The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

The Valliant saga will be amusing to some in that audience, productive of sorrowful head-shaking in others.

Especially if you tell it with your typical distortions -- of which there are some examples in the rest of your post. I'm coming to think that my earlier belief that you know you're distorting was mistaken.

What's wrong with Objectivism is the ARI closed loop dogmatic model which it inherited from Ayn Rand herself.

Did it (inherit a "closed loop dogmatic model" from Rand)? And are you so sure that that model still pertains? I'm not, though I think that it did pertain in the days of Schwartz's, especially, and Binswanger's strong influence.

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle has trouble figuring out whether other people's "distortions" are deliberate or not.

If Ms. Stuttle understood "distortion" the rest of the world does, this would be an indicator of at least mild incapacity.

Objectively, a distortion is a gross exaggeration or egregious departure from the truth, or a major misrendering of a source. Sufficient knowledge of the subject matter and of the person making the interpretation should make reasonably reliable judgments possible as to when an interpretation has been deliberately distorted.

But Ms. Stuttle understands "distortion," well, differently.

From her standpoint, a distortion is any interpretation, not made by Ellen Stuttle, that displeases Ms. Stuttle or thwarts the attainment of her current tactical goals.

It is unlikely that anyone else consistently frames his or her interpretations to please Ms. Stuttle and advance her current agenda.

Nor could anyone successfully remain "distortion-free" for long, because what pleased Ms. Stuttle a while ago may displease her now, and yesterday's tactical objectives may be out the window tomorrow.

It's really hard to tell whether anyone is "distorting" on purpose, as Ms. Stuttle understands the term.

The question borders on meaningless.

And it's of no consequence to anybody in the world, except Ms. Stuttle.

Robert Campbell

PS. If there is no "closed loop dogmatic model" still operative in Ayn Rand Institute circles, perhaps Ms. Stuttle will show us another way to explain some reviews (and comments to reviews) of the Mayhew book on Atlas Shrugged that have been posted on amazon. I have in mind the reviews and comments authored by such acolytes of ARI as Ed Cline, Tore Boeckmann, David Hayes, Paul Beaird, Bill Bucko, and Robert Mayhew himself.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I keep wondering about this concept, "advancement of Objectivism," that you are apparently casting such misfortune on.

What is that?

Does Stuttle mean the spread of Objectivism throughout the world? If she means that and she is talking about you, you must be one big badass MF. Soon, I imagine, Rand's books will stop selling and they will have to shut down ARI, all because of the misfortune you cast on Objectivism. Hell, maybe Obama got elected because you refused to allow Objectivism to "advance." Iran might even blow up the world because of you.

Well... if that sounds silly, what else is there?

Hmmmm... Maybe your presence in a major academic publication dealing with Ayn Rand is impairing the advancement of Objectivism within the Objectivist subcommunity? That doesn't make any sense, though. People who are within the subcommunity are there because Objectivism has already spread to them. Those who agree and disagree with each other were pretty much lined up well before you came on the scene. Those who followed generally fell within what already existed.

Oh...

I see...

Do you think that maybe "advancement of Objectivism" means accepting PARC and SLOP as the proper breeding ground for new Objectivist thought and Objectivist history as filtered by Stuttle?

Well, that makes sense. You did kinda refuse to go along with her backstage crap and you are clear about what you think of her present views. And of PARC and SLOP. The whole enchilada. It's very hard for her to foster and grow her "advancement of personality cult Objectivism" with someone of your stature disagreeing publicly and shedding light on the plausible motives of the more excessive SLOPPERS and ARIANS.

But how about the following meaning?

Despite her hostility toward you, decreeing what is good or bad for the "advancement of Objectivism" is not in character for her. So maybe, in this instance, she just turned off her brain and sang the party line--and cast her own stone at you in the name of the movement to save the world--in an overwhelming feeling of group belonging and acceptance in order to suck up to the ringleader. Kinda like people do in lynch mobs.

But that's so ordinary, don't you think? So unintellectual. So lower class. Like a bad low-budget cowboy movie. Tis a pity. That's what human beings who are character-challenged do in crowds. They turn off their brains and viciously strike out in the name of the crowd at whomever the ringleader deems to be evil--especially if they don't like the scapegoat themselves.

Yup. That one gets my vote.

But maybe it's a mix of all.

Whatever it is, I don't see much misfortune for "Objectivism," nor misfortune for you.

I do see misfortune for Stuttle, though. Her credibility and reputation are being shot all to hell and back. After the dust dies down on this, I don't expect many of the more intelligent people in our world to take her seriously any longer. So SLOP it is and SLOP it will have to be. SLOP is the only online place within the subcommunity where people will go "Ooh" and "Ahh" when she speaks, at least for a long time to come. So what if they are newbies or mostly Perigo-minions? At least there's Perigo and Valliant...

(Well... she could do a full conversion to the orthodox tribe, mea culpa and all, like Hsieh did. Now there's a thought... My inner brat just popped up in my mind as I wrote that. It's yelling, "Go for it, Stuttle! Go for it! There's an eager audience awaiting you! They will listen to you! They will applaud you! There's your way out! )

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I want some of the credit for thwarting the advancement of Objectivism. It's not fair that Robert gets it all.

--Brant

trying hard every day

[Ellen Stuttle]

I want some of the credit for thwarting the advancement of Objectivism. It's not fair that Robert gets it all.

--Brant

trying hard every day

Can't you read either, Brant? (Actually, I know you can when you try. Try again?)

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

Vying to outdo Ms. Stuttle, Lindsay Perigo now declares:

http://www.solopassi...7#comment-85509

I believe it was fortunate [that Campbell became interested in Objectivism], given that he's a perfect exemplar of what drives an anti-Objectivist. Humanity-diminution on principle, anti-hero worship on principle, obsessive diminution of individual heroes on principle, hero-worship of the depraved (Sun Ra) on principle ... and so on. Ayn Rand could not have created a more perfect villain than Robert Campbell, and his sponsor Chris Sciabarra. These "people" are truly the scum of the earth, all the more so precisely because they take pride in being the scum of the earth.

Ellsworth Toohey ain't got nothin' on Big Bad Bob...

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

Here it is in the veritable words of Mr. Personality Cult, Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo himself:

Listen. I love the truth most. If that means I alienate Ellen, James, Diana, Sciabarra, TAS, ARI, and whoever else, including Ayn (and most certainly including the ghastly Binswanger), not to mention lesser hormonal pea-brains who get head-aches, then I'll do it unabashedly and unhesitatingly.

Problem with that? STEP UP AND DEBATE!!!!

Such ghastly cowards and weasel-worders every which-way. UGH!!!

Notice that this clown ain't going to where these folks are to spread and "debate" the "truth" that he loves so much. (That he's the New Coming of Ayn Rand--all the rest is to make that "truth" look halfway decent.)

Maybe he doesn't go to them because they are all cowardly liars who will not accept the "truth"?

Or maybe because he can't control people and bully them on their own turf?

Woah... that sounds like the true truth... and that sounds an awful lot like a coward...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It sounds fulminating. Now he's going after Ellen. The alpha dog routine is so thin even a caveman can see through it.

--Brant

with apologies to Geico--I mean the caveman

Edited March 16, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Robert Campbell]

Lindsay Perigo has now deleted the screed that Brant called "fulminating."

Ah well, most of it survives in Michael's quote, in the post above Brant's.

Mr. Perigo's rant at Big Bad Bob is still on SOLO.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

That part is now called "Rant deleted."

Parts unfair and unclear.

What do you want to bet he was stinking drunk when he wrote it?

He used to do this kind of crap, then say he had too much to drink as he deleted it.

Now I have no doubt he would deny being drunk because of all the trouble he has had with this. But it's the same mangy dog with the same fleas and the same bark.

Also, as he once wrote to me way back when, he knows how getting drunk in public looks bad for an "Objectivist leader" (i.e., what he longs to be but is unqualified to become).

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

PS. If there is no "closed loop dogmatic model" still operative in Ayn Rand Institute circles, perhaps Ms. Stuttle will show us another way to explain some reviews (and comments to reviews) of the Mayhew book on Atlas Shrugged that have been posted on amazon. I have in mind the reviews and comments authored by such acolytes of ARI as Ed Cline, Tore Boeckmann, David Hayes, Paul Beaird, Bill Bucko, and Robert Mayhew himself.

I wouldn't call the variety displayed by those posters indicative of a "closed loop dogmatic model." The contrary. (And the description "acolytes," though it might reasonably be used for the others you name, is misused for Beaird.)

What I found especially interesting, Robert, was seeing you employ the same methods -- this time on an ultra-public site -- which you've used on OL and SOLO. I thought your turf-war fixations were strongly noticeable.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

It's not turf war, Ellen; over on SOLOP it's essentially Perigo and Valliant ad hominem while here it's let's understand. Unfortunately, you parked your car in the wrong garage. I had hoped SOLOP would transcend itself--ie, Perigo--but now I know it's a vain one. I know and have known people like this. You see, in spite of Valliant being a follower and Perigo being a leader, for Valliant Perigo's a "useful idiot." In turn, that's your value to Perigo. It doesn't matter that Valliant actually follows ARI, not SOLOP, or that you follow your historical and contemporary *objectifications* no matter how trivial or significant, what matters is what Perigo, Valliant and Hsieh did to Sciabarra four years ago next month. So if you want to be chummy, chummy with Perigo and Valliant, Robert Campbell will give to you what he gives to them. It's personal, and if you think you are essentially above if not obvious to it all, then at least stop complaining.

--Brant

Edited March 16, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Chris Grieb]

I like Robert & Michael but the phase I think all of you should apply to Perigo and company was by David Kelley is "Better things to do."

I am not going to look at this tread any more.

Perigo is a person who need full time help but doesn't want it. Avoid him and his "ideas".

[Ellen Stuttle]

It's not turf war, Ellen; over on SOLOP [...].

Please re-read the post you're talking about. It pertained to the reviews and comments ON AMAZON about *Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged*, edited by Robert Mayhew. Perigo wasn't posting there; Valliant wasn't posting there; I wasn't posting there. Robert Campbell was using in his arguings there the same techniques he's used on OL and SOLO.

Here's a link to the whole set of reviews:

http://tinyurl.com/yc89m2d

Most of the reviews have comments. Some of the comment threads are long. The longest comment thread is that for the Tore Boeckmann review. Gotthelf's particularly direct and succinct assessment -- and statement to RC that he won't be discussing the issues with RC -- is the last on that thread and the last to date.

Direct link:

http://tinyurl.com/ybr49bk

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I like Robert & Michael but the phase I think all of you should apply to Perigo and company was by David Kelley is "Better things to do."

I am not going to look at this tread any more.

Perigo is a person who need full time help but doesn't want it. Avoid him and his "ideas".

Chris,

You make a wise choice. I wish I could do the same.

The problem is that in our little subcommunity there is a striking lack of memory. People--intelligent people--forget the damage these Nasty Ones have tried to inflict on the reputations of good productive authors for no reason other than spite and personality cult.

It's like an ooze, whereby, after an episode of undeniable monkeyshines, Perigo and Valliant are seen for the hate-mongers they are. But then time passes and people slowly start treating them as if they were above trashing the reputation of others for no good reason. Once the Nasty Ones get comfortable and start getting their audience back, they start trashing again. And here's the worst part. Good people--good intelligent people--start treating the objects of their trashing with disdain, while the vicious memes they repeat like parrots start taking.

Do you want a good example? Here's one. I consider Nathaniel Branden an honest man. Does that sound shocking?

It's how he is seen out in the real world where he is an admired author and psycho-therapist. But in our subcommunity, "NB lied to Rand" has been repeated so much and analyzed so much, with the "lie" meme pounded without mercy, that people automatically assume he is dishonest today. But he isn't. That's crap and these people know it. The vicious little people you want to ignore do it on purpose and they count on the moral ooze in our subcommunity to keep their spite alive.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. They stop and I'll stop.

