Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Roger Bissell]

> [i am] presenting dirt to discredit Valliant

Michael, one source of frustration is you often use vague or non-objective or 'emotionalist' blurred language in your writing, just like Lindsay Perigo does in his [Diana H. does not - she is a very precise writer]. (It's as if if you just picked any word that was handy, as if you did not edit your writing but shoot from the lip.)

The word "dirt" is sort of a straddle word, a euphemism. There is legitimate dirt and illegitimate dirt.

The straddle word blurs or equivocates upon the distinction I made between fair criticism and smearing or irrelevancies. This can blur or distract from the very precise points I made for those who don't take the trouble to reread my post after reading Michael's.

Very astute, Phil. Again, I agree. I have seen this too often here on O-L. I can only echo you in encouraging everyone to re-read the posts that people write in disagreeing with others. Especially double-check the full contexts that are often only partially quoted. It's the only real antidote to the methodology you refer to in your first paragraph.

REB

[Alfonso Jones]

> [i am] presenting dirt to discredit Valliant

Michael, one source of frustration is you often use vague or non-objective or 'emotionalist' blurred language in your writing, just like Lindsay Perigo does in his [Diana H. does not - she is a very precise writer]. (It's as if if you just picked any word that was handy, as if you did not edit your writing but shoot from the lip.)

The word "dirt" is sort of a straddle word, a euphemism. There is legitimate dirt and illegitimate dirt.

The straddle word blurs or equivocates upon the distinction I made between fair criticism and smearing or irrelevancies. This can blur or distract from the very precise points I made for those who don't take the trouble to reread my post after reading Michael's.

Phil -

Well put, and well reasoned.

I agree.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

You are the one who brought up dirt and tried to use it as a blanket concept. But OK. Here is my version of the dirt about Valliant's ineligibility to practice law in California and why I presented it.

Valliant tries to bring to bear the prestige of being an attorney on his boneheaded campaign to smear the Brandens, Sciabarra and anyone else traditionally not approved by the orthodox crowd, and deify Rand. Some people listen because he is an attorney. They think if he is an attorney, he must know what he is talking about.

If you read reviews favorable of PARC, you will always come across phrases like, "Attorney James Valliant," and prosecutorial brief, and so forth. PARC was structured as if it were a court case—a metaphor, but a very clear one. The concept of Valliant being an attorney and having some kind of justice-like crusader status because of this is embedded in his entire approach.

Well, if he wants to benefit from the prestige of being an attorney, it will have to be with full disclosure in my neck of the woods. No faking. No free rides. No blank-outs.

Valliant is an attorney who was suspended from the California Bar. For about a year now. That's the kind of attorney he is. That is what is on record, not anyone's opinion. Valliant had an option to withdraw and he chose not to make use of it. The Bar suspended him. He was noncompliant with the Bar's rules for practicing law.

Let that fact be part of his prestige package.

I know facts are inconvenient to people who wish to crusade for saving the world in Ayn Rand's name and defending her honor against whomever they deem to be an enemy, but reality has a way of being what it is, not what they wish it to be.

I find my disclosure of Valliant's professional status to be legitimate dirt, to use your quirky phrase. It is factual and it deals with a public relations value that has been used by him and PARC supporters to legitimize an attack against my own values, i.e., people I care deeply about and respect for correct epistemological process (i.e., I like my concepts to have referents in reality, not in rhetoric, if I am going to crusade).

You, on the other hand, may have another view of all this. If you find this stuff frustrating, I suggest another approach. You could ask for explanations before criticizing. It's an approach I personally find vastly less frustrating. I highly recommend it.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

James Valliant is still an atorney if he has not been disbared. Michael, I always thought his being an atorney was negative on him and his work because PARC is only what we may call a "prosecutor's brief" in which everything is thrown at the wall to see what sticks. The only good lawyer is the one you need.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

(snip)

Valliant tries to bring to bear the prestige of being an attorney on his boneheaded campaign to smear the Brandens, Sciabarra and anyone else traditionally not approved by the orthodox crowd, and deify Rand. Some people listen because he is an attorney. They think if he is an attorney, he must know what he is talking about.

If you read reviews favorable of PARC, you will always come across phrases like, "Attorney James Valliant," and prosecutorial brief, and so forth. PARC was structured as if it were a court case—a metaphor, but a very clear one. The concept of Valliant being an attorney and having some kind of justice-like crusader status because of this is embedded in his entire approach.

Well, if he wants to benefit from the prestige of being an attorney, it will have to be with full disclosure in my neck of the woods. No faking. No free rides. No blank-outs.

