The Atlas Society Policy and the Summer Seminar

[sjw]

"And what's going on at Lying is just plain old medieval hysteria."

LOL

[Jonathan]

Perigo has responded to Ed's thread on SOLOP.

Not only that, but I see here that James Heaps-Nelson is accusing Barbara and Nathaniel of character assassination for defending Ayn Rand!

J

[Judith]

All right. A day has passed, and I'll weigh in further on the points I tried to make yesterday.

My purpose is to make it DAMN CLEAR and loudly in public that there will be no compromise on my part with mediocrity and the nastiness that the world-view Perigo represents.

Michael, you have a forum. You've made your point loud and clear. As I see it, you've accomplished your stated purpose. No?

All attempts to get me to compromise with Perigo, Valliant, etc., are doomed to failure. I loathe tribalism placed over individualism. That contradicts everything Objectivism stands for in my mind. That has nothing to do with a rational productive world.

...

To such people: get the attempt to unite me with Perigo and everything he stands for off the table or I will distance myself from you, whoever you are.

Once that point is clear to the powers that be, and the point that other nasty attacks against OL, those I love and the values I hold dear will be met with strong and appropriate measures (and sometimes insignificant quips like "SLOP"), I am done.

Again, first of all, I think your point has been made, so you should be "done" -- right?

Next: There is no single objectivist movement. There are a few organizations who support objectivist purposes and there are many people out there who claim to be objectivists and who belong to no organization. There are no "powers that be". You and I are members of ONE organization, TAS. I happen to think it's the best one out there. It has officers who run it and make decisions on its behalf. Those officers are individuals who have names and faces. Those individuals have made a decision right now with which you happen to disagree vehemently. By casting them as "powers that be", you make your disagreement gargantuan and herculean and tend to cast yourself in the role of a child or adolescent rebelling against all-powerful parents. Why not make the entire issue more bite-sized and manageable, and give yourself more power, by saying that you think Ed and/or Will did something you think really, really inadvisable? Then you won't feel like you have to rail forever against "powers". You just talk to Ed and Will and talk to your friends about Ed and Will.

Next: you disagree vehemently with Ed and/or Will's decision (which isn't yet final). A number of those here agree with you. You are providing input. That's good. Where, however, does the idea that they can "make you unite" with someone you consider your enemy come from? No one can make you do anything. You are free to hate whomever you choose, tell whomever you choose about it, and not associate with whomever you choose. If you want to boycott the summer seminar, quit TAS, encourage others to do the same, you're free to do so, and you have a forum with which to do so. So why are you still fighting? I'd say you have everything you need.

Finally: Phil's post was right on the money. Passion about a subject doesn't necessitate vulgarity or childishness. You are less, not more, likely to win people to your point of view by sneering, name-calling, dishonest argument techniques, and the like. And sometimes silence and refusing to respond are the most dignified form of response.

Judith

[Jonathan]

"prepubescent"

"childishness"

"dishonest argument techniques"

"Back in seventh grade I expected such things of my peers."

Will someone explain the civility rules to me?

My having a little fun with Perigo's name by rearranging the letters so that they reflect his piggishness is labeled uncivil, but Judith's use of the words and phrases above is apparently perfectly civil. Why is that?

Is it because she thinks that I and others are behaving like children, therefore she is simply stating a fact and not indulging in name-calling or insults when she calls us "childish"? What if I feel that Perigo has more piggish qualities than I have "childish" or "prepubescent" qualities -- and I do think that -- wouldn't that mean that I, too, am just stating facts, but perhaps being more creative or clever in doing so than dour, humorless Judith is in labeling people "childish" (no insult intended, Judith, just stating a fact as I see it)? Is the only difference that I have turned my observation of Perigo's behavior into a nickname? If instead of calling him "Pigero," I were to borrow Judith's allegedly dignified method and humorlessly declare that Perigo behaves like a pig, and a prepubescent, seventh grade pig at that, could I claim that I was elegant and above using insults? Would that be the civil approach?

Thanks,

J

P.S. Okay, I don't really think that Judith is all that dour and humorless.

Edited January 25, 2008 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

You raise some interesting points, so I will try to answer them as best I can.

Michael, you have a forum. You've made your point loud and clear. As I see it, you've accomplished your stated purpose. No?

. . .

Again, first of all, I think your point has been made, so you should be "done" -- right?

Actually, I wish I were done because I have a lot of important and interesting things to do and this is a distraction. When I stated that I have to remember that people usually filter broader happenings through their own personal context, your questions above are a good example. I don't think you are being hostile. I think you merely don't see the perspective of the others involved, so your questions are fair looking only through your lens. If seen in a broader light (meaning taking into account the perspectives of the others), Roger's admonition of wondering if we inhabit different universes is accurate. But I see you "self-centered" at this moment in the strictest sense of the word. The problem with this approach is that other perspectives do exist and they will not go away. The issue is public, not private.

Thus. my point might be loud and clear to YOU. And to a few others. It is not loud and clear yet to some of the people I wish it were, like Ed Hudgins and Robert Bidinotto, for instance.

They, too, filter broader happenings through their own personal context and imagine that their goals and strategies are the "greater good," the higher road and so forth. (Er... I am judging by their acts, I am not really in their heads to know if they imagine that or not.) There are many problems with that premise, starting with the idea that people want to forge themselves into a collective and sacrifice their deepest values to a greater good.

I am not being sophomoric, either. Many of the people I see posting here and elsewhere loathe what has evolved as the ARI-style moralism and dogmatism. Although I do not believe that ARI is focusing on that as much nowadays as it did in the past and I see very encouraging signs of more objectivity (in the lower ranks), many of the people I observe gravitated to TAS precisely to get away from the attitude and behavior of constant public moral denunciations. And their value is not the loathing. It is the love. They want to do something else other than hate. They want to get away from loathing as the proper way to be happy. They want to build things and love the good in people.

So, try to look at their perspective (and I believe you hold this perspective in part, too, but simply do not see theirs or where they are coming from). Try to imagine the horror of seeing the ARI-like constant public moral denunciations, which at least had the virtue of descending directly from Rand's worst side, turned into the equivalent of kindergarten brawling, except in the foulest language possible and manifested in the most irrational erratic behavior imaginable short of going completely berserk, and this held up as the good and proper way to implement Objectivism. Try to imagine looking on a forum and seeing headlines like "Muslims are Goatfuckers" and so forth alongside admonitions to be moral and all this held up as the "total passion for the total height."

I don't think you (or some others) see how deeply this cuts in the souls of the good people who gravitated toward TAS. This is the opposite of what they want out of life. It goes way beyond Objectivism.

This is the point I have been unable to communicate. Through their actions and words, Ed, Robert and others simply do not see this in people. They are serving only their idea of the "greater good."

Somebody finally has to stand up and say, "That is not the greater good for me. You are betraying something deep inside me by holding a Perigo view up as merely a 'difference of opinion' or 'different approach' to Objectivism. I do not understand Objectivism to be anything like that." Somebody has to do it and repeat and repeat and repeat and repeat, and others chime in to say, "I feel that way too," and repeat some more until they get the idea that this is a serious issue. They are simply not listening to the people TAS gathered in the first place and why TAS was able to gather them. They are oblivious to what people live as the good in their lives, otherwise the TAS administration would not try to shove "the Perigo approach" down the throats of its supporters as something bearing nonessential differences.

I don't relish this task, Judith, but someone has to do it. At least you have understood my point. Now, when prominent Objectivists stop trying to sell Perigo to me and others who post on OL, we can move on. Until then, I am not done. I have not made my point at all, much less "loud and clear."

For the record, I don't know if it has been clear or not, I loathe Perigo and what he stands for.

There is no single objectivist movement.

Puhleez... This is the kind of statement that makes me think you have not read a word I have written. Where, except in a really out-of-context interpretation of a phrase or two (like you are doing with "powers that be") have I EVER stated or insinuated that there is a single Objectivist movement? I don't want to sound snarky or harsh, but if you want me to take your critique seriously, you have to understand my words on a primary level. That is the bare minimum. I will not address any further misstatements or insinuations like that.

You and I are members of ONE organization, TAS.

Now here we do have a legitimate misunderstanding. I am not a "member" of TAS in the sense you are saying. Kat and I support it, we love the people there, we also think often of the good TAS has done and it aligns with our deepest values (except for the times they are hellbent on betraying them in the most disgusting manner possible, but usually they are doing good things).

I happen to think it's the best one out there. It has officers who run it and make decisions on its behalf. Those officers are individuals who have names and faces. Those individuals have made a decision right now with which you happen to disagree vehemently. By casting them as "powers that be", you make your disagreement gargantuan and herculean and tend to cast yourself in the role of a child or adolescent rebelling against all-powerful parents. Why not make the entire issue more bite-sized and manageable, and give yourself more power, by saying that you think Ed and/or Will did something you think really, really inadvisable? Then you won't feel like you have to rail forever against "powers". You just talk to Ed and Will and talk to your friends about Ed and Will.

After this lesson in being master of the obvious, I want to ask, did you even read my writing? The parts where I specifically addressed Ed and Robert? They are all over this discussion. I suggest a review. (And I totally reject the accuracy of the child/parent image.)

What on earth do you mean by "and give yourself more power"? I DON'T WANT ANY POWER!!!

(Sorry for yelling. This is important to me and it obviously is not clear.)

As to Will, I have no opinion about him. I wish I did, but he has always been a distant academic in my mind. So I usually don't think about him at all. I like some of his writing. I think he stepped all over himself and screwed-up big-time with the decision to invite Perigo (apparently on his own).

Where, however, does the idea that they can "make you unite" with someone you consider your enemy come from?

This is an important and misused issue. It is a question of granting my tacit approval, in essence saying "I don't mind if you all betray something really important to me. Go right ahead. I won't say anything."

In the Objectivist jargon it is called sanctioning evil by withholding judgment. This has been used as a whip to scapegoat one person after another in power struggles on the orthodox side. Now, here is the problem. Just because it has been misused and almost turned into a caricature of moral behavior, that does not mean it is to be eschewed in all cases. It is legitimate and important to pronounce negative moral judgments within certain contexts.

I see some people trying to equate what I am doing here with dogmatic moralism and the past abuse of moral denunciations. But that is not the case. The moral issues here are the following:

• Rational opposition versus irrational outbursts as the proper manner of making negative value judgments in public.
  
• Bullying versus free debate as the proper manner of persuasion.
  
• Personality cult versus gathering of like-minded people based on principles and common interests.
  
• Mediocrity versus competence in personal areas of achievement.
  
• Constant vulgar language as effective communication of lofty ideals.
  
• Collectivist oversimplifications versus full context thinking.
  
• Tribalism versus individualism.
  

That will do for starters. I can come up with a laundry list of more if need be. I do not see these issues as merely matters of opinion. I see right and wrong. I see good and evil. (And, of course, degrees of both many times.)

If you want to boycott the summer seminar, quit TAS, encourage others to do the same, you're free to do so, and you have a forum with which to do so.

I am not going to allow that insinuation to sneak in without contesting it. I do not want to do those things. Let me be clear by repetition. I do not want to do those things. Once again. I do not want to do those things.

But thank you pointing out that I am free to do so.

... dishonest argument techniques, and the like.

If you could please point me to a place where I have used a "dishonest argument technique," I would be most grateful. I would like to correct it or clarify it. I do not believe that "dishonest argument techniques" are the best form of expression and persuasion.

And for the record, my main interest is not persuasion. It is making "DAMN CLEAR and loudly in public that there will be no compromise on my part with mediocrity and the nastiness that the world-view Perigo represents."

From the sound of your admonitions, I am starting to wonder if I got my message across. The wording of that is awkward, so if I clean it up a bit, maybe it will be clearer.

"I want to make DAMN CLEAR and loudly in public that I will not compromise my soul by accepting the mediocrity and nastiness that are fundamental parts of the Perigo world-view."

And sometimes silence and refusing to respond are the most dignified form of response.

I tried that. Months and months.

It didn't work. So I have to do something else to express my values.

Michael

[sjw]

My having a little fun with Perigo's name by rearranging the letters so that they reflect his piggishness is labeled uncivil, but Judith's use of the words and phrases above is apparently perfectly civil. Why is that?

There is no reason. It's plain old-fashioned hypocrisy. I don't think she deserved a reply from Michael.

Shayne

[Wolf DeVoon]

In the Objectivist jargon it is called sanctioning evil by withholding judgment.

Okay, here we go. How not to make friends and call a spade a spade.

We are all creators.

-- Ed Hudgins, July 3, 2006

I recently took a position in the stock market, betting against prevailing sentiment, and made a $10,000 profit. Was it creative? -- nope. I didn't 'make money' or create anything new. In fact, I was a scavenger. The brokers, market makers, misguided momentum of institutional investors and government policies that command stupidity were not of my design.

As a youngster, I designed a 4KW beam projector lamphouse. Creative? -- no. I didn't invent the lamp, the knowledge of heat-dissipation techniques, or polished parabolic shapes. I took found objects, well-known elementary principles, and scaled it to solve a problem that was inherited from another knucklehead whose solution was less efficient. Originality is not a comparative measurement. His stupidity did not make me a great innovator.

At the height of my powers and as a result of 30 years study, I authored The Freeman's Constitution. Was it creative? -- nope. I took a neglected idea from Ben Franklin, a pinch of Tom Paine, and a simple principle from James Madison's Federalist #10. It wasn't difficult. I had enough leisure to put the pieces together, enough happiness to produce a 'masterpiece' of integration -- in reality, an obvious solution that others made possible.

So, I must say that I'm fed up with TAS. There is zero creative work being done and zero potential of whipping up rational public policy like Cato allegedly does. An Objectivist group based in Washington DC is an obscene mockery of Ayn Rand's achievements.

Calling for 'civility' is the hallmark of mediocrity. I don't like Perigo, but what's at issue is something much wider. Neither Hudgins nor Perigo have a leg to stand on except the very big shoulders of a genuinely creative person whom they both pretend to honor.

If TAS offered Perigo an olive branch, an admonition, or a piece of cheesecake, none of it matters. Second-handing is bad enough when I do it. How much worse is it that 'the powers that be' in Washington and Orange County and New Zealand are cashing paychecks to flatter themselves that they're leading an Objectivist movement that does not exist?

I like OL. I respect Michael because he created an uniquely free, horizontal forum. If Objectivism has a future, it's on the web. That's why Perigo is dangerous. Not because he might give a speech to 100 people in Portland.

Wolf DeVoon

Edited January 25, 2008 by Wolf DeVoon

[Brant Gaede]

I don't care for TAS and I don't care for SOLOP, for different reasons. It was logical that TAS would extend an invitation to Perigo just as it is logical that TAS will now withdraw it. TAS is diminished and Perigo, not SOLOP, is bloated up. SOLOP is now next to nothing. The ARI is stronger than ever after waging a proxy war through PARC and Valiant and Fahy and Perigo against the "evil" Brandens. The whole idea is to keep Rand useful by maintaining her as an icon as opposed to Barbara Branden's view that she was a complex, fascinating human being of genius who deserves to be remembered as such. If you really don't have a philosophy anymore you can make "civility" your primary point of focus, but it won't hold you up. That's the problem with TAS and that makes Barbara's quest to set TAS right by animadverting upon Perigo quixotic.

--Brant

Edited January 25, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Judith]

One would think that at my age, I'd have learned that no good deed goes unpunished. But, no....

Understand, I have no pony in this race. I see a lot of turmoil and fighting, and I'm trying to sort out the issues that seem tangled to try to throw some light and clarity on the matter, and the one thing I DO care about is that people I like and respect not embarrass themselves by sinking to the level of those they purport to despise. I'm all for a good fight that needs fighting. But this one just seems senseless to me.

I don't think you are being hostile. I think you merely don't see the perspective of the others involved, so your questions are fair looking only through your lens. If seen in a broader light (meaning taking into account the perspectives of the others), Roger's admonition of wondering if we inhabit different universes is accurate. But I see you "self-centered" at this moment in the strictest sense of the word. The problem with this approach is that other perspectives do exist and they will not go away.

Of course I'm not being hostile. You should know me better than that by now. Regarding different universes and different perspectives -- fair point.

Thus. my point might be loud and clear to YOU. And to a few others. It is not loud and clear yet to some of the people I wish it were, like Ed Hudgins and Robert Bidinotto, for instance.

