For the Record re PARC


Ellen Stuttle

Recommended Posts

Why do you care what I think of PARC? What difference does it make to you?

OK, you hate James Valliant and you want him to suffer, as payback for Chris Sciabarra. And you hate PARC. But of what significance is it to you if I don't share your attitude?

I could equally ask Ms. Stuttle why she cares what I think of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, and what difference that makes to her.

For over time she consumed quite a bit of space, both on SOLOP and on this list, ripping what I, among other critics, have said about PARC.

But, of course, she doesn't like to answer questions—not when a candid answer won't make her look good.

I don't mind answering.

I am not interested in making James Valliant suffer.

Being James Valliant, having his kind of mentality, is a recipe for suffering; no further, outside contributions are necessary. What he did to Chris Sciabarra was unforgivable, but many of the other things he has done vie with it in the unforgivability department, and in the end what led him to do these things is its own punishment. For that matter, I'm pretty sure that being a flunky of Leonard Peikoff is its own punishment.

I am interested in seeing James Valliant discredited, because he is the author, chief defender, and chief promoter of PARC.

I am interested, in turn, in seeing PARC discredited because it is one of the worst books ever written on any subject, conceived and executed in a gross melding of blinkered fanaticism, inept falllaciousness, and desperate sleaze.

Jim Valliant is precisely the kind of "defender" that Ayn Rand did not need; to the extent that anyone outside of Rand-land has paid attention to his book, it has actually hurt her reputation.

And if his book did not make this clear on its own, his special gift for self-undermining self-promotion surely did it. Rarely has an author done more to hurt his own book's reception in the years after it was published.

Given all of the obvious faults in Valliant's opus, from deliberate misreading of sources to sophistical argumentation to boneheaded hectoring comments to inane cheerleading ("Bullseye, Miss Rand") to unsurpassable slime-wallowing (the "soul of a rapist" charge), there are three reasons why people might read his book and imagine it has something going for it.

They could be far-gone zealots, already consumed by their need to believe in the perfection of Ayn Rand, the Satanic nature of TheBrandens, and the Papacy of Leonard. The far-gone Zealotry has always been the primary clientele for PARC.

They could be warped by their personal hatreds, like Lindsay Perigo, who "discovered" all the great virtues of PARC immediately after Barbara Branden rejected him.

They could be too gullible to recognize arrant BS when it's being shoveled right at them.

PARC is, after all, a book that people who strongly dislike Nathaniel Branden still often consider to be a complete crock.

PARC is, after all, a book that many ARIan insiders no longer want to be seen in the company of.

So what's Ms. Stuttle's angle?

Ms. Stuttle is no zealot. Rather, she seems to despise pretty much everyone in Rand-land, no matter which side of an issue they find themselves on.

Ms. Stuttle does not go about denouncing TheBrandens or any of the other designated scapegoats of the Orthodoxy. Her digs at Barbara Branden have come after she decided that PARC had redeeming features of some indiscernible sort, not before.

Ms. Stuttle is neither dumb nor gullible.

So whatever Ms. Stuttle's reasons for jumping aboard the SS Valliantquoat when everyone else has jumped off it, they prominently do not seem to include an interest in the truth. Nor do they include a concern with promoting and rewarding quality research and good writing. (To this day, Ms. Stuttle refuses to comment on Jim Valiiant's behind-the-eight-ball proclamation that "they were careful editors" at Durban House.) The actual book hardly appears to matter to her; she dismisses comments about its contents while vaporing over some emanation of a penumbra discernible by no one but herself.

Ms. Stuttle's actual motives appear to be personal game-playing of the pettiest kind, driven by a need to be admired and deferred to in every forum that she participates in.

Well, it's quit working at SOLO.

It hasn't been working too well here.

And there's nothing admirable about it, wherever Ms. Stuttle tries to practice it.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Why do you care what I think of PARC? What difference does it make to you?

OK, you hate James Valliant and you want him to suffer, as payback for Chris Sciabarra. And you hate PARC. But of what significance is it to you if I don't share your attitude?

I could equally ask Ms. Stuttle why she cares what I think of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, and what difference that makes to her.

For over time she consumed quite a bit of space, both on SOLOP and on this list, ripping what I, among other critics, have said about PARC.

But, of course, she doesn't like to answer questions—not when a candid answer won't make her look good.

I don't mind answering.

I am not interested in making James Valliant suffer.

Being James Valliant, having his kind of mentality, is a recipe for suffering; no further, outside contributions are necessary. What he did to Chris Sciabarra was unforgivable, but many of the other things he has done vie with it in the unforgivability department, and in the end what led him to do these things is its own punishment. For that matter, I'm pretty sure that being a flunky of Leonard Peikoff is its own punishment.

I am interested in seeing James Valliant discredited, because he is the author, chief defender, and chief promoter of PARC.

I am interested, in turn, in seeing PARC discredited because it is one of the worst books ever written on any subject, conceived and executed in a gross melding of blinkered fanaticism, inept falllaciousness, and desperate sleaze.

Jim Valliant is precisely the kind of "defender" that Ayn Rand did not need; to the extent that anyone outside of Rand-land has paid attention to his book, it has actually hurt her reputation.

And if his book did not make this clear on its own, his special gift for self-undermining self-promotion surely did it. Rarely has an author done more to hurt his own book's reception in the years after it was published.

Given all of the obvious faults in Valliant's opus, from deliberate misreading of sources to sophistical argumentation to boneheaded hectoring comments to inane cheerleading ("Bullseye, Miss Rand") to unsurpassable slime-wallowing (the "soul of a rapist" charge), there are three reasons why people might read his book and imagine it has something going for it.

They could be far-gone zealots, already consumed by their need to believe in the perfection of Ayn Rand, the Satanic nature of TheBrandens, and the Papacy of Leonard. The far-gone Zealotry has always been the primary clientele for PARC.

They could be warped by their personal hatreds, like Lindsay Perigo, who "discovered" all the great virtues of PARC immediately after Barbara Branden rejected him.

They could be too gullible to recognize arrant BS when it's being shoveled right at them.

PARC is, after all, a book that people who strongly dislike Nathaniel Branden still often consider to be a complete crock.

PARC is, after all, a book that many ARIan insiders no longer want to be seen in the company of.

So what's Ms. Stuttle's angle?

Ms. Stuttle is no zealot. Rather, she seems to despise pretty much everyone in Rand-land, no matter which side of an issue they find themselves on.

Ms. Stuttle does not go about denouncing TheBrandens or any of the other designated scapegoats of the Orthodoxy. Her digs at Barbara Branden have come after she decided that PARC had redeeming features of some indiscernible sort, not before.

Ms. Stuttle is neither dumb nor gullible.

So whatever Ms. Stuttle's reasons for jumping aboard the SS Valliantquoat when everyone else has jumped off it, they prominently do not seem to include an interest in the truth. Nor do they include a concern with promoting and rewarding quality research and good writing. (To this day, Ms. Stuttle refuses to comment on Jim Valiiant's behind-the-eight-ball proclamation that "they were careful editors" at Durban House.) The actual book hardly appears to matter to her; she dismisses comments about its contents while vaporing over some emanation of a penumbra discernible by no one but herself.

Ms. Stuttle's actual motives appear to be personal game-playing of the pettiest kind, driven by a need to be admired and deferred to in every forum that she participates in.

Well, it's quit working at SOLO.

It hasn't been working too well here.

And there's nothing admirable about it, wherever Ms. Stuttle tries to practice it.

Robert Campbell

Robert, after reading your careful dissection of Ms. Stuttle, I'm reminded of the fascinating personality profile of Pres. Clinton written for Reason magazine back in 1993 by the late Edith Efron. Now ~that~ was TURBO psychologizing at its finest! :-)

And I got to thinking: wouldn't it be helpful, or at least interesting and/or entertaining, to have a sort of "guide" to the pathologies in the Objectivist movement? I mean, wouldn't it be nice to know who all were sociopathic character-assassinators, paranoid power-lusters, and...oh, yes...narcissistic gadflies? (Heh.)

And in anticipation of anyone, here or elsewhere, offering an unkind characterization of me for this Rogues Gallery: "I know you are, but what am I?" (Thank you, PeeWee Herman.)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you care what I think of PARC? What difference does it make to you?

OK, you hate James Valliant and you want him to suffer, as payback for Chris Sciabarra. And you hate PARC. But of what significance is it to you if I don't share your attitude?

I could equally ask Ms. Stuttle why she cares what I think of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, and what difference that makes to her.

For over time she consumed quite a bit of space, both on SOLOP and on this list, ripping what I, among other critics, have said about PARC.

But, of course, she doesn't like to answer questions—not when a candid answer won't make her look good.

I don't mind answering.

I am not interested in making James Valliant suffer.

Being James Valliant, having his kind of mentality, is a recipe for suffering; no further, outside contributions are necessary. What he did to Chris Sciabarra was unforgivable, but many of the other things he has done vie with it in the unforgivability department, and in the end what led him to do these things is its own punishment. For that matter, I'm pretty sure that being a flunky of Leonard Peikoff is its own punishment.

I am interested in seeing James Valliant discredited, because he is the author, chief defender, and chief promoter of PARC.

I am interested, in turn, in seeing PARC discredited because it is one of the worst books ever written on any subject, conceived and executed in a gross melding of blinkered fanaticism, inept falllaciousness, and desperate sleaze.

Jim Valliant is precisely the kind of "defender" that Ayn Rand did not need; to the extent that anyone outside of Rand-land has paid attention to his book, it has actually hurt her reputation.

And if his book did not make this clear on its own, his special gift for self-undermining self-promotion surely did it. Rarely has an author done more to hurt his own book's reception in the years after it was published.

Given all of the obvious faults in Valliant's opus, from deliberate misreading of sources to sophistical argumentation to boneheaded hectoring comments to inane cheerleading ("Bullseye, Miss Rand") to unsurpassable slime-wallowing (the "soul of a rapist" charge), there are three reasons why people might read his book and imagine it has something going for it.

They could be far-gone zealots, already consumed by their need to believe in the perfection of Ayn Rand, the Satanic nature of TheBrandens, and the Papacy of Leonard. The far-gone Zealotry has always been the primary clientele for PARC.

They could be warped by their personal hatreds, like Lindsay Perigo, who "discovered" all the great virtues of PARC immediately after Barbara Branden rejected him.

They could be too gullible to recognize arrant BS when it's being shoveled right at them.

PARC is, after all, a book that people who strongly dislike Nathaniel Branden still often consider to be a complete crock.

PARC is, after all, a book that many ARIan insiders no longer want to be seen in the company of.

So what's Ms. Stuttle's angle?

Ms. Stuttle is no zealot. Rather, she seems to despise pretty much everyone in Rand-land, no matter which side of an issue they find themselves on.

Ms. Stuttle does not go about denouncing TheBrandens or any of the other designated scapegoats of the Orthodoxy. Her digs at Barbara Branden have come after she decided that PARC had redeeming features of some indiscernible sort, not before.

Ms. Stuttle is neither dumb nor gullible.

So whatever Ms. Stuttle's reasons for jumping aboard the SS Valliantquoat when everyone else has jumped off it, they prominently do not seem to include an interest in the truth. Nor do they include a concern with promoting and rewarding quality research and good writing. (To this day, Ms. Stuttle refuses to comment on Jim Valiiant's behind-the-eight-ball proclamation that "they were careful editors" at Durban House.) The actual book hardly appears to matter to her; she dismisses comments about its contents while vaporing over some emanation of a penumbra discernible by no one but herself.

Ms. Stuttle's actual motives appear to be personal game-playing of the pettiest kind, driven by a need to be admired and deferred to in every forum that she participates in.

Well, it's quit working at SOLO.

It hasn't been working too well here.

And there's nothing admirable about it, wherever Ms. Stuttle tries to practice it.

Robert Campbell

Robert, after reading your careful dissection of Ms. Stuttle, I'm reminded of the fascinating personality profile of Pres. Clinton written for Reason magazine back in 1993 by the late Edith Efron. Now ~that~ was TURBO psychologizing at its finest! :-)

And I got to thinking: wouldn't it be helpful, or at least interesting and/or entertaining, to have a sort of "guide" to the pathologies in the Objectivist movement? I mean, wouldn't it be nice to know who all were sociopathic character-assassinators, paranoid power-lusters, and...oh, yes...narcissistic gadflies? (Heh.)

And in anticipation of anyone, here or elsewhere, offering an unkind characterization of me for this Rogues Gallery: "I know you are, but what am I?" (Thank you, PeeWee Herman.)

REB

Is this the article, Roger

http://reason.com/archives/1994/11/01/can-the-president-think

Can the President Think?

The chaos and paralysis of the Clinton presidency reflect the chaos and paralysis of Bill Clinton's mind--and he is not going to change

"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you care what I think of PARC? What difference does it make to you?

OK, you hate James Valliant and you want him to suffer, as payback for Chris Sciabarra. And you hate PARC. But of what significance is it to you if I don't share your attitude?

I could equally ask Ms. Stuttle why she cares what I think of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, and what difference that makes to her.

For over time she consumed quite a bit of space, both on SOLOP and on this list, ripping what I, among other critics, have said about PARC.

But, of course, she doesn't like to answer questions—not when a candid answer won't make her look good.

I don't mind answering.

I am not interested in making James Valliant suffer.

Being James Valliant, having his kind of mentality, is a recipe for suffering; no further, outside contributions are necessary. What he did to Chris Sciabarra was unforgivable, but many of the other things he has done vie with it in the unforgivability department, and in the end what led him to do these things is its own punishment. For that matter, I'm pretty sure that being a flunky of Leonard Peikoff is its own punishment.

I am interested in seeing James Valliant discredited, because he is the author, chief defender, and chief promoter of PARC.

I am interested, in turn, in seeing PARC discredited because it is one of the worst books ever written on any subject, conceived and executed in a gross melding of blinkered fanaticism, inept falllaciousness, and desperate sleaze.

Jim Valliant is precisely the kind of "defender" that Ayn Rand did not need; to the extent that anyone outside of Rand-land has paid attention to his book, it has actually hurt her reputation.

And if his book did not make this clear on its own, his special gift for self-undermining self-promotion surely did it. Rarely has an author done more to hurt his own book's reception in the years after it was published.

Given all of the obvious faults in Valliant's opus, from deliberate misreading of sources to sophistical argumentation to boneheaded hectoring comments to inane cheerleading ("Bullseye, Miss Rand") to unsurpassable slime-wallowing (the "soul of a rapist" charge), there are three reasons why people might read his book and imagine it has something going for it.

They could be far-gone zealots, already consumed by their need to believe in the perfection of Ayn Rand, the Satanic nature of TheBrandens, and the Papacy of Leonard. The far-gone Zealotry has always been the primary clientele for PARC.

They could be warped by their personal hatreds, like Lindsay Perigo, who "discovered" all the great virtues of PARC immediately after Barbara Branden rejected him.

They could be too gullible to recognize arrant BS when it's being shoveled right at them.

PARC is, after all, a book that people who strongly dislike Nathaniel Branden still often consider to be a complete crock.

PARC is, after all, a book that many ARIan insiders no longer want to be seen in the company of.

So what's Ms. Stuttle's angle?

Ms. Stuttle is no zealot. Rather, she seems to despise pretty much everyone in Rand-land, no matter which side of an issue they find themselves on.

Ms. Stuttle does not go about denouncing TheBrandens or any of the other designated scapegoats of the Orthodoxy. Her digs at Barbara Branden have come after she decided that PARC had redeeming features of some indiscernible sort, not before.

Ms. Stuttle is neither dumb nor gullible.

So whatever Ms. Stuttle's reasons for jumping aboard the SS Valliantquoat when everyone else has jumped off it, they prominently do not seem to include an interest in the truth. Nor do they include a concern with promoting and rewarding quality research and good writing. (To this day, Ms. Stuttle refuses to comment on Jim Valiiant's behind-the-eight-ball proclamation that "they were careful editors" at Durban House.) The actual book hardly appears to matter to her; she dismisses comments about its contents while vaporing over some emanation of a penumbra discernible by no one but herself.

Ms. Stuttle's actual motives appear to be personal game-playing of the pettiest kind, driven by a need to be admired and deferred to in every forum that she participates in.

Well, it's quit working at SOLO.

It hasn't been working too well here.

And there's nothing admirable about it, wherever Ms. Stuttle tries to practice it.

Robert Campbell

Robert, after reading your careful dissection of Ms. Stuttle, I'm reminded of the fascinating personality profile of Pres. Clinton written for Reason magazine back in 1993 by the late Edith Efron. Now ~that~ was TURBO psychologizing at its finest! :-)

And I got to thinking: wouldn't it be helpful, or at least interesting and/or entertaining, to have a sort of "guide" to the pathologies in the Objectivist movement? I mean, wouldn't it be nice to know who all were sociopathic character-assassinators, paranoid power-lusters, and...oh, yes...narcissistic gadflies? (Heh.)

And in anticipation of anyone, here or elsewhere, offering an unkind characterization of me for this Rogues Gallery: "I know you are, but what am I?" (Thank you, PeeWee Herman.)

REB

Is this the article, Roger

http://reason.com/archives/1994/11/01/can-the-president-think

Can the President Think?

The chaos and paralysis of the Clinton presidency reflect the chaos and paralysis of Bill Clinton's mind--and he is not going to change

"

Ted, thank you -- yes, it was published not in 1993, but November 1994. Sorry, but good researching!

A good title for a sequel article for sometime in 2012 might be: "Can the President? Yes, We Can!" :-)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

Thanks for the reminder about Edith Efron's piece.

I thought she was onto something in it.

There was a later article about Bill Clinton being latently homosexual that I had some trouble with...

Ms. Stuttle is unusual in that she is aligned with no factions in Rand-land and doesn't believe in Objectivism, but isn't mainly interested in criticizing Rand either.

So if anyone were to put together a taxonomy of Rand-land pathologies, hers would be one of a kind.

Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plus, if he didn't want Valliant to suffer, why wage the kind of campaign he waged at all?

Doing a good job of discrediting something malicious?

That's my guess.

By being malicious himself and engaging in wholesale distortion? How is that discrediting the supposed target?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you care what I think of PARC? What difference does it make to you?

OK, you hate James Valliant and you want him to suffer, as payback for Chris Sciabarra. And you hate PARC. But of what significance is it to you if I don't share your attitude?

I could equally ask Ms. Stuttle why she cares what I think of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics, and what difference that makes to her.

For over time she consumed quite a bit of space, both on SOLOP and on this list, ripping what I, among other critics, have said about PARC.

Robert, I don't care what you think of PARC; nor does your opinion of it make any difference to me.

This isn't the same issue as not correcting -- to the extent I had time -- your distortions.

I am not interested in making James Valliant suffer.

Being James Valliant, having his kind of mentality, is a recipe for suffering; no further, outside contributions are necessary. What he did to Chris Sciabarra was unforgivable, but many of the other things he has done vie with it in the unforgivability department, and in the end what led him to do these things is its own punishment. For that matter, I'm pretty sure that being a flunky of Leonard Peikoff is its own punishment.

I.e., you are interested in believing that he suffers, and hope he does.

I am interested in seeing James Valliant discredited, because he is the author, chief defender, and chief promoter of PARC.

If that were all there were to it, I think you'd have stopped long ago. As you've correctly (and gleefully) pointed out numerous times, the book didn't sell well, even ARIans hardly paid it any attention, and it's now out of print.

So isn't your continued crusade rather like flailing a dead horse where PARC is concerned? Does look as if the personal desire to get back at Valliant remains.

I am interested, in turn, in seeing PARC discredited because it is one of the worst books ever written on any subject, conceived and executed in a gross melding of blinkered fanaticism, inept falllaciousness, and desperate sleaze.

See above comments.

Jim Valliant is precisely the kind of "defender" that Ayn Rand did not need; to the extent that anyone outside of Rand-land has paid attention to his book, it has actually hurt her reputation.

And if his book did not make this clear on its own, his special gift for self-undermining self-promotion surely did it. Rarely has an author done more to hurt his own book's reception in the years after it was published.

There I pretty much agree with you. He muffed the defense, and hasn't helped to counteract the muffing in his subsequent actions.

[....]

So whatever Ms. Stuttle's reasons for jumping aboard the SS Valliantquoat when everyone else has jumped off it, they prominently do not seem to include an interest in the truth.

Sure lost your train of logic there. None of the three reasons you gave -- none of which you conclude is mine -- pertained to an interest in the truth.

Nor do they include a concern with promoting and rewarding quality research and good writing. (To this day, Ms. Stuttle refuses to comment on Jim Valiiant's behind-the-eight-ball proclamation that "they were careful editors" at Durban House.)

Was that Jim's comment or Holly's? I did comment on it once, saying that I didn't know what was meant by the description, there being a whole lot more to editing than fixing a book. If what was meant was detailed dealing with the text, of course they weren't careful editors. Such editing as was done seems to have been done by Casey Fahy.

The actual book hardly appears to matter to her; she dismisses comments about its contents while vaporing over some emanation of a penumbra discernible by no one but herself.

In a way, the actual book hardly does matter to me, except for the diaries and suggestions Valliant raises which led me to further reflecting.

Ms. Stuttle's actual motives appear to be personal game-playing of the pettiest kind, driven by a need to be admired and deferred to in every forum that she participates in.

Well, it's quit working at SOLO.

It hasn't been working too well here.

And there's nothing admirable about it, wherever Ms. Stuttle tries to practice it.

A wee problem with your thesis, Robert. Considering the ineffectiveness of what you claim is my motive, don't you have to conclude extreme incompetence at pursuing the supposed goal?

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, but from Ms. Stuttle's point of view, all critics of PARC—with the sole exception of herself when she occasionally qualifies her praise for the opus—are malicious and given to "distortings."

Robert Campbell

Not so by a long way. Off-hand I can't think of any other critic except you whom I do consider malicious, and I no of no one else who engages in the technique of distorted paraphrasing which you use so often.

Neil, the main person besides you who's kept at it and at it, I think has become very tiresomely repetitive, but I don't consider him malicious or think that he distorts. Sometimes he gets things inaccurately but I think that's through memory lapses.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if you ever did read through the whole set of 1500* edits -- I'm talking about those done on the IP#___ account. I know you read the ones on the Pelagius1 account. And, Robert, notice, I didn't say he did none of the editing. What he did was occasional things adding information. You might also notice that the occasion on which he "admitted," as you put it, to WSS that he'd been doing some editing was at the tail end of the IP#___ account. It was that instance which alerted WSS to the IP#. What JV's edit consisted of was adding a reference to David Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses.

Yes, I read through the edits done by the AnonIP160 account. And, yes, on the occasion that he emailed WSS Jim Valliant was inserting a reference to David Kelley's book.

Glad to see you acknowledge that on the one occasion when it's known JV made an edit, what he was doing was inserting a reference to a book which isn't supported by ARI.

She is reputed to be headstrong, and both she and he (she in some of the Pelagius1 entries) indicated that there was disagreement about her project. (In one entry she specifically said that he didn't want her doing this.)

And everyone else is supposed to fall for the "Pollyvalliantanna" act? Why?

Robert, I repeat, what you believe is your concern. I think you're using a deliberately insulting description which isn't accurate and that she wasn't acting.

We do know that whoever authored each of the Pelagius1 items (looks to me like Jim and Holly Valliant shared the duties), many of those posts were dishonest or disingenuous.

No, "we" don't know that. I don't agree.

Ellen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, in all this defense of poor little Valliant and the boneheads surrounding him, I decided to do a little thought experiment.

Since the speculation is on what people feel about Valliant suffering (some would call that psychologizing), let's put the shoe on the other foot.

Suppose PARC had led Nathaniel to become a skid-row alcoholic and Barbara to commit suicide (or vice-versa or something similar). What would Valliant & Co. have thought? The answer is really easy to me. It's in Atlas Shrugged (p. 392):

Rearden glanced at Francisco—and saw a face that went beyond his conception of what the purity of a single purpose could do to a human countenance: it was the most merciless face one could ever be permitted to see. He had thought of himself as ruthless, but he knew that he could not match this level, naked, implacable look, dead to all feeling but justice. Whatever the rest of him—thought Rearden—the man who could experience this was a giant.

In the hearts of Valliant & Co., should the Brandens have suffered, they would have felt the joy of being pious. Then the arrogance of dismissal.

Those boneheaded little nobodies seek this with rhetorical distortions and character smears.

