Why Nobody Takes PARC Seriously Anymore

[Brant Gaede]

We also need Ayn Rand for her celebration of human ability and achievement. We need her for the inspiration of her great novels. We owe her, too, we owe her a hell of a lot.

--Brant

[Daniel Barnes]

Thanks for "Critical Rationalism," Daniel. I'll check it out, even though it sounds like form but no substance. It sorta sounds like Rand's Newton vrs its Einstein, with CR being the cosmological (speed of light) constant, while back on earth ....

Why not take a wander over to my friend Rafe's place, The Rathouse, some time? Or perhaps here? And remember, Einstein turned out to be closer to the truth than Newton...

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'm not going to assay a discussion of that topic on this thread, the subject of which is

___

Um. I'm too lazy right now to reach for the dictionary, three feet away, so I'm going to be reckless and go way out on a limb and propose that maybe you meant "essay"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assay

See meaning #1.

[Darn; that link takes you to the meaning of the noun; you have to click on the verb entry to find the meaning #1 I mean.]

(Actually four respectable dictionaries sit there, one of which is a big two-volume thing with the most beautiful illustrations that belonged to my grandfather, the only medical doctor for miles around in a rural region of North Dakota...... geez, am I wandering?) [....]

PS: My grandfather did appendectomies in his house. But ignore this silly postscript.

My paternal grandfather was a horse-and-buggy doctor in a rural region of midstate Illinois. He did an appendectomy or several in his office, which was a separate building, maybe about 20 ft. squared, located about 10 feet away from his house. (I might be overestimating the size of the office; I'm remembering the dimensions from when I last saw it more than 40 years ago. Granddad Doc died in the late '60s -- age 99.)

Ellen

___

Edited May 26, 2008 by Ellen Stuttle

[Brendan Hutching]

We also need Ayn Rand for her celebration of human ability and achievement. We need her for the inspiration of her great novels. We owe her, too, we owe her a hell of a lot.

--Brant

Some people may “need” Ayn Rand for any number of reasons, but many people don’t need her at all. And many people fail to find any inspiration in her novels. For those people, Rand offers very little.

In my view, whether or not Rand, or any other thinker or writer, inspires you depends very much on your aesthetic sense and temperament. Rand may well inspire some people, but she leaves many others cold.

In other words, it’s highly doubtful that Rand, or anyone else for that matter, can ‘save' Western civilisation or usher in a new Renaissance. Tastes differ, and no one person has all the answers or can inspire all people. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. A creative conversation needs many speakers, not a monologue.

Brendan

[Ellen Stuttle]

Phil,

I wondered when you'd show up to gripe about people having a different evaluation than yours of which issues are worth addressing.

William, you opine:

Not that the endless crusade will ever regain Jerusalem from the hordes. Valliant and his toadies and sycophants have zero chance of seriously damaging the historical import of the Branden books. Who will ultimately care what he said about two books whose authors knew her very well? In fifty years, when Valliant will likely be in the grave along with every last person from the Collective era . . . who then will bother to hunt down one of the copies?

Problem is, PARC is where AR's diaries of the last months of her relationship with Nathaniel are published. Unless those diaries are published somewhere else -- I'm hoping they will be -- PARC is the only place (except in the ARI archives) where the historian of AR's life can find them.

PARC thus has a chance of doing some serious damage to AR's reputation. Thus far, that book hasn't gotten attention from non-O'ist academics, as best I know. I shudder to think of the effect if it does get such attention. PARC is partly intended to redress the damage which Valliant thinks the Brandens' books have done to AR's image in the wider world of intellectual discourse. Ironically, however, PARC itself would lead most academics to think that the O'ist world truly is a crazy-cult enclave and that AR was a dimwit.

I thus think it's important that serious thinkers who are connected with and knowledgeable about the Objectivist world and the Objectivist philosophy, such as Robert Campbell and Neil Parille, give Valliant the public shredding he's been undergoing. (Of course Valliant wouldn't describe what's been happening as his being shredded.)

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Phil,

I used to agree with you. I don't any longer—not when an issue like PARC is run by a group of zealots to try to hijack the intellectual playing field and create a tribe just shy of a cult in the name of Objectivism. And not when that almost-cult is based on scapegoating persons of historical and intellectual importance to Objectivism.

Folks, the sort of issue going on here is just the sort of issue which produced the big split in Islam and the various splits in Christianity. The argument over whether or not the Brandens -- especially Nathaniel Branden -- are to be viewed as demon figures or not is going to continue as long as there are more than something on the order of two or three people who think of themselves as Objectivists. The break between the Brandens and Ayn Rand is a major Primal Drama of the Objectivist scene. And an expectation -- or at least hope -- such as Phil's that this Drama might eventually quit occupying attention, I think is historically naive.

Furthermore, I disagree strongly with Phil's opinion that it's a distraction from thoughts about guiding one's life by a philosophy to debate details of what persons supposedly practicing that philosophy are doing. Life is lived by individual people, not by abstract notions. It's through examining the details of what people do that learning occurs about principles in action. Recall AR's explaining why dramatizing a moral code in a story is so much more effective in making that code's message real. People learn how to and not to proceed in their own lives by observing, analyzing, talking about, criticizing/praising the in-vivo actions of others.

Ellen

___

[Alfonso Jones]

Phil,

I used to agree with you. I don't any longer—not when an issue like PARC is run by a group of zealots to try to hijack the intellectual playing field and create a tribe just shy of a cult in the name of Objectivism. And not when that almost-cult is based on scapegoating persons of historical and intellectual importance to Objectivism.

Folks, the sort of issue going on here is just the sort of issue which produced the big split in Islam and the various splits in Christianity. The argument over whether or not the Brandens -- especially Nathaniel Branden -- are to be viewed as demon figures or not is going to continue as long as there are more than something on the order of two or three people who think of themselves as Objectivists. The break between the Brandens and Ayn Rand is a major Primal Drama of the Objectivist scene. And an expectation -- or at least hope -- such as Phil's that this Drama might eventually quit occupying attention, I think is historically naive.

Furthermore, I disagree strongly with Phil's opinion that it's a distraction from thoughts about guiding one's life by a philosophy to debate details of what persons supposedly practicing that philosophy are doing. Life is lived by individual people, not by abstract notions. It's through examining the details of what people do that learning occurs about principles in action. Recall AR's explaining why dramatizing a moral code in a story is so much more effective in making that code's message real. People learn how to and not to proceed in their own lives by observing, analyzing, talking about, criticizing/praising the in-vivo actions of others.

Ellen

___

Ellen has some excellent points. An example from history: The "Great Schism" which separated the Christian church into the Latin and Orthodox branches in 1054 persists to this day - and not that many can articulate with a straight face what the theological issues were about (the filioque clause, indeed!), but there were real issues of authority (authority of the "bishop of Rome"). Time passing has not healed wounds and caused reunification.

I see little reason to suppose a similar reconciliation within Objectivism just because time passes.

Bill P (Alfonso)

[Neil Parille]

To return briefly to a topic that's been discussed before, I don't see how Valliant can be so certain that no one else heard the Remington Rand story from Rand when, by his own admission, he didn't have access to the interviews.

A couple of years ago on my blog I mentioned that Alan Gotthelf in his 2000 book On Ayn Rand said Rand got her name from the typewriter and also that he checked all his facts with the Archives (explicitly stating that he checked the Archives whenever he used PAR).

This was Valliant's response:

I happen to know that there is absolutely no material at the "Ayn Rand Archives" able to support your implication here that Gotthelf HAD such material about Rand's name -- I had access to all of these same materials.