Remember my original question, "Who -- exactly -- do you want to know that you want nothing to do with Perigo, and what will it take to achieve that goal?" Specifically, "What will it take to achieve that goal?" When will you consider that you have succeeded in making your point -- i.e., your loathing of Perigo and all he stands for -- loud and clear to Ed and Robert and others? When they rescind their invitation and recant of ever having considered doing such an evil thing? What is it you really want? To let others know how you feel about Perigo, or to make everyone in the world feel as you do? This is not a hostile, rhetorical question -- I'm seriously asking you, because you keep saying that you want people to know how you feel, but your actions seem directed toward another goal entirely -- such as getting TAS to change its mind, venting steam, whatever. Here is one example of where I think that issues are getting confused and conflated. Let's try to separate the strands here. I think that Ed and Robert already know quite well how you feel. NOW what do you want? You won't get what you want if you don't define it.

I don't think you (or some others) see how deeply this cuts in the souls of the good people who gravitated toward TAS. This is the opposite of what they want out of life. It goes way beyond Objectivism.

We get it, Michael. I get it. There's a reason I haven't been reading SOLOP.

They are oblivious to what people live as the good in their lives, otherwise the TAS administration would not try to shove "the Perigo approach" down the throats of its supporters as something bearing nonessential differences.

I don't know that inviting someone to speak at a conference amounts to shoving his entire approach to life down someone's throat. I'm not saying that inviting him was advisable; based on what I've been reading here, it appears that it was a serious mistake, and that the invitation would be best rescinded. In any event, having expressed your outrage and your reasons for it, I'd say your job is done. To continue to rip at people who are doing their best to do a difficult job seems pointless.

Now, when prominent Objectivists stop trying to sell Perigo to me and others who post on OL, we can move on. Until then, I am not done. I have not made my point at all, much less "loud and clear."

Ah -- perhaps an answer to my question above regarding what your true goal might be.

Do you always consider that you haven't made yourself clear unless and until people do what you want them to?

I'm sure Ed and Robert understand exactly what you are saying. They may be considering their decision for completely different reasons. It may be that no matter how long and how loud and how hard you continue to argue about how bad Perigo is, you will never convince them, because that may not be the deciding factor for them. You may be wasting your time. So, again -- is your goal to convince TAS of something, or to leave a message to the world at large, or what?

Please don't blow off these questions. I tried very hard to get your attention the other night to consider them seriously, but, as I feared, you just blew me off. I'm not trying to be obnoxious. I'm trying to clarify things.

There is no single objectivist movement.

Puhleez... This is the kind of statement that makes me think you have not read a word I have written. Where, except in a really out-of-context interpretation of a phrase or two (like you are doing with "powers that be") have I EVER stated or insinuated that there is a single Objectivist movement? I don't want to sound snarky or harsh, but if you want me to take your critique seriously, you have to understand my words on a primary level. That is the bare minimum. I will not address any further misstatements or insinuations like that.

Michael, you must understand that everything I have said regarding this subject has been in the most absolute good faith. Words mean things. I have never "deliberately misunderstood you" to be obnoxious or to confuse things or whatever. If you referred to "the objectivist movement", I assumed you were thinking of a monolithic objectivist movement, and honestly thought I could be of help to try to deconstruct that concept.

After this lesson in being master of the obvious, I want to ask, did you even read my writing? The parts where I specifically addressed Ed and Robert? They are all over this discussion. I suggest a review. (And I totally reject the accuracy of the child/parent image.)

What on earth do you mean by "and give yourself more power"? I DON'T WANT ANY POWER!!!

Sometimes what seems obvious is missed by others. Sometimes the obvious needs stating, much as I hate to do it. The obvious seems simple with 20/20 hindsight, but when you're all snarled up in conflated issues, it's not so obvious.

Yes, I did read your writing. The imagery came up because this whole thing sounds like an argument between kids and parents. Sorry, but it really does. As far as power, to put it bluntly, you sound like someone arguing from a position of no power. I'm not talking about worldly power -- I'm talking about a sense of personal empowerment.

Sigh. That will probably piss you off so much that you won't consider anything I'm saying here.

Where, however, does the idea that they can "make you unite" with someone you consider your enemy come from?

This is an important and misused issue. It is a question of granting my tacit approval, in essence saying "I don't mind if you all betray something really important to me. Go right ahead. I won't say anything."

In the Objectivist jargon it is called sanctioning evil by withholding judgment. This has been used as a whip to scapegoat one person after another in power struggles on the orthodox side. Now, here is the problem. Just because it has been misused and almost turned into a caricature of moral behavior, that does not mean it is to be eschewed in all cases. It is legitimate and important to pronounce negative moral judgments within certain contexts.

It certainly is. But all that's required is to make one's disapproval publically known. You've done that -- in spades. You seem to think you have an obligation to stop TAS from having Perigo as a speaker. That is not within your power.

And for the record, my main interest is not persuasion. It is making "DAMN CLEAR and loudly in public that there will be no compromise on my part with mediocrity and the nastiness that the world-view Perigo represents."

Now the waters are muddy again. If your interest isn't persuasion, and if you've ALREADY said, more than once, what you've said above, what more needs to be done?

From the sound of your admonitions, I am starting to wonder if I got my message across. The wording of that is awkward, so if I clean it up a bit, maybe it will be clearer.

"I want to make DAMN CLEAR and loudly in public that I will not compromise my soul by accepting the mediocrity and nastiness that are fundamental parts of the Perigo world-view."