Valliant is an attorney who was suspended from the California Bar. For about a year now. That's the kind of attorney he is. That is what is on record, not anyone's opinion. Valliant had an option to withdraw and he chose not to make use of it. The Bar suspended him. He was noncompliant with the Bar's rules for practicing law.

Let that fact be part of his prestige package.

Michael -

I don't think Valliant derives any prestige from being a lawyer, in particular after how incompetent the book has been demonstrated to be. If anything, what sticks now from him being a lawyer is that it is clearly a partisan piece of advocacy.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

James Valliant is still an atorney if he has not been disbared.

Brant,

I never claimed Valliant was not an attorney and I never claimed he was disbarred. I said he was suspended from the California State Bar. Those are very different things. If you read the links in my original post, the suspension would have been clear. Here. Let me help (my bold and emphasis).

If you go to the page itself (see here), you will see two entries under Administrative Actions for James Stevens Valliant - #140853

Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law

Administrative Actions

7/1/2008 -- Admin Inactive/MCLE noncompliance -- Not Eligible To Practice Law

8/16/2007 -- Suspended, failed to pay Bar membr. fees -- Not Eligible To Practice Law

For the record, it also states that there are no public records of disciplinary and related actions. As I understand this statement, Valliant was suspended from the Bar last year, but was not disbarred. To better understand what "Not Eligible to Practice Law" means, here is the California Bar's explanation.

I am confused as to why you needed to make a statement that Valliant was still an attorney. No one I know of has claimed the contrary. Even when I have been harshly critical, look at the following:

Valliant is an attorney who was suspended from the California Bar. For about a year now. That's the kind of attorney he is.

If you do not understand that to mean that Valliant is still an attorney, I don't know how to make it clearer.

Michael, I always thought his being an atorney was negative on him and his work because PARC is only what we may call a "prosecutor's brief" in which everything is thrown at the wall to see what sticks. The only good lawyer is the one you need.

I don't think Valliant derives any prestige from being a lawyer, in particular after how incompetent the book has been demonstrated to be. If anything, what sticks now from him being a lawyer is that it is clearly a partisan piece of advocacy.

Gentlemen,

Valliant may not derive prestige from y'all for being an attorney, but he clearly does from PARC supporters. And they use this fact to provide prestige for Valliant and PARC with people who are not familiar with the issue. They use it as a selling point. I have seen it work with some people, too.

It's a PR thing. Since Valliant (including Perigo & Co.) wanted a PR war in the courtroom of public opinion, he got one. And I'm pretty good at it, seeing as I only have this one little site.

You don't have to agree. I fully intend to keep on doing what I am doing for the reasons I am doing it. (That includes all the reasons, including the branding.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

If Valliant is suffering pain and agony I wish him serious amelioration. Let him come back on SOLO and defend himself from Robert Campbell. Otherwise Campbell wins with implicit, negative ad hominem--that is, Valliant couldn't argue. Is that what all this is about?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks, Michael, but I don't need your help. You explicitly stated that Valliant traded on his prestige as a lawyer and strongly implied he lost that prestige, thereby implicitly sanctioning Valliant trading on it in the first place. All you did was re-enforce Valliant in this regard.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Is that what all this is about?

Brant,

Not to me. My intent is not to win any discussion. It is to discredit malicious crap from a bonehead supported by people with a tribal scapegoating mentality.

I would do what I have done in any circumstance for the reasons I have given. Valliant's health is not an issue. I would do "all this" even if he were deceased. I do not speak for others like Robert Campbell, but I strongly suspect he feels the same.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thanks, Michael, but I don't need your help. You explicitly stated that Valliant traded on his prestige as a lawyer and strongly implied he lost that prestige, thereby implicitly sanctioning Valliant trading on it in the first place. All you did was re-enforce Valliant in this regard.

Brant,

There is an element missing here. Prestige to whom? My issue is prestige with the public at large in a public relations thing (and as a minor issue, prestige with the orthodox Objectivist supporters of the ARI-hate and scapegoat tradition).

Valliant hasn't lost such prestige with the public at large. He never had it in the first place. He's a relatively unknown author and lawyer. What he has lost is the efficacy of him and his minions presenting the "Practicing Lawyer as Moral Crusader for Justice" image to others. Now that his suspension from the Bar and ineligibility to practice law has been commented on and documented in the context of the present discussion, someone down the line can point to it and ask what that is all about when the BS gets really thick.

I don't "sanction" Valliant trading on this. I have observed that he used this image and it worked with some people. That's not sanctioning anything. That's just looking and identifying.

If the prestige is to you, you have made it clear Valliant never had it as a lawyer in the first place with you. (Not with me either, for that matter. I don't like lawyers in general.) But that is not what I was discussing.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks, Michael, but I don't need your help. You explicitly stated that Valliant traded on his prestige as a lawyer and strongly implied he lost that prestige, thereby implicitly sanctioning Valliant trading on it in the first place. All you did was re-enforce Valliant in this regard.

Brant,

There is an element missing here. Prestige to whom? My issue is prestige with the public at large in a public relations thing (and as a minor issue, prestige with the orthodox Objectivist supporters of the ARI-hate and scapegoat tradition).

Valliant hasn't lost such prestige with the public at large. He never had it in the first place. He's a relatively unknown author and lawyer. What he has lost is the efficacy of him and his minions presenting the "Practicing Lawyer as Moral Crusader for Justice" image to others. Now that his suspension from the Bar and ineligibility to practice law has been commented on and documented in the context of the present discussion, someone down the line can point to it and ask what that is all about when the BS gets really thick.

I don't "sanction" Valliant trading on this. I have observed that he used this image and it worked with some people. That's not sanctioning anything. That's just looking and identifying.

If the prestige is to you, you have made it clear Valliant never had it as a lawyer in the first place with you. (Not with me either, for that matter. I don't like lawyers in general.) But that is not what I was discussing.

Ah, Michael, you are a mighty warrior, but you don't believe in the basic principle of parallel parking: If you screw up start over.

--Brant

Edited August 15, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ah, Michael, you are a mighty warrior...

Brant,

Mighty warrior?

Graack!!!

I am a flyswatter, sir.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Not sure where to post this, but John W. Robbins of Without a Prayer: Ayn Rand and the Close of her System fame died yesterday.

The book is a mixed bag. The works of his mentor, Gordon Clark, are much better.

-NEIL

[Robert Campbell]

Neil,

Any details about John Robbins? Do you have a pointer to an obituary?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

We are in the midst of some upheavals at Clemson, which I doubt are of more than local interest, so for the past few days I've been a little preoccupied with (re)justifying my existence. Which I have now done... Real work beats Dilbertian exercises every time, so I'm relieved to be back to it.

For Jim Valliant as a sufferer from a chronic illness, I have nothing but good wishes.

As far as his status with the California Bar is concerned, I think his suspension is worthy of brief public notice. I don't know why he didn't petition to be put on inactive status due to health (whatever that's officially called in California), but his failure to do so affects mainly himself.

Some of Mr. Valliant's supporters have traded on his past role as an attorney. Bill Perry, himself a former prosecutor, has done so. At times, Mr. Valliant did it in PARC (most notoriously, in prefacing the "soul of a rapist" charge with a reference to the rapists he had prosecuted).

Whatever. Unless other information surfaces, I'll presume that Mr. Valliant is retired from practicing law on account of illness, and he just didn't handle the transition gracefully. I don't conclude that some cat in the 1950s couldn't play his instrument because he didn't get enough gigs, failed to pay his Union dues, and got "erased" from the membership rolls of the Musicians Union local. Some of those cats who got into hot water with the Union local still sound damn good on recordings.

In response to Brant Gaede's suggestion that I win (or Neil wins, or WSS wins, or Brendan Hutchings wins...) in some kind of walkover if Mr. Valliant does not reappear on SOLOP to defend his book... the entire suggestion is silly.

Obviously, the quality of Mr. Valliant's arguments (or anyone else's) does not depend on whether he keeps producing them in an agonistic public setting. Otherwise, we'd have to conclude that everything that Ayn Rand ever said has been refuted, 'cause she's no longer around to present her case.

The reason I've occasionally stuck my head in at SOLOP while Mr. Valliant has been absent is twofold:

(1) To point out that no one else seems both willing and able to mount any detailed defense of his book. If PARC is the bringer of blinding insight and the repository of unassailable arguments that its proponents claim it to be, somebody ought to be taking up its defense. Why should Mr. Valliant's participation be needed at all? Why isn't Mr. Perigo taking over? Why is no one answering Mr. Perigo's call for reinforcements?

(2) To remind people that Mr. Valliant's efforts to defend his book have done it far more damage than a consistent refusal to comment ever would have.

I have seen enough of Mr. Valliant in action to have become convinced that he is not a particularly good guy—but I am not ready to tell him to stew in his own bile. I try to reserve that for people whose only salient motivation is malicious.

Robert Campbell

[Chris Grieb]

Robert; Good post.

I hope whatever your problems are at Clemson they are over till your retirement which I hope will after the 75th anniversary of Atlas or even the 100th.

