Uh, oh, someone farted in the 747's restroom


Rich Engle

Recommended Posts

Ah, sweet justice. I didn't quite know where to put this one, but the idea of "Garbage Pile" just seemed so right. Boingy, boingy, boingy....

To wit, per http://www.solopassion.com/node/4129 (I provide text below, just to authenticate)

Ed (who I know to be a good man) must've looked at the speaker list and said HUH???? Who authorized this? Respect my Authori-tye!!

You turn your head one moment, a f*t f**k like Perigo slips through your organization. Ever vigilant, we must be.

Hope The Creature<tm> gets a semi-good refund on his ticket. Unpack the panties and air baton, or tux, or whatever.

Ah, I love it. Moreso, I await the whining. Perhaps an air baton conducting of a Requiem? I knew I liked Ed more for one reason or another. Personally, were I the Great Air Conducting One, I'd be out for some good quality linament, to fix my now-scarred-nether regions.

And here we had a nice painting shipped to the conference room...you should see it! http://www.flickr.com/photos/victorprossca...res/2207191681/

We were going to print T-shirts but there just wasn't a good enough deal. I thought it would be fun to do tank tops for Harley Biker Chicks<tm>. Now, all is lost.

Heh. I'm waiting for his Ethel Merman-like screams. Not unlike what you might hear squooshing a hissing cockraoch....

Those damn things are hard to kill, but it's a start.

rde

Behold, whilst you slept:

January 25, 2008

Dear Lindsay:

This is to inform you that I am not including you on the program for our 2008 Summer Seminar. Let me make clear the reasons for my decision.

Will Thomas, our conference director, extended to you an invitation explicitly in the context of you contributing to "an outbreak of peace,"words you acknowledged in your communications with Will. You also wrote to Will that "I'll speak about something non-fratricidal."

As you therefore acknowledged, these were the implied terms and context of your contract and our main reason for extending an invitation about which we frankly had grave doubts, given your history of spreading incivility and acrimony throughout the movement and your uncivil attacks on us in particular. We had not seen the specifics of your talk so we did not know whether it would, in fact, serve the ends of the invitation.

However, your behavior subsequent to agreeing to speak has done the opposite of promoting "an outbreak of peace." Rather, you have fanned the flames of

further controversy and acrimony.

In your announcement on SOLO that you would be speaking at our Summer Seminar you seemed to be spoiling for a fight with those with whom you have had differences in the past.

I sought clarification from you in light of some of your remarks, to make certain that you would be civil at the event, that your talk would conform to its promised purpose and, in addition and as a sign of your intentions, that you would "commit to this wider goal of building an open and civil Objectivist movement."

You emailed me that you intended to behave in a civil manner at the event and not to use your talk on "Objectivism's Greatest Enemies: Objectivists,"

to attack your opponents by name. Yet your other posted comments suggested the opposite.

With respect to my challenge concerning civility you responded: "Well, I don't champion Ed Hudgins' cause, which is indiscriminate, unconditional civility. I've no objection to name-calling, if it can be substantiated. In

fact, in such instances, name-calling is desirable." You also wrote: "Well, that's too bad, Ed, because I'm not going to make any.... I can't guarantee it will always be civil (nor do I owe you or anyone such a guarantee)."

It was never our belief or aim that TAS could heal or unite the Objectivist community. However, it was our hope and our clear intention that in extending this invitation we might at least take the first steps toward

reducing the decibel level of personal vituperation and the incivility by which even profound disagreements are expressed. But you have, by your own public statements subsequent to our invitation, only poured more gasoline on the fires that are consuming Objectivism's public reputation. You actively participate in online discussion threads where you continue to mock and

taunt your opponents and, at times, sink to obscenities (e.g. what you said recently about Barbara Branden). So too have your SOLO associates. This unprofessional conduct has only furthered the rancor among Objectivists and contributed to an ongoing Hatfields/McCoys war between participants on SOLO-Passion and Objectivist Living.

Far from contributing to the civilized atmosphere we sought and expect at a Summer Seminar, you have only turned your prospective appearance into

another battleground in an ongoing uncivil war.

We recognize that some of your opponents have also contributed much to this toxic atmosphere through their own intemperate comments about your scheduled

appearance. You might have taken this as an opportunity, not to ignore past disagreements nor to feign friendship with those with whom you have bad blood but to say, "I'm not sinking to that level. I am taking the high road.

Why don't you? Let's see where it takes us." In any case, I delayed this communication to you in part to take time to address them directly about

this, calling them to a higher standard of conduct.

Nonetheless, it takes two sides to stage a public brawl, and in any case, those individuals were not invited to speak at our seminar about Objectivism. You were, and it was understood that you would conduct yourself

in a manner that would reduce incivility and hostility within the movement. But your statements announcing that talk and the manner of your response to critics of it have been completely contrary to that goal, dashing hopes that your appearance can contribute to our stated objective.

I do want to apologize for not vetting your talk more carefully in the first place. Had I done so, perhaps you would not have been invited at all, sparing all concerned a lot of grief.

In any case, we take your statements and behavior as a rejection of the terms under which we wanted you to speak at the 2008 Summer Seminar and it is my decision that you not be included on the program this year.

Sincerely,

Edward Hudgins

Executive Director

The Atlas Society

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the sun rises in the Arctic void that is Ohio, an inviting subzero snow moment, again. But us folk up hyeah find warmth anywhere we can...

I cannot resist, this is ultra-super precious, F*t F***'s commentary on having been late-term aborted. Ah, I should take it line by line, CSI-Forensic style, but I will leave that to others. OTHER than that, off rip, he uses the "Royal We," it appears. Why does he remind me of Rush Limbaugh? Why oh why oh why... I think of the film Amadeus, where Solieri says it all... "Mozart...ah, Mozart. Well, sumthin like that... In any event, this is ultra-super-precious. The Creature<tm> is even getting it stuck to him in within his own palace walls. La, la la la la... Simple pleasures are the best, la la la.

No, we're not surprised. Well, I'm not. But I did take the precaution of accepting "without prejudice," and was in turn accepted on those terms. Since I truly had no intention of "blindsiding" anyone, and know that Ed knows that, and given that Will greeted my acceptance with a "yay!" I assumed the invitation had a good chance of standing in spite of the jackals. And my presentations would have been splendid.

As someone who flounced over my screams against the fatwa, whose defenders were banging on about civility, Boaz, you shouldn't presume to lecture me about being seduced by civility-mongers.

All right, Hudgins is a "sickening void of a man." That's very well put, and I guess I have to accept that in light of the evidence from today and the last couple of weeks. But he's placed his voidness, his amoralism, his moral equivalency, at Babs' disposal. It's still about her. She and her vindication are still the point of it all. She and her equally rotten, unutterably disgusting ilk at Lying. And their point, the point of all of them, as an adjunct to her vindication, is the moral disarmament of Objectivism and the diminution and discrediting of Ayn Rand, as I argued in my speech at Borders - and of course as James showed in PARC.

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.

Linz

This is like waking up on Xmas morning to see Santa gave you The Big Crayola Set. My, is he not so jealous, still, so needful of, er "Babs'?" Geez. The day I ever call Barbara Branden "Babs." Fabulous. Priceless. A woman scorned always=2 minutes until bomb time. And I wasn't talking about Barbara. Man, don't cross this dude on a date unless you're willing to shell out for an i.d. change an a plane ticket.

rde

Skipping off to the dollar store in search of dollar KASS coloring books: gotta be on the cheap by now.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now