Shouting louder doesn't make things clearer. Repetition doesn't make things clearer.

I'm getting tired of trying to sort out issues when no one really seems to care about whether they get sorted out or not. Sometimes it seems like my life story is rescuing people and causes that don't want to be rescued. I would like to see this turmoil and arguing calm down so that we objectivists don't look any worse to outsiders than we have to. Let's see how this round goes.

Judith

[BaalChatzaf]

As a youngster, I designed a 4KW beam projector lamphouse. Creative? -- no. I didn't invent the lamp, the knowledge of heat-dissipation techniques, or polished parabolic shapes. I took found objects, well-known elementary principles, and scaled it to solve a problem that was inherited from another knucklehead whose solution was less efficient. Originality is not a comparative measurement. His stupidity did not make me a great innovator.

I beg to differ. You created a configuration of components that:

1. did not exist before

2. satisfied the need of your customer.

In doing so, you earned your keep.

That is creativity on some level. Doing something that has not been done before and which has some value to someone.

Problem solving is a variety of creativity.

None of us will ever create something that is -completely- new. The is always a component of what already is, in all our doings.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Judith]

None of us will ever create something that is -completely- new. The is always a component of what already is, in all our doings.

Quoting In re Kotzab, 55 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2000):

A critical step in analyzing the patentability of claims pursuant to section 103(a) is casting the mind back to the time of invention, to consider the thinking of one of ordinary skill in the art, guided only by the prior art references and the then-accepted wisdom in the field. See Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) at 1617. Close adherence to this methodology is especially important in cases where the very ease with which the invention can be understood may prompt one "to fall victim to the insidious effect of a hindsight syndrome wherein that which only the invention taught is used against its teacher." Id. (quoting W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1553, 220 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 303, 313 (Fed. Cir. 1983)).

Most if not all inventions arise from a combination of old elements. See In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1357, 47 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1453, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Thus, every element of a claimed invention may often be found in the prior art. See id. However, identification in the prior art of each individual part claimed is insufficient to defeat patentability of the whole claimed invention. See id. Rather, to establish obviousness based on a combination of the elements disclosed in the prior art, there must be some motivation, suggestion or teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was made by the applicant. See In re Dance, 160 F.3d 1339, 1343, 48 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1635, 1637 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 1125, 1127 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Even when obviousness is based on a single [p. 1317] prior art reference, there must be a showing of a suggestion or motivation to modify the teachings of that reference. See B.F. Goodrich Co. v. Aircraft Braking Sys. Corp., 72 F.3d 1577, 1582, 37 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1314, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

The motivation, suggestion or teaching may come explicitly from statements in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some cases the nature of the problem to be solved. See Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) at 1617. In addition, the teaching, motivation or suggestion may be implicit from the prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references. See WMS Gaming, Inc. v. International Game Tech., 184 F.3d 1339, 1355, 51 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) 1385, 1397 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The test for an implicit showing is what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) (and cases cited therein). Whether the Board relies on an express or an implicit showing, it must provide particular findings related thereto. See Dembiczak, 175 F.3d at 999, 50 U.S.P.Q.2D (BNA) at 1617. Broad conclusory statements standing alone are not "evidence." Id.

. . .

. . . While the test for establishing an implicit teaching, motivation, or suggestion is what the combination of these two statements of Evans would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art, the two statements cannot be viewed in the abstract. Rather, they must be considered in the context of the teaching of the entire reference. Further, a rejection cannot be predicated on the mere identification in Evans of individual components of claimed limitations. Rather, particular findings must be made as to the reason the skilled artisan, with no knowledge of the claimed invention, would have selected these components for combination in the manner claimed.

Judith

[Laure]

Just want to register a "me too" for Judith's excellent post #134.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

You are a good guy. You are not a bad guy. (And you are a friend.)

That's my starting and end point.

Now as to your observations, one point screams out at me. You are not really familiar with this issue, nor the values of those involved. You are only familiar with interaction of OL people from the time you joined (with respect to the hostilities). You have almost admitted as much. The part you know is only a small part of all this.

I suggest you familiarize yourself better with the facts if you want to provide constructive criticism. I realize you offer it in good faith, but you end up inadvertently rationalizing away huge hunks of history by simply not being aware that they exist. You are not really rationalizing, but it comes off that way to people who have lived that history.

There is only one point where I think I should give you a better answer. You seem to think if I make a point once, then it is made for all time. That's not the way it works. Let's take a look at the practice. Maybe an analogy would help.

Would you go into the meeting place of a group of people who only liked classical music and gathered periodically to discuss it and listen to it, then try to explain why gangsta rap is just as good if not better? They like everything about you, think you are a dear, except your taste in gangsta rap. So they tell you "We don't like gangsta rap. We like classical music. We gather to appreciate it. Please do not offer us gangsta rap." Then a day or two passes and you start going on about how great this gangsta rap song is. You try to play it for them.

Well, they made their point by telling you they did not like gangsta rap. Was that point carved in stone? Should they say it again? It obviously didn't get across.

Now what would you think if, after going around and around, with everybody trying to be polite to you and not ruin the value they see in you (or you in them), but dropping enormous hints to you, you finally stopped extolling the beauty of gangsta rap for a few months? They would obviously feel relief. They would discuss and listen to classical music. They would be happy.

Then let us suppose that everyone starts thinking about a concert where, say, Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde is going to be presented. They really start looking forward to it. They are excited. The Berlin Philharmonic is coming over for the concert. These people look up the poems and translate them from German. One of them drags out Mahler's history of around the time he wrote the work. They read different analyses of the work and discuss it.

