Why do we need to be polite

[Chris Grieb]

I have been reading Arthur Schlesinger's journal. On page 322-323 he describes being attacked by a new leftist at a movie theater. One of the other patron defended Dr Schlesinger identifying himself as a member of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. The Abraham Lincoln Brigade was a group of leftists who fought on the Republican side in the Spanish Civil War. Dr Schlesinger describes as a typical example of the "sheer incoherent anger" Dr Schlesinger encountered on the left. I think this same sort of anger is found in Objectivism and the chief practitioner is Lindsay Perigo.

I suspect there will be people who will disagree but the name-calling an example of his calling this web site Objectivist Lying. The almost pornographic names Lindsay calls people who disagree with him. For examples you can go to SOLO.

I think there are people who think that rudeness is the way Objectivists should behave. I think this is bad reading of some of Roark's actions in "The Fountainhead. I don't think it should be encouraged. That is my reason for not wanting Lindsay invited to the Summer Seminar as a speaker. I would recommend reading some of Francisco's actions at some of the parties in Atlas Shrugged.

Ed Hudgins has spoken eloquently about civility at other Summer Seminars. He should reinforce his statements by dis-inviting Lindsay.

[Newberry]

Perigo is a Kiwi, Kiwis have fowl mouths.

[syrakusos]

... Dr Schlesinger describes as a typical example of the "sheer incoherent anger" Dr Schlesinger encountered on the left. I think this same sort of anger is found in Objectivism and ...

Thank you, Chris! Well said.

The difference between Francisco and James was not so much their relationships with other people (though there was that) but their relationships with themselves inside. Politeness rests on self-control which depends on self-knowledge. I am coming to like Robinson Crusoe for the opportunities his situation offers to examine society. Alone on an island, said Ayn Rand, you would desperately need morality. So, too, I think with politeness. Suppose you want to build a shelter and need to cut down, split and saw some trees. Do you fly at them in a drunken rage, waving your axe, chopping wildly? How long can you keep it up ... and what would you accomplish? ... The polite approach is to treat the tree with the respect it deserves based on its nature, to do yourself the honor of working well and efficiently. It is no different at a social event. If someone asserts some collectivist fallacy, you need only say that you disagree and perhaps say why, but unless you think that you have an appreciative audience, open to the learning moment, it is probably best to say little else. Loudly condemning people only damages your own equilibrium. It seldom changes anyone's mind. In point of fact, I believe that there are known studies that show that a polite contradiction with support will actually "take" some time after it is initially refused. "I understand how you feel about education. We all share the same concern. However, we do not have public shoes and yet everyone seems to have enough of them."

I am reading a book on Leadership. There are many styles, of course. It appears in practical terms that those who are self-compiosed even imperious and aloof are more successful than those who bluster and bully, even as the latter find people willing to respond to that. Objectivists, of course, tend not to be such people.

[Chris Grieb]

Michael SK, Michael N, and Michael M; Michael SK, Thanks for the rating of my post. Michael N, I think New Zealanders can be held a standard that one does not have to behave like a drunken lout. I think if a similar statement to yours were made about another ethic group it would be called racist. Michael M., I don't know if you saw any of the Atlas 50th but I asked a question about Objectivists who went into philosophy in earlier times and were in general pains in the butt. These individuals did not help Objectivism and did not help its acceptance among philosophers. I recognize that many philosophers were wrong in many of their views. But they would not be convinced that their views were wrong by the philosophically equivalent of a two year old having a tantrum.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael SK, Michael N, and Michael M; Michael SK, Thanks for the rating of my post. Michael N, I think New Zealanders can be held a standard that one does not have to behave like a drunken lout. I think if a similar statement to yours were made about another ethic group it would be called racist. Michael M., I don't know if you saw any of the Atlas 50th but I asked a question about Objectivists who went into philosophy in earlier times and were in general pains in the butt. These individuals did not help Objectivism and did not help its acceptance among philosophers. I recognize that many philosophers were wrong in many of their views. But they would not be convinced that their views were wrong by the philosophically equivalent of a two year old having a tantrum.

