Enough is Enough!

[Kat]

Jenna, that was a wonderful message. You are so intelligent and so independent and it is always a joy to watch you cut through all the bullshit and get to the heart of the matter. I think your message for newbies is a good message for anyone getting involved in Objectivism as it is something that can be either good or bad depending on how an individual applies it. The vicious nastiness is not part of Objectivism, but certain so-called Objectivists choose to be that way. I read that whole damn "Dialetical Dishonesty" article and I still cannot believe it. There was nothing of substance, no smoking gun, just bullshit. Over 12,000 words of bullshit. Talk about a lack of integrity, I never could have imagined anyone so nasty and petty who would betray a mentor's confidences like that. The c-word it too nice a title for her. Exponential ick-factor!

Ayn Rand and Objectivism in my opinion, is something to learn and live not worship or obey. When the lunatic fringe and smear merchants are calling themselves scholars, it totally sickens me. Ayn Rand must be spinning in her grave.

Kat

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is a little off-topic, but it concerns the main people involved in this controversy.

Jordan Zimmerman posted a running commentary of PARC on OL called The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics - One Man's View.

It is a very worthwhile read.

Michael

[JennaW]

If anyone could add to the list... I'm game... I'd like something like that to read once in a while to get a reality check, and I'm sure there's more than 11 points...

I'm reading over all my posts and thinking: Holy crap, so this is what I'm like when my bullshit meter hits overload. If I ever sound histrionic to you guys, please let me know. I'm gonna go read that article that MSK linked...

[Aaron]

Jenna- You rock.

12. Relax. Life's just too short to take too seriously.

[Ciro]

13.Remember! It doesn't matter how much you know, your strength and courage is always based on how you deal with the unexpected.

[CNA]

Mike, thank you for the post and link. I'll check it out.

Jenna, glad to see you seem to be feeling better. Keep it up, girl, you'll be fine. You're a very courageous and heroic lady !!

[Alfonso Jones]

LW: "I believe it would be a disservice on Barbara's part if she did not stand up for a person she considers a friend in spite of or maybe more aptly because of her postion in the community."

Thank you, L.W. for understanding.

Paul: "I can't help but feel you are giving them exactly what they want. They feed on the energy of other people's attention and you are giving it to them "

Paul, I understand your position, and in certain contexts I would agree with it. But not in this context. There are people, particularly people relatively new to Objectivism, who will see that the sycophants on Noodlefood and Solo are loud in their agreement with Hsieh and Perigo, and may conclude that since people who are supposedly schooled in Objectivism endorse the attacks, their must be some truth to them. It is for this reason that I feel strongly that voices must be raised to speak for a fine and honorable man whose dignity will not permit him to speak for himself.

You suggest that I am using my "social status to influence others." You're damn tootin' I am. Whatever status I have has been earned. To the extent that my voice is respected, I can think of no finer use for it.

Barbara

I was browsing through old posts on Objectivist Living and found this. I say a belated "Bravo!" to Barbara Branden.

Alfonso

[Alfonso Jones]

And remember one more thing, taught to me by my good friend Douglas Rasmussen: It is not your job to make sure that the next generation correctly understands Rand's philosophy. It is your job to understand it yourself and to be a good example of what you understand it to be, to the extent that that promotes your life and your happiness. YOU DO NOT EXIST TO SERVE OBJECTIVISM. OBJECTIVISM EXISTS TO SERVE YOU. It is a tool of YOUR survival. If others render the widely available form of Objectivism worthless for the human race, that does not have to rob you of what YOU know to be the truth about the world, knowledge, right and wrong, and your happiness.

REB

And that brought a big smile to my face.

Thanks, Roger.

Alfonso

[Alfonso Jones]

To Angie and Aggrad02: I am so very sorry that your introduction to Objectivism had to involve exposure to the madness of some Objectivist forums. I wish it could have been otherwise, and I sympathize with the bewilderment you must be feeling.

I can only suggest that until and unless you decide to investigate the charges yourselves-- and I can't imagine why you would want to -- that you try to limit yourselves to reading the works of Ayn Rand and to reading those forum articles and posts that are free of invective. And please do notice that the worst of the invective comes from only a handful of people, and they are those who have contributed nothing to Objectivist thought; perhaps they seek to be important by tearing down those who have made a contribution.

Barbara

Was browing through old posts on Objectivist Living and came across this one by Barbara Branden.

Note the last sentence . . . A very significant point is made there. Look at the fundamental ratio:

SLC = (mindless invective)/(substantial contribution)

It's pretty high for some . . .

Alfonso

(SLC = So Little Content)

Edited September 29, 2007 by Alfonso

[studiodekadent]

Alfonso,

I think that mathematical formula says it all.

My forumale for these incidents are as follows:

(Litres of Sputum released by Lindsay Perigo)^2 = f(b1A+b2H+b3BP)

In other words, the square of the number of litres of sputum produced by Perigo when he is being an enraged cultist is a function of:

A= number of standard drinks of alcohol he has consumed within the last four hours, mulitplied by b1 (b1 is the sensitivity factor of A), plus H = Number of denunciation posts issued by Diana Hsieh on NoodleFood, multiplied by b2 (again, a sensitivity factor), plus BP, which is the number of pages of Perigo's copy of Barbara Branden's PAR that currently have knives stabbed through them, again multiplied by its sensitivity factor of b3.

Number of insults directed at Chris Sciabarra = f(b1PL+b2SVR+b3DR)

The number of insults directed at Chris Sciabarra is a function of PL: number of days since Piekoff last got laid, times b1, plus SVR: the number of times Peter Schwarz has consecutively re-read Valiant's PARC within the last week, times b2, plus DR: number of dumb readers that see the word "dialectics" in Sciabarra's work and instantly start ranting about how evil he must be, times b3.

Times that Ayn Rand has revolved 360 degrees around in her grave = f (b1ARI+b2P-b3OLP)

The number of spins Ayn Rand makes in her grave is a function of ARI: Press releases by the "Ayn Rand" Institute, times its sensitivity factor, plus P (the litres of sputum released by Lindsay Perigo) times its sensitivity factor, SUBTRACT (i.e. this makes Ayn Rand spin less in her grave, i.e. this is good!) OLP: the number of sane and constructive posts found on Objectivist Living, multiplied by its sensitivity factor.

Finally, I have found a reason for Econometrics! lol

Edited September 29, 2007 by studiodekadent

[Rich Engle]

I was just re-reading Barbara's post today, after my longish absence. It is/was shameful, the way Chris was treated.

I have never met Chris face-to-face, though I would like to someday) or even talked to him on the telephone, but I emailed back and forth with him for years. I read his work. He is not only a great academic, but a kind, genuine person. That's all that needs said about Chris Sciabarra, although there is of course much more to him than that.

It's been the same old same old with Solo, and Diana. It won't change anytime soon, from what I can see. It's an unscratchable itch, and I'm OK with that; I just accept it as an unfortunate reality.

rde

Edited September 29, 2007 by Rich Engle

[Mike Renzulli]

I realize this maybe a bit late, but stuff like this honestly tickles me to death.

Critics, like Diana Hsieh, of the brilliant writings and scholarly work of authors like Chris Sciabarra are obviously grounded in philosophical prostitution. If I were Chris, I would wear her scorn as a badge of honor.

Its a fact that there is a very active Objectivist group in Denver, Colorado that is tied to the Ayn Rand Institute where Hsieh lives and she obviously wants to position herself to move higher up in the ARIan movement if not this organization itself.

Hsieh has obviously sold her soul and will do all she can to distance herself from her past. She is a reflection of the kind of altruism that Rand reeled against. I would not be surprised if she is going to be the unofficial head of the Stalinistic purges many of the ARIan groups (especially the Ayn Rand Institute) are known for.

Unless her true reason is that, while moving up in the Orthodox Objectivist movement is to move up in it while demonizing people, like Sciabarra et all, in hopes our side of the movement prevails.

Thanks for the exposure, Diana! We will relish in your vindictive attacks while gaining in numbers with the amount of ticked off ARIans who will swing to our side.

KEEP IT UP!!!

Enough is enough. I'm sick to death of pulling my punches. Diana Hsieh has published, on her web site, Noodlefood -- and, of course, on Solo Passion -- as disgustingly unjust and irrational an attack as I have ever seen, and on the one person I know who least deserves it: Chris Sciabarra. Occasionally, if rarely, when one sees a vicious attack on these two forums -- and the number of them begins to seem infinite -- one can, with conscientious delving and mulling, find a modicum of rationale for a clause, a phrase, sometimes even a sentence of the vitriol. That is not the case with the present screed. It should be taught in every logic class in the country as an example of unqualified illogic. And as an example of what the desire for vengeance for imagined slights can do to a mind.

A commenter on Noodlefood who identifies himself only by his initials wrote: "The case against him is so clear that his only recourse is to do a Branden. That is, claim that the accusations against him are so obviously ridiculous and off the wall that no defense is necessary, and that only randriods (sic) can take Diana seriously." Mr. Anonymous has it right. I hope that Chris will not dirty his hands by responding to Hsieh. I would be happy to dirty my own hands if the spittle she directs at him -- with the connivance and encouragement of sputum-thrower-in-chief Lindsay Perigo -- had the least semblance of sanity, much less of justification. But it has not. However, Anonymous is mistaken in one respect: I think he insults Randroids.

Ladies and gentlemen, the barbarians are at the gates. I ask that all of you read Hsieh's attack and form your own conclusions. And I ask, in the name of your allegiance to that which you value, that if you agree with my assessment, you take a stand, loud and long, in Chris' defense. Michael Kelly quoted part of a letter I wrote in 2004 in which I criticized those who attacked Chris because of his monograph, "Ayn Rand, Homosexuality, and Human Nature," as follows:

"We are all in Chris Sciabarra's debt. We now have an opportunity to partially repay that debt. I am asking each one of you - through your web sites, through your writings, through your talks to Objectivist and libertarian groups, through your participation in discussion groups, through your blogs, through conversations with friends -- to take a stand for Chris, to denounce the haters, and to make it clear that those who attack him on such irrational grounds deserve to be called neither Objectivists nor libertarians. The evil that Chris is being subjected to can continue only if we are silent."

I ask this again. And I ask something more: that you have nothing to with either Noodlefood, Solo Passion, or their principals. It is unconscionable that any friend and/or admirer of Chris Sciabarra should have dealings with such purveyors of unreason and brutishness. Evil can prevail only if the good do nothing.

Barbara Branden

Edited December 9, 2007 by Mike Renzulli