wales can be seen athttp://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2009/06/wed...read-67.shtml#2No response from Ms. Hsieh so far.Any mentions in the other Orthodox Objectivist venues?Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 (edited) There are so many ways to look at this long, embarrasing battle.I prefer to lampoon Perigo; it is an easy fight, and the riffs you get from him just roll. Surely, he is an easy mark, in that respect.....He has been the worst kind of queens. I have two great queens, friends, and they would eat him for lunch just based on pure understanding. Because, they simply would not tolerate his prancing. Michael calls him "Objectivist Liar Lindsey Perigo." And that is accurate, and good. The only caveat there is that how he portrays it is not full enough to illustrate hiis total spectrum of scum-bag-ness.I was surprised at the depth of his swamp-smelll (even after years of battling this Creature<tm>:He was surely the gift that kept on giving).There are, recently, sniffy little " I want to puke in the basin before cofffee" things that actually upset this creature; notably done by what apparently is a seamy partner of mine (albeit our raging success).I saw the great ones write...Campbell, many others.Pilloried,or not, we picked up, early, on the scum-smell of this LP-Creature<tm>. And, it came to his silly air-baton thing. You can find this out simple, if you roll the math.He is a man with false vanity who does damage to others, mainly due to that deep, deep thing inside him that says "I am not good enough."Nathaniel Branden really defined the two elements of self-esteem: worth/efficacy.This poor bastard has gone so far as to transcend his own problem with that so much so that he is causing problems. That is my simple read, buit I am sure that Nathaniel. were he to have any comment at all, would reflect impatience.If I were to guess, Barbara and NB must find this tiresome. There's nothing worse than people sucking your tailwind.So we did something.....Resurrect the premise, O-Liar Lindsey-poo doing hsi do. Enjoy! Meanwhile, our books and album projects are just rolling along fine.http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2115/220719...66ff495.jpg?v=0rdefeel free to put a nail in the coffin. Edited June 13, 2009 by Rich Engle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 A small update on the ortho reaction to Dr. Peikoff's public request.As Robert mentioned above, there are a few sporadic posts on Noodlefood, but no suggestions of substance for complying with Dr. Peikoff's request. Mainly complaints about what Wikipedia should or should not do or criticisms of Wikipedia's value.A thread was started on OO: Anti-Rand Wikipedia Position, Have Anti-Objectivists Taken Over the Entries?. A Wikipedia editor posts there, which was refreshing. In fact, the only suggestion of substance I saw there was from this young man. (Jonathan also posted some facts, but this was to correct misunderstanding, not to make suggestions.) The young editor suggested that OO make an Objectivist Wiki (or better, improve the Wiki that exists). Going by the discussion, I don't have much faith this project will progress. On Wikipedia, Richard Lawrence compiled "a temporary collection of material about references to James Valliant's The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics that once appeared in Wikipedia articles but have subsequently been removed" on his talk page: User:RL0919/Old parc.I looked through the entries on the page and the reasons given for the deletions. Thank God there are nowhere near the 1300 he and/or Holly made. Since Valliant's 1300 edits covered many articles, I shudder to think where they were included.I hate to say this, but I believe many Objectivists of the Valliant epistemology will simply not be able to grok reasons for deletion like relevance or editorial synthesis. So I don't hold much hope that they will be able to go there and offer any compelling reason for re-inclusion of the material, or agreement with the removal but reasonable suggestions for inclusion elsewhere.This is, to my mind, one of the most damaging effects of thinking in cognitive-normative reverse, i.e., judging something before properly identifying it. People of the Valliant epistemology do this constantly with Ayn Rand (and other topics as well). This cognitive-normative wrong thinking sequence leads them to imagine enemies of Rand where none exist and makes them accept and praise statements that are factually inaccurate or grossly misleading (with verification within easy reach) simply because a favorable opinion of Rand was expressed. Even when they give an accurate evaluation, the idea that it needs to be supported with verifiable facts is foreign to their mentality.Rand's angry charge in certain situations of statements similar to "Do you think I would ever consider this to be debatable?" sounds good for vanquishing foes. But it is a terrible thinking method. It's especially a terrible persuasion method. Only the cowed become convinced, and even they are not always convinced—they are just silenced. I can see that kind of statement as a proper response to something like heckling, but if it is leveled at a person of goodwill asking a question in good faith, I can't see it as anything but bullying. This approach to rational thought, in addition to being wrong, will never make a dent in clear standards given by Wikipedia like relevancy and editorial synthesis. All a person has to do is read the guidelines, but the guidelines have to be understood to be used. Like I said, I don't expect them to be understood by Valliant supporters because, from what I have seen so far, most have trained their minds to put their evaluations before identification.btw - Thanks to the person who sent me the links. You know who you are...Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Parille Posted June 11, 2009 Author Share Posted June 11, 2009 One of the posters on OO said as follows:I and others have made efforts to inform Dr. Peikoff that, contrary to the suspicions that he mentions in his letter to Wales which is now publicly posted on his website, Barbara Branden did not instigate the Wikipedia investigation into PARC's reliability as a source.I emailed Peikoff about this as well. Certainly a retraction is in order.-Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Jeff Perren (a person with whom I have no quarrel) just made an interesting question to Robert on SLOP:Why this crusade against Valiant (and Perigo, and....). If you dislike these people, if you think them immoral, how much valuable time and energy do you think it worthwhile to devote to exposing their immorality again and again? Aren't there much greater battles to fight?I don't know what Robert's answer will be, but I know mine.If Mr. Perren is able to get these losers like Perigo and Vallaint to cease promoting their nonstop malice and hatred against productive people, I am more than willing to stop.But they don't stop, so I don't stop. And now, when they do stop for a breather, I'm suspicious as all get out, so I still don't stop. In Brazil, there's a saying: Dou um boi pra não entrar numa briga, mas depois que entro, dou uma boiada pra não sair.Roughly translated, it means I would give a head of cattle away for free to avoid getting into a fight, but once I'm in it, I'm willing to give away the whole herd to see the fight to the end.That's me. They wanted it. They wanted it again when they didn't get it. Then they wanted it again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again and again. Well they finally got it. Now live with it.I'm not letting up. This crap is going to end one way or the other. I'm shooting for total discredit and I'm willing to go there if that is what it takes.I find it strange that people like Mr. Perren (and he is not the only one) never make a similar question about having "much greater battles to fight" against the Perigos and Vallaints in the subcommunity. This is only reserved for the side that they attack over and over and over.Mr. Perren notes that Valliant is presently too ill and too busy with writing a book to face lower priorities, er... like answering questions about the inconsistencies in the malice he promotes. Well he is not too ill and too busy to spam the living daylights out of Wikipedia with 1300 boneheaded edits in a short amount of time. Some book.Cattle anyone?Moo.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 Michael,Great Brazilian proverb.As I explained to Mr. Perren here, it became personal for me when they took down Chris Sciabarra.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 11, 2009 Share Posted June 11, 2009 I just spent some time reading over Arbitrary section break in "Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk" on Wikipedia.I am still laughing at the following quote from Valliant (writing as Pegalius1 and thinking he is fooling the world). Valliant lectures the Wikipedia editors:The principle is clear and simple: any use of Nathaniel or Barbara Branden in Wikipedia must be qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics."I can't keep the tears from guffawing from falling when I imagine their faces on reading that. I imagine them thinking, "Say what?!! Huh?!!" And then, the sheer incredulity in the responses...Oh dear God, the pain, the pain... Can anyone doubt that this is boneheaded? Come on!... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I just spent some time reading over Arbitrary section break in "Objectivism and Ayn Rand Cross Talk" on Wikipedia.I am still laughing at the following quote from Valliant (writing as Pegalius1 and thinking he is fooling the world). Valliant lectures the Wikipedia editors:The principle is clear and simple: any use of Nathaniel or Barbara Branden in Wikipedia must be qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to "The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics."I can't keep the tears from guffawing from falling when I imagine their faces on reading that. I imagine them thinking, "Say what?!! Huh?!!" And then, the sheer incredulity in the responses...Oh dear God, the pain, the pain...Personally, I think that every entry on Wikipedia, whether it has anything to do with Objectivism or not, should be qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to what Rand had to say on the subject (if she had something to say about it), and Rand's statement should be qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to what TheBrandens™ had to say about what Rand said, and what they said should be qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to PARC, which should by qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to Neil Parille's critique of PARC, which should be qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to whether or not Pigero, Gregster, Olivia, Jeremy and/or Kasper grunted something in response. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Personally, I think that every entry on Wikipedia, whether it has anything to do with Objectivism or not, should be qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to what Rand had to say on the subject (if she had something to say about it), and Rand's statement should be qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to what TheBrandens™ had to say about what Rand said, and what they said should be qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to PARC, which should by qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to Neil Parille's critique of PARC, which should be qualified by an accompanying citation or reference to whether or not Pigero, Gregster, Olivia, Jeremy and/or Kasper grunted something in response. JROTFLMAORobert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Parille Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share Posted June 12, 2009 (edited) I just asked the obvious question on Wikipedia:Pelagius1 -- If you are not Jim Valliant, then who are you? What role does Jim Valliant have in contributing to your posts? As you know, Wikipedia prohibits "sockpuppetry." --Neil Parille (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)I hope I didn't violate Wikipedia Protocol 177.6(K)(z)(1)(iii) concerning asking questions about sockpuppetry status on odd-numbered days. Edited June 12, 2009 by Neil Parille Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Parille Posted June 12, 2009 Author Share Posted June 12, 2009 Well, somebody violated something:Mr. Parille, Wikipedia strongly frowns as a policy on "meat puppetry" which is the more technical classification of Pelagius1's activities to date. Whether Pelagius1 is a "sockpuppet" of James Valliant is largely irrelevant provided that (1) WP:COI is read and understood and (2) Pelagius1 does not attempt to edit unilaterally Objectivist-related articles to promote PARC. In addition, Dr. Piekoff's problematic call to his listeners to "reverse Wikipedia’s decision in this issue" is -- perhaps unwittingly -- a further example of soliciting future readers to act as meat puppets and single-purpose accounts without ever understanding the policies and guidelines that apply to *all* articles on Wikipedia, not just this one. We should all respect WP:BITE as it applies to new editors (yourself included). I also have no objection to Richard Lawrence spending his valuable time reading PARC references and demonstrating why they were highly inappropriate in the context that they were given (I would have added further objections based on other policies). However, there are fair limits to how many times established editors acting in good-faith need to explain to a new user how Wikipedia works as a tertiary source and what needs to be read before boldly editing and commenting. This whole drawn-out experience has been remarkably disheartening and tedious. Sadly, it is not the first time and it will not be the last time that shameless self-promotion of an author's work by closely affiliated personnel will happen on Wikipedia. J Readings (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)-Neil Parille Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Here is that earth-shattering poll on SLOP in its 4th day, the one I think that was supposed to destroy Barbara Branden.That is 20 whole people who have voted during 4 days in a poll that stays on SLOP's front page. Seven voters opted for saying they don't give a damn. The poll has been read 445 times so far. It is reasonable to presume that the majority of these reads are by the 20 voters and posters (who are probably voters) on the discussion thread under that poll, and maybe a small handful of others like me.In that discussion thread, one SLOP regular doesn't even understand what is going on.As Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo has said about his movement to overhaul the Objectivist world: "Whole lotta shakin' goin' on."I wish I could find out what is being shook and where, but if I search long enough, maybe I'll find something... Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 Michael,I commented on the thread beneath that poll, complaining about loaded, ill-formed alternatives.And I didn't vote.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Posted June 12, 2009 Share Posted June 12, 2009 I wonder if anyone close to Peikoff has tried to help get him up to speed on how easily and how publicly he has been misled as a result of a meatpuppet using Valliant's IP address. Or perhaps there's even more to come in the comedy of errors?J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neil Parille Posted June 13, 2009 Author Share Posted June 13, 2009 (edited) Jonathan,Why do I get the feeling there is still more to come in this story?-Neil Edited June 13, 2009 by Neil Parille Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now