RoR: Forum

James,

ahem...

There is a characteristic that is common to practically all the Rand hardliners (I don't know what else to call them without going off into old disputes, which is not my intent) that I have noticed in their writing.

They have a great deal of difficulty with humor.

The Valliantroid comment was a joke. A friendly poke in the ribs (at least to the extent that this is possible). No malice. It was a funny thing to say and was offered, not as a put down (which is where hardliners always seem to migrate), but as an attempt to make the environment lighter and more benevolent. We are discussing serious and sensitive issues here. Things can explode into needless acrimony at the drop of a hat. I wish to avoid that and stay on the ideas.

It would have been easy to pick a fight with Daniel and get away from the real issues under discussion. People do it all the time. That's not my way unless I have been grossly and explicitly insulted. I have seen some of Daniel's posts and I like a good deal of what I see. So why go there?

(Believe me, if and when I wish to express malice, I have no difficulty in being very clear.)

I have seen you grow a bit of a sense of humor over time. At least in your posts (here and elsewhere) that growth has been noticeable. What happened to it all of the sudden?

btw - What does it feel like to be perfect? It's something I might want to shoot for.

//;-)

Michael

Post 201

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 8:25am

(Counselor) Valliant:

I have yet to misrepresent you in any way, nor would I intentionally misrepresent you or anyone else.

First, I never stated, in any of my posts, that you had claimed Mr. Branden to be a sociopath. That is my own opinion, based on personal observation and an understanding of Branden's writing. It is not based on anything contained in PARC, nor even any of your "Branden quotes."

Second, I never said that I knew Ayn Rand better, or over a longer period of time, than many of her associates now living on the west coast. Nor would I make such a claim. But I do know many of the people who did know her over a longer period of time, some of whom no doubt claim to have enjoyed your book. Those same people, especially Leonard Peikoff, are prone to wild over-enthusiasm, handing out profuse compliments as a way of life, when it suits them, but always demonstrating enormous arrogance. I have never had much use for such people, and I haven't since 1975. Yet, that is the very sort of people Ayn Rand chose to surround herself with. At one point I was part of that crowd and decided that my own integrity was worth more to me than being part of "the Inner Circle."

Finally, it is so thoughtful of you express concern over an embarrassment you are so certain I will encounter, here among some rather astute folks. But, I haven't even begun to state my serious objections to your book. Therefore, your contention that everything I will say has been said and royally refuted heretofore is, shall we say, presumptious. You still, apparantly, do not know who I am and, apparantly do not believe it to be relevant. I urge you, sir, to ask Dr. Peikoff, who will confirm that I was studying Objectivist Epistemology, in his graduate seminar, before there existed a text. Or not, as you see fit. Whether or not you stay around is of no consequence to me. I will not misrepresent you, but since you seem to want to put words in my mouth, I will be sure to continue to make hardcopies of every page in this thread. I make no claim to be a lawyer, but I do know this much: the truth is an absolute defense against any accusation of libel. And to prove libel, one has to show not only misrepresentation, but also malice, as I am sure you know. The only down side, if one is innocent, is the cost in both money and time. Once again, you don't know anything about me or how well prepared I might be to deal with you, should it become necessary.

Have a good weekend.

(Edited by John Allen on 10/20, 9:29am)

Post 202

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:11am

Mr. Allen, I don't know who the hell you are, either. You claim to have had personal contact with Ayn Rand. That's nice. I wish I had.

I haven't seen anything of substance in your posts so far, just insinuations and unpleasantness. I think if you had anything to say, you would have said it by now. I read Valliant's book, and I have a mixed, but mostly favorable, reaction to it. And I have a 100% favorable reaction to James Valliant personally, after reading his calm, reasonable, and decent posts here on SOLO.

It seems, Mr. Allen, that you are trying to build up interest and curiosity in order to prime us for some future posts in which you will make some significant point. But you have turned me off. I will not be holding my breath waiting for your pearls of wisdom.

Post 203

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:14am

These Are The Days Of Our Lives

I love freaky shit, always have. I think I just hit the saturation point as far as mining this vein goes, though.

