Birds of a Feather

[kiaer.ts]

I don't think saying that the ARI crowd want to exalt Rand is quite the right phrase. More like idolize, perhaps? They are like mohammedans in a sense - they will brook no perceived insult, and everything is an insult. Much of what they do actually damages Rand's reputation, rather than exalting it.

As for Leonard Pope, doesn't he play for the Chiefs?

[Robert Campbell]

There are posts on SOLO in which I continued to say I thought the book was badly done. I didn't say anything to him about his book in the few private exchanges I had with him, but things he said indicate that he knew I still had serious criticism of the book. Casey Fahy got that message. He sent me a note via Linz in which it was clear that he'd understood from reading the SOLO material.

[…]

1) The email I sent to Valliant with questions about the Wikipedia "misadventures" was after the talk had mostly died down on SOLO. It was about a week before I left for Budapest (and then Vienna) in July 2009. (He was both busy and ill at the time and didn't respond until about the time I returned.)

2) The sort of questions I asked him were not the sort you were asking, most of which I thought then -- and still think -- it was none of your business to be asking. All I wanted to find out was whether he was telling the truth about its being Holly's project and about her having done the bulk of the posting.

Gee.

I wonder why Ms. Stuttle didn't say anything about PARC in her exchanges of email with Jim Valliant. (Note the first passage that I've put in bold.)

It couldn't be because she wanted something from him, could it?

As for the alleged email inquiring about Jim and Holly's excellent misadventure, Ms. Stuttle now tells us that it was sent in late June or early July 2009: [Note: I originally typed "June" twice, which produced a less than sensible result.]

Was that before or after Ms. Stuttle presented her pet theory about Holly's role?

See this post on SOLOP from June 24, 2009:

http://www.solopassi...3#comment-73078

in essence ... this is my surmise as to what went on with the many PARC references and the erratic editing and the shouting in the summary notes:

A headstrong wife who took it upon herself to defend her knight in shining armor, while he was often in a medicated sleep with his stomach condition -- and then, instead of Holly's being "the fall girl," as Robert Campbell described her, James was left holding the bag and not wanting to say much incriminating his wife.

Judging from Ted's comments, Holly and James must have been aware, from comments in the summary notes, of entreaties to join the Talk discussions, but maybe James didn't want Holly joining those, since she tends to speak out sans due deliberation and could almost be counted on to make some rash comments (as she did make when she finally joined the Talk discussions as Pelagius1). There is a particular remark amongst James' posts on this thread which refers to Holly's feeling frustrated about not being able to discuss.

It makes a difference to my evaluation of James Valliant if my view of what was going on is substantially correct or not. If there was, as Neil and Robert think, a deliberate plot, a conspiring to get PARC in everywhere, and James is straight-out lying, that's one situation. If on the other hand, things happened along the lines I think, that's another.

Ellen

PS: Robert, the only additional information I have which couldn't be found by anyone else is confirmation from Linz of how genuinely ill James Valliant is and a detail from a private email sent to WSS which indicates that James didn't realize on May 19th that a topic ban had been instituted.

Did you read the material from Holly I posted in the post called "What case is that, Neil?" Holly said James didn't want her doing it -- and I have the memory of Holly's behavior as "The Magenta Hornet"; she has a mind and determination of her own.

Plus, realize that there is some strong anti-Rand and anti-Objectivism sentiment amongst some of the editors on the threads, as Ted has described. Also that, although you think PARC's acronym should be spelled backward, the Valliants consider the book a needed antidote to the Brandens' portraits of Rand.

Plus notice that there were two styles of edits. Some of the edits even the antis among the editors tended to describe as good and helpful, others as obstructive and too rapid, etc. The two styles could reflect two different people using the same account.

I think a difference between the way I'm reading all the material and the way you are is that you're going into it dead set on hanging James Valliant for previous scores you want to even.

I'm aware that Neil started a different thread. I haven't had time to post there in response to Neil. I was planning to say to you that if you want to discuss with me, then you have to approach me in a different fashion than the rhetorical method and the using me as a cat's paw to further your battles with James Valliant and Linz Perigo

Now here are the questions that Ms. Stuttle was convinced I had no business asking Mr. and Mrs. Valliant:

These were originally posted on July 3, 2009.

The charge that Barbara Branden was behind the adverse rulings against Jim and Holly Valliant at Wikipedia was completely bogus. It was made in public by Lindsay Perigo, on the basis of supposedly unimpeachable information "from a source that will astound you." It was later while Perigo continued to conceal the identity of the person who forwarded him the supposedly incriminating email. (Not in time, however, to stop Leonard Peikoff from telling Jimmy Wales that he thought Barbara was behind the adverse rulings.)

http://test.solopass...3#comment-73573

26 Questions for Holly Valliant

(1) What was your relationship with Durban House Publishing from 2001, when it opened for business [note: the correct year appears to have been earlier, maybe 1999], through the publication of The Passion of Ayn Rand's Critics in 2005?

(2) Did the owner or owners of Durban House Publishing know and approve of your posting a review on amazon.com in 2002, using the company's name instead of your own?

(3) As literary agent for Andrew Bernstein, did you recommend Durban House as the publisher for any of his manuscripts?

(4) As the literary agent for PARC, did you submit it to any publisher other than Durban House?

(5) Jim Valliant has stated here at SOLOPassion that his manuscript was carefully edited by a Durban House employee (or employees) prior to publication. Who did the editing?

(6) How extensive were the changes made by the editors?

(7) Can you give an example of a non-trivial change made to PARC by editors in the employ of Durban House?

(8) Mr. Valliant has declared here at SOLO that he did not have to pay Durban House any money up front in order to get his book published. Did anyone else pay Durban House up front, to get DH to publish or promote PARC?

(9) Since you have represented other authors whose books were published by Durban House, could you comment on the charge that Durban House asked other authors to pony up fees as high as $25,000 as a precondition of publishing and promoting their books?

(10) Did anyone guarantee a bulk buy of PARC before it was published?

(11) If so, who?

(12) Under your old pseudonym "The Magenta Hornet," you declared on SOLOHQ that the Ayn Rand Bookstore decided to carry your husband's book after you submitted a review copy. Did the Ayn Rand Bookstore decide to carry PARC before or after the book was published?

(13) Who made the decision that the Ayn Rand Bookstore would offer PARC for sale?

(14) Who decides whether the Ayn Rand Bookstore keeps carrying PARC or not?

(15) In your opinion, was Writer's Market fair to Durban House when it decided to drop the company from its 2006 edition?

(16) You and your husband, posting as Pelagius1, declared at Wikipedia that Durban House is defunct. When did Durban House go out of business?

(17) Since Durban House is defunct, who is responsible for the current availability of PARC at amazon.com and a few other sellers?

(18) If the Ayn Rand Bookstore exhausted its inventory of PARC, from whom would it obtain more copies?

(19) A Durban House Press website is up and running at present. Who operates this website? [Note: In early 2010, one Karen L. responded to an email inquiry to Durban House. It appears that John and Karen Lewis run the remnant site.]

(20) Who owns the name Durban House, the parrot logo, the back catalogue, and copies of DH titles that were unsold and in inventory when the company went under?

(21) When PARC was declared a non-reliable source at Wikipedia, and you and Mr. Valliant were forbidden to make references to PARC in any Wikipedia articles, did you encourage Andrew Bernstein to write a letter or email of complaint to Jimmy Wales?

(22) Did Andrew Bernstein write such a letter or email?

(23) Did you communicate with Leonard Peikoff, encouraging him to complain to Jimmy Wales?

(24) If you did not tell him, and your husband did not tell him, how did Leonard Peikoff learn that PARC had been deemed a non-reliable source at Wikipedia?

(25) Did you tell Andrew Bernstein or Leonard Peikoff that Barbara Branden was behind the non-reliable source ruling?

(26) After Lindsay Perigo retracted his charge against Barbara Branden on May 27, 2009, did you notify Leonard Peikoff of the retraction?

Ms. Stuttle has subsequently "conceded," if we may employ Valliant-speak, that there actually might have been something to questions 5 through 7.

Back then, she indignantly objected to all the "inquisiting," if we may employ Stuttle-speak, that she claimed was being directed upon poor, beleaguered Jim and Holly Valliant.

A reader who did not share Ms. Stuttle's agenda might be forgiven for thinking that she didn't want to see the questions answered because candid responses could not have made either Mr. or Mrs. Valliant look good.

Which, in turn and more importantly, could not have made Ms. Stuttle look good.