[Brant Gaede]

In response to Brant Gaede's suggestion that I win (or Neil wins, or WSS wins, or Brendan Hutchings wins...) in some kind of walkover if Mr. Valliant does not reappear on SOLOP to defend his book... the entire suggestion is silly.

Obviously, the quality of Mr. Valliant's arguments (or anyone else's) does not depend on whether he keeps producing them in an agonistic public setting. Otherwise, we'd have to conclude that everything that Ayn Rand ever said has been refuted, 'cause she's no longer around to present her case.

The reason I've occasionally stuck my head in at SOLOP while Mr. Valliant has been absent is twofold:

(1) To point out that no one else seems to both willing and able to mount any detailed defense of his book. If PARC is the bringer of blinding insight and the repository of unassailable arguments that its proponents claim it to be, somebody ought to be taking up its defense. Why should Mr. Valliant's participation be needed at all? Why isn't Mr. Perigo taking over? Why is no one answering Mr. Perigo's call for reinforcements?

(2) To remind people that Mr. Valliant's efforts to defend his book have done it far more damage than a consistent refusal to comment would ever have.

I have seen enough of Mr. Valliant in action to have become convinced that he is not a particularly good guy—but I am not ready to tell him to stew in his own bile. I try to reserve that for people whose only salient motivation is malicious.

Opps. I could have stated that better. Namely, Valliant's defenders (where are they?) will soon be reduced to that "argument." Kind of a default position. Perigo is perverse. When I read his call for Valliant's defenders to come forth I knew that he must have known they weren't going to. That that was Perigo washing his hands to the extent he is capable of of PARC. Valliant had stated he had received all sorts of backstage support from prominent people. Perigo called them all out. Perigo is also being reduced to New Zealand. Unlike me, Perigo went much too far with Valliant/PARC and attacking Barbara Branden. He can't get back. No TAS. No ARI. Nothing left for him to gloom on to. He has genuine writing ability but little to actually say. He has managed to drive away many of his former supporters. SOLOP has turned into an intellectual ghost town.

--Brant

Edited August 15, 2008 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have seen enough of Mr. Valliant in action to have become convinced that he is not a particularly good guy—but I am not ready to tell him to stew in his own bile. I try to reserve that for people whose only salient motivation is malicious.

Robert,

LOL...

Point taken. Valliant is no Hitler.

(But then again, I made my quip about being a flyswatter.)

When I think of Valliant imagining with glee the suffering and disgrace he thought he would inflict on Barbara and Nathaniel during the production and promotion of that monument of crap called PARC (especially in passages like that soul of a rapist garbage), or worse, taking pleasure out of imagining himself as some kind of ruthless Randian dispenser of justice hero indifferent to the suffering he is actively trying to inflict, I continue to wish for him the very same suffering and disgrace he has wished for others and has acted with full conscious volition to obtain.

He has called for justice. I wish justice for him. He has called on Rand's "judge and be judged" statement. Well he judged and acted. I and many others (including you) judged him and acted. May he bear the consequences of that with the same arrogance as he did his persecution of others and stew in the bile of frustration of knowing his intellectual impotence.

His wishes and whims and rhetorical monkey-shines were not enough to destroy anybody.

I will only go from Old Testament justice (eye for an eye) to New Testament justice (forgiveness) if he shows genuine remorse. I have seen no indication of that and I do not expect to, but I will keep my eyes open for it. I do not believe in turning the other cheek with a person who continues to bear the malice in his heart that Valliant has shown time and time again. All such a person does is strike again and again.

The only part I can forgive, but only up to a point, is his boneheadedness. I believe he mutilated his rational faculty with a cult-like approach to philosophy, choosing to brainwash himself with faith and acting on it, and on one level literally "knows not what he does." On that part I feel pity and I can forgive some of the acts resulting from the mutilation.

But I do not feel pity for his wrecked reputation. What little he had in the Objectivist world was unearned in the first place, and he sought to build it by trying to be a judge, jury and executioner disguised as prosecutor.

He earned his own failure. May he reap the rewards of it.

I almost wish I could feel Christian charity in my heart for him, but when I look inside, there is nothing but contempt and pity. I will not bear false witness to it.

I can report feeling a profound sadness at harboring such thoughts and judgments about a member of my own species, but the sadness is not in response to the actual appraisal. It is in response to the need for such an appraisal in the first place. It's a damn shame people choose to do the kind of malicious boneheaded crap Vallaint did. And it's a damn shame to be forced to judge and repel that crap to protect my values.

Michael

[tjohnson]

full conscious volition

as opposed to;

semi conscious volition

full unconscious volition

semi unconscious volition

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Rhetorical emphasis, not actual qualification.

