News: Goddess of the Market by Jennifer Burns

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil, will you please stop psychologizing?

How dare you presume anyone writes anything over here to prove they are better than SLOP?

OL posters are not the equivalent of Ellen Stuttle, who only posts for that kind of vain reason...

(Go on. Keep up the crap and it's going to get worse...)

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Phil,

Please give the charges of "psychologizing" a rest.

As Ayn Rand attempted to define it, psychologizing means drawing unwarranted conclusions about other people's motives. (The notion was problematic from the git-go, because had she applied it in a fair and balanced manner, she would have had to admit her own frequent past indulgences in the very practice that she now sought to condemn.)

Did you establish that Dragonfly, Brant, and I made unwarranted statements about the motives of Messrs. Valliant and Perigo?

No, you merely presumed that they were unwarranted, in calling the various things we said "psychologizing."

If you want to know why I think Lindsay Perigo suddenly banned Neil Parille and me so we wouldn't rain on Jim Valiiant's parade, you could ask me. (Same goes for asking Brant and Dragonfly.)

It's not as though I wouldn't be able to explain how I arrived at this conclusion, or why I deem my reasoning sound. I have close to five years of online experience with Lindsay Perigo and Jim Valliant to draw on. I did not start out imputing these kinds of motives to either one of them, but I made some generalizations over time about the way they operate, through a process called learning.

Of course, you might disagree with my case. You might even be able to poke holes in it.

But asking why, instead of peremptorily condemning, would much more closely resemble the civil discourse that you take me and others to task for not engaging in...

Robert Campbell

Well put on the accusations of "psychologizing" - in this case, and so many others which have preceded it, made by so many over the years.

As Rand said, in "The Psychology of Psychologizing," . . .

"Psychologizing consists in condemning or excusing specific inividuals on the grounds of their psychological problems, real or invented, in the absence of or contrary to factual evidence."

The last clause is vital. The introduction of the concept was never intended by Rand to give a free pass to those who would inflict their psychological problems on others.

It has turned out to be a pretty slippery concept, witness Philip's recent post...

Bill P

Edited January 23, 2010 by Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

It seems Phil sees Objectivism as a "City On a Hill," and most "Objectivists" as unworthy, but not him. If we could only have the city without the people--some kind of philosophical/psychological neutron bomb required.

--Brant

not one of the anointed, not one of the priests

Edited January 23, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Just an added thought.

I have often wondered whether Phil has haunted Objectivist boards for years preaching "Civility in Our Time" because this makes him feel good and superior to the others on the respective boards.

(I'm a friend of civility, of course, but not civility at all costs.)

There's another component, too. Objectivism attracts "loner against the whole world" types who are happy to act when opportunities appear where they can present what martyrs they are to the whole world.

One of the essences of a Randian hero is being a virtuous loner against the evil collective (or indifferent one at best). He stands firm for his convictions, irrespective of the price. The other side to that coin, though, the loser side, is wallowing in the sentiment of being a martyr. Martyrdom is such a romantic image, nevermind that self-sacrifice is not an Objectivist virtue.

Perigo is a prime example of that, especially in his frequenty presented "it doesn't matter if I'm the last man standing" fantasies and the "ohhhh, the bastards, the rotten bastards!" fantasies (said--in a variety of manners--when losing).

I have seen Phil act more than once according to this script. More than once he has offended large groups of people with his psychologizing of them under the guise of lecturing them only to be moderated, banned, etc.

This makes him a martyr for all that is good and noble.

Thus, may he be the only one with a flame carring the torch of Objectivism forward while the unwashed masses giving lip service to Objectivism just don't get it.

It's so hard... so hard... when all those little suckers just won't act right...

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

There's another component, too. Objectivism attracts "loner against the whole world" types who are happy to act when opportunities appear where they can present what martyrs they are to the whole world.

One of the essences of a Randian hero is being a virtuous loner against the evil collective (or indifferent one at best). He stands firm for his convictions, irrespective of the price. The other side to that coin, though, the loser side, is wallowing in the sentiment of being a martyr. Martyrdom is such a romantic image, nevermind that self-sacrifice is not an Objectivist virtue.