And then the magic moment arrives. You proudly announce to them that you were able to convince the management to open the concert with a gangsta rap group doing a drums and bass version of Mahler's melodies, while rapping the poem.

Maybe it would be a time to get a bit more energetic in their communications with you. And if this is still not clear, here is that message in plain English:

Listen to gangsta rap if you want to. But keep that crap away from us. We don't want it!

If you want to know what I want, that is what I want. But replace Perigo's version of Objectivism as he lives it for gangsta rap. Just because I (and others) said it once and said it clearly, people still keep offering us Perigo as good or valid Objectivism, activism, movement or whatever. Once obviously was not enough for the people who need to hear it.

All in all, I suggest you let this one be unless you really are interested. It has a beginning, middle and end and you are not really familiar with it.

(But of course, you are free to do as you please.)

Michael

[Wolf DeVoon]

Problem solving is a variety of creativity.

2+2=?

There's a world of difference (not magnitude, a difference of kind) between problem-solving and creativity. That's why nuking Iran is reprehensible, Bob. You think it's problem-solving. As I said in previous writing:

Issues that divide men cry out for creative thinking and thinking

afresh, addressing The Unknown as well as the fixed contest(s)

between A and B, whose warring creeds and enmity are set in

weathered limestone.

The Achitecture of Liberal Democracy

;)

[Dragonfly]

I think that Ed and Robert already know quite well how you feel. NOW what do you want? You won't get what you want if you don't define it.

So far they haven't given any indication that they really understand why those feelings exist, they've only been tut-tutting that we've made uncomplimentary remarks, evading uncomfortable questions and blaming us for the mess they've created themselves.

[Robert Campbell]

Dragonfly,

I'm convinced that some of the principals at TAS know why most folks here want nothing to do with Mr. Perigo.

I also think, however, that among all of the principals at TAS there is more than faint disapproval of online forums. Complaints of the sort that many here have made against Mr. Perigo are, from this point of view, best not aired in public.

All the same, I agree with you that publicly ripping OL for supposed inappropriate behavior obviously functions to deflect blame from the management of TAS, when it was their idea, and only their idea, to invite Mr. Perigo to speak at the Summer Seminar.

Perhaps Ed Hudgins took a bunch of us to task because otherwise it would appear that he was holding Mr. Perigo to standards of deportment that he did not intend to apply to anyone else. But Mr. Perigo declared Ed Hudgins' civility initiative dead on arrival, just 24 hours after he posted it. If the civility initiative was supposed to mean anything at all, TAS had ample grounds to withdraw Mr. Perigo's invitation right then and there.

Bottom line: none of the blasts and counterblasts of the last three weeks would ever have been written, had a single decision not been made. And that decision was made at TAS. Not here. Not anywhere else.

Robert Campbell

[Judith]

You are a good guy. You are not a bad guy. (And you are a friend.)

That's my starting and end point.

Good. I'm glad that's settled.

Now as to your observations, one point screams out at me. You are not really familiar with this issue, nor the values of those involved. You are only familiar with interaction of OL people from the time you joined (with respect to the hostilities). You have almost admitted as much. The part you know is only a small part of all this.

I suggest you familiarize yourself better with the facts if you want to provide constructive criticism. I realize you offer it in good faith, but you end up inadvertently rationalizing away huge hunks of history by simply not being aware that they exist. You are not really rationalizing, but it comes off that way to people who have lived that history.

I think that my relative (and I emphasize RELATIVE; I've been around since August of '06, and I've spoken with you and Kat about this subject) disinterest in the subject is a strength and not a weakness in this instance. I think that you are so wrapped up in your emotions on the subject that you are not thinking clearly. I think that my questions are valid, and I REALLY wish you wouldn't blow them off, but all I can do is ask -- if you don't choose to think about them, of course, there's nothing I can do.

Would you go into the meeting place of a group of people who only liked classical music and gathered periodically to discuss it and listen to it, then try to explain why gangsta rap is just as good if not better? They like everything about you, think you are a dear, except your taste in gangsta rap. So they tell you "We don't like gangsta rap. We like classical music. We gather to appreciate it. Please do not offer us gangsta rap." Then a day or two passes and you start going on about how great this gangsta rap song is. You try to play it for them.

Well, they made their point by telling you they did not like gangsta rap. Was that point carved in stone? Should they say it again? It obviously didn't get across.

Now what would you think if, after going around and around, with everybody trying to be polite to you and not ruin the value they see in you (or you in them), but dropping enormous hints to you, you finally stopped extolling the beauty of gangsta rap for a few months? They would obviously feel relief. They would discuss and listen to classical music. They would be happy.

Then let us suppose that everyone starts thinking about a concert where, say, Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde is going to be presented. They really start looking forward to it. They are excited. The Berlin Philharmonic is coming over for the concert. These people look up the poems and translate them from German. One of them drags out Mahler's history of around the time he wrote the work. They read different analyses of the work and discuss it.

And then the magic moment arrives. You proudly announce to them that you were able to convince the management to open the concert with a gangsta rap group doing a drums and bass version of Mahler's melodies, while rapping the poem.

Maybe it would be a time to get a bit more energetic in their communications with you. And if this is still not clear, here is that message in plain English:

Listen to gangsta rap if you want to. But keep that crap away from us. We don't want it!

If you want to know what I want, that is what I want. But replace Perigo's version of Objectivism as he lives it for gangsta rap. Just because I (and others) said it once and said it clearly, people still keep offering us Perigo as good or valid Objectivism, activism, movement or whatever. Once obviously was not enough for the people who need to hear it.

