The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ms. Stuttle pretends not to know that Lindsay Perigo has attributed to Neil Parille and me direct responsibility for the idiotic hit piece on Rand of which he was complaining.

All ya gotta do is read the title of

http://www.solopassi...5#comment-85723

"The Babsian/Campbellian/Parillian Chickens ... come home to roost"

Next question?

Robert Campbell

Alpha Bête Noire

How you do stretch things!

Here's what you'd claimed:

Not to mention that Lindsay Perigo and his flunkies somehow think I gave aid and encouragement to the author of that genuinely idiotic article.

Robert Campbell

Alpha Bête Noire

Chickens home to roost = "gave aid and encouragement to" and now "direct responsibility"?

OK, Robert.

And no pretense. I didn't even remember the post title, or Linz's question to Ms. Branden and Mr. [sic] Branden below the quoted excerpt. It's Linzian vague hyperbole for sure but hardly the accusation you describe.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

For your information, I haven't seen or had any direct contact with Shoshana Milgram for upward of 25 years.

I have enough familiarity with her work to conclude that she's a careful researcher. One can know that someone who died before one was born was a careful researcher by studying the person's work. No private pipeline required.

Now gosh darn it, Stuttle, your remarks in reply to Dragonfly were so vague and so insinuating that YOU KNEW THINGS AND PEOPLE WHO MATTER that others don't know that I thought you were discussing the topics being discussed on this thread. It wasn't even clear you were talking about Milgram, especially since previously you alluded to an unnamed source that you kinda respect.

Imagine that...

Instead, I now presume that you are now talking about Shoshana Milgram's works on Ayn Rand's descriptions, timelines, etc. Works that you have read, obviously. Otherwise, your remarks make no sense.

So...

(drum roll)

Which works by Shoshana Milgram on Ayn Rand's descriptions, timeline, etc., have you read? Just the audio lecture you heard but can't remember (as you claimed in a post above)? The one Ed Younkins allegedly plagiarized (as per Boeckmann & Co.) because he basically said Ayn Rand rewrote her first draft just like every other serious writer on earth does? (Oops... there I go back to one of the main topics of this thread...)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's Linzian vague hyperbole for sure but hardly the accusation you describe.

This is the very first time I have ever heard the rantings ("hyperbole" for the highbrow) of Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo be described as "vague."

Maybe I should reread his stuff. It's mostly disgusting, but it's always been very clear to me. He likes bullying people and scapegoating. I have yet to see him be vague about the person he wants to bully or scapegoat.

I wonder what I am missing...

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Does Perigo actually believe the stuff he says? He doesn't know anything about me. All my postings have been polite. Yet he says I'm "human excrement" or something like that.

Someone should tell him that he is turning into a parody of himself.

-Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

For your information, I haven't seen or had any direct contact with Shoshana Milgram for upward of 25 years.

I have enough familiarity with her work to conclude that she's a careful researcher. One can know that someone who died before one was born was a careful researcher by studying the person's work. No private pipeline required.

Suddenly Ms. Stuttle feels a need to issue this denial.

It's a bit odd, because I don't think anyone here was under the impression that she is in direct contact with Shoshana Milgram.

In any event, I agree that Dr. Milgram is a careful researcher, although my judgment isn't merely based on reading some of what she has written.

It remains unclear how much of Dr. Milgram's published work (or audio lectures) Ms. Stuttle actually is familiar with.

Could it be that she knows people who know Dr. Milgram well? And takes their word for it all?

Robert Campbell

PS. It figures that Ms. Stuttle would question the existence of narcissism. But Danny Renahan, as Rand once envisioned him, is more of a psychopath than a narcissist. If narcissists truly had no sensitivity to the feelings of other people under any circumstances, their efforts to extract admiration from them would be no more successful than near-random flailing.

[Jonathan]

I think most people probably take it to mean that Rand dominated the people in her life, that she didn't value their individual personalities or respect their differences, but aggressively sought to rid those closest to her of ideas, traits and even subjective tastes that she disliked, and to replace them with her own allegedly superior ideas, traits and subjective tastes.

