O-Lying and why that's just lame.


Recommended Posts

There has been a fair amount of animosity between OL, ROR, and SOLOP.

There is no goodness in this, and everyone can point fingers as to where ground zero was; what got the party started. There is no Patient Zero.

SoloP gets called "Slop" by some. ROR, I forget what that one gets, it's not memorable enough, I suppose.

It makes even the better thinkers resort to lameness. As much as I have a nearly non-opinion of Lindsay Perigo, he's a good deal away from flash cards as far as education goes. And he refers to OL as O-Lying.

And that makes him less, it is a ridiculous monniker.

OL has a softer side to it, but as far as being a cadre of facile liars, that's just flat out bullshit. Total, complete bullshit. I don't take issue when he talks about smears; smears are the coin of the realm these days in cyber-O-world. I don't take issue, other than the fact that smears are an equal opportunity situation, across at least all three of the aforementioned boards. Admit that the door continuously swings both ways, maybe.

But the idea that OL is fraught with liars, that's horse-hockey. He was reaching, I think. Many of us do from time to time.

I can't imagine any of it puts anyone in a place where they feel good, at least not feel good for long.

EDIT: Mr. Perigo posted a glossary of his "isms" right around the same time as I put this post up. So, we have the official word:

O-Lying = ObjectivistLiving. A Shrine to Nathan and Barbara, populated by Brandroids who couldn't speak the truth if their woeful lives were dependent on it.

So, without the flamethrower...

It's just not true, either component. OL has a Branden component. It also has dozens of other ones. Certainly not a "shrine," eh? That would look a great deal different, a tribute site. Flat out wrong.

Second component- let's get real Objectivist here, Mr. Perigo- that statement includes a great number of people, including me. For one, you have no criteria, you don't know me. I believe it's a bit rough around the edges, logically speaking, to brand an entire group of folks as pathological liars. I am not a liar, although, being human, I have surely lied about things on occasion, just like I am sure you, and most of the human race has. I avoid it at all costs, because for one, it affects your self-esteem, and for two, it really doesn't work out long-haul. Lying is a matrix of traps, and you have to keep track of it all; it gets harder and harder, the more you heap on it.

I could say that Mr. Perigo is, also, a liar, having lied about calling me a liar. But I do not find him a liar, at least not in this instance. Instead, I suggest that he has made a logic error. If he were to state his premises, and absolutely prove that I am a liar (having been included in his category), that would be something different. But he cannot, mainly because he knows nothing of how I operate in the real world.

It's just a careless mistake.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich,

You shouldn't let someone as emotionally imbalanced as Perigo get to you. By his own admission, his pronouncements are not reliable (when he "blows his stack," for instance). His constant reversals on evuuuuuul (to quote our dear "now officially evul" William Scherck) are another indication. Much of what he says today will be reversed tomorrow. Just look at his history for vast evidence of that.

Be assured that the only people who take his opinions seriously are those who agree with his party line because they are into him, not his ideas - and those are very few. When he reverses, they do too.

He does "get to" some of the ones he accuses at times (just like he did you just now). Their reactions are what generates his audience, otherwise he would hardly have one. In the Sciabarra fiasco, I made an exception and we all responded for Chris, even while knowing that we were giving Perigo & Co. an unearned audience. But that was due to the ridiculousness of the size and irrationality of their actions. That particular bug had to be squashed.

(Robert Campbell has recently seen fit to continue that issue and he has been brilliant, but of course, there has been the corresponding rise in audience. It will fall off again when Robert decides to stop and the party line gets back to normal.)

As for the rest, it is pure preaching to the converted. (Well, now he does get free material from high-profile ARI people to post that he did not have access to before.) But nothing really important to the big picture. Ultimately, he's expendable to ARI (like Lenin's "useful idiot") and a minor irritation to TAS (very minor, I might add). Nothing more.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, Maestro-

Mr. Perigo doesn't get to me. If anything, I hope someday I get to him . Never say never. He wasn't even getting to me when I went off on my curmudgeon-hunting safari; the purpose there was to simply lampoon- I was providing a vaccine.

In this case, I'm just calling him to live by his premises. On occasion, I will do that if the person in question is laying down conditions for others, which he kind of does. I'm saying "walk your talk, dude."

The O-lying thing was, I believe, not much more than sloppiness on his part. I don't believe I have ever seen anyone (at least on OL) spread blatant lies about Lindsay Perigo, for instance. For one thing, that tactic is really kind of unneeded, because he creates so much of his own Sturm und Dang. And as you kind of point to, that's a style thing, it's how he marches his band, it's how he thinks it needs to be keep on keepin' on. It's presentation, just not one that I would want served on my plate. I think that a lot of the things he labels as "lies" (and this is hard to target down, since he virtually never has made mention of specifics) are actually just things that cut too close to his bone, and I understand that.