Chris,

Are you saying that if Perigo advocated his views in an articulate fashion without getting angry, you would be OK with it?

Jim

[Chris Grieb]

Michael SK, Michael N, and Michael M; Michael SK, Thanks for the rating of my post. Michael N, I think New Zealanders can be held a standard that one does not have to behave like a drunken lout. I think if a similar statement to yours were made about another ethic group it would be called racist. Michael M., I don't know if you saw any of the Atlas 50th but I asked a question about Objectivists who went into philosophy in earlier times and were in general pains in the butt. These individuals did not help Objectivism and did not help its acceptance among philosophers. I recognize that many philosophers were wrong in many of their views. But they would not be convinced that their views were wrong by the philosophically equivalent of a two year old having a tantrum.

Chris,

Are you saying that if Perigo advocated his views in an articulate fashion without getting angry, you would be OK with it?

Jim

Jim; That would be a great step forward.

He might also say he is sorry for some of his actions in the past. He could also promise not to name call in the future.

I think if he is sincere in all of the above actions I might attend his presentations at the Summer Seminar. Is that clear.

i believe in repentance for all. I do have "Christ" in my first name.

Chris

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Michael SK, Michael N, and Michael M; Michael SK, Thanks for the rating of my post. Michael N, I think New Zealanders can be held a standard that one does not have to behave like a drunken lout. I think if a similar statement to yours were made about another ethic group it would be called racist. Michael M., I don't know if you saw any of the Atlas 50th but I asked a question about Objectivists who went into philosophy in earlier times and were in general pains in the butt. These individuals did not help Objectivism and did not help its acceptance among philosophers. I recognize that many philosophers were wrong in many of their views. But they would not be convinced that their views were wrong by the philosophically equivalent of a two year old having a tantrum.

Chris,

Are you saying that if Perigo advocated his views in an articulate fashion without getting angry, you would be OK with it?

Jim

Jim; That would be a great step forward.

He might also say he is sorry for some of his actions in the past. He could also promise not to name call in the future.

I think if he is sincere in all of the above actions I might attend his presentations at the Summer Seminar. Is that clear.

i believe in repentance for all. I do have "Christ" in my first name.

Chris

I think that part of the disconnect for me is that I work in a manufacturing environment. If I asked the guys that call me unprintable names to be polite, they'd laugh their asses off.

Jim

[Ellen Stuttle]

Chris,

Are you saying that if Perigo advocated his views in an articulate fashion without getting angry, you would be OK with it?

Jim

Jim; That would be a great step forward.

He might also say he is sorry for some of his actions in the past. He could also promise not to name call in the future.

I think if he is sincere in all of the above actions I might attend his presentations at the Summer Seminar. Is that clear.

i believe in repentance for all. I do have "Christ" in my first name.

Chris

I think that part of the disconnect for me is that I work in a manufacturing environment. If I asked the guys that call me unprintable names to be polite, they'd laugh their asses off.

Jim

Jim,

Sometimes you really astound me with the seeming out-of-itness of things you say. A philosophy conference is not a manufacturing environment! Have you never attended a scientific conference -- which, likewise, is not a manufacturing environment? Do you think that the kind of language which Perigo makes his stock in trade would be acceptable at a scientific event?

Chris,

The plausibility of the idea of Perigo's apologizing for his past behavior and promising not to continue it, is about that of an ice cube's not melting in the Sahara. Perigo insists on his style as exhibiting "rational passion."

And a general remark, repeating something I've said already on the TAS Dollars thread:

His proposed speech about romantic music being objectively better should not be a thesis amongst the invited talks from anyone. This represents a reversion to the old days of using aesthetic response as a morals exam. It's something which should end in the O'ist world, not be accepted by a featured speaker.

And of course the sheer idea of Lindsay Perigo of all people talking about what's wrong with Objectivists...himself being one of the prime cases. Is his speech going to consist of recognizing everything of which he's been guilty? Lots of luck.

Ellen

___

Edited January 8, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Chris Grieb]

Ellen; Well said and thank you.

Jim; Have there been other people who have behaved in the manner Perigo behaves who have attended TOC or ARI events. Give some examples.