Robert Campbell

PS. Ms. Stuttle continues to refuse to post her email to Jim Valliant with all the "tough" questions. I suspect that if anyone here were to make the request, "pretty please, with sugar on top," she would still refuse.

Could this be because Ms. Stuttle in fact loaded the email with flattery for Mr. Valliant, and suitably acidulous references to persons she wanted Mr. Valliant to know that they both considered enemies, in lieu of any tough questions about his and Holly's sojourn at Wikipedia (where their joint modus operandi led Ted Keer to mistake them for a high-school kid with no social skills)?

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I don't have it in front of me but I believe in Ayn Rand's "To Whom It May Concern" article (1968) she says that she very reluctantly got roped into associating with the movement aspect of NBI. After this experience her opposition was firm. The following is from that article as quoted on Per-Olof Samuelsson's website:

"I never wanted and do not now want to be a leader of a 'movement'. I do approve of a philosophical or intellectual movement, in the sense of a growing trend among a number of independent individuals sharing the same ideas. But an organized movement is a different matter."

Mark,

How reliable a source do you consider "To Whom It May Concern" to be?

The whole point of that article, and its attendant announcements, was to justify her expulsion and denunciation of Nathaniel and Barbara Branden while concealing her actual reasons for expelling and denouncing them. Remember, this is the article that falsely accused NB of financial malfeasance, and blamed him for lack of zeal and attentiveness in cracking down on campus Objectivist and Ayn Rand clubs. (That last complaint against Nathaniel Branden has never, to my knowledge, been made by any other person, living or dead.)

The "never wanted and do not now want to be leader of a 'movement'" needs to be interpreted accordingly.

I suspect that Rand was geuninely somewhat ambivalent about the role.

She lacked the management skill to build and keep an organized mass movement, and in any case didn't like organizational work nearly enough to want to spend the time on it. With NBI she could delegate the management part to Nathaniel and Barbara Branden. Had her personal relationship with Nathaniel continued as she wished it would, would she ever have professed anything short of total satisfaction with the organized movement part?

After the fall of NBI, she was more wary of delegating than she had been. Not that it would have mattered much; nothing on the scale of NBI could have been built back up with the talent on hand. Leonard Peikoff lacked Nathaniel's charisma. Neither Peikoff nor the younger disciples he was cultivating (e.g., Harry Binswanger, Peter Scwhartz) had Nathaniel and Babara's business acumen or management skill.

Rand did, however, want to be a leader. She wanted a brand-named philosophy, complete control of the brand and the message, absolute deference from her followers, and right up to her death she maintained an entourage of senior disciples who gave presentations of her philosophy to junior acolytes with her endorsement.

It's interesting that the Valliantoids (who want to deny that Rand had any authoritarian tendencies, or to blame any authoritarian behavior on Nathaniel Branden ... or something) and many "open Objectivists" (who want an end to the authoritarian stuff) converge in putting too much weight on that single don't-want-to-lead-a-movement statement.

The Valliantoids want to exalt Rand, keep TheBrandens in the outer darkness, and legitimize the Leonardine Papacy.

The "open Objectivists" want organized Objectivism that adheres to the philosophical system but rejects Peikovian usurpations and excesses.

In fact, Leonard Peikoff has carried on with an attitude toward keeping and controlling an Objectivist movement that is authentically Randian.

The Leonardine Papacy just happens to perpetuate some of her worst decisions, least admirable ideas, and least exemplary traits of character, while miserably failing to replicate her brilliance.

Robert

Robert, I'm one of the "open Objectivists" that thinks that Rand did not want a movement, but saw it necessary after seeing the hostility that Atlas encountered. I guess where you stand depends somewhat on where you sit. I think it's hard to learn Objectivism without some exposure to institutionalized Objectivism, but I don't think that marinating in a saturated Objectivist environment really helps people. I think that Rand had a human need after the Break for people who would be loyal. I don't think that was always consonant with her philosophy, but to say that movement leadership was what she wanted is a stretch.

I think that categorizing Leonard's attitude toward the movement as authentically Randian is to say that the mid to late 1970's Rand was authentic and the 1950's and 1960's Rand was not. Rand changed over time and I think that a more balanced portrayal of Rand emphasizes the 1940-1970 Rand over what she did in her dotage. I think what I find enormously saddening about Leonard's approach is the lack of creative sparkle and brilliance that was a result of drawing a protective circle around the philosophy and movement and setting it in stone. There has also been a tendency to separate the philosophy from psychology and biology when just the opposite is needed.