It spoke volumes to me when William S. engaged over there. I happen to think that William is without doubt one of the most interesting posters I've ever read, and he is, on top of that, a very calm voice of reason. Not everyone likes that. He calls people out, but in as gentle a way as I've seen a man of his intellect capable.

I'm not going to psychologize Lindsay Perigo. I will, however, make a general observation that I believe relates to him. That is simply that people don't always take kindly to the truth (how odd that, being that he accuses OL of being a lying forum). And, by extension, the observation that there are those of us who can't afford to drop a masque that's been heavily invested into- if that is lost, all is lost. I think that's a big part of his deal, but I don't know for sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich,

Mr. Perigo's name-calling varies in inspiration. A lot is both lame and mean-spirited, as you know.

He calls Rebirth of Reason the "TOC FRoRd Board," which, besides being grossly unfair to Mr. Rowlands, doesn't work when enunciated in an American accent.

The recent acts of roping off and placing on moderation over at RoR aren't consistent with Mr. Perigo's insinuations about the board's institutional leaning. And the last couple of days, Ethan Dawe has popped up on a couple of threads at SOLOP wagging the finger at me about one thing or another. He claims that others are offending, too, but wags no fingers in their direction. I think it's his way of saying, "Don't come back to RoR."

Whatever.

Nobody's telling me not to come back here.

Robert Campbell

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm suprised Ethan rolled in here last week, under the explanation of explaining some things, etc. He kept saying something to the effect that the topic at hand (Rowlands shipping recalcitrants to the ghetto) was a non-issue, really, seeing as it didn't affect OL posters such as myself. To that I say, so what? It was a fair observation to make, it was an interesting thing to look at that wasn't exactly common knowledge- in the past, Joe tended to just suggest that people/topics might best belong in the dissent area. My evaluation is that Ethan failed to address the core issues brought up. Neither here nor there at this time, I suppose.

Robert, I second MSK's sentiment about your value here, and you know that anyway. Over on SOLOP, you are more and more being pigeonholed as some kind of conspiracy freak, and that's just not who you are, it's total b.s. I notice in your recent efforts, the key points are simply not addressed in rebuttal, pretty much at all. I think it's pretty haenky when people can't even get real about NB's contribution to self-esteem research. It seems to me like the implication was that AR was the first to lay down the formal definition (self-worth/efficacy). It is true and obvious that Nathaniel's work had linkages to AR. I mean, uh-duhhh... But honest to Pete, anybody anywhere knows that when you're talking self-esteem, NB is the jedi master, no question about it. AR could have never written "The Psychology of Self-Esteem," and all that followed from it. There is never any acknowledgement of the revisionism/sanitizing that without a doubt has gone on. Never an honest explanation. At this point, it would be more real for someone to just come clean and say that they don't want the Brandens associated with the AR legacy, and therefore have removed all references; yes, the Brandens exist, but if you want to learn more, go elsewhere.

I mean, that would be haenky as Hell, but it would be real enough that a person could understand it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rich,

I overlooked a quotation from Galt's Speech in Atlas Shrugged today, which of course Fred Weiss et al. pounced on.

The irony is that it's the only substantial passage on self-esteem in Galt's Speech that Tara Smith failed to cite or quote in her book. A minor oversight on her part, which I should have double-checked, but that's why I missed it.

Anyhow, I'll have some comments on Galt's Speech and on Peikoff's treatment of self-esteem (which cites only Galt's Speech!) tomorrow. I've done enough on SOLOP for one day. I'll fix my rusty French, too.

The conspiracy theory charge came about because of my "Fractious Factions" entry back in April. I described the shady deals that Mr. Perigo, Mr. Valliant, Ms. Hsieh, Mr. Maurone, and some minor leaguers were engaged in behind the scenes. My sources were solid; in fact, one of the minor leaguers (Mr. Mazza) foolishly left evidence about who was asking for his email address out for all to see in the comment threads to his blog.

To this day, none of them will talk about getting together to run Regi Firehammer off Ms. Hsieh's blog the same day that he showed up there. It was my description of the Firehammer takedown that prompted the conspiracy theory charges. None of the participants dared explain how they all happened to be hanging around when Ms. Hsieh needed choral backup after deleting Mr. Firehammer's comment and denouncing him. I'm sure you've noticed that they still haven't.

Robert

Link to post
Share on other sites

Robert,

I wagged my finger at you on SOLO for the exact reason I explained in those posts. That being that you are doing what I perceive to be a bad job defending people/organizations I value. I don't waste my time wagging my finger at people who do a poor job of defending things I don't value.