Just as in his Orange County speech there is no mention of any restrictions on his access. Dr. Gotthelf does not imply that the fact checking by the Archives was tentative because certain material was restricted. If Dr. Gotthelf was able to ask the Archives "please check x" why couldn't Valliant do the same, particularly since his project was supported by Dr. Peikoff?

Edited May 26, 2008 by Neil Parille

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks for "Critical Rationalism," Daniel. I'll check it out, even though it sounds like form but no substance. It sorta sounds like Rand's Newton vrs its Einstein, with CR being the cosmological (speed of light) constant, while back on earth ....

Why not take a wander over to my friend Rafe's place, The Rathouse, some time? Or perhaps here? And remember, Einstein turned out to be closer to the truth than Newton...

Thx.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

We also need Ayn Rand for her celebration of human ability and achievement. We need her for the inspiration of her great novels. We owe her, too, we owe her a hell of a lot.

--Brant

Some people may "need" Ayn Rand for any number of reasons, but many people don't need her at all. And many people fail to find any inspiration in her novels. For those people, Rand offers very little.

In my view, whether or not Rand, or any other thinker or writer, inspires you depends very much on your aesthetic sense and temperament. Rand may well inspire some people, but she leaves many others cold.

In other words, it's highly doubtful that Rand, or anyone else for that matter, can 'save' Western civilisation or usher in a new Renaissance. Tastes differ, and no one person has all the answers or can inspire all people. But that's not necessarily a bad thing. A creative conversation needs many speakers, not a monologue.

Brendan

They need her. They just don't know it yet! Strap them down and pour the Castor Oil of Oism down their throats!!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Don't nearly 200 posts on this thread belie its title?

--Brant

[Neil Parille]

Brant,

I think PARC has become something of a "period piece," which says more about its time than about its content.

[Kat]

I have never taken PARC seriously because I saw it for what it was from the beginning... A smear campaign against the Brandens. I too hoped it would fade fast. A horrible injustice has been done against the Brandens, especially Barbara, and I am very pleased to see the good members of OL sifting through all the rhetoric and BS so that it does not do any more damage. Michael, Robert, Jordan and Neil have done a tremendous amount of research and should be applauded for their efforts.

Ayn Rand was not properly defended after the publication of Atlas and it hurt her deeply. Barbara needs our defense now. Barbara's book did not smear Ayn Rand, but Valliant's book certainly does. Ellen and Brant hit it spot on with many of their comments. The journals need to be released independently of PARC. It would have been nice if there was never a break, but what happened, happened, and you cannot shoot the messenger (Barbara) for exposing it. It would be nice, also, if we could all just rise above it all, unfortunately we can't. Garbage detail to do.

Kat

[Philip Coates]

> the sort of issue going on here is just the sort of issue which produced the big split in Islam and the various splits in Christianity. The argument over whether or not the Brandens -- especially Nathaniel Branden -- are to be viewed as demon figures...an expectation -- or at least hope -- such as Phil's that this Drama might eventually quit occupying attention, I think is historically naive. [Ellen]

Ellen, historically you are far less likely to find a central focus on personal splits and condemnations in the sciences. The difference is that the two historical examples you give are religions and those who spend inordinate time [you did notice in my post I didn't argue for zero time?] on the personalities topics are acting as if Objectivism is a religion and the purity of the major figures deserves more time than anything else - at least in their own lives.

> An example from history: The "Great Schism" which separated the Christian church into the Latin and Orthodox branches in 1054 persists to this day - and not that many can articulate with a straight face what the theological issues were about (the filioque clause, indeed!), but there were real issues of authority [Alfonso]

Ellen and Alfonso, the issue is not whether these issues will totally die, but whether they -should-. And what side of that you choose to be on. Shrug your shoulders and say "oh, well, people are going to argue it so I might as well keep posting"?

The historic religions are based on faith and don't have much of anything better to get excited and argue about. They don't have a whole philosophy of reason to argue for, and apply to all kinds of issues across the entire sphere of human experience.