Eew.

rde

Post 204

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 7:58am

As producer and director of the show in question, I want to thank my adorable husband for his kind credit, but Mr. Missett and I both understood, at the time and since, that it was the content of the show, not the production qualities, that won the awards.

Post 205

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:09am

Mrs. Valliant,

In my own posts, I merely referred to whom the entity was that won the award - not what criteria was used in granting it. That's just a precision thing in getting facts right that I value. The impression given in Jame's blurb on a quick reading is that he won the awards as a person - even though that is not stated.

I applaud that kind of cleverness for the author's publicity. It was well done.

(I do find it strange that people are now trying to insinuate that these things don't exist after James has written a long book complaining about them from other people.)

I also believe that Mr. Allen mentioned the fact that knowledge about the criteria for judgment was not given in the publicity provided by the Cindy award people.

I have no doubt that something good was done, however, otherwise an award would not have been given. Actually, you sound like a good producer.

Michael

Post 206

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:12am

I applaud that kind of cleverness for the author's publicity. It was well done.

(I do find it strange that people are now trying to insinuate that these things don't exist after James has written a long book complaining about them from other people.)

Which was, it seems, Mr. Allen's point. If we're going for precision with all things, that is.

But, it will be different, right? Incorrect analogy? One willful the other not? *sigh* Different moral magnitude? *sigh* Only involved self not another? *sigh*

rde
Granularity really fucks people up.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 10/20, 10:14am)

Post 207

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:39am

So, it wasn't just a joke, then, MSK? We did send a false impression that I, personally and alone, had won these awards? Or, did the show spontaneously generate? See why I have a hard time yukin' it up with you about such things? I'm with Laure on all of this.

Post 208

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 10:48am

James,

I do declare, I have a hard time communicating with you precision-wise when you lose your sense of humor.

The humor was about the "perfect" comment. Valliantroid. I even answered a specific post of yours about it. The humor was not about the slant of your publicity, nor have I ever even implied such.

Has that been so hard to understand?

Your own precision has been going to pieces recently. Come on. You're better than that.

Michael

Post 209

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 11:27am

Sorry, Michael, I'll work on it!

Post 210

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 11:45am

Thank you, James.

Lack of precision is very unbecoming, being an attorney and all...

Michael

Post 211

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:36am

Michael, I didn't know you were a Rand hardliner?

"There is a characteristic that is common to practically all the Rand hardliners that I have noticed in their writing.
They have a great deal of difficulty with humor."

You talking about your self?

Now don't tell Dad on me.

LOL

Post 212

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 12:49pm

Why on earth do I get the impression that we just went from Oscar Wilde to Jerry Lewis?

Ah me. Those damn impressions...

Michael

Post 213

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 2:03pm

Are you saying they are humorless, Michael?

It's more like a case of atrophy. I wanted to say anal retentive, but that might be too much.

Maybe that's why the hottest event at the Objectivist conventions is cha-cha classes. Wear comfortable, leather-soled shoes...

Dack.

rde
For everyone that looked at Dagny as a hot piece of ass, there was a guy that was sick of her.

Post 214

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 8:02pm

Thank you, James.

Lack of precision is very unbecoming, being an attorney and all...

You're a good guy, MSK, but what a condescending remark, coming after a gracious post from James, where he could have pushed the issue further but chose not too.

I'll push the issue a bit further, just to show that it can be done.

The impression given in Jame's blurb on a quick reading is that he won the awards as a person - even though that is not stated.

I applaud that kind of cleverness for the author's publicity. It was well done.

It still sounds like you're saying that the publisher was somehow cleverly misleading. That's a serious allegation--even if you applaud it--and it seems ridiculous, considering that the statement in question is just a simple and crystal clear statement of fact.

At one point you made a (also condescending) post to James about his sense of humor, and said:

The humor was about the "perfect" comment. Valliantroid. I even answered a specific post of yours about it. The humor was not about the slant of your publicity, nor have I ever even implied such

The humor was not about the slant of his publicity? The "perfect" comment was based on the idea that the imperfection I had failed to recognize was Valliant's cleverly misleading publicity. The humor did in fact contain an implication about the slant of Valliant's publicity.

James chose not to argue these points and to let the issue drop, because it's not worth it. I was going to let it drop too, but that condescending response to a gracious post bugged me.

Post 215

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:10pm

Daniel,

What a dark murky world you guys inhabit! I'm serious.

You are so used to put-downs and condescending remarks (now tell me that James does not engage in this!) and sarcasm and whatnot that you simply do not see... what can you call it... innocence? Sincerity? What?

How about what is right under your nose?

Everything has to be a mind game for you guys? Well go for it, buddy. It's your life. I don't live there. That's not my world.

Simply put, the Valliantroid remark was a play on words with his name and Randroid - and the perfect comment was a play on the Rand morally perfect routine. As I clearly said, a friendly poke in the ribs.

You see some kind of sin in hype. Others do too I guess. I sincerely do not. If you cannot get your goods sold, how on earth can you convince anybody of anything?

ALL COMPETITIVE ADVERTISEMENT is "cleverly misleading," if you insist on looking at it that way. Not all advertisement. The sign:

Apples - 50 cents a piece

is not misleading. But it is not competitive either.

What's next? Profits are evil?

Playing on strong points and leaving out stuff to give a better impression is a very good advertising strategy. I sincerely mean that. (I suggested including it because of the press, which was not too much of an issue before.)

If you think that is crooked, give up capitalism - because competition, including being heard in a loud marketplace, is part of what it's all about. Under socialism, you have a better chance to not be "cleverly misleading" in this Platonic sense and still sell your work if you are an unknown.

Now about the humor remark, LOLOLOLOLOLOL... I had not noticed that connection. Dayaamm!

Sorry Daniel. I'm a much happier guy than all those intrigues and shit you guys are into. Oh... I can banter and wisecrack with the best of you, but I just ain't where you're at. Now that I see the connection you brought up, I can no longer not see it. And it is funny as all get out.

LOLOLOLOLOLOL...

ahem...

About precision, I was dead serious. If Valliant wants to constantly take issue because such-and-such a date was wrong, or because some number was off, or a name was misspelled, or things of this nature, well why can't he be held to the same standard? Merely because he got a good review on Solo recently? Gimmee a break.

Fact are facts and standards are standards. Precision is important. He dismissed it. I didn't. He wants to say that he (person - Mr Valliant) and his wife's production company are the same thing. They are not. So then he insinuates, well, it's almost the same thing. No it isn't. Then he insinuates it is not important. Well, yes it is, if you like facts. I happen to like them.

(btw - Try rereading his "gracious" post with the exclamation point at the end and see if you don't get a hint of sarcasm.)

Now about Valliant's book - that is ONE issue that I will not let drop. I don't mind the advertising slant. I do not like the constant anti-Branden bias in details that do not warrant it and general lack of objectivity. I still have a review to write later.

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/20, 9:15pm)

Post 216

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:19pm

The statement wasn't misleading, Michael.

Here it is again for your review. (Hint: Pay attention to verb-subject-noun agreement. It helps a lot when reading English, or just about any language I would imagine.)

"He and his wife, Holly, created the 1995 television interview show, "Ideas in Action," the winner of two prestigious Cinema in Industry (CINDY) awards."

This is really getting to be hilarious now.

Post 217

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:22pm

Casey,

LOLOLOLOL...

Why do you look for defect where there is none?

Please read my posts. Focus on the part where it says "on a quick reading..."

Then focus on where I said I think that this was clever.

It was.

Michael

Edit - If you like, you can go back to Mr. Allen's first post and see that the word used was "impression." (That was his objection - not the grammar.) Simple English, if you want to see it.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/20, 9:24pm)

Post 218

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:25pm

The many errors in dates and numbers (but spellings, Michael?!) contained within the Brandens' books (glad you noticed though) are not any part of my book. Apart from noting that Ms. Branden got Rand's "first" sight of a "major European city" dead wrong, I take issue with absolutely no "numbers" or dates or spellings of the Brandens' at all.

Actually, I make a point -- in the text -- of intentionally ignoring such things.

Or, is the contrary merely the "impression" you want to leave us with?

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 10/20, 10:06pm)

Post 219

Thursday, October 20, 2005 - 9:49pm