As far as the "don't come back to RoR" part of your post, that is your own creation. You are free to post on RoR. I note that you said in the moderation thread here that you won't be going there much. Whether or not you do is up to you.

Ethan

Edited by ethan dawe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethan,

Except for the "They Banned Kenny" debacle, Robert is doing an admirable job defending good people from unfair attacks. In what ways do you believe Robert is doing a poor job? Because the "wolf-pack" says so doesn't make it thus.

Mick

Edited by Michael Russell
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ethan, that just barely makes sense. Other than to yourself, that is. I think it's pretty obvious that you value what you value, which of course is fine. But, even though you took the step of coming here, I don't see you discussing the issues brought up at all. So, why bother? You just defend a party line. Correct me if I'm wrong, but, for instance, what do you think about Joe R. not only putting Dragonfly into Dissent-only, but further making it so he can't read two other categories? Is that really true? If so, what is the reasoning? It seems a bit harsh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder what Rand herself would have thought of Perigo with his juvenile KASS leitmotiv as her "ally". I can't imagine that her judgement would have been very positive.

There's a thought. High-rpm grave-spinning comes to mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
You just defend a party line.

I simply explained what the reason for the new category of moderation was. Given the speculation for the reasons it seemed justifiable to me.

As for a party line, all I'll say is that the action taken with regards to RoR moderation makes sense to me. I disagree with the whole religious/orthodox parallel being made here.

RoR allows and encourages debate on Objectivism with people. Some people have honest questions and engage in debates where all involved learn things. After a time it becomes apparent that certain people are simply dissenters who are there to take issue with things and who consistentently support positions that are at odds with Objectivism. Once evidence shows that a person fits solidly into that category their access is limited. You may think that person is great and that their arguments are fine and dandy, but that doesn't matter. They can still post their ideas. They just have to post them in the dissent section where they can be talked about by anyone willing to engage them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, for instance, what do you think about Joe R. not only putting Dragonfly into Dissent-only, but further making it so he can't read two other categories?

I actually don't know if this is true, deliberate, or what. It wasn't part of the discussion I had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know about you, but I'd be interested in finding out. Blocking someone from even reading categories on top of the dissent thing is a pretty punk move. So, yes, yes, it's Joe's site- that still makes him a punk if he really did that. It's a total sissy move, anyone that's ever been on forums for any length of time can see it. Totally weak and afraid. Just throw the guy out, quit picking at him like a cat would a wounded bird.

Honestly, as much as I've recently lost some respect for Rowlands, I still can't picture him doing that. It's total crap.

As far as the whole criteria thing, yes, understood. Oh yeah. No need to break it down. Like I said, if anyone stays in dissent because they aren't there under their own power, they deserve it.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know about you, but I'd be interested in finding out. Blocking someone from even reading categories on top of the dissent thing is a pretty punk move.

I could find out, and perhaps I will. Hell, in order to read the top categories one would merely need to not log in, so I don't know why it would be a part of the moderation. I assume people who are just plain moderated can still read the other sections. It's more likely and oversight than an intentional effect.

Ethan

Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope so, I really do. As much as I think Joe has chosen an embarrassing path, I really would hope it doesn't extend to that kind of thing. I'm hoping software glitch or something.

But let's say for a moment he did so intentionally. He's the boss and can do what he wants aside, how do you feel about a move like that? I think it would be a pussy thing to do, it shows fear and definitely doesn't help credibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But let's say for a moment he did so intentionally. He's the boss and can do what he wants aside, how do you feel about a move like that? I think it would be a pussy thing to do, it shows fear and definitely doesn't help credibility.

Personally I wouldn't intentionally bother making an alteration that did that. I wouldn't evaluate it as a "pussy" thing to do, as I have no idea what that means. If it were intentionally done I would say that it was done to make it more difficult for "Dissenters" to cut and paste threads into the dissent section. Whatever. Do I think such a thing would be done out of fear? If fear were really the issue, the person would be banned or moderated totally.

If I thought Joe was the type of person who would moderate people whose arguements he couldn't handle I would look upon it negatively and would not be involved in RoR. I have seen no evidence that that is the case.

Ethan

Edited by ethan dawe
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, Ethan, I don't mean mortal fear. Perish the thought!

As far as your evidence for the other thing- I wouldn't know. What he does with the dissent section is enough for me. And, apparently enough for others than myself, too. So, soon, his site should be reading exactly the way he wants it, and life will be luscious!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, if you choose to not associate with certain people in your life, then you are living in just a contrived state of lusciousness.

Ethan

My point, exactly!

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