The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

Yeah, I'm not sure what Ted Keer is getting a burr in his saddle about.

He chimed in with Kasper over yonder, while simultaneously blaming you for not moderating or banning more people over here.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

The child has just posted an email I actually did send to him when he requested help with his password. I had honestly forgotten I sent it since I do this kind administrative work almost on autopilot and it goes to my Yahoo account. So I stand corrected—partially at least. Here is the pertinent part:

I had only been in contact indirectly with MSK to sort out my password August last year. So he isn't responding when he says, "as to the hostilities", to anything that I had spoken to him about. Indeed he must have got wind that I was curious at some stage as to why the hostilities existed between leaders of the objectivist world for such a prolonged time. He sent me an email kindly sorting out my password thing and then continued to set the rules after having admitting he saw my conduct on Solo being less than desirable at times, however, noting that he appreciated my "sparks" of intellect.

Some quotes:

"As to the hostilities, I prefer you to read the information available and use your own mind to make your own judgments rather than try to sway you. I will say that I have read some of your posts on Solo Passion and I definitely see sparks of an intelligent independent mind. This is a value I hold in high regard. If you have any questions, I will be more than happy to answer them. Should you post anything requiring explanation, I will, of course, post back with my version and my understanding of events. Please read the information in this section for poster guidelines and so forth. It is not very much to read.

http://www.objectivistliving.c...

You are more than free to post questions to Barbara on OL and disagree with her all you wish should you wish. The only restriction is that I do not allow on OL character assassination—things like charges of dishonesty, vulgar name-calling, heckling and so forth—the standard litany abundantly available on SOLOP. Should you ever feel the itch to do that, there are plenty of places on the Internet available to scratch it. OL is one of Barbara's online homes and I require that visitors respect that and act just as they would act in her physical home. This means practicing good manners in general, but especially toward her."

Quite frankly I didn't even mind MSK sending me that email. It just made me frown a little and step back and watch. What I have critisized MSK for, the conclusions of my observations, is that he overly controls what can and can't be said on OL which again I say is highly oppressive.

The child "didn't mind"?

He didn't mind that I replied to an email he sent me?!!!

Dayaamm!

Thank goodness for small miracles...

I don't know how "oppressive," much less "highly oppressive" that email can be interpreted to be, anyway, but I do give the child points for presenting my words as I remember writing them (I did not check, but they sound accurate enough). I see nothing wrong with having brought up the hostilities between the forums, especially the part about Barbara in light of SLOP's disgraceful nonstop campaign against her. Also, OL has had posters come here and start trashing things right off the bat. That's what SLOP does constantly, so anyone coming from there needs a little extra attention at first if they get in contact.

Frankly, in light of the hacker attacks OL has suffered, not to mention Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo's incessant irrational nastiness, I would be a fool not to do this.

Now here is the part (the other part of "partially") where I do not stand corrected, quoting the child once again from his earlier post:

It's funny how dissent is so intolerated by the OL folk. The moment I signed up I had a Warning email from MSK informing me that I'd better conduct myself in a friendly manner or else.

Only a person intent on an incorrect presentation of events can say something like this (even bolding the word "warning") in reference to an administrative email reply with a request to read the guidelines and my comments like, "I prefer you to read the information available and use your own mind to make your own judgments rather than try to sway you."

I don't know whether I'm sorry for calling the child a liar or not. His intention to be accurate certainly was not honest.

I can't do anything about the past, but I can about the future. Let's help the young man out and end this dilemma should it ever come up again. Let's not disappoint him to boot.

Previously I had said that practicing good manners, especially toward Barbara (in agreement or disagreement) was required. BUT NOW.... (drum roll...) In light of his current attitude, should he ever wish to use his account and post on OL, let me state publicly that he'd better conduct himself in a friendly manner or else!!!!!!!!

Nyah.

So there.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Wait! What about me?

--Brant

hideously unfriendly

[Dragonfly]

He also writes:

One can observe, without posting there, that people's posts are being edited and are threatened to be edited on a constant basis.

Huh? That's new to me! Now it's no secret that I'm critical about what sometimes happens on this forum, but that people's posts are edited? Yes, by themselves of course, but that's hardly surprising. He obviously suggests that they are edited by a moderator. Well, that hasn't even happened to me ever. The fantasy of some Objectivists knows no bounds...

[Brant Gaede]

I think Michael doesn't have the time to edit.

--Brant

gets away with much too much here

[jeffrey smith]

Michael, for what it's worth

You are more than free to post questions to Barbara on OL and disagree with her all you wish should you wish. The only restriction is that I do not allow on OL character assassination—things like charges of dishonesty, vulgar name-calling, heckling and so forth—the standard litany abundantly available on SOLOP. Should you ever feel the itch to do that, there are plenty of places on the Internet available to scratch it. OL is one of Barbara's online homes and I require that visitors respect that and act just as they would act in her physical home. This means practicing good manners in general, but especially toward her.

does fit the general description of being a warning that he should conduct himself in friendly manner. Perhaps he just doesn't realize that being a regular member of SOLOP is prima facie evidence that such a warning is needed.

It's rather depressing to meet a group of people like they are there: people who desperately want "the unveiling of the company of heaven" despite the fact that they don't believe the company of heaven exists, and who don't seem to understand that if you want the company of heaven to unveil for you, you need to do some heavy lifting on your own before you can benefit from the unveiling.

BTW, the logic should be obvious: You lived in Brazil. Brazil is a South American country that has a leftist president. Therefore you like Chavez. In SOLOP-style thinking, that's an argument that admits no refutation.

Edited October 6, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jeff,

Nah. I didn't tell him to be friendly. Merely to use good manners. It is entirely possible to use good manners and not be friendly.

But there's a bit of history involved. Since PARC has been promoted so heavily on SLOP, a word of advice about Barbara is usually needed to new arrivals coming from those quarters. Back when I made the policy of not bashing Barbara on OL (but it being OK to disagree with her), there was a small group of people surrounding PARC who would go to any place the Brandens were mentioned online and flood the site with post after post of anti-Branden vitriol. So OL became a kind of sanctuary against all that.

Now, imagine.

One site against the entire Internet.

OL won.

That really happened.

The irrational Branden-haters did not discredit Barbara, but discredited themselves instead. After the episode on Wikipedia where the Valliants and a crony or two finally came out from behind their aliases and their manipulations saw the light of day, the anti-Branden vitriol has practically dried up on the web except for SLOP. In 2008, the Wikipedia episode had not yet happened.

Nowadays, the restriction on bashing the Brandens is not really needed. But I don't release it because certain idiots would interpret this as an invitation.

So this is the context for that comment. It wasn't a warning in the normal sense of the word.

The young man Kaspar who called it a warning made it appear like he signed up on OL and I immediately got in touch with him to bully him and let him know who was boss in order to throw my weight around. Call it what you wish, though. He knew what he was doing and this is the exact image he tried to paint in his first post.

That's a lie and he knew it was a lie when he said it.

On the Chavez affair, Mr. Keer's attitudes toward South America in general have been an irritant to me. Imagine if you were black and you kept coming across a person who kept talking about the benefits a "token negro" was getting in a certain situation. Then, when you complained about the "token negro" part, to knock it off, he would keep pointing to the benefits and saying how much better off the "token negro" was now instead of being without the benefits. And this happend over and over.

Keer rubs me that way when he talks about South America.

The USA attitude of treating South America as a backyard junk pile for dumping stuff they cannot sell here and a source of dirt-cheap raw materials and slave dirt-cheap labor is reflected clearly in his attitude. To be fair, he has not dealt specifically with commerce and labor in these terms, but he insists on using the identical arguments and standards that the ugly Americans I mentioned have done, while making excuses for the deplorable habit of the USA governement having been in bed with South American dictators and having training their secret police forces. Those secret services have massacred their own citizens in droves at the order of their respective dictators. (See the Condor operation for one case.)

I have tried to explain to Keer how offensive to South Americans justifying this is, but he is deaf to it. I even tried to explain that Chavez (and others) has gained power as a direct result of this and keeps his power with popular support because he is not the way he is portrayed here in the USA (and that does not mean he is good), but Keer sees it in oversimplified terms where South Americans are not treated as who they really are, but instead as some sort of "token Hispanic" stereotype. (Incidentally, Chavez is trying to become a tinpot dictator, but it's a bit more complicated than painting him like a Hitler or a Castro. His power is not nearly as secure for one thing.)