What I've directly experienced of the movement, from learning from Darryl Wright, the HMC campus club, going to Reisman's public lectures, attending IOS from 1994-1999 and TAS/TOC 2004-2008 has been overwhelmingly positive. The internet skirmishes and struggles over biography and Rand's personal legacy have been trying. I have mostly seen the Objectivist movement, like the late Ron Merrill, from the outside perspective and met many wonderful people in the process. What I would like to see is a movement that recaptures an innovative intellectual spirit and moves forward. Even failing that, there are too many wonderfully exciting advances going on right now for individual Objectivists to allow movement politics to interfere with their own intellectual quest.

Jim

[Neil Parille]

I was skimming an old SOLO thread that had mention of James and Holley's WikiShennanigans.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/6242?page=1

A couple interesting posts:

What a Farce

Submitted by James S. Valliant on Wed, 2009-05-20 21:00.

And, in that discussion, I am told it has become important for me to say, here and in public (one more time), that my book was not "self-published" or "vanity" published in any way, shape or form. I state as a matter of record that I signed a standard "two book" deal with Durban House, with a standard royalty agreement, and that I paid nothing to have it published -- nor would I have. It was Durban who shelled out even what PR moneys were spent on the book -- not me. I went with Durban House precisely because it was liberal publishing house that believed in my work. They were careful editors, as well, demanding substantial verification for each of my claims.

PARC and Rand's Diaries

Submitted by Ellen Stuttle on Fri, 2009-05-29 11:48.

Greg, all:

James Valliant time and again miswrote quotes and in other ways distorted material from his sources throughout Part I of PARC -- as anyone who would bother to check his quotes and interpretations against the original sources could verify. Therefore, the suspicion naturally arises that he took liberties with Rand's diaries as well -- that he re-worded and/or deleted to suit his purposes.

Personally, I feel confident on literary grounds that what Valliant provides from the diaries is what Rand wrote. The style is hers, in the methods both of writing (including grammar and punctuation, down to a characteristic comma error she made) and of thinking, and I don't believe that either Valliant or Fahy could plausibly imitate her style. Whether her words say what Valliant tells the reader they say is another question, but I think that the words which are reported are words she wrote.

Even supposing that what's quoted from Rand is accurately rendered, however, justifiable suspicion remains as to what was deleted. (Among the material deleted is "some brief entries dated from mid-July to mid-August" [pg. 214, PARC] -- i.e., the whole last month's worth of entries -- which Valliant doesn't include, on the grounds, he says, of their being "highly repetitive of the material to be found here" [pg. 215].)

Until and unless the estate lets independent scholars into the archives to see the originals, we don't have a reliable public record of Rand's diaries -- and given Valliant's demonstrable inaccuracies using sources in the first part of his book, there's nothing "arbitrary" in Neil's having doubts about the accuracy of the diary segments Valliant provides.

Ellen

-Neil Parille

[Neil Parille]

For those who want to relive the fun, Dan Barnes had a couple good posts of Valliant's WikiShennanigans:

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2009/05/author-of-his-own-misfortune.html

http://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2009/07/pretenders-strange-case-of-passion-of_9551.html

-Neil Parille

[Ellen Stuttle]

You missed your calling in the Inquisition, Robert.

I haven't time now to read all the details of your latest. Just addressing a couple points I noticed in a quick once-through.

As for the alleged email inquiring about Jim and Holly's excellent misadventure, Ms. Stuttle now tells us that it was sent in late June or early June 2009:

No, I didn't. I said, "It was about a week before I left for Budapest (and then Vienna) in July 2009" (emphasis added).

Was that before or after Ms. Stuttle presented her pet theory about Holly's role?

Obviously, it was after.

See this post on SOLOP from June 24, 2009:

http://www.solopassi...3#comment-73078

in essence ... this is my surmise as to what went on with the many PARC references and the erratic editing and the shouting in the summary notes:

A headstrong wife who took it upon herself to defend her knight in shining armor, while he was often in a medicated sleep with his stomach condition -- and then, instead of Holly's being "the fall girl," as Robert Campbell described her, James was left holding the bag and not wanting to say much incriminating his wife.

Judging from Ted's comments, Holly and James must have been aware, from comments in the summary notes, of entreaties to join the Talk discussions, but maybe James didn't want Holly joining those, since she tends to speak out sans due deliberation and could almost be counted on to make some rash comments (as she did make when she finally joined the Talk discussions as Pelagius1). There is a particular remark amongst James' posts on this thread which refers to Holly's feeling frustrated about not being able to discuss.

It makes a difference to my evaluation of James Valliant if my view of what was going on is substantially correct or not. If there was, as Neil and Robert think, a deliberate plot, a conspiring to get PARC in everywhere, and James is straight-out lying, that's one situation. If on the other hand, things happened along the lines I think, that's another.

Ellen

[....]

Note the paragraph bolded (by you). What I was trying to find out in my letter to James was whether or not my view was substantially correct or not. I found out, to my satisfaction -- including that he didn't even know anything about what was going on in the Talk discussions, and had no idea what I meant when I referred to Holly's triple-posting a long item when she finally joined those as Pelagius1.

Now here are the questions that Ms. Stuttle was convinced I had no business asking Mr. and Mrs. Valliant:

These were originally posted on July 3, 2009.

Note, I said: "The sort of questions I asked him were not the sort you were asking, most of which I thought then -- and still think -- it was none of your business to be asking. All I wanted to find out was whether he was telling the truth about its being Holly's project and about her having done the bulk of the posting."

"Most of which" isn't all of which.

The charge that Barbara Branden was behind the adverse rulings against Jim and Holly Valliant at Wikipedia was completely bogus. It was made in public by Lindsay Perigo, on the basis of supposedly unimpeachable information "from a source that will astound you." It was later while Perigo continued to conceal the identity of the person who forwarded him the supposedly incriminating email. (Not in time, however, to stop Leonard Peikoff from telling Jimmy Wales that he thought Barbara was behind the adverse rulings.)

And I was the first person, I think, to tell Perigo that the charge was bogus. Certainly I strongly told him that, even if I wasn't the first. Which you could verify in your industrious re-searching through SOLO material.

PS. Ms. Stuttle continues to refuse to post her email to Jim Valliant with all the "tough" questions. I suspect that if anyone here were to make the request, "pretty please, with sugar on top," she would still refuse.

That's right. She would. Re the word "tough," which you sometimes put in quotes as if you were quoting it from me, you aren't quoting it from me. What I said was that I laid a number of traps, into none of which he fell.

Ellen

[Neil Parille]

Ellen,

Do you believe any of this is the truth?

I went with Durban House precisely because it was liberal publishing house that believed in my work. They were careful editors, as well, demanding substantial verification for each of my claims.

-Neil Parille

Edited September 26, 2010 by Neil Parille

[Robert Campbell]

Re the word "tough," which you sometimes put in quotes as if you were quoting it from me, you aren't quoting it from me. What I said was that I laid a number of traps, into none of which he fell.

Those are scare-quotes around "tough."

I don't believe that by the time Ms. Stuttle got around to asking Mr. Valliant questions about his excellent misadventure—if in fact she ever did—they were the slightest bit tough.

According to her statement about the time-line, Ms. Stuttle already had constructed her pet theory (presented in her SOLO post of June 24, 2009) and already had her tactical objectives laid out when she sent Mr. Valliant the email to which she repeatedly refers.

The email correspondence between Ms. Stuttle and Mr. Valliant will be most interesting, if it ever sees the light of day.

But not on account of any questions with traps in them.

Robert Campbell

[kiaer.ts]

Re the word "tough," which you sometimes put in quotes as if you were quoting it from me, you aren't quoting it from me. What I said was that I laid a number of traps, into none of which he fell.

Those are scare-quotes around "tough."

I don't believe that by the time Ms. Stuttle got around to asking Mr. Valliant questions about his excellent misadventure—if in fact she ever did—they were the slightest bit tough.

According to her statement about the time-line, Ms. Stuttle already had constructed her pet theory (presented in her SOLO post of June 24, 2009) and already had her tactical objectives laid out when she sent Mr. Valliant the email to which she repeatedly refers.

The email correspondence between Ms. Stuttle and Mr. Valliant will be most interesting, if it ever sees the light of day.

But not on account of any questions with traps in them.

Robert Campbell

You should use single tics for 'scare quotes' and double ticks for real quotes.

[Robert Campbell]

Very well...

From now on, those will be scare-quotes around 'tough'.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

The sort of questions I asked him were not the sort you were asking [Jim and Holly Valliant], most of which I thought then -- and still think -- it was none of your business to be asking.

We still have no idea what Ms. Stuttle actually asked Jim Valliant about.

Ms. Stuttle doesn't want anyone else to know.

She has merely let slip that hers were questions the rest of us are too crass and dumb to ask.

By contrast, my 26 questions for Holly Valliant were posted in public and remain publicly available.

Since Ms. Stuttle claims to possess unique insight into the manner of questions that one, without making a public display of one's uncouthness, ignorance, and ill-breeding, may properly ask of Jim and Holly Valliant about the publication of PARC, the company that published it, and their communications with Leonard Peikoff about certain matters, her particular rulings regarding the acceptability Questions 1-4 and 8-26 are hereby requested.

After all, Ms. Stuttle has graciously allowed that there might, when all is said and done, have been something to Questions 5-7, and has further favored us with the quite unexpected disclosure that she was not necessarily writing off all 26 as uncouth, ignorant, and impertinent. But she has never provided any explication as to why one must not ask Holly Valliant about a specific matter such as her connection with Durban House Publishing before PARC appeared under that imprint.

And if Ms. Stuttle complains that I'm being inquisitorial, remember: these aren't questions for Ms. Stuttle, they're questions for Jim and Holly Valliant.

By the way, I did not include an explication of the bogus charge against Barbara Branden (working behind the scenes to get The Valliants in hot water at Wikipedia) because I thought Ms. Stuttle had played any role in originating or spreading it.

I mentioned it because it occurred to me then, and seems plausible to me now, that Jim Valliant might have played some role in spreading it.

Ms. Stuttle, you see, tends to assume that everything is about her.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Very well...

From now on, those will be scare-quotes around 'tough'.

Robert Cambpell

Grammar "Nazis" on OL!!!!

--Brant

where did "scare-quotes" come from and shouldn't it be "scare quotes"?--"scarecrow" might suggest its future: remember, English is an alive, evolving, parasitic language (a third of the words are French--biet?)

[kiaer.ts]

Very well...

From now on, those will be scare-quotes around 'tough'.

Robert Cambpell

LOL!

[Mark]

Ms. Stuttle ... tends to assume that everything is about her.

Certainly Robert Campbell does! He’s using this “Birds of a Feather” thread to post arbitrary accusations, made in a persistently nasty manner, about Ellen’s activity on another website over a year ago (which activity has nothing to do with the subject of this thread).

Edited September 27, 2010 by Mark

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle ... tends to assume that everything is about her.

Certainly Robert Campbell does! He's using this "Birds of a Feather" thread to post arbitrary accusations, made in a persistently nasty manner, about Ellen's activity on another website over a year ago (which activity has nothing to do with the subject of this thread).

Mark,

Are you here to talk about the Ayn Rand Institute, on which subject you claim to be an expert, or to make charges against people you don't know regarding subjects on which you are continuing to refuse to inform yourself?

Ms. Stuttle's "activity" in defense of Jim Valliant and his book was undertaken (is still being undertaken) on this website, not just on SOLOP. Her "activity" included many insults directed at me and at her other critics that a third-party observer might deem "nasty." Not that any of this should particularly matter to you, one way or another. But jumping in with two feet on behalf of Ms. Stuttle suggests partisanship or preconception on your part.

And Jim Valliant is not merely the author of one of the worst books ever written on any subject. He is a long-time member of Leonard Peikoff's personal entourage and a man who can be counted on to shill for ARI on any and every occasion (he has further insulted the intelligence of his audience by frequently pretending to have no connection with that organization).

The trouble with charges of arbitrariness is that when made without evidence they are ... arbitrary.

Robert Campbell

[Mark]

The trouble with charges of arbitrariness ...

OK, my fault. RC is gifted with mystic insight. He knows what’s in Ellen’s private emails.

Are you here to talk about the Ayn Rand Institute, on which subject you claim to be an expert, ...

Hey, I get it: I’m not an expert on the Ayn Rand Institute. Setting that aside, yes, I wanted to talk about “Birds of a Feather” -- specifically I was thinking someone else might have further examples of ARI associating with neocons. The main purpose of posting was to advertise the link.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Mark

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Mark,

So long as you insist on taking sides in a contentious issue in a nyah nyah nyah method of argument instead of addressing substance--a contentious issue, I might add, that has nothing to do with the link you claim to be interested in discussing--frankly I don't expect many people to be interested in your link.

If you show strong partisan interest in something else and become contentious yourself about it, why do you expect the public to ignore that and discuss your link, instead?

The short answer is they won't. The contentious issue usually draws the attention. That's human nature.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Are you here to talk about the Ayn Rand Institute, on which subject you claim to be an expert, ...

Hey, I get it: I'm not an expert on the Ayn Rand Institute.

On the contrary, Mark, I believe that you are.

Hence, that you know who Jim Valliant is, that you know how he is connected with the Ayn Rand Institute, and that you know why sucking up to him and straining to find virtue in his book (after previously ripping that same book, on quite sensible grounds) might be considered strange or objectionable by the non-ARIans hereabouts.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

The sort of questions I asked him were not the sort you were asking [Jim and Holly Valliant], most of which I thought then -- and still think -- it was none of your business to be asking.

We still have no idea what Ms. Stuttle actually asked Jim Valliant about.

That's odd, since you've quoted from two posts on this thread in which I said what I asked him about.

I looked up the dates.

My email to Jim Valliant with questions about the Wikipedia edits was sent on July 4, 2009 (EST, ~12:30 a.m.).

On July 7, 2009, he replied with a brief note acknowledging receipt, saying he was both busy and still fighting his physical ailment, and would respond when he could.

His response wasn't sent until August 6, 2009 (EST, ~12:30 a.m.).

I was in Europe then and not checking my email, so I didn't see his reply until August 15. I sent him a thanks August 16.

[Added: There was no mention of you or Neil or either of yours or anyone else's postings on SOLO. I referred to WSS by name, but only in a question about an email sent by JV to WSS. I referred to Barbara's May 16 email in a question asking how JV found out about the "reliable" ruling. Nary a boo, however, about Barbara.]

[Ms. Stuttle's] particular rulings regarding the acceptability Questions 1-4 and 8-26 are hereby requested.

Inquisitorial, bullying, mostly none of your business, and even such details as might have been legitimate for you to ask couched in such a way as not to deserve reply. Plus, padded out to look like a lot more questions than the substance needed for asking. All of which I've said before.

Ellen

Edited September 28, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

[Ms. Stuttle's] "activity" included many insults directed at me and at her other critics that a third-party observer might deem "nasty."

"Activity" and "nasty" in scare quotes.

I've wondered for a long while if the start of your animosity against me was simply my publicly expressing irritation at the wild goose chase because of your concluding that the email from Peikoff to Jimmy Wales, a cc of which you received to your astonishment, was forged. If I recall right, you hadn't been putting plots into my head up till then.

Ellen

[Mark]

I read what RC wrote not what he says he meant. Why write “Mark claims X” instead of simply “X” if you’re not questioning X? Given RC’s previous negative remarks this read like one more.

Besides that, I never claimed or said I was an “expert on the Ayn Rand Institute.”

[Ms. Stuttle's] particular rulings regarding the acceptability Questions 1-4 and 8-26 are hereby requested.

Inquisitorial, bullying, mostly none of your business, and even such details as might have been legitimate for you to ask couched in such a way as not to deserve reply. Plus, padded out to look like a lot more questions than the substance needed for asking.

Yep.

Edited September 28, 2010 by Mark

[kiaer.ts]

[Ms. Stuttle's] "activity" included many insults directed at me and at her other critics that a third-party observer might deem "nasty."

"Activity" and "nasty" in scare quotes.

I've wondered for a long while if the start of your animosity against me was simply my publicly expressing irritation at the wild goose chase because of your concluding that the email from Peikoff to Jimmy Wales, a cc of which you received to your astonishment, was forged. If I recall right, you hadn't been putting plots into my head up till then.

Ellen

Well, no, those those are actually literal double-tick quotes placed around words that should have had single-tick scare quotes.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ellen,

Do you believe any of this is the truth?

I went with Durban House precisely because it was liberal publishing house that believed in my work. They were careful editors, as well, demanding substantial verification for each of my claims.

-Neil Parille

Agnostic, Neil. I've certainly told you that several times already about the second statement. I don't know what he means, like specifically what, if anything, happened in whatever editorial process occurred. I haven't bothered to follow the stuff about who owns Durban House, whether the house is technically "liberal," etc. Holly described it as "liberal," too, in Pelagius1 posts.

Maybe the "liberal" should be in scare quotes.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Well, no, those those are actually literal double-tick quotes placed around words that should have had single-tick scare quotes.

Where do you get your idea that literal quotes should be double-tick and scare quotes single-tick? There are publications that do it that way. I think it's a nuisance both to read and to copyedit. It wasn't done that way in trade book publishing generally at the time when I was editing. One problem with the style is that then what are you going to do with books written according to British punctuation (which uses single quotes for the outside quote and double quotes for inner quotes, opposite of American style)? Hell of a bother if one is publishing an American version of a British book if one also has to contend with double-tick for literal and single-tick for scare.

Ellen

[Robert Campbell]

I've wondered for a long while if the start of your animosity against me was simply my publicly expressing irritation at the wild goose chase because of your concluding that the email from Peikoff to Jimmy Wales, a cc of which you received to your astonishment, was forged. If I recall right, you hadn't been putting plots into my head up till then.

I thought the email was forged because cc'ing it to me was bizarre: Leonard Peikoff wouldn't have known who I was, and wouldn't have cc'd the thing to me unless someone advised him to—even then, why would he have cared to follow such advice? Then, of course, Peikoff didn't respond to my request to authenticate it.

That was all cleared up in about a week. I admitted my error, and moved on. (And from what I've subsequently observed of Peikoff's erratic behavior, I see no reason to believe that the cc'ing was well thought out or that the refusal to authenticate was deliberate.)

It hardly followed that because the Peikoff-to-Wales email was genuine that PARC was a worthwhile book, Jim Valliant was a good writer and a careful researcher, and Lindsay Perigo was justified in teaming up with Valliant and getting on the PARC bandwagon. In fact, Jimmy Wales rejected Peikoff's demands, as anyone who knew the workings of Wikipedia would have expected. If Peikoff wrote to Wales at Jim and Holly Valliant's request, they must have found the results disappointing.

Besides, Ms. Stuttle had frequently irritated other posters, myself sometimes included, with her compulsive nitpicking. MSK used to call her "The Grande Dame of St. Referee." Many of her comments about the Peikoff email were of that order. She seemed to think that it only she had been consulted, and the email worded to her precise specifications, the request for authentication would have been promptly answered.

But it was Ms. Stuttle's slide into defending Jim and Holly Valliant and her born-again professions to find that something or other (it's never been clear what) was the true "point of PARC," that did it as far as I was concerned. (Her move into the Valliant-Perigo orbit was under way during the first half of 2009, well before the Valliants were discovered to have been active at Wikipedia and well before the Peikoff-to-Wales missive.) Over time these were exacerbated by her chiming in with Lindsay Perigo and flunkies on select bits of verbal abuse, her sudden propensity to defend the musical judgments of Perigo and a couple of his flunkies, her applause when Perigo banned another participant at SOLO whose competition she didn't want, her insinuations that Barbara Branden had made stuff up about Ayn Rand, her ostentatious public challenges to Anne Heller (the kind Ms. Stuttle would complain were "putting [her] on trial" if anyone dared to direct them at Ms. Stuttle)...

I am inclined to think ill of anyone who (apparently) saw through the misquotations and the sophistical argumentation and the hectoring commentary in Jim Valliant's book, witnessed the desperate sleaze of his endless self-promotion ... then turned around and offered aid and comfort to Jim Valliant. Of course, it's a lousy deal for Mr. Valliant, because Ms. Stuttle despises him and condescends to him, but I can't summon up a whole lot of sympathy on account of his being used.

I am inclined to think ill of anyone who (apparently) saw through Lindsay Perigo's pseudo-intellectual pretensions and his verbal bullying and his bloody-minded blustering—not to mention his 180 degree turn about PARC and his instant conversion to Rand-worship after Barbara Branden decided he wasn't "Objectivist leader" material—then began flattering Perigo and kissing up to him—then lost interest in Perigo as soon as he could no longer deliver the venue Ms. Stuttle felt entitled to dominate.

I am inclined to think ill of anyone who shrugs off all the damage that Valliant and Perigo have done—whether it was Perigo's campaign to get Jim Peron kicked out of New Zealand, or his appalling tirades at the long list of people that he accuses of betraying him, or his and Valliant's teaming up with Hsieh and Maurone to trash Chris Sciabarra (whose friend Ms. Stuttle long pretended to be).

Robert Campbell