Something like that, which I think is a caricature.

I wouldn't say it's a caricature so much as a facet of who Rand was, as evidenced by not only the testimony of those who knew her and by the behavior of her acolytes, but by her own comments in her own publications, journals, speeches and Q&A sessions. She bullied people. She psychologized about them and pondered their levels of evil. She claimed that they hated existence, were trying to destroy man's mind and all other values. And those were just the people who liked music or paintings she disliked. That's not to say that being an abusive bitch was the only side of her, but there's no denying that it was a side of her.

I think Heller's view of Rand's "narcissism" also represents a facet of her, and a large one at that. I think Rand's use of "thankfully" in her description of Renahan is significant. It represents her estimate of her fictional character's values and traits. It's Rand's admission that she identifies with Renahan, that she is similar to him and/or wants to be more similar to him, and that it is good to have "no organ for understanding" of "the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people."

J

Edited March 27, 2010 by Jonathan

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Suddenly Ms. Stuttle feels a need to issue this denial.

It's a bit odd, because I don't think anyone here was under the impression that she is in direct contact with Shoshana Milgram.

Robert,

Feels a need?

Heh...

Maybe my ooh and ahhh didn't come out to her liking...

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Now gosh darn it, Stuttle, your remarks in reply to Dragonfly were so vague and so insinuating that YOU KNEW THINGS AND PEOPLE WHO MATTER that others don't know that I thought you were discussing the topics being discussed on this thread. It wasn't even clear you were talking about Milgram, especially since previously you alluded to an unnamed source that you kinda respect.

I had said --

But [Rand's] conception of Atlas was of a world in an altered time frame from the start. She didn't delete from the manuscript historic references which she didn't put in it to start with.

Dragonfly asked --

How do you know?

I replied, regarding the first statement, repeating the gist of something I'd previously said (in which previous statement I had named Milgram) --

I did not examine the drafts myself. I'm assuming that the reports of the person who did, who I know to be a careful researcher, are accurate as to the progression of the contents and the editing.

You then attacked with --

She know T-H-I-N-G-S and P-E-O-P-L-E--W-H-O--M-A-T-T-E-R, and we don't...

Since of course the person I meant was Milgram -- the person from whose audio lectures on her archival research on Rand's drafts uncredited synopsizing material was used in the 1st published version of the Introduction to the Younkins book we're discussing -- I mistakenly assumed that you were tracking sufficiently to be referring to the person -- Milgram -- meant in my reply.

Another detail: I didn't, as you report, say that I "can't remember" the audio lectures. I said, paraphrasing, I don't remember them well enough to know if Younkins indeed did use some exact wordings without quote marks. This was in a long post responding to Jonathan. Here's the actual quote:

I don't have the tapes. I've heard them but don't own them. I don't know if he was using exact words or not, [...].

Ellen

Edited March 28, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

It's Linzian vague hyperbole for sure but hardly the accusation you describe.

This is the very first time I have ever heard the rantings ("hyperbole" for the highbrow) of Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo be described as "vague."

Linz himself said of himself in one (or more, at least one) of his replies to Valliant when the two of them were arguing about Linz's use of "Stalinism" re ARI that he's known for using hyperbole. Was that "highbrow"?

I think a lot of people have objected to the vagueness of Linz's epithets -- and that he's defended them as being precise.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Speaking of "[Rand's] conception of Atlas" as being that "of a world in an altered time frame from the start," some while ago, in a Google search with a Rand connection, I came upon a link to relevant material quoted from Rand herself on the ARI site. I didn't have time to format this the other day when I was replying to Dragonfly. Here it is. I'll first post an excerpt with underscoring of the directly pertinent statement. I find especially interesting the comment about the plot device not being "realistic." Then I'll quote the whole comment.

link

[underscore added]

For one thing, [Atlas Shrugged] was “built on an unusual plot device which is not naturalistic in any sense. It’s not even realistic.” Also, it was “completely detached from any journalistic reality,” compared, for example to The Fountainhead, which mentioned specific years and was tied to a particular historical period.

link

Atlas Shrugged in Ayn Rand’s literary development

In her 1960–61 biographical interviews, Ayn Rand compared Atlas Shrugged to her other novels. It was, she said, “completely my sense of life, without reservations. Particularly in the literary sense. We the Living, I did not consider fully my kind of writing, because it’s too historical or too journalistic. The Fountainhead, although it represented me fully philosophically, did not represent my idea of a novel, in the purest sense of the word, because it’s the story of a whole lifetime. The fact that its action takes place over a period of something like 18 years is what I always held against it. It was necessary for this kind of theme, but it’s not the kind of thing which I consider an ideal novel.” Atlas, was her “kind of universe.” For one thing, it was “built on an unusual plot device which is not naturalistic in any sense. It’s not even realistic.” Also, it was “completely detached from any journalistic reality,” compared, for example to The Fountainhead, which mentioned specific years and was tied to a particular historical period. “I personally feel most at home,” she said, “where everything is made by me—everything except the metaphysical human abstraction. In other words, it has to be things as they might be, but from then on, I want them to be as they ought to be. As I want to make them. I don’t like being tied to the choices of other people; that is what it amounts to. When you go into cultural issues, it’s really the choices of others. And I want to be in my own universe of my own abstractions, so that even the villains are stylized by me.”

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I think most people probably take it to mean that Rand dominated the people in her life, that she didn't value their individual personalities or respect their differences, but aggressively sought to rid those closest to her of ideas, traits and even subjective tastes that she disliked, and to replace them with her own allegedly superior ideas, traits and subjective tastes.

Something like that, which I think is a caricature.

I wouldn't say it's a caricature so much as a facet of who Rand was, as evidenced by not only the testimony of those who knew her and by the behavior of her acolytes, but by her own comments in her own publications, journals, speeches and Q&A sessions. She bullied people. She psychologized about them and pondered their levels of evil. She claimed that they hated existence, were trying to destroy man's mind and all other values. And those were just the people who liked music or paintings she disliked. That's not to say that being an abusive bitch was the only side of her, but there's no denying that it was a side of her.

Well, I don't think that "abusive bitch" accurately describes any side of her. Thus I deny it. Nor do I find even your toned-down description really accurate. I'm not going to argue the issue of a fair description of Rand with you. You have your viewpoint, which I don't share. Just entering an objection to the "there's no denying."

I think Heller's view of Rand's "narcissism" also represents a facet of her, and a large one at that. I think Rand's use of "thankfully" in her description of Renahan is significant. It represents her estimate of her fictional character's values and traits. It's Rand's admission that she identifies with Renahan, that she is similar to him and/or wants to be more similar to him, and that it is good to have "no organ for understanding" of "the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people."

I think that at the time she wrote that she might have been wishing to be less bothered by "little street" folk than she was.

Ellen

Edited March 28, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[BaalChatzaf]

Speaking of "[Rand's] conception of Atlas" as being that "of a world in an altered time frame from the start," some while ago, in a Google search with a Rand connection, I came upon a link to relevant material quoted from Rand herself on the ARI site. I didn't have time to format this the other day when I was replying to Dragonfly. Here it is. I'll first post an excerpt with underscoring of the directly pertinent statement. I find especially interesting the comment about the plot device not being "realistic." Then I'll quote the whole comment.

link

[underscore added]

For one thing, [Atlas Shrugged] was "built on an unusual plot device which is not naturalistic in any sense. It's not even realistic." Also, it was "completely detached from any journalistic reality," compared, for example to The Fountainhead, which mentioned specific years and was tied to a particular historical period.