Completely agree.

This is one of the very "special" and potentially fatal parts of "O"jectivism. There is an element of the semantic of the philosophy of "O"bjectivism that attracts very intelligent "victimization" personalities.

It is consistently reinforced by every regular run of the mill "failures" which occur to humans. The most often cited example is a Hall of Famer like Babe Ruth, or Lou Gehrig, had lifetime batting averages of .342 and .341 respectively [close guess] means that they "failed" two thirds of the time. The other example is Edison failed 1,000 times before he succeeded.

There is something heroic about a martyr by the very nature of sacrificing the "ultimate" value, one's life. And who holds that value "the highest", but the "O"bjectivist!

Frankly, there is nothing so boring as an "old martyr" who is still alive talking about the time they did x or y and ...................then they play their "tape" and most semi conscious folk's eyes glaze over.

It is very sad.

Adam

be kind to victims week never works for me

Edited January 23, 2010 by Selene

[BaalChatzaf]

.

The other example is Edison failed 1,000 times before he succeeded.

Edison succeeded 1000 times in showing what does not work. When viewed correctly there are few things that are total failures.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

1.) Brant, Michael, and Selene, having learned nothing from my posts, repeat the exact same process they use with Valliant, Perigo, Ellen S, etc., of primarily belittling or vilifying the man rather than carefully addressing the ideas he presents. Only directing it at me this time: my age and my lack of influence. And claiming (or "speculating", which is the same error) that my motives are not the truth, not that I really believe what I'm saying but am doing it to gain satisfaction by being superior or a martyr.

[i'm not an ally of Mr. Valliant or Mr. Perigo, but probably the lowest thing I've seen on these boards is a personal attack post by Brant strongly implying that Jim Valliant had been faking a serious illness. Why? Because he was now well enough to make a long and detailed post.]

2.) Robert and Bill P (and Jeff R, earlier), by contrast at least offered arguments against my ideas, instead of a personal 'takedown'. They claimed either that I'm misusing a term (psychologizing, ad hominem) or that it's valid to make personal attacks or question motives if one has evidence or proof.

( I won't respond to personal vilification, but will respond to these last points a bit later today. )

Edited January 23, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Proof, Distraction, Necessity

In response to the point that I'm misusing the terms psychologizing or ad hominem, in both cases the terms have widened through usage. They -are- used in the extended senses that I use. Which is legitimate - usages expand. And it's clear in the context what I mean by them: inappropriately focusing on people's psychology or attempting to presume one knows their motives and that that is the relevant focus rather than the ideas or positions they have -and- attacking the man, not the idea.

In response to this from Robert, "Did you establish that Dragonfly, Brant, and I made unwarranted statements...five years of online experience with Lindsay Perigo and Jim Valliant...I made some generalizations over time about the way they operate":

There are three interconnected things wrong with attacks on personal motives or character.

1. PROOF: You are often claiming knowledge you don't have or which is hard to prove. 2. DISTRACTION: It distracts people from the argument and from what you have to say on that. 3. NECESSITY: It's unnecessary: You don't have to do it if you can thoroughly demolish the argument of the opponent.

Point 1 - PROOF. There are many ways in which someone can innocently make what you view as huge, massive mistakes. Within the sphere of Objectivist disputes, one prominent one is to be blinded by rage, to be so angry at your opponent that you don't even hear them. Or to 'skim' and misstate the point - not intentionally but through laziness. Or what I call 'emotionalist partisanship' - you are so committed to your side in an emotional package deal, that you don't absorb the weight of an argument or focus on picking a nit. Or, in claiming the opponent is evil or dishonest or 'ridiculous' so you don't have to listen to him, or sanction his presence.

If Mr. Valliant or Mr. Perigo makes a huge mistake or overlooks evidence, or they think Mr. Campbell or Mr. Parille or Barbara B. do, dishonesty is not the only possible explanation. People have all sorts of blind spots. They also have defenses. The likelihood that Brant or Selene or MSK or others will -cease- making personal attacks is small. That doesn't mean I can conclude they are willfully evading or being dishonest. Misguided or foolish or 'emotionalist' or a sloppy thinker are very different from being of bad character.