Michael

[william.scherk]

In response to Brant Gaede's suggestion that I win (or Neil wins, or WSS wins, or Brendan Hutchings wins...) in some kind of walkover if Mr. Valliant does not reappear on SOLOP to defend his book... the entire suggestion is silly.

I agree. Why I am waiting until Valliant reappears is that he is a useful foil, and because he is the author. That the triad of sewer-dwellers noted has achieved a victory by his silence . . . no, of course not.

If PARC is the bringer of blinding insight and the repository of unassailable arguments that its proponents claim it to be, somebody ought to be taking up its defense. Why should Mr. Valliant's participation be needed at all? Why isn't Mr. Perigo taking over? Why is no one answering Mr. Perigo's call for reinforcements?

These are interesting questions. The first -- Valliant has been the only sustained poster in defence of PARC. The threads on PARC need him, because otherwise we simply get young Kasper or manly-girl Olivia or other also-rans who don't pay attention to anything but the cartoon version of events. Secondly, and thirdly, as Brant notes, there is thinning, browned and stressed out turf where once was a busy field. So many have moved on from SOLO, so many haven't the intellectual armaments needed to sustain discussion. In short, Lindsay rarely says anything interesting in the PARC threads, and almost never says anything that isn't a shrill caricature of an angry, bitter extremist.

When I read [Perigo's] call for Valliant's defenders to come forth I knew that he must have known they weren't going to. That that was Perigo washing his hands to the extent he is capable of of PARC. [ . . . ] He has genuine writing ability but little to actually say. He has managed to drive away many of his former supporters. SOLOP has turned into an intellectual ghost town.

Ooh. Ah. Ouch.

[Neil Parille]

I've been skimming the older debates on PARC, and it doesn't seem that anyone other than Valliant and Fahy were actually intererested in defending PARC in any detail.

-NEIL

____

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

According to Valliant's recent words to Perigo (see here), he is ineligible to practice law because he is too ill to do so and he let his membership slide without requesting inactive status. He also reports to be suffering from "damn thing," which apparently comes and goes.

I simply let my membership lapse when I became physically unable to practice law due to illness. That license costs money each year, you know.

My reputation in the legal community -- if MSK were to do some actual research -- is flawless -- as my opponents at trial would be the first to swear to.

. . .

I had repeated bouts of this damn thing, and the recovery was ~ much ~ slower this time, confirming in me a deep and abiding hatred for hospitals --but let everyone know that I'm feeling ~ much ~ better and will soon fully recover, chipper and as eager for debate as ever.

I find it curious that he wishes me to do research with his cohorts to verify his legal standing. He erroneously called this matter his "reputation in the legal community" as if I questioned that. I didn't. I questioned his capacity to practice law. He has not had that since 2007.

He forgets he himself does not practice this form of research anyway. He wrote an entire book bashing the Brandens and did not consult one person around them. Valliant is pure double standard if ever there was one.

Anyway, research-wise I prefer to stay with the written record of the California State Bar rather than ask his friends for opinions. The official Bar record states he was suspended last year apparently for nonpayment of membership dues (it is unclear from the online records if this was the only reason, but it is given explicitly as a reason) and penalized this year for noncompliance with the rules. James Valliant is ineligible to practice law in the State of California and the Bar decreed this. I doubt the Bar will permit Valliantquote to alter that and issue a statement that his standing as an attorney is "flawless." He can put a spin on it, I suppose, but his standing as a professional attorney is not "flawless." The facts won't change and neither, I bet, will the Bar policy.

Michael

[syrakusos]

According to Valliant's recent words to Perigo ...

947 posts since May 17 2008 at 06:40 PM, and still not taking PARC seriously.

By "nobody", does that include He Kexin, the 13-yead old Chinese gymnast?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

Look at the number of posts (a lot), then look at the number of posters (precious few), then tell me if the Objectivist world is going to change because of PARC.

It isn't.

Nobody is interested and nobody takes that boneheaded book seriously. People read this thread (and the corresponding sections on Solo Passion) more for the dirt and squabbling than for any information. They always have done so, but now that Valliant has been discredited so thoroughly, especially by his own words that showed the extent of his lack of preparation, the interest in dirt is almost all that is left.

I am using the inductive "nobody," the most colloquial form of the term, meaning that this covers the overwhelming majority of people but a fringe element can exist, and not the deductive "nobody" meaning not a single human being can exist. If I were to use the deductive standard, I would have contradicted myself right in the title because obviously the author took his own book seriously enough to write it.

If you want to be precise in order to explain why there are non-participating readers of these threads, you can say nobody takes PARC seriously anymore, but everybody takes dirt seriously.

Michael