But they won't stop acting on the evil they are wedded to. And many people in the Objectivist subcommunity are wedded to the ethical principle of turning the other cheek with them.

I'm not.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It's not turf war, Ellen; over on SOLOP [...].

Please re-read the post you're talking about. It pertained to the reviews and comments ON AMAZON about *Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged*, edited by Robert Mayhew. Perigo wasn't posting there; Valliant wasn't posting there; I wasn't posting there. Robert Campbell was using in his arguings there the same techniques he's used on OL and SOLO.

Here's a link to the whole set of reviews:

http://tinyurl.com/yc89m2d

Most of the reviews have comments. Some of the comment threads are long. The longest comment thread is that for the Tore Boeckmann review. Gotthelf's particularly direct and succinct assessment -- and statement to RC that he won't be discussing the issues with RC -- is the last on that thread and the last to date.

Direct link:

http://tinyurl.com/ybr49bk

You can certainly get dizzy, Ellen, trying to follow all that Amazon stuff. I see Robert has a bigger axe to grind than his being mad at you for hanging with Perigo and Valliant. In any case, SOLOP is pretty much a dead letter.

--Brant

more C for my horrible cold

edit: Oh, boy, Neil is posting again on SOLOP and Perigo says Campbell can too and WSS will also once he's done writing his Objectivism article in Mexico--Lindsay certainly knows how to grab life preservers

Edited March 16, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

As a continuation of my last post, here is another example of needless smearing of good productive people over nothing, except it's not the hogs in the hog-pen. It's higher up.

If ever there were a good man in the non-fundamentalist Objectivist subcommunity, that person is Ed Younkins. I have only met this man once (at the TAS Atlas 50 year celebration) and I have read several essays by him. I can't think of anyone who has anything bad to say about him. He's not the world's greatest genius, but he's a person who was deeply moved by Ayn Rand's message and is doing his share to promote the good he believes in. And he's doing a great job.

Yet the hate-mongers bark. No less from Tore Boeckmann. Here is how Boeckmann portrays the screw-up of the first printing of essays Younkins edited on Atlas Shrugged and the recall.

Dr. Campbell writes: "The first printing of Ed Younkins' book on Atlas Shrugged was withdrawn because of a bunch of bad copyediting that neither Dr. Younkins nor the other contributors knew anything about before they saw printed copies."

No. Younkins' collection contained several cases of plagiarism from the work of ARI-affiliated scholars. Upon the demand of these scholars, the book was recalled and revised. For one example, concerning the work of Shoshana Milgram, see the account of Ayn Rand's editing of Atlas Shrugged, on page 2 of the Introduction to the recalled edition. That the issue with the book was bad copyediting is a lie spread by contributors to the book (whether it originates with Younkins himself I do not know).

In other words, to Boeckmann, he does not know if the cover-up of plagiarism "started" with Younkins, but it is a cover-up of plagiarism. The only other alternative is bad copy-editing. There is no other alternative.

And worse, Younkins, being the editor, has to be involved, whether he started it or not, seeing that he made no statement apologizing for any plagiarism. That's what publishers and editors do when they discover that they have been duped by a plagiarist. Unless they are covering it up.

Boeckmann provides no evidence at all for his charge, except to cite an unsourced passage in the recalled printing.

Does that sound anything like reality? Does plagiarism sound like anything like the Younkins that is on record--for any and all to consult for free--from years of him participating in public?

Gimme a break!

An error and recall of a printing for correction is not proof of plagiarism to anyone but a person with an evil agenda.

I never realized what a nasty vicious little sucker Boeckmann was. I used to respect that man. Now I see he is nothing but a glorified Perigo/Valliant.

Tore Boeckmann is a liar.

And he is lying on purpose to smear a good productive man.

Shame on him.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I have another couple of thoughts.

1. The idea that someone in the non-fundamentalist Objectivist subcommunity would want to plagiarize someone from the fundamentalist side is delusional at best. I have never heard of anything like that happening, ever. On the contrary, the non-fundamentalists exist precisely because they disagree with the the fundamentalists. They do not have the turf aspirations the fundamentalists have regarding Ayn Rand, so there is no need to pilfer the ideas of another in order to write that person out of history (like the fundamentalists try to do with the Brandens).

So why on earth would the non-fundamentalists plagiarize someone they disagree with? I don't get the logic behind that. I see only delusion or lie. My opinion is lie, given Younkins's long record of public participation and lack of participation in hostilities.

2. I feel for Dr. Younkins. I remember reading, way back when, an epidsode where he was being bullied by Perigo. He used to publish his essays on SoloHQ and add a copy to Reginald Firehammer's The Autonomist forum. One day Firehammer announced that Younkins would no longer publish his essays on The Autonomist. He had received an email from Younkins saying that SoloHQ was refusing to publish his essays anymore if he continued to cross-publish them on The Autonomist. So, unfortunately he had to choose. He went where the Objectivist audience was at the time (and I certainly don't blame him). But I do blame Perigo for sleazy backstage bullying.

(This is on record, but I need to look it up to provide a link. If it becomes important to do so, I will. If not, I don't want to waste the time right now, given my other priorities.)

If anyone is curious as to what Perigo would do with power in his hands, there is a great example. Just observe and grok what he did with Ed Younkins.

At any rate, with this Boeckmann crap, here is Younkins again, essentially smiling at the world and saying, "Look at what I found. Isn't it great?" That's his big sin. He wants to share something good. And here is another bully trying to damage him.

Man, I get mad at this!

The difference between Perigo's and Boeckmann's thuggish attitude and any low-grade street gang is that the gang-bangers play with guns. But the gang mentality and the quickness to damage good innocent people over turf wars are the same.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

My reasons for participating in the discussion of Robert Mayhew's book over on amazon were rather different from my reasons for going after Lindsay Perigo and Jim Valliant these last four years.

Ms. Stuttle obviously has no bloody idea what the underlying issues were with the Mayhew book and why such a ruckus ensued.

Further, Ms. Stuttle couldn't care less what the underlying issues were.

She is after points to score in her own game.

Still, a bare outline will show how far off the beam Ms. Stuttle actually is:

(1) When he filled out his author questionnaire for Lexington Books, Robert Mayhew made the claim that Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was the first scholarly treatment of its subject. Lexington Books took his claim verbatim and used it in its publicity, including the "Product Description" for his book that appears on amazon.

(2) Dr. Mayhew knew, when he submitted that blurb, that Ed Younkins' book Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: A Philosophical and Literary Companion was a year and a half ahead of his compilation (it was published in 2007).

(3) Therefore, Dr. Mayhew was knowingly asserting that Dr. Younkins' book, plus everything substantial that had been published on Atlas Shrugged in the past (such as Mimi Reisel Gladstein's book from 2000), was not scholarly.

(4) As a dedicated acolyte of the Ayn Rand Institute, wasn't Dr. Mayhew conducting business as usual by making such a claim? It implied that anything previously done on the subject by persons unaffiliated with ARI was unscholarly. From Dr. Mayhew's standpoint, aren't ARI products the real deal—accept no substitutes?

(5) The initial complaints about the blurb were not made by me. They came from Tibor Machan and Doug Rasmussen. I learned about them after the fact.

(6) The initial defenses of the Mayhew blurb, from various persons with ARI affiliations, claimed that it didn't mean what it obviously meant—and, if it did, Dr. Mayhew wasn't behind it.

(7) A couple of flame-throwers (Tore Boeckmann and Ed Cline) from the ARI side stepped in, saying, in essence, yes it did. And besides that, the Younkins book was plagiarized from ARI-affiliated authors, every chapter, from beginning to end. (You realize, this means that Doug Rasmussen plagiarized from ARI authors, I plagiarized from ARI authors, Roger Bissell plagiarized from ARI authors ... more than 30 people all plagiarized from ARI authors.)

Cline's review of Mayhew is a revenge fantasy in which the publisher withdraws and destroys every copy of the Younkins book, as (supposedly) happened to a book of made-up stuff by an author with a bogus doctoral degree, pretending to be the memories of survivors from the bombing of Hiroshima. It surely outdoes any of my suggestions that the Ayn Rand Bookstore might end up having to pulp unsold stacks of Mr. Valliant's opus.

(8) Dr. Mayhew made his single appearance, standing by his blurb.

(9) Allan Gotthelf was now in an awkward spot. Dr. Gotthelf is currently the top guy in the Ayn Rand Society, which is meant to provide an interface between Randians and non-Randians in the world of academic philosophy. It is also one of the few fora that ARIans could participate in without being condemned or ostracized by their leadership. But ARS has always had non-ARIans on its steering committee, and it still does, though their numbers have gradually shrunk (currently, Lester Hunt and Fred Miller; the latter is also involved with another ARI-acceptable neutral forum, the Social Philosophy and Policy Center).

(10) So here Dr. Gotthelf is trying to mediate between Doug Rasmussen (a former member of the ARS steering committee and frequent participant in ARS sessions, but definitely not aligned with ARI, and an author in the Younkins book) and Bob Mayhew (a current member of the ARS steering committee, the editor of a work that Dr. Gotthelf is especially keen to promote via ARS sessions which feature one of Dr. Gotthelf's own students, and emphatically aligned with ARI). And it gets better: Dr. Gotthelf is himself a contributor to the Mayhew book.

(11) Dr. Gotthelf sided with Dr. Mayhew, trying to conceal his partisanship with some slipping and sliding. But his message was clear enough: by criticizing Dr. Mayhew's blurb in public, Dr. Rasmussen was poisoning the well. Dr. Mayhew hadn't so much as stirred a little dirt into the water with his blurb.

(12) Dr. Gotthelf avoids making public statements about the relative quality of ARI products and non-ARI products. He doesn't like to be asked to make statements. He prefers to put the matter off until some big review essay of his is published. Why?

(13) On the thread, Dr. Gotthelf never criticized even the wildest assertions from any of the ARI affiliates (not even Ed Cline's, which was downright nutty). Why not?

(14) I later realized (it's not mentioned on the amazon threads) that Dr. Gotthelf's forthcoming published review of Ayn Rand-related literature, which will finally render explicit judgments about its scholarliness, was already promised in 2000 (it's mentioned in a footnote in On Ayn Rand). Yet according to Dr. Gotthelf's online vita, the soonest anything vaguely like that will be published is 2011 (and that's if some honking big edited volume comes in on time; they usually don't).

(15) I wasn't the only participant who thought that Dr. Gotthelf's response was inadequate. I have to give props to his former student Greg Salmieri (also an author in the Mayhew book...) for acknowledging that Dr. Mayhew's blurb was tactically imprudent, and for being willing to say that some ARI authors have written unscholarly essays and some non-ARI authors have written scholarly ones. (I've been really harsh on Dr. Salmieri in the past, for hanging in the background and encouraging others to do some flame-throwing for ARI.) Now Dr. Salmieri names non-ARIans who he thought wrote bad essays, but not non-ARIans who he thought wrote good ones, and he somehow imagines that with Bob Mayhew's four edited volumes, Randnovelology and Atlasshrugology are firmly planted as academic specialities. Still, he was the only class act in the ARI contingent.

(16) Ms. Stuttle imagines that Paul Beaird is not an acolyte of ARI. He didn't use to be; I've seen things by him from 15 or 20 years ago. But look at some of the guy's present-day outpourings: noncitation of Nathaniel Branden is morally obligatory for Objectivist authors; Andrew Bernstein did a fine, noble thing with his public penance for putting a one-paragraph article in JARS, and those who find fault with Dr. Bernstein's deed wouldn't know a moral principle if it jumped up and bit them; he donates a paltry sum per month to ARI, which just happens to be as much as a lot of TAS members give to TAS... With all his dithering and blithering, the guy may be perceived by ARIans higher in the status tree as a useful idiot. Sort of like Fred Weiss.

But all we've got here is Ms. Stuttle's tired device of accepting someone's pious denials at face value, if and only if it's convenient for her agenda.

(17) As a non-member of the American Philosophical Association (therefore, a non-member of ARS), a non-ARIan, a known critic of some other work by Bob Mayhew (which Tore Boeckmann has already leapt to defend), and an associate of Chris Sciabarra (who Dr. Gotthelf refuses to refer to by name in his 2000 book), I was Dr. Gotthelf's only safe target in that discussion.

(18) So he let it rip. Whatever.

18 bullet points—and, folks, this is an outline.

When all is said and done, does Ms. Stuttle imagine that ARI-affiliated scholars never engage in turf battles or turf protection?

Gimme a break.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Oh, boy, Neil is posting again on SOLOP and Perigo says Campbell can too and WSS will also once he's done writing his Objectivism article in Mexico--Lindsay certainly knows how to grab life preservers

Brant,

Mr. Perigo's proclamations are rather ambiguous. I didn't take them to mean that I would be able to post again; in fact, they could be taken to mean, falsely, that I haven't been blocked.

Neil Parille is posting under moderation; William Scott Scherk is able to post there again, I think also under moderation.

Maybe Mr. Perigo thinks I'm going to beg him to be allowed to post?

Oh, yeah...

Meanwhile, I am still blocked outright.

I don't matter, 'cause I ain't goin' back. No way, nohow.

Robert Campbell

Note added at 2:56 PM EDT, March 16: Neil Parille has informed me that, at least for now, he is not moderated. WSS is under moderation.

[Brant Gaede]

I know you aren't going back, Robert, based on what you've said previously. I think the deal is you ask LP to unblock you, he tells you to mind your manners, you post then he lambastes you with several colorful but worn out comments and maybe puts up the Sun Ra pic, etc. As long as he gets to be the alpha dog, he thinks, he's happy.

--Brant

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

I've got other Sun Ra pictures that Mr. Perigo can borrow, in case he ever gets bored with the one he keeps obsessively reposting.

But since I'm not going to be visiting with him over there, he won't have much occasion to use them.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

(1) When he filled out his author questionnaire for Lexington Books, Robert Mayhew made the claim that Essays on Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged was the first scholarly treatment of its subject. Lexington Books took his claim verbatim and used it in its publicity, including the "Product Description" for his book that appears on amazon.

Quoting from RC's review:

link

Truth in Packaging Is Needed, March 6, 2010

By

Robert L. Campbell

[....]

The Product Description proclaims, "This is the first scholarly study of Atlas Shrugged...," and that is obviously not true.

[....]

A more truthful Product Description of the Mayhew volume might have read, "This is the first book-length study of Atlas Shrugged in which every chapter was written by an author connected with the Ayn Rand Institute. The Ayn Rand Institute counts only its affiliates as genuine Rand scholars..."

But such candor might have led to awkward questions.

What about the candor of quoting the complete sentence, which you still aren't doing and which neither Machan nor Rasmussen did? (They, however, didn't pursue the issue like you did. They made their point and left it.) What about also acknowledging that the description doesn't appear on or in the book?

I grant you that the comma after "Shrugged" shouldn't have been there, but I think that some of the respondents made a good case for the accuracy of the full sentence.

(7) A couple of flame-throwers (Tore Boeckmann and Ed Cline) from the ARI side stepped in, saying, in essence, yes it did. And besides that, the Younkins book was plagiarized from ARI-affiliated authors, every chapter, from beginning to end.

Where did they actually say the second? Cline's review is well over the top, yes, but it doesn't actually say what you report. Nor does Boeckmann's review. (I realize that he edited the review. I didn't save the original version, but best I recall it said nothing about "every chapter," only about the Introduction.)

In other words, to Boeckmann, he does not know if the cover-up of plagiarism "started" with Younkins, but it is a cover-up of plagiarism. The only other alternative is bad copy-editing. There is no other alternative.

There is the alternative of both uncredited material and bad copy-editing.

Ellen

[9thdoctor]

An error and recall of a printing for correction is not proof of plagiarism to anyone but a person with an evil agenda.

Indeed, I called him on it during the Amazon scrap. He’s in effect denying that the first printing was screwed up at all, that instead it contained deliberate plagiarism that was only corrected because of threats from the “ARI-affiliated”. If this were the case, you’d expect the only corrections to be those dictated by the threats. Or at least most of the corrections. Apparently this isn’t the case, and further, it seems unlikely he even has either printing of the book.. He only cites one example, and while with colleague Harriman’s new insights into induction he perhaps feels that’s enough, the rest of us shall remain skeptical.

In the end, this was a revealing inside view of the Ortho rumor (libel) mill. It also demonstrated that Robert Campbell has risen to l’alpha bête noire of the heretics, just look at how Gotthelf dismisses him out of hand. Get thee behind me, Satan!

BTW the offending material (page 2) can be found on the Google books preview, if you don’t have the book.

http://books.google.com/books?id=5_NDTA9x-qMC&pg=PA9&lpg=PA9&dq=younkins+rand&source=bl&ots=ssrctFdHUl&sig=MUhwqW4roXN4SME6_SIT2G28zd0&hl=en&ei=FvGWS52OH8Xf8QbVopkr&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CBEQ6AEwBDgK#v=onepage&q=younkins%20rand&f=false

I think Paul Beaird could fill Jay Allen’s long vacant Planus Regius position. I mean talk about dedication! And (unintended?) hilarity.

don't matter, 'cause I ain't goin' back. No way, nohow.

Good to hear, but now you’ll be held to it. Let’s call it the pigs fly pledge.

Jabba deserves to fly solo with nothing but his theme song for company:

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle claims that Tibor Machan, Doug Rasmussen, and I all misread the Product Description for Bob Mayhew's edited book on Atlas Shrugged.

Here's the Description:

This is the first scholarly study of Atlas Shrugged, covering in detail the historical, literary, and philosophical aspects of Ayn Rand's magnum opus. Topics explored in depth include the history behind the novel's creation, publication, and reception; its nature as a romantic novel; and its presentation of a radical new philosophy.

"First scholarly study" is pretty definite, no?

Even if they hadn't put in the comma, the only plausible claim to unique contribution for the Mayhew volume pertains to the historical aspects. There's no shortage of philosophical or literary treatments in the Younkins book.

Here's Ed Cline's review, in its entirety:

Mr. Boeckmann noted that "Dr. Rasmussen specifically cites Edward Younkins' collection of essays, which falls in this category, let me simply mention that the publishers had to recall the first printing of that book when the editor's breaches of the most elementary scholarly standards were pointed out to them." Yet Dr. Rasmussen, after having read this, still insists that Younkins' book deserves attention and presumably respect. More likely the Younkins book shares company with "Dr." Pellegrine's "Last Train from Hiroshima," found out too late by Henry Holt, the publisher, to contain numerous errors, mispresentations, and anecdotes from fictive persons concernng the bombing of Hiroshima, and all copies of it recalled by Holt.

And here is Tore Boeckmann's second comment, in the thread under his own review. It has been edited, but the changes aren't major: Boeckmann identifies me as the author of the quotation at the top of his review (previously, he didn't), and he identifies Shoshana Milgram specifically, when previously he didn't bring her up until a later comment (which he later decided to delete).

Those inclined to believe Ms. Stuttle's reading should note the parts I've put in italics.

No. Younkins' collection contained several cases of plagiarism from the work of ARI-affiliated scholars. Upon the demand of these scholars, the book was recalled and revised. For one example, concerning the work of Shoshana Milgram, see the account of Ayn Rand's editing of Atlas Shrugged, on page 2 of the Introduction to the recalled edition. That the issue with the book was bad copyediting is a lie spread by contributors to the book (whether it originates with Younkins himself I do not know).

The implication is clearly that plagiarism was going on all over the book, and multiple authors were perpetrating it. Ed Cline sure thought so, because he took the implication and ran with it.

What's more, Boeckmann wants his readers to think the copyediting was just fine, and that any complaints about it were fabricated.

Robert Campbell