(I won't defend it here, but I think all the people on both sides of these Oist internal debates are moral, but they are often very very blind or foolish or incapable of logic.)

Even if you were right that, for example, someone doesn't really believe what he is saying and simply wanting to be a big shot (or, as was alleged wrt Diana H, wants to curry favor with the powerful, to be on the winning side), it is hard to demonstrate, because they wouldn't say so and you'd have to systematically rebut all the alternative 'honest error' explanations. Claiming it loudly and angrily - or cynically, humorously, snarkily - as so many people do on -both sides- of these endless tong wars doesn't make it so.

Point 2 - DISTRACTION. No one who is a responsible person who has not been heavily involved across years with the personalities you are vilifying is going to just instantly believe what you say about your opponent's character or motives. They are not going to believe it just because you say so, and you've made thoughtful posts on other subjects. The mere fact that you are endlessly focused on this, are trading put downs and personal attacks will damage your credibility and cause you (or even Objectivism in the eyes of outsiders) to not be taken seriously more broadly. Why is this person focused on this? Doesn't he have arguments to make instead, couldn't he use his time on that, or is his case week? This is particularly true of those who are outsiders, web surfers, the general public, those new to Objectivism.

Plus, people don't have unlimited time to pursue a subject. If you make them take time to consider the honesty or character or responsibility of the person as a topic, that is less time they will have to consider, especially if the subject is multi-faceted or complex, whether the positions of the person are right or wrong, supported by evidence or not.

Point 3 - NECESSITY. If you can refute the arguments or rebut the evidence for your opponent's position, you don't need to say on top of that he's a knave and a varlet. And, if fact, if the position is so completely devastated and impartial, people will wonder all by themselves if the persons propounding them are fools or knaves or moronic. Ayn Rand accomplished nothing by claiming Kant was the most evil man in history, -even if it were true-. Even if she could know that and could prove he could not have been in honest error. What's relevant and of overriding importance is that his central metaphysics is false, destructive to man's capacity to know and think. Not if he saw that himself. Which you can't know anyway. All she did is undercut her own credibility and make outsiders think she was a silly, emotional, mud-flinging woman whose ideas don't requre serious and careful attention. It was unnecessary - she has thoroughly rebutted those ideas of his that were so destructive (e.g., reason has no direct contact with reality). What difference does it make if yu can refute them whether he honestly believed his ideas or was out deliberately to destroy civilization.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1.) Brant, Michael, and Selene, having learned nothing from my posts, repeat the exact same process they use with Valliant, Perigo, Ellen S, etc., of primarily belittling or vilifying the man rather than carefully addressing the ideas he presents.

I stopped reading right there.

I didn't read the other post.

I have no intention of doing so, either.

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Post #533 is probably one of my best posts.

I subdivide the issues into three parts, rather than intermingling them all in one 'lump'. Or, on the other hand, leaving them scattered across my many 'civility' and effective persuasion posts over the years. I give one or two examples, but not so many as to be laborious.

It's not too short to deal with an array of issues, but it's not pages long. My points on proof, distraction, and necessity are not difficult to follow. And it's all simply and directly stated for those open to reasoning on the issue.

[Selene]

Post #533 is probably one of my best posts.

I subdivide the issues into three parts, rather than intermingling them all in one 'lump'. Or, on the other hand, leaving them scattered across my many 'civility' and effective persuasion posts over the years. I give one or two examples, but not so many as to be laborious.

It's not too short to deal with an array of issues, but it's not pages long. My points on proof, distraction, and necessity are not difficult to follow. And it's all simply and directly stated for those open to reasoning on the issue.

Hey...

Phil...look over there....

I mean seriously...

you just have to be punished for these last few posts...

or the ultimate penalty will be petitioned for by the icon Gods and then

or the Gods could really get angry...

With all due respect of course,

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

[i'm not an ally of Mr. Valliant or Mr. Perigo, but probably the lowest thing I've seen on these boards is a personal attack post by Brant strongly implying that Jim Valliant had been faking a serious illness. Why? Because he was now well enough to make a long and detailed post.]

Now that Ellen has reminded me of the hospitalizations I take it back. When's Jim Valliant going to take PARC back?

--Brant

[9thdoctor]

1.) Brant, Michael, and Selene, having learned nothing from my posts, repeat the exact same process they use with Valliant, Perigo, Ellen S, etc., of primarily belittling or vilifying the man rather than carefully addressing the ideas he presents.

I stopped reading right there.

I didn't read the other post.

I have no intention of doing so, either.

Michael

You’re not going to carefully address the ideas Phil presents? But they're groundbreaking!

Seems like Phil and Greybeard are the tag team schoolmarms. Start your own forum folks, problem solved. So tedious.

[jeffrey smith]

I'm beginning to think that Xray's kindergarten students bicker less among themselves than Objectivists do.

Jeffrey S.

(and that goes for the lot of you!)

[Brant Gaede]

I don't know why Phil wants to control us--and OL. Rand's ideas, not Objectivism so much, have had a great cultural influence. Objectivism got screwed several ways including that Objectivist/student of Objectivism bifurcation, Rand's blowing off the libertarians, the Break and Peikoff's demands to rule the roost. Right now people are talking about Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, not Objectivism. Objectivism as an intellectual force is an airplane yet to take off although it taxis up and down the runway pretty good. Objectivism needs a lot of work--wings for one thing: an intellectual biography replete with Burnsian scholarship. The idea that civility in the context of current Objectivist culture means much is fallacious because that culture is a long way from important, especially because its ethics don't match up too well with human being except most basically.

--Brant

Edited January 24, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

I don't think you realize what a confused mess the notion of psychologizing really is.

For instance, Rand claimed not just to know when someone was psychologizing, but that the psychologizing was deliberate (from her point of view, you couldn't psychologize by accident), and what the motives of every psychologizer were.

One might say that she psychologized the psychologizers.

Now let's take your claim about "proof" here, which I take it is meant to explain why you think my judgments about the motives of Lindsay Perigo or Jim Valliant must be unwarranted.

There are three interconnected things wrong with attacks on personal motives or character.

1. PROOF: You are often claiming knowledge you don't have or which is hard to prove. 2. DISTRACTION: It distracts people from the argument and from what you have to say on that. 3. NECESSITY: It's unnecessary: You don't have to do it if you can thoroughly demolish the argument of the opponent.

Point 1 - PROOF. There are many ways in which someone can innocently make what you view as huge, massive mistakes. Within the sphere of Objectivist disputes, one prominent one is to be blinded by rage, to be so angry at your opponent that you don't even hear them. Or to 'skim' and misstate the point - not intentionally but through laziness. Or what I call 'emotionalist partisanship' - you are so committed to your side in an emotional package deal, that you don't absorb the weight of an argument or focus on picking a nit. Or, in claiming the opponent is evil or dishonest or 'ridiculous' so you don't have to listen to him, or sanction his presence.

If Mr. Valliant or Mr. Perigo makes a huge mistake or overlooks evidence, or they think Mr. Campbell or Mr. Parille or Barbara B. do, dishonesty is not the only possible explanation. People have all sorts of blind spots. They also have defenses. The likelihood that Brant or Selene or MSK or others will -cease- making personal attacks is small. That doesn't mean I can conclude they are willfully evading or being dishonest. Misguided or foolish or 'emotionalist' or a sloppy thinker are very different from being of bad character.

(I won't defend it here, but I think all the people on both sides of these Oist internal debates are moral, but they are often very very blind or foolish or incapable of logic.)

Even if you were right that, for example, someone doesn't really believe what he is saying and simply wanting to be a big shot (or, as was alleged wrt Diana H, wants to curry favor with the powerful, to be on the winning side), it is hard to demonstrate, because they wouldn't say so and you'd have to systematically rebut all the alternative 'honest error' explanations. Claiming it loudly and angrily - or cynically, humorously, snarkily - as so many people do on -both sides- of these endless tong wars doesn't make it so.

All right, what about Lindsay Perigo?

Sorry, but I've been dealing with Mr. Perigo for nearly five years, during the course of which I've been able to observe who he makes excuses for, who he condemns in the harshest possible terms, how he reacts to questions or challenges, and how the same person can, in his estimation, be the greatest thing since sliced bread one day and the poorest possible excuse for a human being a few weeks later.

I've seen him applauding the death of Frank Zappa, on the grounds that Zappa's death from cancer at age 52 rid the world of "musical cancer." How does he know that Zappa's work was musical cancer? By his own admission, from hearing less than 1 minute of one composition and less than 1 minute of another.

I've seen him make strong claims about say, epistemology, then drop the line of argument as soon as the mildest kinds of follow-up questions are asked. Am I wrong in concluding that he only pretends either interest in the subject or knowledge of it?

I've seen him make obviously false claims (e.g., Barbara Branden was responsible for the sanctions brought against Jim and Holly Valliant at Wikipedia), then refuse to divulge his supposedly unimpeachable source for the false claims that he had made, while issuing a grudging public retraction. (Meanwhile, Leonard Peikoff was still claiming to know that Barbara Branden was behind the Valliants' troubles at Wikipedia after Mr. Perigo had publicly retracted his charge. What was Dr. Peikoff being told in private?)

I've been showered with every kind of verbal abuse. I've observed Mr. Perigo verbally bullying countless others, yourself among them.

Have I been wrong in concluding that Mr. Perigo is a man of genuinely bad character who misuses Ayn Rand's ideas and her personal example in order to justify his continual outpourings of rage and his never-to-be-satisfied craving for an ever-expanding circle of obedient followers?

I am not accustomed to drawing quick conclusions about anyone's morality, and I certainly took my time forming an assessment of Lindsay Perigo, but I think the evidence is pretty damn strong that Mr. Perigo is really bad news on multiple levels.

Am I wrong in principle to draw such conclusions about him?

Or are you claiming that I lack the information necessary to support such conclusions in his particular case?

Robert Campbell

[Philip Coates]

> your claim about "proof" here, which I take it is meant to explain why you think my judgments about the motives of Lindsay Perigo or Jim Valliant must be unwarranted.

Robert, I made a case in my post that -- even if you feel you personally have proof or know as a certainty that someone has bad motives or other serious personal or character flaw -- the turning of an intellectual discussion to that (largely or even partially) is both Distracting and Unnecessary.

If you still hold that this kind of personal attack is appropriate, you would have to rebut the points I made. Especially these. ==>

"DISTRACTION. No one who is a responsible person who has not been heavily involved across years with the personalities you are vilifying is going to just instantly believe what you say about your opponent's character or motives...The mere fact that you are endlessly focused on this, are trading put downs and personal attacks will damage your credibility and cause you (or even Objectivism in the eyes of outsiders) to not be taken seriously more broadly...Plus, people don't have unlimited time...If you make [this a major focus] that is less time they will have to consider..whether the positions of [your adversary] are right or wrong..."

"NECESSITY. If you can refute the arguments or rebut the evidence for your opponent's position, you don't need to say on top of that he's a knave and a varlet. And..if the position is so completely devastated..people [edit: may well] wonder all by themselves if the persons propounding them are fools or knaves or moronic."

Edited January 24, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Robert Campbell]

Phil,

If I am able to show what kind of person Lindsay Perigo or James Valliant is—and I have done that, for each of them, many times—well, then, I must be guilty as charged with regard to items 2 and 3:

"DISTRACTION. No one who is a responsible person who has not been heavily involved across years with the personalities you are vilifying is going to just instantly believe what you say about your opponent's character or motives...The mere fact that you are endlessly focused on this, are trading put downs and personal attacks will damage your credibility and cause you (or even Objectivism in the eyes of outsiders) to not be taken seriously more broadly...Plus, people don't have unlimited time...If you make [this a major focus] that is less time they will have to consider..whether the positions of [your adversary] are right or wrong..."

"NECESSITY. If you can refute the arguments or rebut the evidence for your opponent's position, you don't need to say on top of that he's a knave and a varlet. And..if the position is so completely devastated..people [edit: may well] wonder all by themselves if the persons propounding them are fools or knaves or moronic."

There are always going to be people who wonder what's been going on. If they wonder what's been going on, they can ask. I don't mind offering answers. Neither, so far as I can determine, do most people here.

There are always going to be individuals who suppose that if two people are saying negative things about each other, both of them must be at fault. This, of course, does not logically follow. But if they are inclined to such a supposition, either out of some kind of moral equivalence, or just plain distaste for certain kinds of rhetoric, they aren't going to like it in Rand-land, and probably won't care for a bunch of other places, either.

I will say that I finally left SOLOP because nearly everyone I disagreed with over there had become so reliant on insults and putdowns that I no longer saw a point in trying to wade through them all to get to whatever bit or scrap of an argument might have been left submerged somewhere. This, I think, you could fairly call distraction.

Normally, there is no need to call someone a fool or an SOB when steady refutation of his or her arguments will suffice. But what happens after you've refuted and refuted and refuted? Or, worse, caught your opponent telling obvious lies or blatantly dodging questions? Is it tactically preferable, let alone morally imperative, not to mention such things?

Robert Campbell

[BaalChatzaf]

I am overjoyed that I stay 100 clear of internal organizational struggles. Issues are difficult enough. Personalities are impossible. There is nothing wetter or less edifying than a pissing contest.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

> nearly everyone I disagreed with over there had become so reliant on insults and putdowns that I no longer saw a point in trying to wade through them all to get to whatever bit or scrap of an argument might have been left submerged somewhere. This, I think, you could fairly call distraction. [Robert]

Yes, that's just one more example. I saw that over there, also experienced it.

> But what happens after you've refuted and refuted and refuted?

At that point, if one has done so, those who are open to reason have seen that.

> Or, worse, caught your opponent telling obvious lies or blatantly dodging questions?

Those are two different things - sometimes someone who is supposedly 'lying' about what happened to Rand and her circle are simply misinformed or resistant to further examination. It's hard to prove that someone is deliberately lying...what I would do is simply point out how clear the evidence is ...and let the observers decide. [A concrete example would be necessary, here.]

If someone is 'dodging' questions? That can be open to interpretation whether they just don't want to deal with you, are distracted, or dishonestly know they are wrong. Again, yes, you do point out they dodged it.

Pointing that out is not what I'm criticizing when I talk about attacking *motives* or *character*. Or trading insults.

It's perfectly legitimate to be "personal" in regard to clearly provable issues of methods - you can point out that someone has not answered questions, that they are using equivocation or other logical fallacies, that their argument is circular, or...perhaps the most common error among objectivists...are being rationalistic.

You have direct evidence before you of mistakes of method, and that does not require you to know or claim that they are deliberate dishonesty.

Paradoxically, I quite often accuse people of being rationalistic or equivocating and I get outraged replies that I'm being "insulting". But when people really deal in insults or question someone's character, much less is said.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I read Jennifer's reply. I didn't bother with Valliant's review, but I suppose I will have to get to it sometime. The impression of the review given in Jennifer's response is more or less what I expect to be there.

(You know the dog is going to bark, so why do you need to go listen one more time to the dog barking to know that barking is all the dog does? )

I finally got around to reading Valliant's review of Goddess of the Market, if you can call it a review. Full disclosure: I got halfway through it and stopped. It's what I said above and I got bored. My life has more meaning than to waste it on trash like more of Valliant's writing. I've already wasted enough of the non-repeatable precious moments of my life on that crap as it is.

For the record, here is what I read. Valliant gave his overview of Rand's involvement with some conservatives after the New Deal, then took a comment from Jennifer about former Rand biographies out of context as her being in total agreement with PARC. Then he pumped PARC and Branden scapegoating as allegedly proven in PARC over and over in paragraph after paragraph.

As my eyes started glazing over, finally he got around to Jennifer's book. Then, in more paragraphs after paragraphs, he settled on the theme that Jennifer does not understand Rand's ideas. Not a clue. Totally and irredeemably wrong. He used one detail she discussed in the book after another to repeat that theme over and over. At one point, he even complained that she has no idea what deductive reasoning is. Here is a direct quote:

Thus, with little appreciation of the role and function of deduction itself, she necessarily misses the bulk of Rand's argumentation, as so many before her have missed it.

I have called this kind of presumptiousness boneheaded. I even say "The Bonehead Valliant" at times. The problem is that it is boneheaded.

A scholar like Jennifer Burns brushes off deduction? Gimme a friggen break!

I got all the way up to the following quote:

Given her misunderstanding of the fundamentals of Rand's philosophy, it is not surprising that Burns's account of Rand's political thought is also sometimes inexcusably erroneous.

Then I scrolled down the page to see how much was left.

Sweet Jesus, it never ends!

On a spot check, it was the same crap over and over.

So I gave up.

There it is. My comment on Valliant's contribution in the Symposium to nowhere.

I wish I could write something better, but the material from Valliant is just plain awful.

At least Stuttle liked it. Here is a direct quote:

May I be the first...

to applaud your article, James?

(burp...)

Michael

[9thdoctor]

> nearly everyone I disagreed with over there had become so reliant on insults and putdowns that I no longer saw a point in trying to wade through them all to get to whatever bit or scrap of an argument might have been left submerged somewhere. This, I think, you could fairly call distraction. [Robert]

Yes, that's just one more example. I saw that over there, also experienced it.

Phil, ahem…the quote function?

There it is. My comment on Valliant's contribution in the Symposium to nowhere.

Here’s an idea I’d like to see come to fruition, Burns is doing Jabba’s “symposium” (but only one post so far…), how about having Heller and Chris Sciabarra discuss here the Russian research they’ve both done? Granted if Heller logged on here she’d get assaulted with questions about Frankian sobriety, but if we could insist on a focused discussion, the results should be very interesting. I felt Heller’s Russian research was the biggest draw for her book. Plus Sciabarra ought to come out of listland retirement. Say “Sobornost in Galt’s Gulch” for starters? No, something more mundane to start, suggestions anyone? Or maybe something interesting with Burns, I can’t think what right now. They're out to sell books, and can expect positive (or at least polite) receptions here.

BTW, JV has posted a reply to Neil, who of course can’t defend himself anymore. http://www.solopassion.com/node/5765 Lame.

Here’s another thought worth expanding on: Flouncing vs. Duty. It seems Neil has a duty to provide regular posts on SLOP, otherwise he gets banned.

[Robert Campbell]

ND,

A Sciabarra-Heller symposium would be great, if we could put it together...

The biggest obstacle will be Chris Sciabarra's health. He posts less and less frequently on Notablog now.

Anne Heller might be interested in talking about the Russian research. She put a lot into it, and the reviews of World She Made and the author interviews that I've seen haven't stressed it.

I get the impression, though, that she does not think much of any of the online fora in Rand-land.

For instance, if she expected that Ellen Stuttle was going to participate, she might decline.

She might also decline if she thought she would be getting questions about Jim Valliant and his opus.

Boundaries would have to be set in advance.

Robert

PS. Not only is Jim Valliant taking pokes at Neil Parille, knowing full well that Neil has been banned from SOLOP (banned, quite possibly, at Mr. Valliant's request...) but he is taking advantage of WSS being moderated over there. I suspect that Lindsay Perigo allows a post from Mr. Scherk only after he has decided that his buddy, Mr. Valliant, will be in a good position to criticize it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I would have no problem at all setting such boundaries if Anne or Chris wanted to post here.

I don't mind hauling the garbage out for guests like that.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

PS. Not only is Jim Valliant taking pokes at Neil Parille, knowing full well that Neil has been banned from SOLOP (banned, quite possibly, at Mr. Valliant's request...) but he is taking advantage of WSS being moderated over there. I suspect that Lindsay Perigo allows a post from Mr. Scherk only after he has decided that his buddy, Mr. Valliant, will be in a good position to criticize it.

Perigo edits the Scherk he lets through.

--Brant