About Chris Sciabarra, it is uglier. The above stuff is merely a second-hand soul trying to crawl into a novel and getting it all screwed up. What would Hsieh and Perigo have felt if Chris had died out of shame for being exposed as a weasel or something like that--and suffered greatly? (Of course, he is not a weasel. Chris is the giant and they are the weasels. I'm just doing my psychologizing thing and imagining what others think.)

I believe it would have been the joy of the bully watching a victim suffer. Nothing more. Just plain old thuggery.

As to Maurone, he's such a confused child, I can't imagine what he would have felt. Deer in the headlights is the image that comes to mind, but it is not a very good image for the present speculation. I don't feel like wasting my time coming up with a better one for him.

Would any of them have felt bad for the suffering of another that they caused?

Nah.

Not from what I have observed of them over the years. On the contrary, they validate their own existence in the attempt to cause it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Robert, I don't care what you think of PARC; nor does your opinion of it make any difference to me.

This isn't the same issue as not correcting -- to the extent I had time -- your distortions.

Sure.

It isn't what I say about PARC or Jim Valliant that annoys Ms. Stuttle.

It's my pesky habit of contradicting Ms. Stuttle when she makes her latest vaporous comments on those subjects.

Ms. Stuttle, we are all required to see, is right about everything; therefore, any positions taken in exception to hers must be distortions.

In a way, the actual book hardly does matter to me, except for the diaries and suggestions Valliant raises which led me to further reflecting.

Truer words have rarely been spoken.

PARC doesn't matter to Ms. Stuttle. Its rubble makes a handy platform for the book that she vainly imagines herself writing.

Jim Valliant doesn't matter either. He's become so desperate for support that he will put up, for a while, with someone who will never quit condescending to him.

A wee problem with your thesis, Robert. Considering the ineffectiveness of what you claim is my motive, don't you have to conclude extreme incompetence at pursuing the supposed goal?

I don't keep the one-up scores for Ms. Stuttle.

She keeps them.

In her tally, they are high enough to justify continuing.

In anyone else's, they don't look so good.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not so by a long way. Off-hand I can't think of any other critic except you whom I do consider malicious, and I no of no one else who engages in the technique of distorted paraphrasing which you use so often.

As everyone should know by now, anything that is not a direct quote of Ms. Stuttle is a distorted paraphrase.

Even direct quotes are distorted paraphrases, when Ms. Stuttle no longer wishes to own them.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Glad to see you acknowledge that on the one occasion when it's known JV made an edit, what he was doing was inserting a reference to a book which isn't supported by ARI.

Mr. Valliant has a history of trying to co-opt David Kelley's book whenever he is not making a direct pitch for ARI. For instance, he tried it over on Richard Dawkins' forum.

If Ms. Stuttle wants anyone to believe that Mr. Valliant inserted no other references during his career at Wikipedia, let her at the very least provide the email she sent him with all the supposed "traps" in it.

She continues to refuse.

Why is that?

Could it be that there was no such email?

Or that she did ask Jim Valliant some questions, just none with any traps?

Robert, I repeat, what you believe is your concern. I think you're using a deliberately insulting description which isn't accurate and that she wasn't acting.

Oh, yeah.

Holly White Valliant has spent her career as a literary agent or a PR person. Among her PR clients were a group of computer hackers who go around informing the public about the security lapses they've uncovered. Her contributions at SOLOHQ were nearly all made under a pseudonym. And from this we're supposed to conclude that she was completely naive about the way things work at Wikipedia.

Once again, Ms. Stuttle must hold her audience in complete contempt, if she expects us all to swallow such whoppers.

But I repeat myself. We already know that Ms. Stuttle holds her audience in complete contempt.

She rarely misses an opportunity to remind us.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Subject: Garbage Pile? Vendettas? Character Assassination? Endless, Boring Food Fighting and Feces-Hurling?

This whole thread should be moved to the garbage pile.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What also pretty much qualifies as "garbage" is the last three posts:

foolish and immature, defensive responses by Michael, ND, and Jonathan to criticism.

I like the dress, though. Guess I look pretty good in one?

Jealous?

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, learn to accept criticism and not to respond in a snarky manner when I make a valid point.

It's being defensive.

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
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