The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

I put this in "Rants," but I don't feel anger. I wanted to put it in "Humor" because I find it amusing, but I don't feel like getting the creative juices flowing for a decent lampoon.

So I'll just lay it out here in all its glory.

There is a thread on SLOP I have been following called "Why Catholicism Is Beating Objectivism's Ass ... Still."

There are many references to "O-Liars," "People from OL," "coming from OL," "OL bunch," "O-Lying," and so forth on that thread. These terms were gleaned just from the last 30 posts or so (I am estimating since I did not count), but there are many more.

Since this indicates some kind of abstraction, I decided to see what the concretes were that the abstraction referred to. The genus is easy, "people who have posted on OL who are posting on this Solo Passion thread." That's the genus.

I came up against a real obstacle trying to find a differentia.

I do not have that problem with defining "SLOPPERS," for instance. The genus is "people who post on Solo Passion," and the differentia is "those who suck up to Perigo."

All right, all right. Let's make the differentia "those who consider Perigo as their intellectual leader."

So let's look at the concretes constituting the genus for "O-Liars." I went through all 733 posts on that thread and made note of people who posted there and also post or have posted on OL. Here is the list:

Ellen Stuttle

Jonathan

William Scherk

Peter (who is Dragonfly on OL)

Robert Campbell

James Heaps-Nelson

Michael Newberry

Brant Gaede

Neil Parille

Landon Erp

Laure Chipman

(Ptgymatic) (who is Mindy on OL)

Ruth123 (who is Ruth on OL)

Michael Hardy

Wayne Simmons

Fred Seddon

I think I got everybody. Technically I have to include Billy Beck, but he doesn't really count since he just now joined OL.

So let's see if we can find a differentia.

What strikes me about that list is the number of differences, not similarities, between the individuals. Some people post regularly here. Others no longer post. Some post only sporadically.

Many disagree with me on several issues. Many agree with me. Some like me. Some don't. I can't think of a single one of them who would consider me to be their "intellectual leader." Nor would I want to lead them.

These comments about myself also extend to the above individuals in relation to each other.

Do any of these individuals (who still post on OL) post here and not anywhere else? Nope. They all can be found at other places on the web.

The differentia is getting harder and harder to nail down.

Well, let's look at the main characterization constantly presented by SLOPPERS on that thread, "O-Liars." Which of the individuals above are the "liars"?

Is Ellen Stuttle a liar, or Jonathan a liar, or William Scherk a liar, or Dragonfly a liar, or Robert Campbell a liar, or James Heaps-Nelson a liar, or Michael Newberry a liar, or Brant Gaede a liar, or Neil Parille a liar, or Landon Erp a liar, or Laure Chipman a liar, or Mindy a liar, or Ruth a liar, or Michael Hardy a liar, or Wayne Simmons a liar, or Fred Seddon a liar?

Hmmmmm...

I'm just asking.

Are they all liars? Or is just one or two or three of them a liar? If the term "O-Liars" refers to just one or two or three people, that's one hell of a collective, ain't it? What then is the real genus?

From what I see, the concept of some kind of tribe from OL is a package deal abstraction in the minds of people who only see reality in terms of collectives. They cannot conceive of the fact that a group of individuals can post on the same forum because of a general interest in Objectivism without forming a gang.

But that's exactly what the above individuals do or have done. Every person listed above thinks for himself or herself, as the case may be, and each has retained his/her individuality to come and go all over the web as such individual pleases.

The values of these individuals vary too greatly (as attested by their posts) to find a tribal conceptual common denominator so they can be measured, distinguished and categorized as members of the same tribe.

People often think my differences with SLOP are personal. There is an element of the personal, but, as can be seen above, that's not my main beef. My deal-breaker reasons are metaphysical and epistemological.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Oh, Great Leader, I think LP refers mostly to Neil, Robert, Jonathan, Barbara and Thee. (No, you don't have to go there to qualify.) As for me? Yes, I did chop down that cherry tree.

--Brant

Edited February 3, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Jonathan]

So let's look at the concretes constituting the genus for "O-Liars." I went through all 733 posts on that thread and made note of people who posted there and also post or have posted on OL. Here is the list:

Ellen Stuttle

Jonathan

William Scherk

Peter (who is Dragonfly on OL)

Robert Campbell

James Heaps-Nelson

Michael Newberry

Brant Gaede

Neil Parille

Landon Erp

Laure Chipman

(Ptgymatic) (who is Mindy on OL)

Ruth123 (who is Ruth on OL)

Michael Hardy

Wayne Simmons

Fred Seddon

It's odd that I'm categorized as being "from" OL when I've been posting, on and off, on the various SOLO forums as far back as SOLO Yahoo.

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

Your observation applies, with appropriate adjustments for particular histories, to all of the people on that list.

Michael

[Chris Grieb]

As the third highest poster on OL I demand to be included. I want some recognition too.

[Brant Gaede]

Chris,

I'm sure they are thinking of you. All you have to do is post here--just once. And ye shall know them by the mark of the beast, which is a number, 666.

--Brant

[Chris Grieb]

Brant; Thanks!

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is a tangential issue, a branding one, but one that needs to be on record somewhere. It has enough in common with this thread to place it here and still be in the ballpark.

I'll start with some quotes from the Zappa thread here on OL:

I haven't commented over at SOLOP for a long time, but Mr. Perigo's Schadenfreude over FZ's early death from cancer was too much.

Robert,

These kinds of things constantly pop out in Perigo's rhetoric. Just a little while ago he called for President Obama, when still a candidate, to be hung if he were elected so he would not be able to take office. He later retracted, but I don't believe he is sincere in the retraction. I believe he would rejoice if President Obama were hung.

Despite all the hysteria he presents in saying he is a defender of heroes, yada yada yada, I believe he is a bully who greatly values death. And these kinds of statements constitute evidence. (The fact that he is an incompetent bully does not change the nature of being a bully.)

I have planned some literary work on character because it is perplexing to me that a person can read such a strong appeal to reason as Rand made and still be a moral jackass. I have been mulling over a point you raised—the issue of Schadenfreude over the death of others. I believe this hits something fundamental.

I have seen people of two bents when thinking about the death of others:

1. Those who lament the death of any human life, and

2. Those who rejoice in the death of humans who are not like them.

These are not black and white positions, but instead emotional starting points. So you get a mix more often than not, but if you pay attention, you can discern which part is more fundamental in any one individual. People constantly gives themselves away.

The attitude a person has toward a prisoner executed under capital punishment is a good example. A person of the first bent might agree with the justice of it and endorse that particular punishment in that particular case, but he would treat it as an unpleasant form of payment enforced to keep the rules of society in place, especially the ones covering heinous crimes. Underneath he would feel a tinge of sadness and the execution of the prisoner would not be a good day for him. A person of the second bent would have a party and engage in a lot of mocking. The more contained will not make a big issue out of it, but if pressed for an opinion, they will say things like, "Good. Now there is one less piece of shit walking the earth."

I believe there is an emotional premise involved. This is an emotion that starts at the very beginning of when a concept is formed in a person's mind (when still a baby). The emotion in the case of those who rejoice in death is (on an infant level) something like a drive to control others and rage when they cannot bend the will of others to their wishes. The emotional premise for people of the lamenting human death bent is (on an infant level) something like overwhelming curiosity about the world wedded to love of life.

A person can change his emotional premises (which is one of the things therapy is all about), but those like the person under discussion never want to. They wallow in their emotional slop and spend a great deal of their intellect trying to justify it, always rejoicing when they "trounce" someone who detects what they really are and says so.

I believe the harsh opposition against Perigo's musical opinions on that thread derives from this. Otherwise, who could ever care about the musical taste of a dude like that?

People know he bullies other people into silence or into publicly agreeing with him. Or worse, he sets up "us against them" tribal categories and assigns people he disagrees with into enemy tribal camps with all kinds of derogatory hip jargon and outright foul language as icing to the cake. And for as much as he he says he believes in letting people enjoy what music they find enjoyable, people sense what he is up to but don't have the words for it. Every time they try to express it, he cries foul because he has provided lip service to the contrary. But if you ever give a dude like that real power, you will soon learn exactly what the real issue is.

. . .

. . .

Mr. Perigo often gives the impression that his great love is not the music that he claims to prize, but the act of denouncing and excoriating the fans of the music that he professes to deplore.

. . . Perigo is never what he claims to be. His thing is bullying qua bullying—on a metaphysical level as how life could and should be. He has no commitment to truth and facts that I am aware of when this sense of life kicks in.

. . .

He certainly deserves to be blacklisted and banned for nonstop malice and irrationality. . .

What I mean by "blacklisted and banned" above is more than just from this organization or that, or this event or that.

What I want out of life and Objectivism is different that what this jerk preaches. We are more than different brands. We are different kinds. I don't want his kind of bad character around me.

Perigo is a literal "death worshiper" and even boasts about it. Here is the last gem in the string of his irrational spiteful utterances (from the thread, Why Catholicism Is Beating Objectivism's Ass ... Still):

Um ...

Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Fri, 2009-02-06 06:28.

Just so we're clear about the death thing: contrary to the moral equivalencers and the Christians and the Brandroids, I rejoice in the death of scum. In politics, I would have rejoiced in the deaths of Hitler and Stalin. I *did* rejoice in the deaths of Mao and Pol Pot and Saddam. I *shall* rejoice in the deaths of Ahmadinejad and Mugabe.

In esthetics, were I aware of it at the time, I assuredly would have rejoiced in the death of Zappa, as I do now rejoice in it, and regretted that it didn't happen sooner, as I do now regret it. I rejoiced in the death of Hendrix. Oh, the relief! I delighted in the suicides of the likes of Syd Vicious and Johnny Rotten and whichever other depraved moron has spared the world his further atrocities. I couldn't be more pleased that John Cage is no longer polluting the earth. I'm already on record urging the Slipknot drumnmer who extolled suicide to go ahead and practise what he preaches. Marilyn Manson, Eminem, all that filth ... the sooner it succumbs to its own logic the happier I shall be.

Evidently certain fainthearts here find my sentiment distasteful. I find their wobbliness and dreary Brandroid conventionality distasteful.

The greatest favour anti-life scum can do for the rest of us is die. Since the scum *are* anti-life, I am merely hoping they get what they wish for. Why should anyone get upset? It's win-win, no?

I do not wish for Perigo's death, but on reading things like that, I come close.

For those who think Perigo does not mean this evil crap just because he rationalizes it a bit, he means it. People said the same thing about Hitler killing Jews. Hitler never hid what he was about, although he rationalized it some in the early days in a very similar manner. People just didn't believe he meant it. Well he meant it. Perigo does, too.

(But some of the suck-up idiots on his forum are already saying he doesn't mean it, while others are justly outraged and/or confused.)

Thank goodness this intellectual Brown Shirt is a relative nobody in the world. It is just bad fortune that this plug-ugly is here in the Objectivist neck of the woods.

Michael

[ginny]

Full disclosure - I really did think Barbara B. was exaggerating a few years ago at the break between her and Perigo when she suggested he might be a drunk. Having occasionally read some of his stuff since, I think alcohol is the least of his problems. He's just plain crazy. With apologies to BB, she way understated. Perigo needs to be on his own planet, as he can't seem to function on Planet Earth.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As a footnote and as a comment on all Perigo's whining about being a victim because of a canceled talk at a TAS conference, I wonder when this "death-wish" part would have been presented, during the discussion on the "objective superiority" of Romantic music, or during the Q&A?

Where does the part about rejoicing over the death of pop musicians and avant garde composers and urging the imbalanced among them to commit suicide (including cheering them on with gusto) fit into a talk like that—a talk about Ayn Rand's ideas? I think Perigo made it clear that his comment was not tongue-in-cheek, but quite serious.

More importantly, what makes anyone think an intellectual thug like Perigo would keep that stuff out of a talk at TAS? For those who think he suffered some kind of injustice, does granting a forum to "different ideas" mean granting a forum to preaching bigotry and death to peace-keeping individuals?

That crap's there for anyone with eyes who wants to see.

And does anyone doubt that this dude would not practice what he preaches should power ever come to him? Just look at what he helped do to Jim Peron working behind the scenes in NZ for a small taste, all the while lying his ass off about it in public.

Michael

[Barbara Branden]

Full disclosure - I really did think Barbara B. was exaggerating a few years ago at the break between her and Perigo when she suggested he might be a drunk. Having occasionally read some of his stuff since, I think alcohol is the least of his problems. He's just plain crazy. With apologies to BB, she way understated. Perigo needs to be on his own planet, as he can't seem to function on Planet Earth.

Ginny, I didn't say he was a drunk -- by which I would have meant that he was an alcoholic -- but I did make it clear that I believed he drank too much. And I have his word for it. I don't know if you were reading Solo at the time, but again and again, after flinging a disgraceful string of insults at some innocent person, he would semi-apologize, "explaining" that he had had too much to drink when he did so. Further, I met him at a Solo conference in California, and saw him for about three days; there was not a time, from morning until late at night, that he did not have a drink in his hand. I have other reasons for saying he drinks too much, but I think this suffices.

Barbara

[ginny]

Well, yes. I only scanned SOLO at the time But since, I don't see how anyone can act the way he does or say the things he does/says and not be drunk or nuts. He just so malevolent. Makes my skin crawl.

Ginny

Edited February 6, 2009 by ginny

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ginny,

If you want to see something interesting in real time regarding our subculture, observe this. Perigo just made a new statement (I only included the part below that is pertinent, but it is not out of context):

Nor do I actively wish for the death of the scum in the case of the pomo-artists: I just let out a whoop when I hear about it.

This is called a small backpedal. He knew perfectly well what he was saying and insinuating before. That's why he used statements like "I'm already on record urging..." What was this jerk "urging"? Suicide of "the Slipknot drumnmer," "Marilyn Manson, Eminem, all that filth..." Just look at the quote above. He pulled this flimflam when he called for Obama to be hung before he could take office, then did a small backpedal. The examples of this kind of behavior in Perigo's past are countless.

So, what's the point of the small backpedal? Is it to correct a mistake? No. It's to get the people in the Objectivist subculture to say, "Oh. See? He didn't really mean it!"

Now if he doesn't mean it, you would expect this crap to not repeat. But it will repeat. Over and over and over, like it has done and done and done.

You see, Perigo is crafty in addition to being a liar. He knows people are good-natured and like to give others the benefit of the doubt. He cunningly counts on this and preys on it (although you don't have to be all that cunning with our subculture).

Shortly in the future, Perigo will call once again for the death of someone else (in the name of Objectivism). Then when he gets the spike in attention he seeks and the outrage surging against him gets too close to the edge, he will do a small backpedal again.

And the sheeple will say, "Oh. See? He didn't really mean it!" again.

And after a while he will call for the death of someone else. And the outrage... And the backpedal... And a new call for death... And the... And so on...

It never stops. I have observed this for a few years and I still marvel because it works.

He used to say he went overboard because he drank too much. That blew up in his face. Then it was because "this set him off, or "that set him off," or because a reason-based fire rages in his belly (his favorite leitmotif). Yada yada yada.

The truth is that Perigo values death and bullying as a way of life. I sincerely believes he wants to kill people, but can't say it as openly as his so-called "fire" rages because of the philosophy. So he "slips" over and over and keeps a calculating eye on how much he can get away with.

Watch what happens now. I have seen it often enough to establish a clear pattern.

