Branden's High Points (misleading title by OP)

[Philip Coates]

> I would strongly advise against engaging in a war of words with me. You are not nearly clever enough. You have no talent for polemical jousts

I don't invest the time to properly "joust". I just fire off a fifteen second "up yours" dismissal. And I don't care if your feces-hurling seems more clever or intelligent to bystanders.

(this one took over a minute - slow typist)

[George H. Smith]

Subject: Substituting Moralizing Character Attack for Discussion of Issues These personal attack accusations remind me of the Rodney King thing. You need to view the start of the incidents to evaluate the whole thing. I distinctly remember bending over backwards not to respond in kind when I first encountered these kinds of vicious character attacks over on SoloP when I was defending Chris Sciabarra. Post after post after post questioning my honesty, calling me an evader, claiming I was a troll, was just seeking attention. When was that? '06? At a certain point, I ran out of patience - I don't remember whether that was over there or over here when people started outragedly responding when I was very critical of their posts by calling me*** a liar, an evader, questioning my character ... all the usual ARAHW** moralizing rhetoric that only Objectivists seem to have absorbed in their movement. **Ayn Rand At Her Worst *** It wasn't just directed at me - IIRC, George has done it with Shayne and vice-versa, Jonathan with Michael Newberry and Roger Bissell, MSK with several opponents. Lindsay Perigo with other opponents. Diana Hiseh, of course, was one of the first to do it with Chris Scibarra. People on both side of PAR, PARC, etc. And on and on. And they'll always say: "Yeah, but it's *true* in -this- case: Coates, Branden, Perigo, Newberry, Peikoff, Bissell, SJW REALLY IS A COMPLETE STINKER AND THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW, DAMMIT!!! "

This whining post was a bad tactical move on your part. It is a definite "F."

Sorry about the failing grade, but you clearly need some help. I will therefore offer advice as we go along.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

> I would strongly advise against engaging in a war of words with me. You are not nearly clever enough. You have no talent for polemical jousts

I don't invest the time to properly "joust". I just fire off a fifteen second "up yours" dismissal. And I don't care if your feces-hurling seems more clever or intelligent to bystanders.

(this one took over a minute - slow typist)

Competent jousting requires wit, not time. That is your problem.

If you are going to litter our flamewar with cliches like "up yours," then this won't be any fun at all.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

Subject: benevolent machete-wielding to look forward to...

> you clearly need some help. I will therefore offer advice as we go along.

"Boko Haram's widening terror attacks, though, are only further intensifying religious divisions in Nigeria. In this nation of more than 160 million people, thousands have died in recent years in communal fighting pitting machete-wielding neighbors against each other."

[Philip Coates]

> If you are going to litter our flamewar with cliches like "up yours," then this won't be any fun at all.

> Competent jousting requires wit, not time.

I apologize for not being able to keep you amused and not being witty enough for you.

[George H. Smith]

> If you are going to litter our flamewar with cliches like "up yours," then this won't be any fun at all.

> Competent jousting requires wit, not time.

I apologize for not being able to keep you amused and not being witty enough for you.

Apology accepted. Given all the work I need to do, I prefer an easy target.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

Beaucoup HarrassMen

"The sect came to national prominence in 2009, when its members rioted and burned police stations near its base of Maiduguri, a dusty northeastern city on the cusp of the Sahara Desert...

"While initially targeting enemies via hit-and-run assassinations from the back of motorbikes...violence by Boko Haram now has a new sophistication and apparent planning that includes high-profile attacks with greater casualties...

"[The group] has splintered into at least three different factions, diplomats and security sources say...Targeting the group has remained difficult, as sect members are scattered throughout [Objectivist Living, Solo Passion, & Noodlefood] obscure foodfight websites."

--

Nigeria Calls State of Emergency Over Sect Attacks

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Published: December 31, 2011 at 12:36 PM ET

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

George,

When you stop to get a breath, reflect on how you are filling Phil's attention cup to the brim in precisely the manner he wants it.

He has manipulated you into going right where he wants you to be. (He wants you to be the dragon he slays, but he needs you to act enough like the dragon in his head to make the game work, and he is getting you there--recipe perfect.)

You want to help him? You won't because he doesn't want help. He has solved his help issues by simply blaming others for his own shortcomings. 100%. Even as he thanks WSS for being polite. That's a rationalization but he doesn't care. His lizard brain is honking.

He wants attention.

What's more, he wants one flavor of attention only. He wants to perceive it as him being a martyr against unfair dirty nasty meanies.

That's all there is to this show. Everything boils down to that. No matter how clever or caring or intelligent anyone tries to contribute to his interests (as he states them) or tries to help him (as they sense his pain)... or provide suggestions... whatever... that is where this will always boil down--until he hits rock bottom.

He's sure getting a lot of attention--recipe perfect.

Hell, I'm even giving it to him--recipe perfect--and I know better.

(I speak as a former addict. My drug was not attention, but the process was identical. That's how I see it so clearly.)

If you feel differently, though, carry on by all means.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Yesterday, while searching for OL posts that mention Strunk and White, I ran across an old post (2004) that Phil wrote for the defunct OWL list. This appeared in a long string of OWL material that Peter Taylor posted for some reason or other.

I don't recall reading this before, and I found it amusing. It is oh-so-quintessentially Phil that I decided to comment on it here, given that this thread has already been relegated to the Garbage File.

From: "Philip Coates" <philcoates@worldnet.att.net>

To: "owl" <objectivism@wetheliving.com>

Subject: OWL: the alleged anarchocapitalist 'scholars'--is that all there is?

Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 19:45:24 -0800

1. Tim refers to the George Smith essay, "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Society", with awe and reference as 'necessary homework' for even participating in this debate. [and James Donald posts an excerpt from it on March 21--so apparently it's frequently seen as pivotal].

I have just wasted my time reading it.

George makes a number of good points known to those of us already familiar with the history of common law. But with regard to -this- debate, all he does in excessively wordy academic writing style (other than use irrelevant language and drag in Mises and big words such as 'catallactics' or positive words such as 'entrepreneurial' which are not relevant to the central point and go off on other tangents such as the ambiguity of language not relevant to the issue) is to claim that deceit and unreliability by private or governmental 'justice agencies' would be minimized by the "need to minimize potential conflict with a third party who might intervene." ...

First, note the bluff and bluster -- the I already knew this stuff -- that Phil injects with his mention of common law. Strangely, most of my arguments were new to Randy Barnett -- a distinguished professor of law and probably the most knowledgeable legal expert in the libertarian movement -- but not to Phil. In fact, my article (along with the follow-up) persuaded Randy to my point of view and thereby contributed to his rift with Murray Rothbard.

My basic points and arguments in "Justice Entrepreneurship" have nothing whatever to do with common law, an approach that relied heavily on precedent. If anything, they relate to points that were sometimes raised in the civil law tradition --as found in the writings of Grotius, Pufendorf, and other writers on the "Law of Nations" who engaged in the rational analysis of juridical and legal precepts independently of precedents.

Phil should avoid bluffing (a polite word for deception), especially in matters of history -- a discipline in which you actually need to know some facts -- because he is so pathethically inept at it. But he was probably puffing himself up from the time he could talk, and he hasn't stopped since.

The most amusing part of the excerpt is Phil's objections to my use of the words "catallactics" and "entrepreneurship."

I used the word "catallactics" once, and I did so in the course of quoting Ludwig von Mises. Why? Because this is the word that Mises used, and I proceeded to explain what he meant by it. The word is well-known to Austrian economists. But Phil, fresh off the turnip truck, said, in effect: "You city folk sure use some mighty big words."

Then there is Phil's priceless observation about my use of "positive words such as 'entrepreneurial' which are not relevant to the central point and go off on other tangents such as the ambiguity of language not relevant to the issue."

What Phil imagines my "central point" to have been anyone's guess. The title alone -- "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Market" -- should have clued him in that the subject of entrepreneurship, as developed by Israel Kirzner and applied to the provision of justice, was the recurring theme of the entire article.

But I saved the best for last. Phil objects to my "excessively wordy academic writing style."

"Justice Entrepreneurship" was originally delivered as a major paper for a Libertarian Scholars' Conference at Princeton and later printed in Journal of Libertarian Studies. It is almost certainly the most influential and most frequently quoted article ever published in that journal. It has even been cited (twice) in the Harvard Law Review.

In other words, my article was successful far beyond my expectations -- and beyond what we would normally expect from any journal article. Yet Phil, for all his supposed concern about effective communication, found it too wordy and academic.

In fact, the article is concisely and clearly written. Overall I spent around a year working on it. I delivered two early versions as talks to small groups of libertarians in Southern California, and after receiving comments and criticisms, I undertook several major rewrites. It is far better than anything Phil will ever write -- and almost every aspect of it is original. I doubt if Phil has ever had an original thought in his life.

If Phil actually read the article -- which I seriously doubt, unless we count a few minutes of skimming as "reading" -- then he clearly didn't understand it. His comments are childish and ignorant. Phil was therefore right about one thing: he did indeed waste his time. The article was way over Phil's head.

My original article can be read here:

http://mises.org/jou...s/3_4/3_4_4.pdf

My reply to critics:

http://mises.org/jou...s/3_4/3_4_8.pdf

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George,

When you stop to get a breath, reflect on how you are filling Phil's attention cup to the brim in precisely the manner he wants it.

He has manipulated you into going right where he wants you to be. (He wants you to be the dragon he slays, but he needs you to act enough like the dragon in his head to make the game work, and he is getting you there--recipe perfect.)

You want to help him? You won't because he doesn't want help. He has solved his help issues by simply blaming others for his own shortcomings. 100%. Even as he thanks WSS for being polite. That's a rationalization but he doesn't care. His lizard brain is honking.

He wants attention.

What's more, he wants one flavor of attention only. He wants to perceive it as him being a martyr against unfair dirty nasty meanies.

That's all there is to this show. Everything boils down to that. No matter how clever or caring or intelligent anyone tries to contribute to his interests (as he states them) or tries to help him (as they sense his pain)... or provide suggestions... whatever... that is where this will always boil down--until he hits rock bottom.

He's sure getting a lot of attention--recipe perfect.

Hell, I'm even giving it to him--recipe perfect--and I know better.

(I speak as a former addict. My drug was not attention, but the process was identical. That's how I see it so clearly.)

If you feel differently, though, carry on by all means.

Michael

Don't worry, this won't last long. I have a lot of work to do today, I woke up feeling tired and crappy. Coffee didn't help, nor did one of those energy drinks. But a few zingers at hapless Phil, and I feel rested, tanned, and ready to go!

Ghs

[Mikee]

Kinda like cat and mouse games.

[Mikee]

Sadly I'm unable to figure out how to post the picture at the above link directly.

[Selene]

Sadly I'm unable to figure out how to post the picture at the above link directly.

I right click and drag over the picture which turns "bluish" then I hit copy on the drop down menu and then paste on in the window for OL, but I know there is a simpler way! lol

[Philip Coates]

> "Justice Entrepreneurship in a Free Society"...George makes a number of good points known to those of us already familiar with the history of common law. But with regard to -this- debate, all he does in excessively wordy academic writing style (other than use irrelevant language and drag in Mises and big words such as 'catallactics' or positive words such as 'entrepreneurial' which are not relevant to the central point and go off on other tangents such as the ambiguity of language not relevant to the issue) is to claim that deceit and unreliability by private or governmental 'justice agencies' would be minimized by the "need to minimize potential conflict with a third party who might intervene." ...

I suppose if I had time to waste I could go reread his piece and dissect it again. Maybe I did in what George 'snipped' out? Or was that a comment in passing? But what would be the point? And what does dragging in the kitchen sink have to do with this thread?

At that time I was interested in debating anarchocapitalism and ripped it to shreds then, as some many Oists from Rand, Branden?, Bidinotto, David Kelley on down. People like Randy were impressed? No big surprise that fans of or converts to A/C would like George's work in this area and those of us who think the philosophy has more holes than a moldy swiss cheese would not be impressed.

Never been impressed with pretentious academic or jargony style even for a so-called "journal". Good thing about JARS, Objectivity, etc. is they usually avoid it.

(By the way, in George's writing more generally he sometimes does seem to like to go off on tangents and do a core dump of all sorts of stuff floating around.)

I'm curious whether I addressed the (false) idea I underlined above from the OWL post in the part G. snipped. It would have been relevant to at least explain what 's wrong with the idea. At least in passing. ...Shouldn't this tangential topic be moved to another thread? Isn't there already one on Arachnocapaphobia?

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Difference Between Strong Criticism and Psychologizing/Moralizing Character Attacks

I'm glad George snipped a paragraph of mine from the old OWL list. Even as early as '04 I was likely to make **very frank and forceful criticisms** of people in the movement - Peikoff, Kelley, Rand - and also of minor figures -George- and also of posters on the list:

"...points known to those of us already

...excessively wordy

...not relevant to the central point

...go off on tangents."

I think that is the main reason people took enormous offense and started responding in heated attacks on my honesty, character, etc. They wanted to escalate to nuclear weapons.

It's revealing that almost everyone who now engages in character or moral or psychologizing (Michael's recent post that I'm neurotically just "seeking attention" is a classic example) attacks on me are people that I have harshly criticized in the past.

( No better way to get an intellectual to hate you for life than to tell him he has done some poor writing or thinking. Been sloppy. Needs to pay attention. Made a rationalistic argument. Needs to do more research. )

And I really did stir up an enormous amount of outrage on OWl, Atlantis, Solo, etc. It takes a certain amount of suspension of ego to be able to take criticism.

Especially if it cuts deep or is about an area where you take a great deal of pride - like what a genius you think you are.

[Mikee]

Sadly I'm unable to figure out how to post the picture at the above link directly.

I right click and drag over the picture which turns "bluish" then I hit copy on the drop down menu and then paste on in the window for OL, but I know there is a simpler way! lol

Thanks Adam! That's George, one badass cat...

[Philip Coates]

[post 113] Adam that's a very good picture of me. I don't have that much grey hair though. I definitely look a bit put upon and I can't decide if the little black thing chewing on the one ear is Jonathan. The one defecating in the other ear is clearly George - although podium boy didn't bring his lectern along.

While the one biting the top of my head is ND, and the one farting in my eye is probably MSK.

(Notice how distinguished I look through it all, though.)

[George H. Smith]

I'm glad George snipped a paragraph of mine from the old OWL list. Even as early as '04 I was likely to make **very frank and forceful criticisms** of people in the movement - Peikoff, Kelley, Rand - and also of minor figures -George- and also of posters on the list:

"...points known to those of us already

...excessively wordy

...not relevant to the central point

...go off on tangents."

What you should have said is that you were as incompetent and pretentious in 2004 as you are now.

You are big on examples, as I recall. Okay, give examples from my article that relate to each of your four criticisms. Two of those require knowledge of my "central point, " so you will need to state that as well. You haven't a clue -- have you? -- because you didn't read the article with any care.

Come on, you wheezing bag of hot air, make my day!

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

It's revealing that almost everyone who now engages in character or moral or psychologizing (Michael's recent post that I'm neurotically just "seeking attention" is a classic example) attacks on me are people that I have harshly criticized in the past.

( No better way to get an intellectual to hate you for life than to tell him he has done some poor writing or thinking. Been sloppy. Needs to pay attention. Made a rationalistic argument. Needs to do more research. )

As I stated in my post, I didn't even know about your stupid remarks until yesterday.

Any moron can write boiler-plate criticisms, as you have so dramatically demonstrated. The relevant issue is whether they have any substance or foundation.

And I really did stir up an enormous amount of outrage on OWl, Atlantis, Solo, etc. It takes a certain amount of suspension of ego to be able to take criticism.

Especially if it cuts deep or is about an area where you take a great deal of pride - like what a genius you think you are.

You have gotten the same reaction all these years because you always do the same thing: You strut around thumping your chest like a gorilla in heat, but when it comes time for action you don't have the equipment needed for the job.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I ain't gonna let you get away with your self-deception right now without saying something. If I truly wanted to "attack" you (like say I did Perigo or Valliant), you would not be welcome on this site.

I mention your cries for attention, but not because I want to retaliate against anything you have said about me in the past. Your opinions of my efforts are not that important. This isn't blah blah blah. They really aren't.

I mention your cries for attention because I see them and I want you to stop hurting.

As to why your manner of discourse gets people so wound up, it's like Bob (Ba'al) criticizing Aristotle for holding back science for centuries. No amount of telling him that Aristotle was dead during those centuries and that Newton (and others) did not come to their conclusions from the human sacrifice block in front of the Uga Uga temple, but instead started thinking from where Aristotle's ideas left off, will get him to see it.

Even you have been getting impatient about this.

But you do the same damn thing.

You are one of the sloppiest and laziest researchers I have come across in your online discussions. I can cite post after post where you claim you don't need to read something when called on misrepresenting the ideas. Yet you barge into discussions where you are only at beginner-level familiarity, call others sloppy and so forth while getting the elementary parts cockeyed (often with misleading oversimplifications) and telling them what they should do.

People look at that kind of in-your-face hypocrisy and think you're just trying to get your jollies at their expense. And I believe they are usually right. It's just that you're not a bully. You're merely playing a game of self-deception and using people as pawns to get your fix.

The total irrationality of this kind of stuff is perplexing and frustrating to people who want to interact with an otherwise intelligent mind.

You want attention, you just got some.

But I ain't gonna play your neurotic self-deception game. I like you too much.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> I mention your cries for attention, but not because I want to retaliate against anything you have said about me in the past.

That's not the only reason for negative psychologizing about someone else. Your arrogance makes you think you're a mind reader.

> I can cite post after post where you claim you don't need to read something when called on misrepresenting the ideas.

No you can't. It's your sloppiness which makes you think so.

> your cries for attention

Psychologizing.

> you're just trying to get your jollies at their expense

Psychologizing.

> your self-deception

Psychologizing again.

..... You just can't stop doing it, can you?

[9thdoctor]

Just checking in quickly, and I see how many threads with Phil doing his thing? All at once? Ay yi yi. Anyway, it made me think of yet another cartoon, hopefully the metaphor makes it through.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ5GlGEuONA&feature=related

[Dennis Hardin]

Evil is impotent and wins only by default of the good. With every serious passion you renounce because the people around you don't share it--with every compliment you do not pay to those who have earned it, because you fear the recipient will be indifferent--with every statement of love you do not utter, because you equate love with vulnerability, and strong feelings with helplessness--with every action you do not take in defense of your values, because you believe they are doomed--with every surrender to silence and passivity in the face of that which you know to be immoral, because of fear, hopelessness, or disgust--with every second-rate pursuit you turn to, because you believe that nothing else is possible--you are contributing to that default which makes the victory of evil possible and are creating the very universe you dread: a universe in which the good has no chance.

Nathaniel Branden, The Vision of Ayn Rand, P. 524 (‘The Benevolent Sense of Life’)

Since this thread is about Nathaniel Branden, I decided to throw in this additional quote. It’s from Branden's original lecture series "The Basic Principles of Objectivism." I think I first heard it in 1964. It had a huge impact on me then and has continued to inspire me ever since.

I'm quite certain that, despite my best intentions, I often fall short in my effort to live up to the principles Branden describes here. Nonetheless, much of what I do and say derives from this basic theme. If it should happen to matter to anyone, you will understand me better if you understand Branden’s words.

Nothing I have said on this thread (or any other) should be taken personally by Phil or anyone else. I am simply using my judgment to the best of my ability and trying to be worthy of this vision.

Very little else matters to me. That's me. That's who I am.

I guess I should say I'm sorry if specific things I do offend anyone. But the truth is I'm not sorry. And your hurt feelings are your responsibility, not mine.

Very interesting, Dennis. The excerpted quote alone makes me want to buy Branden's book.

That is marvelous. Thank you so much for saying that.

I think this is one of the truly great things about a website like OL. The amount of specific knowledge a person gains here may be relatively small, but if a particular post motivates someone to buy a book and pursue a comprehensive understanding of a philosophical issue--or for that matter, any issue-- what more could anyone hope for?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

..... You just can't stop doing it, can you?

Phil,

It's a bitch when someone blows the lid of your self-deception, ain't it?

I had to learn it the hard way, too.

You can get really pissed off when you try to bullshit a former bullshitter.

He sees right through you.

I believe in the person underneath your mind games, but not in your surface crap. That's a mask for you to manipulate others with and lie to yourself with. Nothing more.

But I don't expect to see the real Phil for a long time.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

> you..manipulate others..and lie to yourself

Michael, do you understand what psychologizing is and why it's wrong?