The Passion of James Valliant's Criticism, Part V

[Brant Gaede]

Neil,

Because of your post, I went to Solo Passion. I found Perigo's post:

Babs the Book-Burner?

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2009-05-19 06:40.

Apparently as a result of a complaint by one "B. Branden," all references to James Valliant's PARC are being removed from the Wiki Objectivism entry on the grounds that it's not reliable. If this be true, it's a travesty. And who could be less reliable than B. Branden?

The really weird thing is that I went all over Wikipedia and I could not find any "B. Branden."

I wonder if Perigo did not post a link because he is lying through his teeth as usual and hoping it sticks. At the very least, he shows signs that he did not read the Wikipedia crosstalk at all.

Vallliant and Perigo are certainly birds of a feather. They just squawk differently, but they squawk for the same reasons (or lack thereof).

Michael

For the record, I have not communicated with Wikipedia or with anyone there at any time or for any reason, nor have I ever posted there or filed a complaint.

Barbara

The problem, Barbara, is that he smeared first, just in case he had no case. If he had no case he had no smear. So he fired off his cannon figuring he was entitled even if he was wrong. The premise of right or wrong makes no difference was summed up by Stephen Decatur: "My country! May she always be in the right! But right or wrong, my country!"

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Neil,

Because of your post, I went to Solo Passion. I found Perigo's post:

Babs the Book-Burner?

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Tue, 2009-05-19 06:40.

Apparently as a result of a complaint by one "B. Branden," all references to James Valliant's PARC are being removed from the Wiki Objectivism entry on the grounds that it's not reliable. If this be true, it's a travesty. And who could be less reliable than B. Branden?

The really weird thing is that I went all over Wikipedia and I could not find any "B. Branden."

I wonder if Perigo did not post a link because he is lying through his teeth as usual and hoping it sticks. At the very least, he shows signs that he did not read the Wikipedia crosstalk at all.

Vallliant and Perigo are certainly birds of a feather. They just squawk differently, but they squawk for the same reasons (or lack thereof).

Michael

For the record, I have not communicated with Wikipedia or with anyone there at any time or for any reason, nor have I ever posted there or filed a complaint.

Barbara

Anyone want to place bets on whether an apology from Perigo will be forthcoming when he is unable to document his accusation?

Don't hold your breath waiting for an apology/correction...

Bill P

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Here is the level of what we can expect from Objectivist Liar, Lindsay Perigo (see here) (addressed to Brant).

B. Branden Stuff

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2009-05-22 10:23.

James got it in the first instance, and showed it to me. Over to him whether he reveals his source or not. But remember, Brant, I have an advantage over everyone else currently alive in the world when it comes to her—first-hand experience of being smeared by her. I *know* beyond reasonable doubt the depths to which she'll stoop in her effort to blacken and silence anyone who disagrees with her. You yourself once said she fought dirty. She sure does. She is a creature without conscience and without scruple. Some kind of sociopathic freak. Maybe she caught it from Nathan.

B. Branden's alleged complaint to Wikipedia is an "it" that apparently has a "source" and Valliant has both the "it" and the "source."

But apparently (and once again) only the privileged few can see it to check it.

Then we have to take them at their word.

Heh.

I prefer to read what is on record at Wikipedia. There certainly is no lack of material about Valliant's IP over there (but not one "B. Branden" that I have seen).

It looks like Perigo even expects people to take his "first-hand experience" on faith. The appeal to faith is justified because he claims to have "an advantage over everyone else currently alive in the world when it comes to her." Those are all the credentials we are going to get from him, too.

Double heh.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Well my considered opinion today is Barbara got dirty fighting more than one someone who fought dirty and not that she fought dirty. After I go to SOLOP and reply to LP I'll go take the necessary shower.

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

After I go to SOLOP and reply to LP I'll go take the necessary shower.

Eew. I recommend teatree oil-based soap; it gets the job done but doesn't sting as much as iodine. Good for parasitic invasions if you catch them early on.

And remember, you're dealing with someone yielding global superpower advantage.

[Brant Gaede]

Phew! Done! I can't smell it but those around me are fleeing the house after opening all the doors and windows. My dog went outside too. I think the firefighters, police and medics are coming to save the neighborhood before it's too late. Homeland Security is coordinating and monitoring the situation. Pima County has been declared a disaster area by the governor. There's a helicopter overhead. President Obama is being briefed. The U.N. is being called into a special session.

My cats, of course, are blase.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Save yourself, Laure!

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

Jeez, Brant...sure you're OK? Maybe we should blacklight scan you, or something. Let me screen you a bit:

1. Any new impulses? Did you come home with a new CD player and a conducting baton, but don't remember purchasing them? (blackouts).

2. Do you now feel a strange sense of omnipotence?

3. Any new realizations making you feel that you are the next leader in the Cult of Personality?

4. Do your breath/pores emit ANY scent of rotten grapes? Do you suddenly feel the need to find out why they don't make Yago Sangria any more?

5. Are you building your own Internet Radio Show, or any kind of analog transmission device?

Questions, man..questions.

[Robert Campbell]

FWIW, after reading through the Wikipedia editorial discussions I suspect that Pelagius1 is not always the same person.

The "take my ball and go home" post reads like something Holly Valliant would write. Some of the other Pelagian contributions read like vintage Jim Valliant.

Perhaps Casey Fahy is still lurking somewhere, but I didn't see any positive signs.

Sheer craziness, whoever is writing it.

Robert Campbell

[Rich Engle]

Agree, Robert, having snuck in time to look that one over. Her tone is pretty easy to catch.

And sharing an email or posting name is a very old thing. Weak, really.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Rich Engle

[kiaer.ts]

Bill,

It gets worse. I used to have a modicum of respect for these people, even though I strongly disagreed with them. But now, even on the most simple thing I have serious doubts.

For instance, one of the editors at Wikipedia stated that, despite the reputation of Durban House being very complicated and negative, if Valliant published a statement somewhere, even on Solo Passion, that he did not do vanity publishing with DH, the editor would take him at his word. So...

With all due righteousness and tone of martyrdom that is typical of Valliant's more boneheaded pronouncements, in order to respond to the editor's wishes, he just now wrote on Solo Passion (see here):

What a Farce

Submitted by James S. Valliant on Wed, 2009-05-20 21:00.

And, in that discussion, I am told it has become important for me to say, here and in public (one more time), that my book was not "self-published" or "vanity" published in any way, shape or form. I state as a matter of record that I signed a standard "two book" deal with Durban House, with a standard royalty agreement, and that I paid nothing to have it published -- nor would I have. It was Durban who shelled out even what PR moneys were spent on the book -- not me. I went with Durban House precisely because it was liberal publishing house that believed in my work. They were careful editors, as well, demanding substantial verification for each of my claims.

(P.S. It'll be curious to see how Wikipedia handles critics -- and honesty.)

So Valliant says that he didn't pay for anything.

Notice what he left out.

He did not say that his wife didn't pay Durban House's "publicity subsidy fee," or that a friend didn't pay for it...

And he didn't address the poor reputation of Durban House at all.

Before I never would have entertained this kind of thought. Now, Valliant's word is mud with me and I think my speculation is vastly more probable than not.

P.S. I am not curious as to how Valliant (and Perigo for that matter) handles honesty. I already know.

Michael

Michael, can you provide a live link to the above quoted post?

I note that Pelagius is an heretical Church Father. What was the subject of Valliant's planned book?

[Neil Parille]

Pelagius was Augustine's opponent, who advocated free will. Since Augustine is the second most evil person in the world (next to Kant) and Valliant has said he's working on a book on the New Testament and/or early Christianity, I assume there is a connection here.

[Neil Parille]

I'd also add that whoever first alerted Wikipedia to the obsessive placement of references to PARC in Wikipedia articles did a public service.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, can you provide a live link to the above quoted post?

Ted,

Oops.

Thanks.

I fixed it and at the other places this passage appeared.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Objectivist Liar, Lindsay Perigo, caught with his pants down, now bleats:

I don't follow Wiki, but as I understand it, folk are at liberty to amend entries on any topic as long as they can back their amendments up. ...

As far as the evidence of its being Babs who tried to get all mention of PARC removed, I've seen it and would post it in a heartbeat if it were over to me. Frankly I don't know why James doesn't, except that he has a source to respect.

And we should take this person at his word.

Hahahahahahahahahahah!...

Michael

[Neil Parille]

It's now been five days and we have no proof that "B. Branden" was involved in any of Valliant's misfortune.

Valliant now claims that Durban House edited his work. If anyone has a copy of the original PARC posted on the internet (which is now part one of the book) I'd appreciate if you would send it to me. I'd like to see what editing, if any, took place.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil,

Five days and counting.

To compensate for the time being due to the lack of any real evidence, Objectivist Liar, Lindsay Perigo, caught with his pants down, now bleats to Brant (with respect to being an accomplice to some evil or other he attributes to Barbara):

And so you are, you dirty rotten bastard. Time was when you acknowledged that Michael Sewer Kelly and his gaggle were beyond contemptible. Now you're one of them. You should all stick to defending publishers of pedo-porn.

This is what liars habitually do when they are caught: attack the questioner and change the subject.

btw - The original online version of the first half of PARC was even removed from the Wayback Machine when PARC came out. (You can do that, but it has to be by explicit request.) I know because I looked for it back then.

These folks don't want anyone they don't control checking their facts and statements.

The reason why is obvious. They are not committed to presenting facts and statements that can be checked and they fear independent checking.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Well, LP rather than answer my simple question has gone after me hammer and tongs because I wouldn't preface everything I asked and said with copious denunciations of Barbara Branden.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Well, LP rather than answer my simple question has gone after me hammer and tongs because I wouldn't preface everything I asked and said with copious denunciations of Barbara Branden.

--Brant

Are you surprised?

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

Well, LP rather than answer my simple question has gone after me hammer and tongs because I wouldn't preface everything I asked and said with copious denunciations of Barbara Branden.

--Brant

Are you surprised?

Bill P

I didn't expect him to freak out. I think he's slowly waking up to the fact that Valliant used him as did Diana H. and left him embedded in their dirty laundry. Maybe the ARI people think having him run around loose makes them seem rational in their basic approach to Objectivism as a cult they head and control. But he can't top Peikoff: "I am absolutely not concerned with innocents!"

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I think he's slowly waking up to the fact that Valliant used him as did Diana H. and left him embedded in their dirty laundry.

Brant,

I didn't see anyone with a Certificate of Sainthood, although I did witness a lot of prancing about and self-glorification.

The truth is that they all used each other so they could prance about in public doing their accusation thing.

Accusations junkies, each and every one of them.

Ayn Rand paid for the show.

ARI watched.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

But he can't top Peikoff: "I am absolutely not concerned with innocents!"

What is the context, source and meaning of this quote, please?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

The O'Reilly interview with Peikoff.

I think O'Reilly asked him what about innocents if we used nukes, but I would have to check the question. The general context definitely was that, though.

O'Reilly ended up asking him if he was Dr. Strangelove.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

And so you are, you dirty rotten bastard. Time was when you acknowledged that Michael Sewer Kelly and his gaggle were beyond contemptible. Now you're one of them. You should all stick to defending publishers of pedo-porn.

Boy, his writing is really going down.

You know how you know when a writer is going down? They keep using the same turns. He's been working the same stuff for way too long.

That means he isn't working on his craft.

His tone is nearly as hideous as the thought of him air-batting. Ah, a friendly, swilly NZ'er, all with the AFFECTED BULLSHIT ACCENTS OF SOMEONE THAT IS TOO LAZY TO WORK ON THEIR WRITING.

There, see? I'm nice.

rde

affectations: things that make you puke up expensive food and liquor.

Edited May 24, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Alfonso Jones]

Well, LP rather than answer my simple question has gone after me hammer and tongs because I wouldn't preface everything I asked and said with copious denunciations of Barbara Branden.

--Brant

Are you surprised?

Bill P

I didn't expect him to freak out. I think he's slowly waking up to the fact that Valliant used him as did Diana H. and left him embedded in their dirty laundry. Maybe the ARI people think having him run around loose makes them seem rational in their basic approach to Objectivism as a cult they head and control. But he can't top Peikoff: "I am absolutely not concerned with innocents!"

--Brant

What is it which draws this sort to Objectivism? Is it, paradoxically, the desire for CERTAINTY? Ironic that the behaviors we see of some of the well-known "Objectivists" are to similar to those of religious fundamentalists.

Bill P