The last conflict was when Keer kept talking about what a good guy Pinochet was. I am friends with people who lost loved ones under Pinochet's massacres. That man was murdering scum and I see red when I hear people excusing that crap because he hired (on a fluke) people associated with Milton Friedman and Chile's economy improved as a result. That's the old ends justifies the means argument painted in all shades of blood. It pains me to see that called Objectivism and I say so very clearly.

Since we have clashed on these issues, Keer calls me a Chavez-lover.

Michael

[jeffrey smith]

Jeff,

Nah. I didn't tell him to be friendly. Merely to use good manners. It is entirely possible to use good manners and not be friendly.

But there's a bit of history involved. Since PARC has been promoted so heavily on SLOP, a word of advice about Barbara is usually needed to new arrivals coming from those quarters. Back when I made the policy of not bashing Barbara on OL (but it being OK to disagree with her), there was a small group of people surrounding PARC who would go to any place the Brandens were mentioned online and flood the site with post after post of anti-Branden vitriol. So OL became a kind of sanctuary against all that.

Now, imagine.

One site against the entire Internet.

OL won.

That really happened.

The irrational Branden-haters did not discredit Barbara, but discredited themselves instead. After the episode on Wikipedia where the Valliants and a crony or two finally came out from behind their aliases and their manipulations saw the light of day, the anti-Branden vitriol has practically dried up on the web except for SLOP. In 2008, the Wikipedia episode had not yet happened.

Nowadays, the restriction on bashing the Brandens is not really needed. But I don't release it because certain idiots would interpret this as an invitation.

So this is the context for that comment. It wasn't a warning in the normal sense of the word.

The young man Kaspar who called it a warning made it appear like he signed up on OL and I immediately got in touch with him to bully him and let him know who was boss in order to throw my weight around. Call it what you wish, though. He knew what he was doing and this is the exact image he tried to paint in his first post.

That's a lie and he knew it was a lie when he said it.

On the Chavez affair, Mr. Keer's attitudes toward South America in general have been an irritant to me. Imagine if you were black and you kept coming across a person who kept talking about the benefits a "token negro" was getting in a certain situation. Then, when you complained about the "token negro" part, to knock it off, he would keep pointing to the benefits and saying how much better off the "token negro" was now instead of being without the benefits. And this happend over and over.

Keer rubs me that way when he talks about South America.

The USA attitude of treating South America as a backyard junk pile for dumping stuff they cannot sell here and a source of dirt-cheap raw materials and slave dirt-cheap labor is reflected clearly in his attitude. To be fair, he has not dealt specifically with commerce and labor in these terms, but he insists on using the identical arguments and standards that the ugly Americans I mentioned have done, while making excuses for the deplorable habit of the USA governement having been in bed with South American dictators and having training their secret police forces. Those secret services have massacred their own citizens in droves at the order of their respective dictators. (See the Condor operation for one case.)

I have tried to explain to Keer how offensive to South Americans justifying this is, but he is deaf to it. I even tried to explain that Chavez (and others) has gained power as a direct result of this and keeps his power with popular support because he is not the way he is portrayed here in the USA (and that does not mean he is good), but Keer sees it in oversimplified terms where South Americans are not treated as who they really are, but instead as some sort of "token Hispanic" stereotype. (Incidentally, Chavez is trying to become a tinpot dictator, but it's a bit more complicated than painting him like a Hitler or a Castro. His power is not nearly as secure for one thing.)

The last conflict was when Keer kept talking about what a good guy Pinochet was. I am friends with people who lost loved ones under Pinochet's massacres. That man was murdering scum and I see red when I hear people excusing that crap because he hired (on a fluke) people associated with Milton Friedman and Chile's economy improved as a result. That's the old ends justifies the means argument painted in all shades of blood. It pains me to see that called Objectivism and I say so very clearly.

Since we have clashed on these issues, Keer calls me a Chavez-lover.

Michael

Michael--

Thanks for the background info (although I still feel your message to Kaspar qualifies as a "warning".) Unfortunately, there are a substantial number of "conservatives" who think that any deviation from the standard narrative about American involvement in Latin America--any acknowledgment of what actually happened--is a sign of an out and out leftist mentality. I guess it is still important to note that American filibustering there started mainly with Southerners who wanted to add territories into which they could expand the slave economy.

[Selene]

Folks:

I have absolutely no ties to the "internecine period" of the objectivism wars, circa 1968 - 2009. I do admit to knowing the Branden's having attended NBI in the 1960's. I also had an interview with Nathanial which I am sure he does not remember lol concerning my thesis on the Objectivist movement.

I can attest that there has never been any hint or perception of censorship coming from Michael since I have joined this forum.

Frankly, I can be exceptionally obnoxious when I am in full rhetoric mode. There were times, where, in retrospect, I thought I went way beyond the line and I e-mailed Michael and offered to sheath my daggers so as not to distract from the thread.

He gave me a solid cogent answer.

That's my testimony. Feel free to quote in on that other site.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Since I took my head out of my projects to follow this stuff, I might as well have some fun. The young man Kaspar just wrote (to Robert Campbell about Perigo and Solo Passion):

Quite frankly a passionate, intelligent and convicting man like Perigo would probably do people like you some good.

Whilst Perigo is the founder of both this site and the libertarianz party, he's extremely intelligent, speaks with conviction and wishes to tackle and convict people who fall into the trap of repairing to intrinsic and concrete bound epistemologies in the face egoism, value-swooning and spiritual values, he never the less, is not infallible.

Wow!

Sounds like one hell of a good dude and a great man to boot. A fearless crusader for all that's good and decent and a might-endowed awe-inspiring remedy for all those worthless vermin with compromise in their souls savaging this poor earth. There's even a hint of charming humility.

What can we do to honor him?

Hmmmmm...

Eureka!

I know!

Let's make him an Objectivist Leader!

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Michael,

I think you meant to attribute the quotation to Kasper. If Lindsay Perigo were praising himself through a sock puppet, the style would be different

The praise is indeed rather fulsome.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I corrected it...

Sort of...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

I think you meant to attribute the quotation to Kasper. If Lindsay Perigo were praising himself through a sock puppet, the style would be different

The praise is indeed rather fulsome.

Robert Campbell

You shouldn't use big words like "fulsome." The SOLOPers might think it a compliment.

--Brant

[Selene]

Michael,

I think you meant to attribute the quotation to Kasper. If Lindsay Perigo were praising himself through a sock puppet, the style would be different

The praise is indeed rather fulsome.

Robert Campbell

You shouldn't use big words like "fulsome." The SOLOPers might think it a compliment.

--Brant

Brant:

Another advantage of OL, literate use of words which add to everyone's enhancement.

I did not know the actually meaning, but, in the context used, it sure did not sound real good lol.

Main Entry: ful·some Pronunciation: \ˈfu̇l-səm\Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English fulsom copious, cloying, from full + -som -someDate: 13th century 1 a : characterized by abundance : copious <describes in fulsome detail — G. N. Shuster> <fulsome bird life. The feeder overcrowded — Maxine Kumin> b : generous in amount, extent, or spirit <the passengers were fulsome in praise of the plane's crew — Don Oliver> <a fulsome victory for the far left — Bruce Rothwell> <the greetings have been fulsome, the farewells tender — Simon Gray> c : being full and well developed <she was in generally fulsome, limpid voice — Thor Eckert, Jr.>

2 : aesthetically, morally, or generally offensive <fulsome lies and nauseous flattery — William Congreve> <the devil take thee for a…fulsome rogue — George Villiers>

3 : exceeding the bounds of good taste : overdone <the fulsome chromium glitter of the escalators dominating the central hall — Lewis Mumford>

4 : excessively complimentary or flattering : effusive <an admiration whose extent I did not express, lest I be thought fulsome — A. J. Liebling>

— ful·some·ly adverb

— ful·some·ness noun

usage The senses shown above are the chief living senses of fulsome. Sense 2, which was a generalized term of disparagement in the late 17th century, is the least common of these. Fulsome became a point of dispute when sense 1, thought to be obsolete in the 19th century, began to be revived in the 20th. The dispute was exacerbated by the fact that the large dictionaries of the first half of the century missed the beginnings of the revival. Sense 1 has not only been revived but has spread in its application and continues to do so. The chief danger for the user of fulsome is ambiguity. Unless the context is made very clear, the reader or hearer cannot be sure whether such an expression as “fulsome praise” is meant in sense 1b or in sense

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

people who fall into the trap of repairing to intrinsic and concrete bound epistemologies

This sounds suspiciously close to meaning people who are foolish enough to pay attention to actual facts

And what's a convicting man? Someone who pronounces the guilty verdict at the start of the trial? Or a Baptist style preacher denouncing the sins of his audience at a revival (which would at least fit Perigo's style, and most of his substance)?

Jeff S.

[Robert Campbell]

Jeff S,

I'm pretty sure Kasper meant to say that Lindsay Perigo is "convincing," not "convicting." But the latter may actually be the better choice.

The reference to "intrinsic and concrete-bound epistemologies" suggests that Kasper has been trying to learn Objectivist epistemology from a teacher whose grasp of that particular subject has always been tenuous.

Robert C

[Brant Gaede]

Kasper has some trouble with the English language--or he writes fast and doesn't edit.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> I do not allow on OL character assassination—things like charges of dishonesty, vulgar name-calling, heckling [MSK's policies]

Mchael, you heckle people on this list. You call them dishonest. And you call them names.

You are the owner and thus have a leadership role here. So you have to control yourself better.

[Selene]

> I do not allow on OL character assassination—things like charges of dishonesty, vulgar name-calling, heckling [MSK's policies]

Mchael, you heckle people on this list. You call them dishonest. And you call them names.

You are the owner and thus have a leadership role here. So you have to control yourself better.

OH RUN, all us weak spined little pussies will run and hide from the brutal tongue lashings of Michael the Malicious Machiavellian Mensch.

Come on Phil strap on some intellectual pads and get in the game.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

I have to?

No I don't.

But I do try to be fair.

And I don't heckle.

I admit I do give preachers a hard time when they try to spread their dogma here and game this forum doing it.

But want to see what I do with garbage? Keep up the garbage...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Speaking of garbage, Robert Campbell made a very penetrating summary of some of the highlight of Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo's self-proclaimed "Objectivist Leader" career. (And I have that self-proclamation in an email from the self-proclaimer.) Here is the post:

You have described Lindsay Perigo as he would most like to be described—as an Objectivist leader. (Although calling him "convicting" instead of "convincing" might give some people the wrong impression.)

Unfortunately, Mr. Perigo's past accomplishments, in promoting libertarianism in New Zealand, have been overshadowed by a series of major screwups and disreputable actions:

— Driving off or alienating many of those who wrote articles for The Free Radical

— Either working behind the scenes to get Jim Peron kicked out of New Zealand (Jim Peron's version) or loudly applauding those who actually worked behind the scenes to get Jim Peron kicked out of New Zealand (Mr. Perigo's version)

— Losing the support of Barbara Branden, who decided that he wasn't Objectivist leader material, and conducting a loud, nasty public feud against her for four years without stopping

— Joining forces with a master of smarm, sleaze, self-undermining self-promotion, and poorly researched writing on a contentious topic, Jim Valliant, in order to get back at Barbara Branden

— Alienating Joe Rowlands, who withdrew his support of SOLOHQ, then publicly accusing Mr. Rowlands of fraud

— Alienating Michael Stuart Kelly, who started another rival forum, and has been a target of Perigonian invective ever since

— Teaming up with Jim Valliant, Diana Hsieh, and Joe Maurone in an attempt to destroy the reputation of Chris Sciabarra

— Reneging on an invitation to speak at the 2006 TAS Summer Seminar

— Giving a loony oration in praise of Objectivist rage to a teeming crowd of 12 at a bookstore

— Publicly calling for the assassination of Barack Obama (and retaining assassination as an option in one of his polls after he officially retracted his initial statement)

— Repeatedly referring to those who do not share his musical likes and dislikes as "poo eaters"

— Unrepentantly chortling over the early death of Frank Zappa

— And keeping up an interminable fusillade of gross, crude, obnoxious, childish invective, launched at anyone who has ever displeased him at any time in any respect

May Galt spare Objectivism from such leaders.

Every bit of this is online and there are still those who ignore it and give it a pass.

I choose not to. It's disgusting and it's garbage.

(Or... Maybe if we just don't talk about it, it will go away and not happen anymore... After all, there is a world perishing in an orgy of irrationalism to save in the name of Objectivism forever and ever amen... And Perigo, if he ever gets his act together, can lead us all to the heavenly shores of reason...)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let's hear from the other side, shall we? Perigo at his most rational:

I do believe ...

Fri, 2009-10-09 13:09.

... that in the last couple of weeks we've seen the victory of Rand over the Brandens, which, post-Parc was tentative, become decisive. It's clear that the new bios cannot swing the pendulum back to the Brandens (even assuming that's their intention, which it isn't), whose self-serving Rand-diminution enjoyed unchallenged supremacy for 20 years thanks to the pig-headed, dogmatist, rationalistic snottiness of the orthodoxy. We all now realise that if a Burns or a Heller faults Rand for a certain trait, her evaluation is probably informed by conventionality: precisely the same conventionality that Rand famously rejected and ought not be judged by. The Brandens and the Brandroids will seize upon such faultings, but their proclamations of vindication will ring hollow. Fact is, we saw the real Rand via her diaries in PARC. We saw the true extent of the awful venality of the Brandens via those same diaries, and were made to realise it has continued to this day. The Brandroid camp is now in complete disarray, defending the likes of pedophiles while smearing Rand's defenders with any old arbitrary lie it can dream up. Evidently the Prof is throwing in the towel, a disgrace to his profession, his university and the concept of academic rigor. Parille too seems to have crawled back under his rock. Nathan the Psychobabsling Charlatan still seeks salvation below the waist. Babs is simply psycho, pseudo-living from smear to smear while a cokehead poseur from the gutters of Brazil musters up a few dysfunctional misanthropes to defend and worship her on a cybershrine. What a sorry and sordid spectacle. The mystery for future commentators will be: why did such lice come anywhere near Objectivism in the first place?

I say whoever wants that kind of hate-speech and disconnect from reality as exemplifying the good in their lives deserves it.

Michael

[Michelle]

I don't personally see a problem with ridicule or negative criticism as long as it is legitimate (i.e. focuses on ideas and actions) and contextually appropriate (it is meaningful within the given conversation and has a purpose other than sheer malevolence). Many will claim that character assessments are legitimate (i.e. a person makes a habit of lying, so you call him a "liar"), but I think that most of the time this is not contextually appropriate. If a person's personal honor is the point of the discussion, then noting that the person is liar is legitimate and contextually appropriate. Most of the time, however, it is done out of sheer mean-spiritedness. I won't instruct others how to behave when it is their business and not mine, but I don't see why I should treat a person who constantly ridicules out of a pure spirit of malevolence any different than I treat a bratty child that throws a fit.

Edited October 11, 2009 by Michelle R

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michelle,

I agree with you.

If it were only cussing, I wouldn't mind so much, myself. Kindergarten spats are very difficult to take seriously. The hard part to swallow is when these folks play the victim and some onlookers (generally a small number) take this crap seriously. It's galling if I respect or like the onlooker. It's like he or she can't see something that I see.

Here's the pattern. It's easily observable, but there have been too many instances for far too long to cite:

1. Some people band together under the banner of Rand, usually around a leader of some kind.

2. They choose a scapegoat. Sometimes it is a celebrity like Michael Moore or President Obama. Sometimes it is a group of people like Muslims or Libertarians. Sometimes it is someone who disagrees with parts of Objectivism or who is critical of Rand's behavior in one issue or another. Most often the leader chooses the scapegoat and others simply follow.

3. They publish a barrage of nasty irrational stuff against the scapegoat wherever they have the energy and/or competence to go, literally trying to bully anyone and everyone within reading distance to hate as they hate—to either adopt their party line, or get silent, or get used to themselves being cussed and/or mocked nonstop in public, often in really vile terms.

4. In the case of celebrities or groups, nothing happens. Zilch. Nada. The nastiness is not as effective as a burp on a windy day. The world generally has a poor opinion of the Objectivist subculture, so when Objectivists (or people who call themselves that) scapegoat celebrities or large groups, it rarely registers on the radar. The overwhelming majority of the time it's as if nothing at all has happened—as if nothing at all has been published against them by the bullies.

5. In the case of disagreeer scapegoats who do take the Objectivist subculture seriously, at times the barrage of vitriol has injured some of them. Chris Sciabarra and Jim Peron come to mind.

Now comes the interesting part.

6. Lots of people watching this get sick of the bullying, but they don't know what to do about it. Many understandably wish to avoid being a target of malicious mudslinging campaigns themselves. So they keep their peace. Then along comes someone like me (but I am not the only one) and simply stands up to the bullies, saying knock it off, publishing fact-based rebuttals, and, when a limit has been reached, condemning their misbehavior and character on strong moral grounds.

7. Oodles of silent people suddenly find their thoughts reflected in this and many appear with more information, opinions, condemnation of the bullying, etc.

8. The credibility of the bullies gets shot to hell and they actually get damaged at times. Lectures get canceled. They get restricted on places like Wikipedia. Practically all active support from other allegedly friendly sites and venues dries up. Things like that.

Now the payoff.

9. The bullies, now with their asses kicked, start crying and howling that they are victims in the same breath they crow that they are victorious—then go back to crying and howling that that they have been treated unfairly by the world and by the hero diminishers and by yada yada yada. A bunch of crap like that goes on and quickly diminishes until the dust settles.

Then there is silence toward them in the subcommunity. People don't mention them anymore. Time passes.

When the silence becomes unbearable and they get lonely for attention, they start the sequence all over again—with an old scapegoat or a new one. It doesn't matter.

Along the way in all this, some people chime in with the message of "Can't we all just get along?" A bit of flaming sometimes happens before the final fizzle.

Then the world keeps on turning as if to underscore the fact that nothing of importance has transpired. Nothing of importance at all.

The Objectivist world has been doing this ever since Rand died, probably before. I don't see it stopping anytime soon.

Michael

EDIT: btw - Take a look at the productive achievements of these bullies.

Can't find too much?

Hmmmmmm...

Maybe they should reread Atlas Shrugged or something and see if they ever get it...

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If anyone wishes to see more foolishness on SLOP, Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo is threatening to sue Robert Campbell over the following statement:

The reason that Ayn Rand's use of Benzedrine is getting publicity, and Frank O'Connor's drinking is not, is that Mr. O'Connor's drinking hasn't been news since 1986, whereas Barbara Branden sought to downplay the effects of amphetamine consumption on Ms. Rand's attitudes and behavior.

Of course, the answer that Mr. Perigo is after has very little to do with Frank O'Connor. Mr. Perigo is desperately seeking an answer according to which he, personally, could never have a drinking problem.

Read the posts that ensue on SLOP if you want a hoot.

Irrespective of any other consideration (like, maybe, how in hell is this libel?), this is a statement Perigo allowed to be published on his own site. He wants to sue someone for something he himself published?

Dayaamm!

"Bonehead" doesn't even begin to describe this level of disconnection from reality, ignorance of law (NZ and USA), and sheer childishness.

Oh... I forgot... Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo is an Objectivist Leader aspirant who is reputed (and has been from several quarters) to have been seen in different episodes of inebriation to... er... great distraction. There's even stuff like that in his biography by Coddington, for God's sake (hotly denied by him therein, of course). How can a shepard gather a flock if people think he is sucking down the sauce, right?

I swear, that's probably the only thing keeping people from holding Jabba up as mankind's rational savior.

Bastards!

But inquiring minds do seek edification. Why does the issue of heavy drinking plague Jabba so much throughout his history? It must be because there is a conspiracy afoot to keep such rational passion from assuming the Objectivist Leader throne.

That shore mus' be it...

On this score, we may apply to Objectivist Liar Lindsay Perigo the wise innuendo words of one Madeleine Flannagan about Jim Peron when she so astutely proclaimed, [he] "has the worst luck of anyone I know - everyone is out to get him."

Michael