At NBI such behavior would not been tolerated.

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Chris,

Are you saying that if Perigo advocated his views in an articulate fashion without getting angry, you would be OK with it?

Jim

Jim; That would be a great step forward.

He might also say he is sorry for some of his actions in the past. He could also promise not to name call in the future.

I think if he is sincere in all of the above actions I might attend his presentations at the Summer Seminar. Is that clear.

i believe in repentance for all. I do have "Christ" in my first name.

Chris

I think that part of the disconnect for me is that I work in a manufacturing environment. If I asked the guys that call me unprintable names to be polite, they'd laugh their asses off.

Jim

Jim,

Sometimes you really astound me with the seeming out-of-itness of things you say. A philosophy conference is not a manufacturing environment! Have you never attended a scientific conference -- which, likewise, is not a manufacturing environment? Do you think that the kind of language which Perigo makes his stock in trade would be acceptable at a scientific event?

Chris,

The plausibility of the idea of Perigo's apologizing for his past behavior and promising not to continue it, is about that of an ice cube's not melting in the Sahara. Perigo insists on his style as exhibiting "rational passion."

And a general remark, repeating something I've said already on the TAS Dollars thread:

His proposed speech about romantic music being objectively better should not be a thesis amongst the invited talks from anyone. This represents a reversion to the old days of using aesthetic response as a morals exam. It's something which should end in the O'ist world, not be accepted by a featured speaker.

And of course the sheer idea of Lindsay Perigo of all people talking about what's wrong with Objectivists...himself being one of the prime cases. Is his speech going to consist of recognizing everything of which he's been guilty? Lots of luck.

Ellen

___

Sure, I've attended scientific conferences and numerous philosophy conferences. There's a difference between conducting business with clients and hanging out for pizza afterwards. Every Objectivist club I've been with is different. The Portland group was a sheer freeform hang out group and some of the best fun I've had. Lindsay will be great in that environment. What ticks you off is the juxtaposition of Lindsay and David Kelley which is an exercise in contrasts if I've ever seen one.

The judgments made on this site have not been on Lindsay Perigo although those seem to be everpresent, but on David Kelley, Will Thomas, Ed Hudgins et al for inviting him as if everything they've done up until now will be invalidated by this. Stick a fork in them, they're done and so on. Well, I think they'll do just fine with him and they get to decide what's right for a given venue and time. Maybe, just maybe now they'll find out who their friends really are.

Jim

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Ellen; Well said and thank you.

Jim; Have there been other people who have behaved in the manner Perigo behaves who have attended TOC or ARI events. Give some examples.

At NBI such behavior would not been tolerated.

Sure, I'll give examples, but I'll email you privately. Not surprisingly, they are all still in the movement in one form or another. Lindsay just happens to be louder and more aboveboard about it than others.

Jim

[Roger Bissell]

The judgments made on this site have not been on Lindsay Perigo although those seem to be everpresent, but on David Kelley, Will Thomas, Ed Hudgins et al for inviting him as if everything they've done up until now will be invalidated by this. Stick a fork in them, they're done and so on. Well, I think they'll do just fine with him and they get to decide what's right for a given venue and time. Maybe, just maybe now they'll find out who their friends really are.

Huzzah, Jim, huzzah! This does indeed seem to be the way the world works in the conventionality-eschewing world of Objectivism. Your friends are not the people who have supported you with loyalty, attendance, contributions, and moral support. No, your ~real~ friends are the people who spit in your face and in the faces of your loyal supporters. Why, just watch those ungrateful supporters fuss and fume when you extend the olive branch and your wallet's contents to your and their harshest detractors!

Jim, I don't know what Chris G. and Ellen S. and the others are thinking, anyway. Your continuing wisdom on this matter is an inspiring beacon for the rest of us. If and when Will Thomas decides to resign as Program Director for the Summer Seminar, I hope TAS calls on you to step in and take on the job. It would provide seamless continuity.

REB

[Robert Campbell]

Ellen,

Mr. Perigo has announced, over on SOLOP, that he intends to use the contents of these very threads on ObjectivistLiving (except he never calls it that) as his illustrations of the harm Objectivists do to Objectivism.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Gee, Roger, do I detect a touch of sarcasm?

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Jim,

Your efforts as devil's advocate are occasionally hitting something.

You are right that civility is not the only issue in contention here. Language-wise, Mr. Perigo is way outside the limits for presenters at the kind of conference he has been invited to speak at. But that is not the only problem that the invitation poses--nor is it the deepest one.

You asked whether Mr. Perigo's views on matters Randian would be more acceptable to present company if he presented them in language generally considered civil. The answer, in many though not all cases, is no. Stripped of the foul language, Mr. Perigo's endorsements of Mr. Valliant's book would still be unacceptable to me; he is constantly giving high praise to a truly bad book, full of hectoring and tendentious arguments, driven by a faith-based commitment that the author lacks the decency to admit. Neither would his categorical relegations to the infernal regions of TAS, or of opponents of the war in Iraq, or of Popperians, or whatnot.

But the matter is not nearly so simple as this.

I didn't have to track much of Mr. Perigo's online output before I realized that his foul language isn't really a way of presenting an argument or a position. Once in a while, the guy attempts a pleasantry and actually succeeds in producing one; then we can quibble about presentation. But with Mr. Perigo, it's usually not a matter of some people going for vigorous, unvarnished language where others would much prefer gentility.

Rather, Mr. Perigo's language works as a substitute for argument, or even for a clear presentation of what he is advocating. Strip the crude language away, or become inured to it, and you realize that the guy lives on empty phrases and bald assertions. Mr. Perigo issues a great abundance of opinions for which he appears incapable of providing evidence or argument. All the barking and bellowing about "Saddamites" and "pusballs" and "Mistress Phyliis" and "KASSlessness" and "pomo-wankers" and yadda and barfa and yadda is meant to distract from the absence of reasons for what he is trying to put over on the reader. And when his opponents ask him for reasons, or provide reasons of their own, the drumfire of expletives can be counted on to intensify. How often, when presented with evidence of his past behavior, does Mr. Perigo grandly declare any such statement about him to be a "smear," followed by a squall of invective?

Objectivism purports to be a philosophy of reason, does it not?

So how can anyone who has paid a modicum of attention to the Perigonian rhetoric consider him to be an exponent of a rational worldview?

The guy seems to be entirely about grandstanding, blustering, and bullying. Reason, whether cool or heated, ain't got a whole lot to do with it.

So my reaction to Mr. Perigo is very different from my reaction to a one-time employer, who was the proverbial blunt native Israeli. There was no malice in my boss's manner, no attempt to gain by bully and bluster what he couldn't get through normal persuasion. I don't put Mr. Perigo remotely in the same league as the late Leonard Chess, the one-time owner of a bar in one of the roughest parts of Chicago who built up a might independent record label. Outtakes from recording sessions reveal Mr. Chess heartily addressing musicans as "motherfucker" and getting cheerfully addressed as "motherfucker" in return.

MSK has described Mr. Perigo as a wannabe guru. I think that pretty well nails it. There are some individuals who desperately want to be seen as leaders--for reasons that make them the last people any sane person would entrust with a leadership role. Clinical psychology uses words like "narcissistic" and "borderline" and "paranoid" to describe them. There is a lot that psychology does not yet understand about such personalities--some of my current research is about these issues--but there is no question about the harm they can cause.

My root objection to putting Lindsay Perigo on a TAS speakers program is not that he is rude and crude. It is that he is a man of proven bad character, and a rotten advocate for any rational philosophy. The rudeness and crudeness are the symptoms, not the problem.

My root objection to the recent decision by Will Thomas, apparently endorsed by Ed Hudgins and David Kelley (I'll say "apparent" because only Will has responded to my emails) is not that they have suddenly gone soft in the head, or let their standards fly out the window. I believe that they genuinely do not understand Mr. Perigo, and therefore have no conception of what they are up against. It simply doesn't follow that because somebody claims to be an impassioned advocate of Objectivism, and is fluent in the vernacular of Rand-land, he is in fact an advocate of thinking rationally or living a fulfilled human life. A lot fewer values are actually shared by Lindsay Perigo and the TAS leadership than the latter group seems to think.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

Mr. Perigo has announced, over on SOLOP, that he intends to use the contents of these very threads on ObjectivistLiving (except he never calls it that) as his illustrations of the harm Objectivists do to Objectivism.

Robert Campbell

Yes. I noticed that. And...I rather anticipated that he would make such a comment. I therefore even worded one particular post in a very careful particular way to see if he'd flub the test of reading in context. He did flub the test, surprise, surprise. ;-)

Ellen

___

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim,

Your efforts as devil's advocate are occasionally hitting something.

You are right that civility is not the only issue in contention here. Language-wise, Mr. Perigo is way outside the limits for presenters at the kind of conference he has been invited to speak at. But that is not the only problem that the invitation poses--nor is it the deepest one.

You asked whether Mr. Perigo's views on matters Randian would be more acceptable to present company if he presented them in language generally considered civil. The answer, in many though not all cases, is no. Stripped of the foul language, Mr. Perigo's endorsements of Mr. Valliant's book would still be unacceptable to me; he is constantly giving high praise to a truly bad book, full of hectoring and tendentious arguments, driven by a faith-based commitment that the author lacks the decency to admit. Neither would his categorical relegations to the infernal regions of TAS, or of opponents of the war in Iraq, or of Popperians, or whatnot.

But the matter is not nearly so simple as this.

I didn't have to track much of Mr. Perigo's online output before I realized that his foul language isn't really a way of presenting an argument or a position. Once in a while, the guy attempts a pleasantry and actually succeeds in producing one; then we can quibble about presentation. But with Mr. Perigo, it's usually not a matter of some people going for vigorous, unvarnished language where others would much prefer gentility.

Rather, Mr. Perigo's language works as a substitute for argument, or even for a clear presentation of what he is advocating. Strip the crude language away, or become inured to it, and you realize that the guy lives on empty phrases and bald assertions. Mr. Perigo issues a great abundance of opinions for which he appears incapable of providing evidence or argument. All the barking and bellowing about "Saddamites" and "pusballs" and "Mistress Phyliis" and "KASSlessness" and "pomo-wankers" and yadda and barfa and yadda is meant to distract from the absence of reasons for what he is trying to put over on the reader. And when his opponents ask him for reasons, or provide reasons of their own, the drumfire of expletives can be counted on to intensify. How often, when presented with evidence of his past behavior, does Mr. Perigo grandly declare any such statement about him to be a "smear," followed by a squall of invective?

Objectivism purports to be a philosophy of reason, does it not?

So how can anyone who has paid a modicum of attention to the Perigonian rhetoric consider him to be an exponent of a rational worldview?

The guy seems to be entirely about grandstanding, blustering, and bullying. Reason, whether cool or heated, ain't got a whole lot to do with it.

So my reaction to Mr. Perigo is very different from my reaction to a one-time employer, who was the proverbial blunt native Israeli. There was no malice in my boss's manner, no attempt to gain by bully and bluster what he couldn't get through normal persuasion. I don't put Mr. Perigo remotely in the same league as the late Leonard Chess, the one-time owner of a bar in one of the roughest parts of Chicago who built up a might independent record label. Outtakes from recording sessions reveal Mr. Chess heartily addressing musicans as "motherfucker" and getting cheerfully addressed as "motherfucker" in return.

MSK has described Mr. Perigo as a wannabe guru. I think that pretty well nails it. There are some individuals who desperately want to be seen as leaders--for reasons that make them the last people any sane person would entrust with a leadership role. Clinical psychology uses words like "narcissistic" and "borderline" and "paranoid" to describe them. There is a lot that psychology does not yet understand about such personalities--some of my current research is about these issues--but there is no question about the harm they can cause.

My root objection to putting Lindsay Perigo on a TAS speakers program is not that he is rude and crude. It is that he is a man of proven bad character, and a rotten advocate for any rational philosophy. The rudeness and crudeness are the symptoms, not the problem.

My root objection to the recent decision by Will Thomas, apparently endorsed by Ed Hudgins and David Kelley (I'll say "apparent" because only Will has responded to my emails) is not that they have suddenly gone soft in the head, or let their standards fly out the window. I believe that they genuinely do not understand Mr. Perigo, and therefore have no conception of what they are up against. It simply doesn't follow that because somebody claims to be an impassioned advocate of Objectivism, and is fluent in the vernacular of Rand-land, he is in fact an advocate of thinking rationally or living a fulfilled human life. A lot fewer values are actually shared by Lindsay Perigo and the TAS leadership than the latter group seems to think.

Robert Campbell

Robert,

Now, you are hitting on something and much more valid reasons than anyone has heretofore offered. Mr. Perigo does like to test people in a Gail Wynand sort of way, but he announces what he's doing on his website and continually says that it's his house and he can do what he wants. Piss him off, call him dishonest, get on his bad side or do something behind his back and you'll wish you were never born. Ayn Rand was like that. I had a grandfather and have an uncle like that. I loved them both very much and my uncle is dying of terminal cancer right now. I'm glad neither of them was my father. People are different. Perigo is a polarizing figure and I can see why some people here hate him.

Jim

[Ellen Stuttle]

Rather, Mr. Perigo's language works as a substitute for argument, or even for a clear presentation of what he is advocating. Strip the crude language away, or become inured to it, and you realize that the guy lives on empty phrases and bald assertions. [....]

Objectivism purports to be a philosophy of reason, does it not?

So how can anyone who has paid a modicum of attention to the Perigonian rhetoric consider him to be an exponent of a rational worldview?

The guy seems to be entirely about grandstanding, blustering, and bullying. Reason, whether cool or heated, ain't got a whole lot to do with it.

[....]

My root objection to putting Lindsay Perigo on a TAS speakers program is not that he is rude and crude. It is that he is a man of proven bad character, and a rotten advocate for any rational philosophy. The rudeness and crudeness are the symptoms, not the problem.

My root objection to the recent decision by Will Thomas, apparently endorsed by Ed Hudgins and David Kelley (I'll say "apparent" because only Will has responded to my emails) is not that they have suddenly gone soft in the head, or let their standards fly out the window. I believe that they genuinely do not understand Mr. Perigo, and therefore have no conception of what they are up against. It simply doesn't follow that because somebody claims to be an impassioned advocate of Objectivism, and is fluent in the vernacular of Rand-land, he is in fact an advocate of thinking rationally or living a fulfilled human life. A lot fewer values are actually shared by Lindsay Perigo and the TAS leadership than the latter group seems to think.

[emphasis added]

Well put, I think, Robert.

In addition to agreeing that "they genuinely do not understand Mr. Perigo, and therefore have no conception of what they are up against" (including Ed and David in the "they," though we still don't know if those two were aware of the decision), I have the complaint that ignorance isn't an excuse in this case. Surely Mr. Perigo's behavior last summer was known to all three. Thus, his behavior on his list should have been looked at, should have been scrutinized. I'm sure that David pays little to no attention to listland life; Ed probably pays more attention than the other two. He has posted on SOLO every now and then; he knows the list is there. I don't have any information on the extent to which Will monitors O'ist lists. But if he was considering inviting Linz, he should have familiarized himself with what goes on where Linz reigns as Emperor (borrowing from WSS). Careful attention to Linz's behavior on his own list should have been paid and should have been enough to warn.

Jim commented on the TAS 2007 Accomplishments thread (see) about there having been people who were disappointed and left when Nathaniel Branden was invited to talk in 1996. There were. But David knew there would be. He had a good idea of who would leave; he'd even discussed the issue with some of those people prior to making the decision. It was a well-considered decision, with the consequences anticipated, displeasing as it was to some.

This instead, to me, has every appearance of a decision made without awareness. That of itself I find badly distressing.

Ellen

___

Edited January 8, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Brant Gaede]

Now, you are hitting on something and much more valid reasons than anyone has heretofore offered. Mr. Perigo does like to test people in a Gail Wynand sort of way, but he announces what he's doing on his website and continually says that it's his house and he can do what he wants. Piss him off, call him dishonest, get on his bad side or do something behind his back and you'll wish you were never born. Ayn Rand was like that. I had a grandfather and have an uncle like that. I loved them both very much and my uncle is dying of terminal cancer right now. I'm glad neither of them was my father. People are different. Perigo is a polarizing figure and I can see why some people here hate him.