link

Atlas Shrugged in Ayn Rand's literary development

In her 1960–61 biographical interviews, Ayn Rand compared Atlas Shrugged to her other novels. It was, she said, "completely my sense of life, without reservations. Particularly in the literary sense. We the Living, I did not consider fully my kind of writing, because it's too historical or too journalistic. The Fountainhead, although it represented me fully philosophically, did not represent my idea of a novel, in the purest sense of the word, because it's the story of a whole lifetime. The fact that its action takes place over a period of something like 18 years is what I always held against it. It was necessary for this kind of theme, but it's not the kind of thing which I consider an ideal novel." Atlas, was her "kind of universe." For one thing, it was "built on an unusual plot device which is not naturalistic in any sense. It's not even realistic." Also, it was "completely detached from any journalistic reality," compared, for example to The Fountainhead, which mentioned specific years and was tied to a particular historical period. "I personally feel most at home," she said, "where everything is made by me—everything except the metaphysical human abstraction. In other words, it has to be things as they might be, but from then on, I want them to be as they ought to be. As I want to make them. I don't like being tied to the choices of other people; that is what it amounts to. When you go into cultural issues, it's really the choices of others. And I want to be in my own universe of my own abstractions, so that even the villains are stylized by me."

Ellen

In short, -Atlas Shrugged- is alternative time line fiction, which is the way I have always read it. It is my favorite genre. True alternative history fiction singles out a particular event or set of events that went differently in the alternate time line from the way they actually happened. For example, suppose Lee had won at Gettysburg. From that point on things proceed as they most likely would have had the alternative really occurred. Rand went somewhat beyond this. She became the Goddess-Creator of her (Rand)World. Still it was interesting. The main point of divergence in -Atlas Shrugged- is that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't hold, hence the atmosphere power generator is possible. Also multi ton supersonic sound generators can take off vertically into the air.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Maybe my ooh and ahhh didn't come out to her liking...

Boy, it sure looks like my ooh and ahhh didn't come off to her liking...

Michael

[Jonathan]

Well, I don't think that "abusive bitch" accurately describes any side of her. Thus I deny it. Nor do I find even your toned-down description really accurate. I'm not going to argue the issue of a fair description of Rand with you. You have your viewpoint, which I don't share. Just entering an objection to the "there's no denying."

In the past you've publicly objected to Lindsay Perigo's inappropriate aesthetic "harangues." Do you disagree that Rand also indulged in inappropriate aesthetic harangues? If so, what do you see as being the substantive difference between what Perigo does and what Rand did?

J

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Linz himself said of himself in one (or more, at least one) of his replies to Valliant when the two of them were arguing about Linz's use of "Stalinism" re ARI that he's known for using hyperbole. Was that "highbrow"?

Stuttle,

Affected highbrow, certainly.

Objectivist Liar and Hater Lindsay Perigo likes to put on his highbrow mask once in a while when he is trying to bully someone. But his purpose is mockery from bullying. Or justifying bullying. Thug-like stuff.

This is different than your highbrow pose, which comes off as having the purpose of displaying yourself to an audience as superior to the ones you talk to. Actual superiority is not the point. The image of superiority is. Snobbish academic-like stuff.

I think a lot of people have objected to the vagueness of Linz's epithets -- and that he's defended them as being precise.

Lot of people?

Heh.

More unsubstantiated crap.

Perigo has been precise. People don't want to believe it when he attacks them. He's alwaysd been very clear that it's them he's attacking, too, whether people want to believe it or not. That's the only thing I can think of that comes anywhere close to your opinion.

We can call Perigo many things, but "vague" is not one of them. Not when you read what he writes. How you can call his stuff "vague" is beyond me. Maybe your time is coming and you don't want to believe it...

Apropos, your denials are amusing to me. They fall directly in line the ARI way of doing this. Here's how it works.

You make a pattern of behavior over time that is discernible for any and all to see. Say, acting superior when it is not merited. Or attacking Barbara Branden between the lines all the time. Or the ARI fundamentalist's thing of pretending that their cult-like shenanigans are rational and speak for Ayn Rand. Then you start involving and harming innocent bystanders like Ed Younkins while promoting your respective idiotic agendas. But, as the pattern is well practiced, a hook or two of deniability is built in so you can point to it on a specific instance and claim the pattern does not exist.

But it does.

This goes for your patterns and the ARI fundy patterns. There are people--like me, but not just me--who see these patterns clearly. And I will talk about them so others can see them without your BS doublespeak, too.

