The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I want to talk about forgiveness for a minute. Ms. Stuttle wishes people to forgive James Valliant and Lindsay Perigo, but she will not forgive Victor Pross.

This shows clearly that on moral issues like this, there is an enormous gap between her words and her deeds. I learned as a kid that when people say one thing and do another, what they do is a far better indicator of how to judge the person. To some people, talk is very cheap.

The thing that galls me is that Ms. Stuttle is calling for folks to forgive malicious individuals who are still practicing the evil she acknowledges. She says that it is such a foolish, foolish thing to hate them while they are still doing this.

Heh.

You don't forgive people who are still doing it. You forgive people who have stopped and repented and changed their behavior.

I also learned a long time ago (from direct experience) that when you truly forgive someone in your heart, the love goes away. It was a very tricky thing for me to learn how to forgive myself for my own misdeeds and not have the love for myself go away. But I learned it.

I personally have forgiven Victor Pross. That doesn't mean he will be coming back on OL or coming back into my life. Those are consequences I cannot change for a variety of reasons (in addition to knowing the danger of relapses from my own addictions). But he stopped and repented and he is forgiven.

I will be damned if I'll forgive Perigo and Valliant so long as they are still doing the evil they are doing.

So what do I think of a person who clamors for others to forgive those still doing wrong? What do I think of a person who, in the same breath, refuses to forgive one who has stopped? Not much, and that's just to be polite.

Her words say she doesn't hate. Her deeds say differently.

I know which I use to judge her.

The real game with Ms. Stuttle is not forgiveness or anything of the sort. All the highfalutin phrases, pseudo-profound insights and name-dropping all over the place point to something far different and ugly. I personally don't judge the worth of my knowledge against any person. But look what she does:

I know more about that whole business than you'll ever know...

That is her payoff. That is her driving motor.

Ms. Stuttle sacrifices her integrity to that.

Any consistency or harm to others be damned.

I call it vanity.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Specifically in regard to you, I wish you would ask yourself why you're doing it and what you think you're accomplishing. You said in a post, I'm just about sure -- I don't have stamina to find it at this point -- that your goal was to pay James and Linz back for Chris.

I'm trying to tell you that you aren't achieving that purpose, if that is your purpose. Nothing you're doing changes anything Chris went through -- and he's told me in past incidents that he doesn't like having it all brought back up again on the lists.

Ellen,

It's time to cut the shit about stamina—let's stipulate that you know that I know that you know that I know, and all of the other hypothetically relevant reflexivities, that I said I wanted to give Messrs. Valliant and Perigo hell for their roles in "Dialectical Dishonesty"—and quit talking in riddles.

You obviously want me to do something.

What is it that you want me to do?

Quit posting about Messrs. Perigo and Valliant anywhere?

Quit posting at SOLOP?

Quit raising objections to your pet theories at SOLOP?

Quit posting on SOLOP threads at which you wish to be accorded the status of sole resident expert?

Or what?

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Good God, Robert! Ellen just wants you to agree with her! Or evaporate.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

I'm afraid it's starting already...

Robert Campbe

[Ellen Stuttle]

Or what?

Quit dragging "Dialectical Dishonesty" back into it over and over, when it isn't even relevant. Quit picking fights, supposedly for the sake of doing something for Chris, which are needless, since they go nowhere in regard to contemporary questions, and useless, since all they result in is insult-flinging sprees between you and Linz and they don't help Chris.

That's what I wish you would do. And while you're at it, stop with the rhetorical ploys and the charges which you know aren't true. I don't care if you disagree with me. But why do you find it necessary to invent motivations to attribute to me which I don't think you can possibly believe really are my motivations?

Ellen

___

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael, your capacity to scramble beyond recognition what you've read continues unabated.

Ellen

___

Edited June 26, 2009 by Ellen Stuttle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, your capacity to scramble beyond recognition what you've read continues unabated.

Ellen,

That's an opinion, I suppose, but I don't really know what you are talking about since you don't say.

Apropos, do you wish to practice what you preach and forgive Victor Pross, or do you only wish for people to forgive James Valliant and Lindsay Perigo because you say so?

After all, living for hatred is such a foolish, foolish thing to do...

This is only my opinion, but I believe that, spiritually speaking, forgiveness should not serve petty vanity.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The tide drifts a bit more:

Your crime, Ellen ...

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2009-06-26 09:26.

... is to have independently reached a conclusion that differs from Campbell's.

Such a crime is enough to make any Brandroid go for the "juggler vein."

Official sanction and public praise is now being offered.

Let's see if the offering is graciously accepted...

(btw - I fixed that typo-like wrong spelling of jugular in the post where I made that slip, but I left in an annotation saying what the original spelling was.)

On another point, I am "astounded" at the Grande Dame of St. Referee's blindness when she pleads to Robert:

I've been astounded at how amazingly vengeful you are. Over what? What is my crime?

I am now coming to the conclusion that Ms. Stuttle is a bully. That's exactly what bullies do. They hit and hit and hit and gang up with other bullies, and when they get hit back, they whimper, "That hurts. What did I ever do to deserve that?"

She can bash others and correct everyone, but they can't point out her inconsistencies (except for minor things like typos and minutia). Oh no. Then the world is unfair!

She can take Robert "from serious thinker to paranoid professor" in 13 months, but he is not supposed to say it out loud. He is supposed to whimper to her.

The thing is that Robert didn't even hit. Compared to me, he is pandering to her. All he is doing is discrediting the new stage for her to strut her stuff. He's taking her candy away.

Ms. Stuttle needs an audience. That much is clear.

She once declared that she was going to make a blog. Why doesn't she do one? Maybe she's afraid no one will show up? What on earth would she do if she had to build an audience by her own merit and not by putting down others and namedropping at places where audiences already exist?

What on earth, what on earth would she do?...

These things are never pretty when the covers come off.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

So long as I am on a roll this morning, let's get it all out. Here is the part where the Grande Dame of St. Referee wants to protect the fragile Chris Sciabarra from the callous and paranoid professor, Robert Campbell. If she were in charge (which she isn't), here is how she would have Robert behave:

Quit dragging "Dialectical Dishonesty" back into it over and over, when it isn't even relevant. Quit picking fights, supposedly for the sake of doing something for Chris, which are needless, since they go nowhere in regard to contemporary questions, and useless, since all they result in is insult-flinging sprees between you and Linz and they don't help Chris.

That's what I wish you would do.

In other words, quite spoiling my audience and here's some emotional blackmail to see if that will make you stop.

This reminds me of an old camel joke.

There was once a man who received some camels as a present. He was very pleased with his camels and they were fine to look at. But the camels started multiplying and it started costing him more than he wanted to pay to feed and care for them. So he decided to castrate the males.

Now this man was a good man and did not like pain for any living being. So he asked and asked and asked around until he finally found a veterinary doctor in those parts who assured him he could castrate the camels without pain.

When the doctor showed up and was taken to the first camel, he had them tie the camel down to keep it from moving. Then he removed two sterilized bricks from his case, went behind the camel and smacked the two bricks together real hard with the camel's testicles in between them.

The camel looked startled and sucked in a gigantic gush of air.

The man, equally startled, asked the doctor, "But doesn't that hurt?"

The doctor said, very calmly, "Only if you get your thumbs caught between the two bricks."

The fact that "Dialectical Dishonesty" hurt Chris, and the fact that the perpetrators still hold to every word in it and even think—at this very moment—that they did not do enough damage to Chris, don't mean a damn thing to Ms. Stuttle if she thinks they will ooh and aah over her in the role of (in Robert's colorful phrase) "the resident expert."

Why should she? It doesn't hurt her a bit. She's a noble person on a crusade for truth.

The same goes for her attitude toward Barbara Branden, Jim Peron and a host of other good productive people who have bodies of fine works for the world to see.

No pain at all.

Ms. Stuttle just has to be careful not to get her thumbs caught in between the bricks...

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Quit dragging "Dialectical Dishonesty" back into it over and over, when it isn't even relevant. Quit picking fights, supposedly for the sake of doing something for Chris, which are needless, since they go nowhere in regard to contemporary questions, and useless, since all they result in is insult-flinging sprees between you and Linz and they don't help Chris.

Ellen,

If you mean a particle of what you say, why do you address this appeal to me on OL, but not on SOLOP?

Are you afraid that if you brought it up there, Lindsay Perigo would spoil things by launching into a fresh tirade against "Scumbarra"?

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

And while you're at it, stop with the rhetorical ploys and the charges which you know aren't true. I don't care if you disagree with me. But why do you find it necessary to invent motivations to attribute to me which I don't think you can possibly believe really are my motivations?

Ellen,

You weren't satisfied disagreeing with me.

When pressed, you joined the Perigonian chorus.

You know, "batty" (even though you meant to say "nutty"). You know, "loopy." You know, "paranoid." You know, "imbecility."

Since you are smart enough to recognize the exact worth of Perigonian invective—zero—you must have known exactly what you were doing when you started chiming in with it.

The only thing I don't get is why you think anyone will leave SOLOP merely because you have joined the chorus.

Hardly anyone respects Mr. Perigo. When you concur with his hot blasts of verbiage, you merely begin to partake of the disrespect that he has already richly earned.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I do believe the Grande Dame of St. Referee is adopting my terms. I just this morning wrote about her being a bully and she is now saying you are bullying her. See here. (The time stamp is probably NZ time since SLOP is in NZ. Right now it is about 2:45 PM Central where I am at.)

Robert, the bullying won't work.

Submitted by Ellen Stuttle on Fri, 2009-06-26 19:13.

Or the parodying.

Or any of the rest of it.

Ellen

Now I don't know what she means by "won't work," but whatever it means, your posts don't need to work (in her manner). They only need to discredit. The public takes care of the rest. As it is doing.

I understand bullying to mean intimidating people. For example, telling them what to do. Or calling them derogatory names as taunting and nothing more.

Hmmm...

Sort of like this:

When pressed, you joined the Perigonian chorus.

You know, "batty" (even though you meant to say "nutty"). You know, "loopy." You know, "paranoid." You know, "imbecility."

Now that I understand to be bullying.

(Or trying to bully. Stuttle is a bit inept at bullying like Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo does. She does a lot better with academic-style snobbery than Perigo-style vulgarity. But the spiritual root is the same.)

That is also an indicator of the tidal drift of Stuttle to the loving arms of Perigo and PARC, paid for, of course, by Barbara Branden, Chris Sciabarra, Jim Peron and a host of others.

Call it the rich tapestry of life...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This should be on record here.

Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo considers that bonehead James Valliant's research for PARC is unimpeachable.

Here is the statement:

1) On the other thread I said the only thing I would change in my review is the benefit of the doubt I extended to the object of your uncharacteristic hero-worship, Smearer-in-Chief Babs.

2) Does the line about unimpeachable research thus fall into the category of something I would change or something I would not?

Hope this helps.

Robert made it clearer:

Mr. Perigo still believes the research is unimpeachable. Check.

A number of people, most notably Neil Parille, have shown that PARC is far from well or carefully researched. Check.

So much for Mr. Perigo's judgment.

So much indeed.

There is a great temptation to say something else, and I actually tried to write something, but it keeps coming back to Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo's present statement that he believes proven gross errors to be "unimpeachable."

I can't top that.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

No, you can't top Mr. Perigo's statement.

It's self-indicting.

Comment is superfluous.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

I think Perigo is lying about this. It's just his way of saying he's not going to do any impeaching.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Do you mean you think he is outright lying to his readers when he says that Valliant's research in PARC is unimpeachable? He's stupid, but not so stupid he doesn't know what that statement means.

OK.

I can see him lying to his readers.

Thus the options for Perigo as regards his statement are only 2:

1. Fool, or

2. Liar

Do you see any other option? I don't.

Michael

[Ruth]

Not on topic, but I want to say that Perigo has been noted by the US Embassy here in NZ as a possible security threat after his "Shoot Obama" encouraging assassination comment. I had not seen it before, but Scherk reposted it.

So who hates America?

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

Do you mean you think he is outright lying to his readers when he says that Valliant's research in PARC is unimpeachable? He's stupid, but not so stupid he doesn't know what that statement means.

OK.

I can see him lying to his readers.

Thus the options for Perigo as regards his statement are only 2:

1. Fool, or

2. Liar

Do you see any other option? I don't.

Michael

Both.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Not on topic, but I want to say that Perigo has been noted by the US Embassy here in NZ as a possible security threat after his "Shoot Obama" encouraging assassination comment. I had not seen it before, but Scherk reposted it.

So who hates America?

Ruth,

Do you have a link?

I would love to see that post.

I looked but I couldn't find it.

Michael

EDIT: I found the reference here. The pertinent quote (entitled "Foreign policy for hysterics, by hysterics, of hysterics," submitted by William Scott Scherk on Thu, 2009-06-25 19:56):

I am reminded of Lindsay's one-time solution solution to the world's ills, posted last October:

"Obama certainly *is* a Nazi, whom one should shoot."

There is also Perigo's charge during the campaign that Obama should be hung before he could take office. He later recanted. I will find the links and put them here.

(Later...) Here is Perigo's "hang Obama" comment in full (with my emphasis):

No, I'm not joking

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sat, 2008-11-01 06:05.

I devoutly hope Obama is shot and hung upside down by liberty-lovers (as opposed to communists) before he gets the chance to win office. As a conscientious neo-Marxist Gramscian, he knows exactly what's he's advocating, and is seducing millions of useful idiots, like you and Matty, into signing on and signing up for tyranny. America without the constraints of the Founding Fathers and "negative rights."

What you're saying, Luke, is that someone who tumbled to what Hitler was up to before it was too late shouldn't have shot the bastard. That's about what I'd expect from PC wet-wimps like you and Goode.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Perigo's remarks and recanting were discussed in a thread here on OL: I want this on record.

Screenshots were included of the posts. The interesting thing is that after Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo called for Obama to be shot and hung before taking office, then recanted, he called for Americans to raise arms against the USA government. That he never recanted. Here are the pertinent posts with screenshots from that thread:

I also want this screenshot on record just in case it ever gets deleted on Solo Passion:

We have our share of deranged individuals in the Objectivist subculture and preaching for the murder of a USA presidential candidate is more than disturbing. Someone with some screws loose might try to act on it.

Michael

Here is the latest installment:

Folk seem to forget that America was founded on the basis of violent revolt, and the time when a repetition was justifiable has long past.

. . .

EDIT: Here is the screenshot in case it is ever deleted.

I don't care how you spin it. One does not publicly preach for the murder of a USA presidential candidate and call that a personal opinion. I wonder what part of "No, I'm not joking" is now up for subjective interpretation.

. . .

Despite Perigo backpedaling on preaching the murder of Obama, he did not retract his preaching the armed overthrow of the USA government. (I emphasized the part this time, since so many people missed it.)

Here is the latest installment:

Folk seem to forget that America was founded on the basis of violent revolt, and the time when a repetition was justifiable has long past.

Now the idea is armed revolution.

(I presume his view of "violent revolt" includes arms.)

. . .

Let's make sure nobody misses it this time. Here is the statement and I emphasized the pertinent part:

At some point, though, I suspect freedom-lovers are going to have to repair to arms to get it back.

That is softer, but it is still preaching the armed overthrow of the USA government.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I wonder if that "possible security risk" classification extends to the Solo Passion site itself.

It is obvious that Solo Passion is being used by the owner (Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo) as a hate site according to the traditional definition of the term.

It makes sense that if Perigo is on a watch list, his site qualifies for being on a watch list, too. And that leads me to wonder if some of the other posters are being watched.

I am trying to find corroboration from the US Embassy in NZ, but I can't find anything online so far.

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

Good observation. It would be wise to discover as much info as possible.

These are "peculiar" and "trying times" wherein people who are afraid will see all sorts of "suspicious" or dangerous or persons who should

be "watched" and make reports that wind up in files that go unnoticed until they are "discovered" by someone who may not have your best

interests at heart.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Adam,

As much as I despise Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo, I would not want to see his site or the posters on it subject to government intimidation (neither USA nor NZ).

It's a temptation to feel good that this creep could possibly entangle his supporters in sticky difficulties where rules are hard to discover due to his incessant hate-speech, but I don't feel good.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Nope, government intimidation of anyone for involvement with SOLOP is over the line.

I just managed to return from "abroad" (Canada...) without being detained by La Migra on arrival in the US. I was detained in 2007 after returning from the Netherlands, and in 2008 on my way back from Canada.

All because a "Robert Campbell" was on the TSA list, God knows what for. Maybe some Robert Campbell was behind in his child support, I kid you not.

Robert Campbell

PS. Mr. Perigo never really recanted anything. See his opinion poll on Obama's performance, last option:

http://www.solopassion.com/node/6193

[Selene]

Adam,

As much as I despise Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo, I would not want to see his site or the posters on it subject to government intimidation (neither USA nor NZ).

It's a temptation to feel good that this creep could possibly entangle his supporters in sticky difficulties where rules are hard to discover due to his incessant hate-speech, but I don't feel good.

Michael

Michael:

I did not mean that his electronic space should be interfered with at all, lol. Nor would I expect you would.

Bob:

Interesting how your example was someone behind on their child support.

You folks realize that your passport is revoked when you are "a debtor" that is part of a certain agenda driven class...yes?

Or, your application for a passport will be rejected.

Adam