Let's see, if I'm the bad guy the good guy Lindsay will extract justice. Ayn Rand was like him. So too other virtuous people.

Jim, no matter how much gold paint you spray on him he ain't gold.

--Brant

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Now, you are hitting on something and much more valid reasons than anyone has heretofore offered. Mr. Perigo does like to test people in a Gail Wynand sort of way, but he announces what he's doing on his website and continually says that it's his house and he can do what he wants. Piss him off, call him dishonest, get on his bad side or do something behind his back and you'll wish you were never born. Ayn Rand was like that. I had a grandfather and have an uncle like that. I loved them both very much and my uncle is dying of terminal cancer right now. I'm glad neither of them was my father. People are different. Perigo is a polarizing figure and I can see why some people here hate him.

Let's see, if I'm the bad guy the good guy Lindsay will extract justice. Ayn Rand was like him. So too other virtuous people.

Jim, no matter how much gold paint you spray on him he ain't gold.

--Brant

Brant,

I like you. Gruff, short to the point and no BS.

Jim

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jim commented on the TAS 2007 Accomplishments thread (see) about there having been people who were disappointed and left when Nathaniel Branden was invited to talk in 1996. There were. But David knew there would be. He had a good idea of who would leave; he'd even discussed the issue with some of those people prior to making the decision. It was a well-considered decision, with the consequences anticipated, displeasing as it was to some.

This instead, to me, has every appearance of a decision made without awareness. That of itself I find badly distressing.

Ellen

___

Darn. I feel I have to say more about the above. David knew that Allan Blumenthal, with whom he was good friends, and with whom he remains good friends, would leave. Likewise Murray Franck -- who didn't object in principle to inviting Nathaniel to talk but disliked Nathaniel personally too much to remain associated with IOS. And that Jim Lenox and Irfan Khawaja, whom David hated to lose for intellectual reasons (along with hating to lose Allan and Murray for those reasons as well as personal reasons) would leave; also that he'd lose a major financial supporter. All of these consequences were known and considered in advance. (Eyal Mozes, whom Jim also mentions, continued to attend for years; if he's now left because of Nathaniel's presence at several conferences, that's well post the 1996 invite.)

The decision was made as an issue of principle, not as one of expedient principal -- i.e., it wasn't made as a decision pertaining to who might bring in some money at a specific summer event. The decision to invite Linz is looking to me like one made without thinking it through, and more from the standpoint of a "good draw" funds-wise than from any other standpoint.

Plus, it has the feel of "I didn't know the gun was loaded." Somehow I think Will is going to be surprised by the amount of objection the decision has occasioned.

All of this is added to my previous comments -- which Jim apparently thinks are poor reasons -- that no one should be invited to talk about "romantic music" being "objectively" superior, and that the very idea of Linz Perigo talking about what's wrong with O'ists is an affront, himself being a prime example of the topic. Would Jim have approved of inviting Lonnie Leonard -- who sure would have been a draw -- back in the days of Lonnie's appeal to a sub-faction of O'ists? (Lonnie was better at his schtick than Linz is; he sure would have drawn in the money at one stage of his career.)

Ellen

___

Edited January 8, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[James Heaps-Nelson]

Jim commented on the TAS 2007 Accomplishments thread (see) about there having been people who were disappointed and left when Nathaniel Branden was invited to talk in 1996. There were. But David knew there would be. He had a good idea of who would leave; he'd even discussed the issue with some of those people prior to making the decision. It was a well-considered decision, with the consequences anticipated, displeasing as it was to some.

This instead, to me, has every appearance of a decision made without awareness. That of itself I find badly distressing.