> People learn how to and not to proceed in their own lives by observing, analyzing, talking about, criticizing/praising the in-vivo actions of others.

The lessons and points have already been made. Obsessing, repeating, demonizing -- the *manner* in which these threads are conducted and the *secondary* demonizing (of Barbara, NB, Valliant, MSK, Jim HN, etc.) hardly contributes to the "high-minded" goal which you, Robert, MSK, and others claim.

>Life is lived by individual people, not by abstract notions. It's through examining the details of what people do that learning occurs about principles in action. [Ellen]

First, it's the type of details and the level which are important. Romantic relationships and drinking problems are not more worthy of time and debate (and name-calling) compared to how AR's mind developed, her mental processes, her conclusions. Second, arguing over what certain individuals did long in the past is hardly the only way to the exclusion of applying the principles to politics, to philosophy of law, and to a host of other issues.

Finally, several of you claim that you are doing a public service by 'burying' your opponent, clearing someone's name. The very endless nature of this topic (as the above historic examples from Islam and other religions indicates) suggests that that will not be the case.

As does the following point about the influence of ideas as opposed to personalities:

***It's the Philosophy, Stupid!****

[Mike Hardy]

I'm not going to assay a discussion of that topic on this thread, the subject of which is

___

Um. I'm too lazy right now to reach for the dictionary, three feet away, so I'm going to be reckless and go way out on a limb and propose that maybe you meant "essay"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assay

See meaning #1.

[Darn; that link takes you to the meaning of the noun; you have to click on the verb entry to find the meaning #1 I mean.]

(Actually four respectable dictionaries sit there, one of which is a big two-volume thing with the most beautiful illustrations that belonged to my grandfather, the only medical doctor for miles around in a rural region of North Dakota...... geez, am I wandering?) [....]

PS: My grandfather did appendectomies in his house. But ignore this silly postscript.

My paternal grandfather was a horse-and-buggy doctor in a rural region of midstate Illinois. He did an appendectomy or several in his office, which was a separate building, maybe about 20 ft. squared, located about 10 feet away from his house. (I might be overestimating the size of the office; I'm remembering the dimensions from when I last saw it more than 40 years ago. Granddad Doc died in the late '60s -- age 99.)

Ellen

___

American Heritage College Dictionary, third edition, gives that meaning for "essay" as well, both as a noun and as a verb, and gives both pronunciations, but fails to say that the stress moves to the first syllable when it's a noun. Anyway, you should enjoy that Wikipedia article I linked to.

I see you duly ignored my silly postscript by writing one of your own on that topic; that's the best way to do it. My paternal grandfather, a rural physician in North Dakota, died when he was 67. He outlived both of his wives: my father's mother, and the much younger woman he married later with whom he had two children. (My mother's mother lived to be almost 100.) -- Mike Hardy

[Brant Gaede]

Hi, Phil! I assume you posted this stuff on SOLOP too. (Didn't Linz tell you to take a hike a while back?)

Sorry Phil. I got you confused with James Heaps-Nelson. You are certainly much more entitled to your comments on this situation than he is. It seems many involved have a different version of Ayn Rand they are fighting for or is into a turf war. Maybe your attitude is a harbinger of a more benevolent, productive future. As for me, you won't find any forgiveness for Leonard Peikoff sitting on top of "Orthodox" Objectivism like a pig declaiming like some intellectual Stalinist authority on matters otherwise close to my interests and heart. Unfortunately, any time you take a shot at him it seems like you are letting Ayn Rand have it too. That's because he's got her strapped to the front of his Objectivism ARI fortress.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> Leonard Peikoff sitting on top...like a pig [brant, twenty minutes ago]

> the Leonard Peikoff Institute [Robert, repeatedly]

> ...the weak-kneed appeasing tolerationist Objectivist Center [opponents of TAS]

> ...the rigid, dogmatic, 'orthodox' Objectivists [opponents of ARI]

> the evil, stupid, vicious, dishonest OL website [repeatedly]

> the evil, stupid, vicious, dishonest SoloP website [repeatedly]

These are one aspect of what I'm objecting to -- oversimplifying, personalizing, demonizing, failing to acknowledge any good or any value in one's opponents. The first two exaggerate LP or oversimplify the nature of ARI and omit any intellectual value the Peikoff lecture series or ARI have. The last four....well, I'll let the reader figure out for himself what is wrong/unfair/oversimplified with those adjectives.

And what is wrong with the groupthink failure to critique your *own allies* for using them.

On -both- sides of the various schisms.

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

I've given credit, where I believe it is due, not just to Leonard Peikoff but to others affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute. I recommend Tara Smith's book to non-Randians, for instance. Some other folks there are doing good work, too. A recent article by Keith Lockitch (in The Objective Standard) provides an excellent overview of Charles Darwin's achievement.

Remember, though, that nonARIans cite ARIan material, where relevant. The ARIans are the ones who don't want to cite nonARIan material. Note the asymmetry--it's part of a bad institutional culture.

I am also going to criticize Leonard Peikoff where he is off the beam. The Institute and its practices do bear his personal stamp, you know. They may have tried to slap a trademark on Ayn Rand's name, but their book catalog puts his section in front of Ayn Rand's.

Do you think that Dr. Peikoff's decision to sponsor Jim Valliant's book will go down in history as one his wiser decisions?

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Phil,

It doesn't matter if I call LP a "pig" or not; the Objectivism train doesn't go anywhere when he's at the throttle. And thanks to the ARI and the like it won't be going much anywhere after he's gone. As for TAS, I don't like it much either. I'll spare you the reasons.

I'd have forgiven LP's right-after-The-Break fascism if he had become more tolerant after the 1986 publication of The Passion of Ayn Rand, but he went off in the other direction. He had a chance then to get out from under. Too late now, in spades.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> I've given credit, where I believe it is due

Robert, to that extent then, you'd be less subject to my criticisms. I'm talking sociologically . . . about a broad trend on both sides by many, many people across a very long period of time.

> Do you think that Dr. Peikoff's decision to sponsor Jim Valliant's book will go down in history as one his wiser decisions?

Haven't read the book. (What's it about, wind-surfing?)

[Ellen Stuttle]

> the sort of issue going on here is just the sort of issue which produced the big split in Islam and the various splits in Christianity. The argument over whether or not the Brandens -- especially Nathaniel Branden -- are to be viewed as demon figures...an expectation -- or at least hope -- such as Phil's that this Drama might eventually quit occupying attention, I think is historically naive. [Ellen]

Ellen, historically you are far less likely to find a central focus on personal splits and condemnations in the sciences. The difference is that the two historical examples you give are religions [...].

Of course. The history of religion is the history to which Objectivism's history is most accurately compared. Objectivism is an attempt to offer a substitute situating-mythos to those historically provided by religious mythoi. AR was deliberately delivering a New Dispensation. Science can inform tales to live by, but it doesn't provide one of itself.

(My meaning of "mythos" here is pretty well expressed by this definition from Wiktionary (see):

"A story or set of stories relevant or having a significant truth or meaning for a particular culture, religion, society, or other group.")

and those who spend inordinate time [you did notice in my post I didn't argue for zero time?] on the personalities topics are acting as if Objectivism is a religion and the purity of the major figures deserves more time than anything else - at least in their own lives.

Do you notice that you're presuming your evaluation of what's ordinate or inordinate?

> An example from history: The "Great Schism" which separated the Christian church into the Latin and Orthodox branches in 1054 persists to this day - and not that many can articulate with a straight face what the theological issues were about (the filioque clause, indeed!), but there were real issues of authority [Alfonso]

Ellen and Alfonso, the issue is not whether these issues will totally die, but whether they -should-. And what side of that you choose to be on. Shrug your shoulders and say "oh, well, people are going to argue it so I might as well keep posting"?

That by no means expresses my point, or, I think, Bill's either.

The historic religions are based on faith and don't have much of anything better to get excited and argue about. They don't have a whole philosophy of reason to argue for, and apply to all kinds of issues across the entire sphere of human experience.

Phil, no one's stopping you. And you needn't even read these threads if you think they're such a waste. Same basic point to your comment about "the type of details and the level [...]." No one is stopping you from talking about the particulars you want to talk about. I can agree that some of the name-calling from the PARC panners is hardly if any better than that from the PARC praisers. However, I think that you haven't a prayer of stopping that kind of stuff and that to whatever extent you might have a prayer, a different method besides the preaching method you employ would be needed to achieve results.

A posting style question: Is there something which prevents you from using the "Reply" function so that the post to which you're replying is linked with the nice little click arrow so that it can easily be found by the reader?

Ellen

___

[Philip Coates]

> that nonARIans cite ARIan material, where relevant. The ARIans are the ones who don't want to cite nonARIan material. Note the asymmetry--it's part of a bad institutional culture. [Robert]

Would that all of these discussions were on this level - by you, by anyone: Yours is a good criticism, and an unanswerable one.

(Yes, I know the opponents will raise the foolish objection of 'sanction' -- as though Aristotle were 'sanctioning' Plato when he quoted what he criticized, as though Rand were 'sanctioning' the environmentalists when she rebutted them and footnoted them.)

[Philip Coates]

> A posting style question: Is there something which prevents you from using the "Reply" function so that the post to which you're replying is linked with the nice little click arrow so that it can easily be found by the reader? [Ellen]

Yes there is. I'm not usually only replying to one post or to one person. And I usually identify -exactly- what wider issues or aspects I want to address. When I am addressing a particular formulation, especially with long-winded or inept or fuzzy posters (not yourself), I use ellipsis to make the person's point stronger than in the original post and to give enough context for my discussion to be self-contained.

The method you suggest would 'tie' my reply to that person or that post in the mind of the reader in a tidy little package....exactly the kind of narrow, concrete-bound, tit-for-tat, picking-apart-a-sentence discussion that I object to here. If I cause the reader to step outside of a particular point-counterpoint posting style, then I'm forcing him outside of a comfort zone that too often involves limited thinking.

Also, the point I've 'clipped' - as in your case here - is usually within the last few posts. Either that or it stretches across decades and one shouldn’t be focusing only on just the exact way it was most recently stated.

[Ellen Stuttle]

I'd have forgiven LP's right-after-The-Break fascism if he had become more tolerant after the 1986 publication of The Passion of Ayn Rand, but he went off in the other direction. He had a chance then to get out from under. Too late now, in spades.

I've heard via reports of persons, such as David Kelley, who were close associates of Leonard's in the years immediately following AR's death, and I read in an account of Robert Hessen's which was posted on the web somewhere back about the time of the BB/Hessen auction, that Leonard was interested in mending rifts (not with the Brandens, with others) and putting a stop to the denunciatory sort of stuff there for awhile -- and then Passion was published...

I'll repeat a comment I made earlier in the thread:

And speaking of Leonard Peikoff, I just read a comment about him which is turning tumbrils. It's from a post by RC here:

[...] their panjandrum [Peikoff] needs to believe that all of his rivals for the succession were eliminated because they failed to meet Ayn Rand's standards. It's not as through anyone ever left or got the boot because Ayn Rand failed to meet their standards[.]

During the time between AR's breaking with the Brandens and Allan Blumenthal's breaking with Ayn, Leonard and Allan were co-heirs and executors. The subsequent history would have been quite different if Allan had stuck it out with Ayn to the end. I hadn't really thought much about, suppose Allan hadn't left.... I was so ecstatic when he did leave, I'd been so hoping he would -- and I think it was necessary for his integrity that he did. But suppose he hadn't. We wouldn't have had such an organization as ARI.

Ellen

___

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Finally, several of you claim that you are doing a public service by 'burying' your opponent, clearing someone's name.

Phil,

Who?

Several?

One will do. Could you please name one and back it up with a quote?

I think you are confused as to which forum you are on.

But just for the record, I checked. On OL, the word "bury" has been used in exactly 42 posts out of the 49,094 on the forum at this time. Of those 42 posts, 2 deal with PARC. The word bury in neither case refers to PARC or Valliant, but is used in another kind of meaning altogether.

Focus, man!

You are better than that.

Go ahead and criticize the behavior of people if that rings your ding-a-ling, but at least criticize them for the right stuff. Bitching qua bitching does not suit you. (And I confess, my reaction was "That's just Phil being Phil" and very little else on this round.) If you want to be taken seriously, get your facts right as a starting point. Otherwise, you shoot yourself in the eye.

(Anyone up for another analysis about the danger of using normative abstractions or feelings as fundamental axioms for their concepts? This manner of thinking almost always leads one to being factually wrong and, at best, having severe problems of accuracy and context-dropping. Things like facts, though, do not pale beside the certainty a person feels when he feels he is right, and are not even affected by the grandeur of the sentiment. It is wrong thinking to report them incorrectly or misrepresent them.)

My own claim is that the PARC controversy has stopped contaminating the rest of the Internet where Rand's ideas are discussed (I refer to the trolling we have all seen) and is mosty confined to here on OL and Siberia Passion. I have seen people speculate on OL that over time, PARC will become relegated to a footnote and not be taken seriously as a work of scholarship, but that's about as far is it has gone. I am seeing signs of that already (see the title of this thread as an indication of this theme). But I have seen no one say they want to bury Valliant, etc.

(I have seen that manner of rhetoric elsewhere, though. I wonder where? )

OK, I can't resist. Nobody has to say they want to bury Valliant, either. He doesn't need any help. He has done an admirable job of that himself. (Sorry. That was too well set up to resist.)

The truth is that if Valliant gets intellectually buried, it will be done on a one by one basis—individual choice by individuals. No one I know of on OL (in this discussion) is so out of contact with reality that they would claim credit for this.

As to clearing anyone's name goes, Barbara and Nathaniel have nothing to clear. Being smeared does not make one guilty of anything, with subsequent need to have one's name cleared. Cleared with whom? Do you think the Brandens need to clear their name with me? Certainly not. How about with ARI? Is her name ever going to be anything but mud at ARI?

So cleared for whom? There is nothing to clear.

What has been needed is a balance to the smears and trolling about PARC so people can make up their own minds. I and others on OL have provided that balance. And we have done so individually, not as a group. Not one person on OL during this whole ordeal has said, "Follow me! Lets band together and trounce the enemy!"

(I have seen that manner of rhetoric elsewhere, though. I wonder where? )

In fact, I am tired of seeing Nathaniel called a scumbag. (I won't even say what I feel about Barbara's case.) This crap is seen at times (infrequently) with good people who are out of focus at the moment. But, being good people, when you call them on it, they usually back off. I believe the vast majority are sincere, too. They were simply reiterating what they picked up from the general noise. But once their minds become engaged on the issue, they have immediately seen the folly of, say, comparing Nathaniel to a real-life rapist.

I happen to have lived among scumbags and, even at the time of the break, Nathaniel did not act like the scumbags I have known. On the contrary, without anyone asking him to, he went up in front of NBI and took full responsibility for having behaved wrongly.

Scumbags don't do things like that. Scumbags deny it till the end. They blame others. They steal from you. They whine it wasn't their fault. They hide and don't answer their phone. They do all kinds of vicious and/or cowardly things like that.

Nathaniel did not do any of that. Nor did Barbara.

Now there. Did I just now clear their names, or simply provide a balance? Do you think it likely the smearers are going to stop just because I wrote that?

Michael