Ooh, ahhh, or otherwise...

I'm at a point where I'm getting really sick of the BS. I want to do (and discuss) important things in life and society. Things that matter. Things that will make long-lasting positive differences on a large scale. The petty crap you guys do doesn't get there.

Put another way, Ayn Rand made a difference. You guys don't and never will.

Should anyone be in doubt about the patterns I have seen out of you, here is what I wrote about them before. Since the title of the present thread includes "tribal mindset," I am glad to have a logical opportunity to put them here. I believe these patterns are examples of the tribal mindset problem.

... I keep saying that what she [stuttle] says and what she does are different, but I have not given any concretes. So here are a few:

1. On the different forums, she always says she's out of time, out of health, out of whatever and will not be posting in the near future, then she posts a lot of stuff for days immediately thereafter. This is a recurring pattern and any number of threads on any of the forums can be examined to illustrate it. Those who have interacted with her for any length of time will recognize this immediately.

2. She has claimed several times she is working on a book, will start a blog, has come across an insight that will change human thinking, yada yada yada so she will be leaving "listland" to work on these projects. What she does is live in the limelight generated by other people. Since that limelight is not in such projects by her, before too long the project announced is abandoned and she contineus to post up a storm on forums trying to share in the light of others. From what she has presented so far, a reasonable conclusion is that she has no work of her own to present and never will have any.

3. She claims appreciation for an author or creator and engages in a dialogue of analysis (often outright sucking up to the person). What she does is nasty in this case. Once the limelight is on her dialogue, she suddenly and brutally turns on the person and blasts the hell out of him/her. She tries to steal the public light that is theirs and not hers. I've seen this behavior in several cases. One of the most notable and shameful was with Wolf DeVoon. But there are several others.

4. She is now claiming this and that about the seriousness of PARC. That is what she says. What she does is terrible. The following quote from an earlier post of mine gives it precisely:

I believe the Grande Dame of St. Referee Ellen Stuttle will end up embracing PARC—but with a few restrictions just to save face. I am not the only one who has seen the tide that comes and goes as she drifts closer and closer to Valliant. People are perplexed, but I am not perplexed.

Interestingly enough, to me Ayn Rand presented the best reason for this about-face. It is in The Fountainhead:

(pp. 468-469)

Ike flung his script at the fireplace. It struck against the wire screen and landed, face down, open, the thin pages crushed.

"If Ibsen can write plays, why can't I?" he asked. "He's good and I'm lousy, but that's not a sufficient reason."

"Not in the cosmic sense," said Lancelot Clokey. "Still, you're lousy."

"You don't have to say it. I said so first."

"This is a great play," said a voice.

The voice was slow, nasal and bored. It had spoken for the first time that evening, and they all turned to Ellen Jules Fougler. A cartoonist had once drawn a famous picture of him; it consisted of two sagging circles, a large one and a small one: the large one was his stomach, the small one—his lower lip. He wore a suit, beautifully tailored, of a color to which he referred as "merde d'oie." He kept his gloves on at all times and he carried a cane. He was an eminent drama critic.

Ellen Jules Fougler stretched out his cane, caught the playscript with the hook of the handle and dragged it across the floor to his feet.

He did not pick it up, but he repeated, looking down at it:

"This is a great play."

"Why?" asked Lancelot Clokey.

"Because I say so," said Ellen Jules Fougler.

"Is that a gag, Jules?" asked Lois Cook.

"I never gag," said Ellen Jules Fougler. "It is vulgar."

. . .

(p. 469)

"Ike has stated his reasons," Ellen Fougler continued. "And mine. And also yours, Lance. Examine my case, if you wish. What achievement is there for a critic in praising a good play? None whatever. The critic is then nothing but a kind of glorified messenger boy between author and public. What's there in that for me? I'm sick of it. I have a right to wish to impress my own personality upon people. Otherwise, I shall become frustrated—and I do not believe in frustration. But if a critic is able to put over a perfectly worthless play—ah, you do perceive the difference! Therefore, I shall make a hit out of—what's the name of your play, Ike?"

