Piggyback advertising, mysticism, and other goofiness.

Rich Engle

Recommended Posts

It's fairly common knowledge that Nathaniel conducted a tele-interview on 8/17, and charged a fee of $24.97 for it. The interview had the built-in feature of being driven by subscriber questions.

And then came the spin from the embittered, the psuedo-morally-outraged.

It started here: http://www.solopassion.com/node/1418

First off, the title, heh- $26 for to ask Nathaniel Branden a question on PARC?

Er... nooooo.... . This would be where you ask Branden (one of the key players, and of course he's also a recognized professional on his own accord) whatever you want to ask Branden. As opposed to asking a guy who wrote a book that had Branden in it about something. PARC doesn't have dick to do with this, sorry, no free lunches. Duh.

Then, there were comments about the pricing. Here's a news flash- Branden is a relentless capitalist, and he's very good at it. He doesn't work unless he gets paid. If you don't want to pay his fee, then you don't value or need what he's selling. Double-duh. Who cares what someone else thinks about his pricing- let the market speak for itself.

And, of course, a tasty Diana Hsieh moment:

"Nathaniel Branden has already given his view of PARC, as reported in this NoodleFood post. In response to a friendly invitation to respond to the book, Nathaniel said:

"No. What for? If a reader can't see what's insane about that book on his own, I doubt that help from me would accomplish much."

What a perfect statement of mysticism! What's next for Nathan? Embracing ESP? Oh, wait..."

Mysticism, whah? It's pretty clear what NB is saying here, and it doesn't involve incantations. I really want to lay into this one, but she's just so incredibly goofy on this, it can stand in my book as a true Diana Hsieh Moment<tm>. Outside of the fact that she's just being snarky.

Lordy, how predictable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


I had to re-read the notifcation that was posted to realize that the tele-interview was really never about PARC. It's clear (now) that the poster of it was saying 'here's your chance to ask NB your PARC questions', with the usually knee-jerk OO response to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a clear example of nutcase logic.

I agree the assertion is incomprehensible, as is much of what goes on "over there" on the other side of the looking-glass. I'm wondering if it might be best to stop providing the mad-hatter and his crew attention and food? We all know that nothing will bring reason, logic, or intelligence to their tea-party, so why do we bother paying them any mind what-so-ever?!

I think it is high time to shrug off the Queen of Hearts, the Mad-Hatter, and the Jabberwocky for good; life through the looking glass will remain as it is, but as Alice taught, the truth is we don't need them, they need us....


Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting -- and revealing -- that Perigo misses no opportunity to attack Nathaniel's work as "mumbo-jumbo," "psycho-babble," and "charlatinism," among other things.

P.S. Perigo has mentioned several times that he has never read anything of Nathaniel's.

P.S.S. He has read my work; I know this because he praised it to the skies until he decided he didn't like me.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now