The analogy is inapt. First of all, you have advance warning that there will be a rap selection on the program. Secondly, there is multiple programming, and you can choose to attend other programming instead of the rap program. Third, the rap portion is a pitifully small portion of the offered selections.

Understand that by my saying that your analogy is inapt, I'm not saying that you're wrong to object vehemently to having Perigo speak at the conference. You may well be right. Perhaps the correct analogy is inviting Hitler to one's son's bris. I'm just nitpicking at the analogy, and perhaps I shouldn't have bothered because it's taking away from the impact of everything else I'm saying.

All in all, I suggest you let this one be unless you really are interested. It has a beginning, middle and end and you are not really familiar with it.

(But of course, you are free to do as you please.)

I may well just take your advice here and give it up. It really looks to me like you're fighting with clouds that aren't fighting back and that you yourself don't really know what you're doing and are thus wasting a huge amount of energy. If it were just you, I'd care of course, but in this instance a lot of other people are also affected. No matter what I say, you reply with, "You don't know the history". If I asked you why you were running down the street naked and painted green, you'd say, "You don't know the history." If I asked you why you were tossing bricks of cellophane at modems, you'd say, "You don't know the history." I don't think you know yourself why you're doing these things, and I don't think you realize that they're pointless, but you're having too much fun doing them to want to stop, and you'll just resent me if I keep trying to get you to listen to me.

Judith

[Judith]

Just want to register a "me too" for Judith's excellent post #134.

Thanks, Laure -- I was starting to feel really lonely!

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Judith,

Ignorance is strength at times, but not for offering constructive criticism. I am not "so wrapped up in my emotions on the subject that I am not thinking clearly." You are wroing about that. I would have been unable to create a wicked little satire if that were the case. Good artistic creation demands thinking clearly. Try it sometime if you don't believe me.

I am also not doing the equivalent of "running down the street naked and painted green," or "tossing bricks of cellophane at modems." If someday I ever do these things, maybe I will listen to you.

For the present, I am merely stating and repeating over and over that I despise a man and a world-view that is being promoted on my website and giving my reasons why—sometimes in detail. You find that objectionable for some reason and refuse to look at the history of why I find value doing that. I find it objectionable to promote the trash (Perigo and his way of being) that is being promoted, but I prefer objection to harsh moderation.

I certainly do not think closing ones eyes to promoting trash and pretending it is not trash is great for public opinion in terms of spreading Objectivism. The premise underneath that approach is that people are fools and you have to fool them with a false image ("unity" or some other tripe) to make good ideas spread. I reject that approach and premise.

People are not fools. They are often slow, but not fools on something basic like what is behind constant bullying and vulgarity.

I am soooooooooo glad all this is going to stay on the record. (I fully intend for these records to be kept permanent.) Later, all I will have to do is point to it if the issue comes up again.

And I am loving my discussion with you. It gives me a wonderful pretext to repeat one more time in one more context that I despise Perigo and what he stands for.

btw - I despise Perigo and what he stands for.

Your turn...

Michael

[Judith]

Your turn...

No more. Repetition ad nauseam is one of the things against which I've been arguing, and I've already made my points clearly and on the record. I'm done.

Judith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Your turn...

No more. Repetition ad nauseam is one of the things against which I've been arguing, and I've already made my points clearly and on the record. I'm done.

Judith

Judith,

btw - Did I mention that I despise...

Nah. I won't go there...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Despite the revocation of Perigo's invitation, it is too early to relax.

The tribal movement is in full force on SOLOP and a war party is forming around the so-called martyr (who is preening and finally in his element). If they keep their bile to their side, fine. Their business.

My only caution is twofold:

1. These dudes play dirty—really viscious, manipulative, deceitful and cunning dirty—and burn the emal candles until the wee hours, and

2. I am now trying to become aware (looking for the signs) of when good people start taking that crap seriously again. It grows like cancer.

At any rate, if people didn't like the barrage of foul language and duplicity up to now, get the umbrellas out, because the cussing is starting to come with spittle.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

A lot of folks are worn out from the last three weeks. I suspect that this is true on the other side as well.

Judging from the wearily predictable reactions so far, Mr. Perigo and his adepts can form all the "war parties" they want and it isn't going to make a damn bit of difference.

It's not Mr. Perigo that TAS ought to be worrying about at this juncture. It's Jim Valliant, now busily hawking PARC as the key to all mysteries and the salve to all disappointments, including the revocation of Mr. Perigo's invitation. The notion that TAS needs no response to Mr. Valliant's book was gravely mistaken in 2005 and continues to be gravely mistaken today.

Such a response would be easy enough to provide. The work of refuting Mr. Valliant's production has been done, and most of the specifics are available right here on OL.

I gather that Robert Bidinotto wants nothing to do with responding to PARC. Fine. But someone else in the TAS office needs to step up to the plate on this issue.

Otherwise TAS will keep on getting hit, somewhere or other, sometime or other, with charges of "Brandroidism" and "Rand-diminution."

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

My last post prompted a young man on SOLOP to address me personally. Should he adhere to the posting guidelines, there is no reason he cannot address me here. But spats are spats and the tribalism drums are beating loudly on SOLOP. A crusade is forming and the troops need to be rallied. The young are particularly vulnerable to the call of the war drums and battle cries. (That's why generals are usually old farts who sit around in comfortable offices while young soldiers go out and get shot up.)

I wasn't going to answer this young man (his display name is Lance) for obvious reasons, but an opportunity arose that can be used to good effect. It might help the young people see some of the issues a bit clearer and make some sense out of this mess. I refer to the younger ones who are a bit confused about all this and not so pumped up on adrenaline that they are blinded.

Those who are blinded need time. I know because a few short years ago, I was one of them (all right, I was a bit older than "younger one," but I was still pumped and primed and waving the Perigo martyr-for-Rand flag). I needed time.

To those young people, I would like to say that the main principle that should guide you (now and always) is to see everything for yourself and think for yourself.

There is no greater good than using your own mind honestly and independently, even if you disagree with me or anyone else (including Rand or the Brandens or the Easter Bunny). You are the sole person responsible for putting you mind into gear and using it to peak performance. It is in your best interest to do so. If you do not, you turn it over to others and the daily chaos of forces beyond your control. Always check your premises. Always check your facts.

"I said, she said" goes nowhere but the gossip column and only a fool accepts that as fact. So when a person writes something, BEFORE even thinking about the content, you should be looking to see if this is an opinion, hearsay, documented fact, evaluation, rhetorical manipulation, whatever. It is very important to evaluate the quality of the information you receive. Adrenaline is great, but it does not replace facts.

Now here is a prime example of hearsay, written by the beleagered martyr himself:

Lance, don't exercise yourself too much about Michael Kelly. He's simply a pawn, evil and self-important enough to be willing but too stupid fully to realise that's all he is, in Babs' eyes as much as anyone's. She had the good sense to be embarrassed about him and his fawning at SOLOC 4, but now, apart from the KASSless staff, he's all she's got. He's her perfect poodle. Fortunately, none of it has anything to do with Objectivism.

I burst out laughing when I read that. I thought, "this guy is getting desparate." So if the young are interested in looking at the whole picture, why not look at what Barbara says, too, then evaluate the quality of your information? Here is a good place to start:

Who is Michael Stuart Kelly? by Barbara Branden

That was written in April 2006.

I have a very warm relationship with Barbara. We comment on things like people who care about each other comment. She just wrote the following to me about Perigo's gossip. I didn't ask her to comment, but she sent me this and stated that I could post it if I wish, or that she would. I decided to do so because she has had to deal with enough of this muck. But it does give a direct response to the gossiper. Thus a young person has access to more information.

Whatever he's implying about anything I said -- to him or anyone else -- at Solo4 or anywhere else -- is a lie made up out of whole cloth. Your attitude toward me has never embarrassed me, it has honored me, and I have never, to anyone or at any time, said or suggested anything to the contrary.

He said, she said. You decide. (I believe Barbara, of course, because, in addition to my love of her, she has never lied to me. Perigo has.)

This seems to imply that all is sweetness between Barbara and me. Not true. We disagree sometimes and it can get very heated. She has even raked me over the coals a few times. Ironically, the worst was for a blast I made against Perigo for that idiotic rambling he presented after traveling half-way around the world as some lame attempt of a rebuttal to Barbara's Rage speech. She was right, too. It was not my best writing. I could have done much better (OK, some of it was terrible) and I blew an opportunity to make a strong impact. Here is that not-so-great article:

In Attempted Praise of Objectivist Turkey

She was really ticked at me at the time.

But we got over it. And I am a better writer for it.

Anyway, enough. You young soldiers full of piss and vinegar right now, be careful about the quality of your information. Believe gossip if you must (that is your decision), but I suggest you try to be aware of when it is gossip. Everybody else who thinks is aware of it and they will judge you by what you say and what you do. You would do well to stand on firm ground.

Michael

[sjw]

It's not Mr. Perigo that TAS ought to be worrying about at this juncture. It's Jim Valliant, now busily hawking PARC as the key to all mysteries and the salve to all disappointments, including the revocation of Mr. Perigo's invitation. The notion that TAS needs no response to Mr. Valliant's book was gravely mistaken in 2005 and continues to be gravely mistaken today.

Such a response would be easy enough to provide. The work of refuting Mr. Valliant's production has been done, and most of the specifics are available right here on OL.

I gather that Robert Bidinotto wants nothing to do with responding to PARC. Fine. But someone else in the TAS office needs to step up to the plate on this issue.

Otherwise TAS will keep on getting hit, somewhere or other, sometime or other, with charges of "Brandroidism" and "Rand-diminution."

Robert Campbell

I think it is a mistake to argue with PARC on its own terms. I made the point way back when PARC came out that at best it is unessential for judging Rand. We can judge her by her works. Nothing in her personal life--positive or negative--can have a significant effect on how she is judged in the face of what she accomplished.

That goes for Barbara Branden's book too. Before I read PARC I read her book, and found it to be biased. Not in a devious way. The reader can discern what is a poor judgment on Barbara Branden's part because she's the one who gives you the facts that permit you to reach a different conclusion than she did on this or that point.

The root mistake was made by Leonard Peikoff in how he responded to Barbara Branden's book originally. He could have said as I did that her personal life might have some biographical interest, but if it fundamentally alters how you view Ayn Rand (and Objectivism), then you never understood her to begin with. That truth would have defused everything. PARC is an amplifier of the opposite view. It takes Peikoff's mistake and multiplies it 10-fold. The implicit idea is that unless we vindicate each and every corner of Ayn Rand's life, then Objectivism is suspect. That is a job that can never be done and should never have been accepted. Yet there it is.

On this point alone, Peikoff, using Valliant as an blunt instrument, has set back Objectivism far more than anyone else could have. He has done no less than to implicitly declare to the world that Objectivism is only valid if we can prove that Ayn Rand was perfect. I can't think of a better way for him to destroy Objectivism's chances of being accepted.

Shayne