"No skin off your ass," said Ike.

"I beg your pardon?"

"That's the title."

"Oh, I see. Therefore, I shall make a hit out of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics No Skin Off Your Ass."

Of course, nobody can make a hit out of PARC, but that wouldn't stop someone vain from trying to bestow academic respectability to that book just to prove she had the intellectual standing and prestige to do so.

I could go on and on from observing her for several years.

Here's another. There's the BS about Frank's drinking as a ruse to try to descredit Barbara. Imagine, if she can discredit Barbara, she will have Perigo right where she wants him. She will be able to keep him fawning over her, telling/insinuating to the 4 winds she is more intelligent than he is (a really big payoff to her), and she will not have to embrace his bigotry to keep his genuflecting going and keep up an image of independent thinker at the same time. So what she says is she is in a "quest for truth." What she does is political sucking up so she can get a certain kind of applause.

I have more examples, but I am getting tired of this crap.

I would say that people who take Ellen Stuttle seriously deserve what they get, but too many who did not deserve what they got were taken in by her. What she said to them was one thing. What she did was another.

Several of these things have toned down after I wrote that. But I believe they are still there smoldering benath the surface. They are certainly there, clearly in stunning detail and abundantly out in the open, for any and all to see over your years of posting on different forums before that point.

I speculate, but maybe this new ARI-like tribal mindset you are now displaying is because you are losing reference with your older ruses and need an intellectual lifeline...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I don't think Ellen knows how she's going to feel tomorrow or next week but tends to assume the worst. Later in life polio symptoms is a tough, irregular thing.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen, Lindsay Perwrongo is a vulgar grandstanding alpha male using Ayn Rand and Objectivism as a soapbox and PARC as a sword. He's using you too and you too, him.

--Brant

Edited March 28, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

I was not discussing Stuttle's illness, nor, in the past, has she given her illness as the sole excuse to declare she will stop posting, right before a barrage of posts. Often the excuse has been because she is involved in something where she can do some righteous name-dropping.

Do you really need quotes? The Internet is full of them. You constantly posted on those places at the times she did this...

If illness were the issue, I would not be taking the positions I am taking. (On the contrary, I am far more of a gentleman than that. For example, there are several people who are Aspies on OL. Rather than bash them in Objectivist jargon, as several people do, I give them space for some of their more offbeat stuff. I even like it at times, since some of it is really outside-the-box in a cool way.)

If health were her only reason, or predominant reason, I would probably be defending her if anyone mocked her. But I am discussing a pattern of behavior that goes way beyond using health as an excuse.

Irrational vanity prancing and parading about in public and trying to damage others to show off is my main issue. (I have other issues with other people, like Perigo, the ARI fundies, etc.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael, I was making a factual statement. It was not a criticism of your other comments about Ellen. I simply do not have the time to properly participate on this thread out of or referencing your context attacking her motivations which strike me as queer and distastefully anthropological superior concerning Ayn Rand and those who were around her. Since she is little concerned about Rand's ideas, she is basically getting what she deserves here.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

I'm only going to reply on a few factual points in your psychological profile of me.

To begin with, five years ago I'd decided not to continue posting in discussion fora. That was before all the PARC stuff hit the fan. I resisted for some time saying anything about that, but then broke down and started posting about it on the SOLOHQ list. When you set up this list, I was reluctant to join it, but then did -- and have very much lived to think that I made a mistake in doing so.

My health problems are debilitating and getting worse. Brant is correct that I can't predict from day to day how I'm going to feel. In addition to the post-polio problem -- or whatever is actually causing the neurological problem; my doctors aren't sure if it's post-polio -- I'm losing the sight in my left eye, and might start to lose the sight in my right eye, and am not keen at the prospect.

I have sometimes said that I might not have time for posting in the next days, and then on a burst of energy have posted several things. A few times there's been a discussion going in which I was interested, but from which I needed to tear myself away because of time deadlines looming. Particularly difficult was to stop posting one year prior to Thanksgiving when the subject had come up of whether Susanne Langer meant Rand in a particular reference.