Michael

[ginny]

He certainly does seem to keep losing friends and adherents. I agree he's a bully, and like all bullies, a coward. Like anyone's excessive drinking, it's a cover-up for failure. ("I can't make people notice me with anything good I've done, but they sure as hell will notice me if I'm bad.") Oh, well, maybe the world he hates so much will go away and stop noticing him. Then he can REALLY wallow in misery.

Ginny

[Jonathan]

He certainly does seem to keep losing friends and adherents. I agree he's a bully, and like all bullies, a coward. Like anyone's excessive drinking, it's a cover-up for failure. ("I can't make people notice me with anything good I've done, but they sure as hell will notice me if I'm bad.") Oh, well, maybe the world he hates so much will go away and stop noticing him. Then he can REALLY wallow in misery.

Ginny

I see Pigero as being very similar to certain fictional characters, most notably Eric Cartman from South Park, Ellsworth Toohey from The Fountainhead, and Gilderoy Lockhart from Harry Potter and the Chamber of Secrets (with the minor differences that Lockhart is handsome, and that it's generally little girls rather than grown men who go gaga over him).

J

[Rich Engle]

The best thing I ever did was stay off that forum.

The worst thing I ever did was one time, early on, send him a complimentary email. That's before I saw enough for it to set in.

Communities exist for many purposes, but a primary is that they can do more than a single person. Assuming, of course, they are comprised, mainly, of those with healthy values, healthy levels of self-esteem. If not, the communities work contrary to those things.

Perigo is one of those proclaimer types. Whatever it is he is missing inside, I know it is just wrong. From action, mainly in the form of his writing. Not to say he is incapable of taking on a true wrong; it's more in the area of social metaphysics, maybe. Something makes him do that. If Rand were alive, I am sure she would have dispensed with the problem quickly. I am not even sure he really believes he is properly interpreting her work. At this point, it is a social mechanism for him. I wish he'd take the site down, because at this point it is over fifty percent as far as goodness goes. Reason, reverence, tolerance, you name it, his stats dont stand up. His indulgences are far beyond things like alcohol--his hunger is for minds.

Edited February 7, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Ruth]

I think quite a few people here - and on SOLO - have an unhappy regard for the opinions of others.

I don't know who posts here and on SOLO - and I care even less. Probably Perigo feels the same.

The Obamanoia irritates me - but at least Perigo doesn't go searching the world for bad news everyday, or choose his friends and enemies on the basis of their political affiliations.

[Brant Gaede]

I think quite a few people here - and on SOLO - have an unhappy regard for the opinions of others.

I don't know who posts here and on SOLO - and I care even less. Probably Perigo feels the same.

The Obamanoia irritates me - but at least Perigo doesn't go searching the world for bad news everyday, or choose his friends and enemies on the basis of their political affiliations.

What are you talking about? You can't defend Perigo with this weak tea. He chooses his friends and enemies on the basis of their music likes and dislikes. That's prime shit. Then he throws in death-wishing for lagniappe.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ruth,

Do I read you correctly?

Are you asking people to have pity on Perigo?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jonathan,

I admit that I am getting a kick out of you on SLOP.

Among the several aspects I am enjoying, there is one in particular that is much more serious than the give-and-take of rhetoric. I don't know how many times you have requested that Perigo (or anyone for that matter) define his terms as provided by Objectivist epistemology. In other words, genus and differentia.

You have even framed it in an artistic manner for emphasis, the "Turandot Challenge," making obvious reference to Perigo's own mocking of the ARI folks for not answering his complaints against Peikoff's views on electoral politics and religion.

How many times has it been that you have asked? Five? Six? That sounds about right. Nobody even comments on your request, much less answers it.

Dayaamm!

(But they do find the time to call you all sorts of names.)

I can't think of any better proof that the views expounded on that thread have nothing to do with Objectivism.

If these folks (by which I mean SLOPPERS as defined by the genus and differentia presented in my opening post on this thread) cannot distinguish between what is "objective" and what is "subjective" using elementary Objectivist epistemology, I wonder what their position would be if they tried to further develop their sorry-ass excuses for concepts...

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Ruth is either an eternal optimist, or future Perigo food next time he goes out chumming for new friends to eat:

"The Obamanoia irritates me - but at least Perigo doesn't go searching the world for bad news everyday, or choose his friends and enemies on the basis of their political affiliations."

Oh....*sigh*

Even were that to matter in this case.

He has the gadfly level of, say, a Truman Capote, without the benevolence and talent. And he holds court--you can only fight him in his own backyard, which really makes him come off as an uber-wimp.

For a minute, I tried to be adherent to the idea that all publicity regarding The Creature<tm> was good, so best to not write about him. But then, on the other hand, he never shuts the eff up with all that peckish, girly scratching of his, so when he has it coming, I just call it the cost of doing business. He's a world-class douche, and I don't have to state my premises as to that because all you have to do is watch him long enough, which means maybe a day or so.

And that is why he would be ~so~ easy to work; it's just that no one has ever really had the patience to do it right. I would never go in there under his radar, because he doesn't rate the kind of reputation sacrifice you have to be willing to lay down in order to run that kind of black op. But anyone could do it, anytime. The trick there is work him for a long, long time, like maybe a year or more. Really get in there and gently wash his balls for him. Then just collect up your evidence, and unload on him. He's vain to the point where I can say that openly and he'll never be able to count out the possibility of someone doing it. It just isn't going to me. But if it ever happens, that's a car wreck I'm going to slow down and stare at. People have done it before, but again, patience is the key. WSS stays in there publicly, does it well, and the volleys The Creature<tm> fires back are blanks, like most of his ammo in general. I'd imagine William finds it good sport.

Edited February 8, 2009 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ginny, I didn't say he was a drunk -- by which I would have meant that he was an alcoholic -- but I did make it clear that I believed he drank too much. And I have his word for it. I don't know if you were reading Solo at the time, but again and again, after flinging a disgraceful string of insults at some innocent person, he would semi-apologize, "explaining" that he had had too much to drink when he did so. Further, I met him at a Solo conference in California, and saw him for about three days; there was not a time, from morning until late at night, that he did not have a drink in his hand. I have other reasons for saying he drinks too much, but I think this suffices.

Barbara's statement about Perigo's drinking hit a nerve. (See here.)

He tried to make a bully-like challenge to her in the manner he does when he can moderate posts. But he can't moderate here and there are important people who read this forum. So he is going to have to do better than bluster this time.

I saw something very curious:

Lie #2: that I attributed my "insults" to alcohol. I never did, since alcohol was not responsible. This canard was already exploded when Cockroach Kelly attempted it, and I challenged him to find an instance of it. He couldn't, 'cos there ain't one. I similarly challenge Ms. Branden to find one. Whenever I felt, in hindsight, that I had been unfair to someone, I apologised, but did not blame alcohol. Folk who know me know that I can get overwrought, and it's all my own work.

Actually this is all wrong. There never was an exploded canard because there never was a challenge from Perigo to me about this. I can't tell if this dude is lying or getting old, but I would certainly be grateful to anyone if they could find a communication from him to me requesting a sample.

But since the subject was mentioned, let's not waste the opportunity. It took me a half-an-hour to find the following quote. There are more, but I'll be damned if I am going to waste my time on trying to find them. Let others search. All they have to to is look. (It's what Barbara meant when she said "drunken tirades" below.)

The context is that Perigo sounded off after getting blasted. He called Barbara, James Kilbourne and me some really foul names (we were still friends back then). The next day he deleted the comments and apologized. Here is the quote:

(Perigo quoting Barbara): Solo's credo counts for a great deal. And adherence to reason is crucial to it. Injustice, the venting of irrational emotions, drunken tirades, which you term "calling a spade a spade" -- and attempts to justify such actions -- do not constitute adherence to reason. Just who is it that is dropping context?

(Periog): Drunken??!! Now that's an arbitrary assumption. Yes, I'd had a few. Friday night. Unwind time after a hard-working week in the office, presenting the Dreadful Face of Linz to unsuspecting television viewers. How terrible. But I knew exactly what I was saying. What I was saying was wrong, on reflection, as I've acknowledged (to no avail), but it wasn't alcohol making me say it.

Had a few?

Wrong on reflection?

Like when he sobered up?

He may have denied it was the alcohol in that quote, but he didn't deny drinking "a few." He fessed up. His own words looked so bad to him with a hangover the next day that he deleted them and apologized. I know too many drunks who say, "I had a few, but I knew exactly what I was doing. It wasn't the alcohol."

Pure bullshit. I used to do that myself.

This kind of rhetoric is called the big lie. The mish-mashed logic is supposed to get people to excuse the drunk from something outrageous, because he was under the influence (that part is between the lines—who can blame a person for unwinding, huh?), but dare anyone to say it was the alcohol so he can go back to drinking later with a "clear conscious." All drunks do this and Perigo's kind of statement is a crystal clear confession for those who have had experience living with it. Perigo's constant obsessive denials of posting drunk ever since say the message louder than any accusation from another person ever could.

But the truth is that he used to post drunk all the time back then and talk about it in the open. Like I said, if anyone has the patience and the time, all they need to to is seek and they shall find.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

The drama continues, on that extra-weird thread.

Michael Newberry has ripped Lindsay Perigo's claim to be an exemplar of good taste.

Jeff Perren (long absent from SOLOP) has suddenly reappeared. I wonder if he was the recipient of another one of those urgent private emails that Mr. Perigo pretends he never sends. Mr. Perren is too decent a chap to be mixed up in this kind of Perigonian sleaze...

Mr. Perigo has issued another ritual challenge to "Babs." (I typed this right before MSK's post appeared immediately above mine. Michael has a few things to say about the ritual challenge.)

He must really be feeling cornered.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

You know, the thing is that I didn't even mind his drinking back then, although I often wanted to tell him to be cool. I can't drink alcohol any longer, but that doesn't mean others can't.

What galls me is Perigo's baldface lying added to the theater and attempt to damage other people he made out of his denial.

This dude's feelings got hurt, so he tried to make everyone say "A is not A" (actually daring people to say otherwise) and bully them into bashing people he was peeved at for his own piss-poor behavior to boot.

I have an email from him (from 2005, when I was trying to reconcile him and Barbara) saying something to the effect that one of the reasons he was so upset about this was because the image of "alcoholic" was very detrimental to the image of an "Objectivist leader." He meant himself as "Objectivist leader," of course.

It gives one great pause to think he almost pulled it off. People actually did start seeing him as an Objectivist leader back then. Our subculture is that fragile.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Whether he swills or not (and he does, clearly), that's only a symptom, as far as I'm concerned.

The real thing is that he is so impotent that he can only (and, selectively) engage on his own ground.

Get him on neutral ground, he's done for. The best he could do is sic his minions (such as they remain) to follow his comments. He's weak that way. He is incapable of fighting it out for real, because he works only from his perch.

He is, because of that, no more than a coward.

He'll never take me or MSK or anyone of substance on, on a true neutral ground (direct email, even), because of that cowardice.

He's weak that way. I've been up his ass for years now, and he is so fearful as to barely be dismissive, on occasion; even then he misspelled my name. It's not important all for me to confront hm directly, he's a bug under my microscope, and I'm not the only one. He is a coward.

I'm just sayin'. Those are facts easily pointed out. I'm not going to do it, I'd rather have someone more eager to go at him, but it won't happen unless he suddenly grows balls, or at least fake ones.

Why bother fighting him in the first place, when he makes it so easy to run him up the flagpole over, and over again?

rde

Edited February 9, 2009 by Rich Engle