Ellen

___

Darn. I feel I have to say more about the above. David knew that Allan Blumenthal, with whom he was good friends, and with whom he remains good friends, would leave. Likewise Murray Frank -- who didn't object in principle to inviting Nathaniel to talk but disliked Nathaniel personally too much to remain associated with IOS. And that Jim Lenox and Irfan Khawaja, whom David hated to lose for intellectual reasons (along with hating to lose Allan and Murray for those reasons as well as personal reasons) would leave; also that he'd lose a major financial supporter. All of these consequences were known and considered in advance. (Eyal Mozes, whom Jim also mentions, continued to attend for years; if he's now left because of Nathaniel's presence at several conferences, that's well post the 1996 invite.)

The decision was made as an issue of principle, not as one of expedient principal -- i.e., it wasn't made as a decision pertaining to who might bring in some money at a specific summer event. The decision to invite Linz is looking to me like one made without thinking it through, and more from the standpoint of a "good draw" funds-wise than from any other standpoint.

Plus, it has the feel of "I didn't know the gun was loaded." Somehow I think Will is going to be surprised by the amount of objection the decision has occasioned.

All of this is added to my previous comments -- which Jim apparently thinks are poor reasons -- that no one should be invited to talk about "romantic music" being "objectively" superior, and that the very idea of Linz Perigo talking about what's wrong with O'ists is an affront, himself being a prime example of the topic. Would Jim have approved of inviting Lonnie Leonard -- who sure would have been a draw -- back in the days of Lonnie's appeal to a sub-faction of O'ists? (Lonnie was better at his schtick than Linz is; he sure would have drawn in the money at one stage of his career.)

Ellen

___

Wow, I thought this analogy to evil might stop with Hitler and Goebbels. I guess not. It's okay, I'll leave this site alone for a while until the storms die down. I'll come back with a thread about the wonderful 2006 Seminar(that should be OL friendly). The point is not Lindsay, although I have argued for Lindsay, but he is an example of it. TAS needs a Summer Seminar with energy. Bring back David Ross and some of the other good lecturers who can energize people. Perhaps Marty Lewinter and we can have an exciting math double. Larry Sechrest comes to mind. TAS needs to review the participant ratings cards and see what worked before. If you don't like Lindsay, bring in another terrific esthetician like Kirsti Minsaas to talk about Literature.

Jim

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] The point is not Lindsay, although I have argued for Lindsay, but he is an example of it. TAS needs a Summer Seminar with energy. Bring back David Ross and some of the other good lecturers who can energize people. Perhaps Marty Lewinter and we can have an exciting math double. Larry Sechrest comes to mind. TAS needs to review the participant ratings cards and see what worked before. If you don't like Lindsay, bring in another terrific esthetician like Kirsti Minsaas to talk about Literature.

Jim, the point IS Lindsay.

And even speaking of Kirsti Minsaas as "another [my emphasis] terrific esthetician" -- as if Linz WERE such; Kirsti is -- is a horrible insult to the whole realm of art.

Maybe you had best just stay out of it, huh? You obviously do not understand why people object to Linz's being invited.

Take care,

Ellen

___

[James Heaps-Nelson]

[....] The point is not Lindsay, although I have argued for Lindsay, but he is an example of it. TAS needs a Summer Seminar with energy. Bring back David Ross and some of the other good lecturers who can energize people. Perhaps Marty Lewinter and we can have an exciting math double. Larry Sechrest comes to mind. TAS needs to review the participant ratings cards and see what worked before. If you don't like Lindsay, bring in another terrific esthetician like Kirsti Minsaas to talk about Literature.

Jim, the point IS Lindsay.

And even speaking of Kirsti Minsaas as "another [my emphasis] terrific esthetician" -- as if Linz WERE such; Kirsti is -- is a horrible insult to the whole realm of art.

Maybe you had best just stay out of it, huh? You obviously do not understand why people object to Linz's being invited.

Take care,

Ellen

Ha, ha ha!! Well I guess we are on a different wavelength and I'm wearing plaid and striped lines. Jonathan chased Michael Newberry away, Lindsay's out, Kirsti's out. Okay, I'll quit when I'm ahead or behind or whereever it was and finally remember this was a thread about being polite

Jim

___

[Chris Grieb]

Jim; Do you understand what the problem we have with Lindsay is? I agree that more exciting speakers would be a great idea but I don't want to feel being attacked.