I never said I would start a blog. I had the thought in late 2008 of maybe starting a small discussion list for focusing on some issues of particular interest to me. (Brant, you're wrong, btw, that I have no interest in Rand's ideas. I have a great deal of interest, but not in talking about them in any of the going fora.) The verdict from my eye doctor scotched entirely the thought of running a discussion list.

As to my working on a book, yes, I am, slowly. I was making good progress prior to the PARC stuff -- and then becoming heavily involved, via Larry's involvement, with the AGW issue. I've gotten little done on it the last few years. I think I have something important to contribute pertaining to the subject of volition, but I've never made the sort of grandiose claim you attribute to me.

As to Wolf DeVoon: He kept bemoaning that no one had taken his work seriously. I was surprised by his saying this, since I thought he was verbally skilled. Eventually I read his "Freeman's Constitution," I think it's called, and understood why it hasn't received attention. The "brutally turn[ing]" on him is your evaluation.

Ellen

PS on Linz's epithets: You consider such depictions as "Saddamite" and "Pomo-wanker," etc., precise? I don't.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Jonathan,

I decline to bite at the bait.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Ellen, it's important that you consult with several eye doctors.

Diabetes?

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen, it's important that you consult with several eye doctors.

Diabetes?

--Brant

No. Slow onset macular degeneration.

Thanks for the good advice. I've already followed it.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Stuttle,

Actually, my comments are more than a psychological profile. They are identifications of patterns of your behavior. (Still, psychology-wise, nothing from you about vanity? Heh...)

I started to look up all the stuff I mentioned that you deny, but I just don't have the time. SLOP's search function is horrible, so a lot of time and several different search criteria need to be employed. I read your stuff when you wrote it, so I know it's there. If anyone out there would like to look for it and post it if they find it, I will be grateful.

However, I did come across a post from April 2006 on SLOP by John Dailey that I had not seen until now. It appears that my own perception of your patterns of behavior has been shared by others well before I started noticing them. Here's a quote:

You're sounding like Ellen Stuttle/Gould, the oh-so-very-chatty 'name-dropper' who's always (been) busy attending 'important' things most of us can't (or couldn't) attend (though she writes that she's got a prob with 'reading' all others' writings; yeah, r-i-g-h-t). Not an attractive character-trait, all things considered.

~~ As I said before: 'not nice'. If you've an actual 'argument' to make, make it; don't, like Ellen, merely innuend it.

I could have written something very much like that in my more recent comments.

Here's another pattern of behavior perception on SLOP with which I agree, this time from October 2009 by a woman who, apparently, does not like me very much, Mindy:

All your ifs, ands, and buts, hesitations, intimations of dawning insight, suspicions of newly glimpsed connections, tsking, and posing as concerned with undefined glitches and unspecified "assistances" will not turn your NOT-A into an A.

I do have one caveat. I don't agree with Mindy about you trying to "turn your NOT-A into an A." I don't think "A" is even on the radar with you. I think you are just trying to show off when you do your doublespeak routine.

I have no doubt I can find tons of other stuff like this if I start looking in earnest. But what on earth would I gain by that?

My opinions are clearly stated and so are yours. I'm probably not done yet, but I doubt you are either.

Still, I'm more than content to let the readers come to their own conclusions. I know for a fact that I'm right and you're wrong. That serves me well.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Stuttle,

Actually, my comments are more than a psychological profile. They are identifications of patterns of your behavior. (Still, psychology-wise, nothing from you about vanity? Heh...)

That's a "have you stopped beating your wife?" kind of poser, Michael.

John Dailey would probably agree with your opinion.

His post you quote -- I'm amused to notice -- was addressed to Robert Campbell.

Re Mindy's getting quite wrong what I was saying, the curious, if there are any, might want to read Brant's response to her, and mine titled "How the hell, Mindy?" -- link to the latter.

Mindy stopped posting at that time. Her reply to Brant, shortly after the post you linked, might have been her last to date on SOLO.

Ellen

Edited March 28, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle