Tito

Jimmy Wales: Objectivist

82 posts in this topic

I just checked the forum rules/guidelines (http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=35) and it makes no mention of the Brandens so it seems that you are misinformed.

It's covered by broader principles that do not require spelling out what is wrong with regarding the Brandens as reliable sources while Leonard Peikoff and James Valliant are not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just checked the forum rules/guidelines (http://forums.4aynrandfans.com/index.php?showtopic=35) and it makes no mention of the Brandens so it seems that you are misinformed.

It's covered by broader principles that do not require spelling out what is wrong with regarding the Brandens as reliable sources while Leonard Peikoff and James Valliant are not.

Jordan,

Let me clarify my position on this matter and how it affects THE FORUM.

Based on plenty of first-hand evidence gathered since the NBI days, I have concluded that the Brandens are dishonest, have been telling lies about Ayn Rand that have damaged her reputation in ways she has not deserved, and, as a result, has harmed the spread of Objectivism. Based on the reaction your statements, above, have received, you can see I am not the only one here of that opinion.

I know you don't evaluate the Brandens as I do, but I suggest you check out the facts of the matter available to you. If you haven't already done so, read James Valliant's book. You can ignore his analysis if you choose, but definitely read and form your own opinions based on Ayn Rand's own contemporaneous journal entries that form a large part of the book. This is Ayn Rand's side of the story in her own words and primary source material -- not just her enemies' opinions. If you give Ayn Rand a fair hearing, you may find, as many formerly staunch supporters of the Brandens have, that your evaluation will become more like mine.

Until you have read Ayn Rand's side in Valliant's book, do not comment on either the Brandens or the Valliant book because your opinions do not take important, relevant facts into account. If you have read the book and still disagree, we can discuss the reasons for your disagreement then.

Betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The manipulative use of Wikipedia's "standards" to avoid Leonard Peikoff's appeal has already been described.

They haven't avoided his appeal at all. Since Peikoff put his letter on his website, the editors have altered their opinion a bit. Further, to use the word "manipulative" is ridiculous. I read and reread the thread and there is nothing manipulative about the editors points.

Appeals to Wikipedia's alleged "objective" standards of "scholarship"

I never said any such thing. Misquoting makes you look ridiculous.

those who are too far behind to know how to further review the subject on their own.

Condescend much?

The word "spam" has a meaning, and it is not 'anything that someone doesn't like'.

It has multiple meanings. One of them is your definition (with regards to email). Another is to send copious communications to another party to the point of annoyance - which is precisely what Valliant (et al) did.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know you don't evaluate the Brandens as I do, but I suggest you check out the facts of the matter available to you. If you haven't already done so, read James Valliant's book.

Actually, I have read PARC. Let me make this perfectly clear. I think Nathaniel Branden's treatment of Ayn Rand was inexcusable, dishonest and cruel. I don't in any way sanction it. It was heartbreaking to read Ayn Rand's diary entries of the time. I don't care for Mr. Branden and find him to be a hypocrite. I don't judge Barbara Branden as harshly, however, except in one regard: the appalling Passion of Ayn Rand for Showtime. That movie has a travesty and Ms. Branden should be ashamed to have been a part of it.

I have no association with the Brandens whatsoever. They occasionally speak at TAS events. I generally do not go to Nathaniel Branden's talks but I have enjoyed Barbara Branden's talks. Also, Barbara Branden is an occasional poster on a forum that I frequent.

These are my bona fides. I hope that I am still welcome here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you have read the book and still disagree, we can discuss the reasons for your disagreement then.

I have a number of issues with James Valliant with regard to his book. Is this thread the appropriate place for them? After I finished the book, I wrote a blog with my issues. It's here: http://www.jordanzimmerman.com/parc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The manipulative use of Wikipedia's "standards" to avoid Leonard Peikoff's appeal has already been described.

They haven't avoided his appeal at all. Since Peikoff put his letter on his website, the editors have altered their opinion a bit. Further, to use the word "manipulative" is ridiculous. I read and reread the thread and there is nothing manipulative about the editors points.

They avoided the content of his intelligently written appeal, substituting Wikipedia business as usual. The sophistry in that whole discussion is a farce. Those who control the content of Wikipedia by manipulating, in the name of objectivity and scholarship, laughably artificial "standards" of what has suitable "status" for their purposes, are ridiculous. Wikipedia is notorious for this, but for all its long-winded sophistry it evades its essential nature as collectivist as the source of the problem, replacing objectivity with collective subjectivism and rambling pseudo-intellectualism.

Appeals to Wikipedia's alleged "objective" standards of "scholarship"

I never said any such thing. Misquoting makes you look ridiculous.

You said: "They are, however, applying an objective standard in regards to the issue of using PARC as a reliable source (in the context of how that term is used on Wikipedia)" and "It seems to me that the Wikipedia editors are being quite objective here." The alleged Ayn Rand "scholars" manipulating themselves into a position of superior "status" to justify excluding James Valliant's book is what is ridiculous. Artificial "standards" stubbornly adhered to to avoid real scholarship is not objectivity.

Your suggesting that Leonard Peikoff should jump through hoops to "bolster" his "status" under their phony standards of objectivity and scholarship to "achieve what he wants" is repugnant. That is what you started with and is what got you into trouble immediately.

those who are too far behind to know how to further review the subject on their own.

Condescend much?

This is what you said: "There's now evidence by Ewv in this thread to support his claims:

Their ridiculous "policy" is not "objective" and is not applied consistently. The kind of pseudo-scholarly political manipulation of the content for a desired outcome on Wikipedia is well known.

The full response you ignored was:

The manipulative use of Wikipedia's "standards" to avoid Leonard Peikoff's appeal has already been described. The evidence of how Wikipedia is run has in fact been discussed many times here on the Forum and elsewhere, as has already been pointed out. Appeals to Wikipedia's alleged "objective" standards of "scholarship", especially on controversial subjects, as an alleged premise on which to defend its actions against Leonard Peikoff and James Valliant are too ridiculous to warrant further detail except perhaps by those with the time and patience to try to educate those who are too far behind to know how to further review the subject on their own. Self-justifying appeals to Wikipedia to rationalize acceptance of controverisal Wikipedia content are now far beyond serious discussion.

That is not "condescending"; it refutes your false assertion, which you did not address in favor of a snide comment. Which category you fall into is up to you, but you cannot get away with claims that there is no evidence for the criticism of Wikipedia and its procedures.

The word "spam" has a meaning, and it is not 'anything that someone doesn't like'.

It has multiple meanings. One of them is your definition (with regards to email). Another is to send copious communications to another party to the point of annoyance - which is precisely what Valliant (et al) did.

That is not what "spam" means. You are misusing the term non-descriptively to discredit him with innuendo. Someone's "annoyance" with communications that are correct but which the recipient dislikes is not an objective evaluation of his communications and not grounds for dismissing his book as an unreliable source. You cannot get away with accusing James Valliant as responsible for the "whole issue ... because [he] made a nuisance of himself by spamming."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites