RoR: Forum

Rich,

I didn't pick this particular fight. Mr. "Man-Enough" did.

The facts are the facts. Allan got it wrong. Valliant never claimed what Allan says he claimed. PERIOD. I merely provided the evidence for everybody to see.

You can call that a hard-on if you like.

And your suggestion that checking the IP address would settle the matter gives way too big a loophole to the Brandens. You must be able to see that? Unless it would require a state of tumescence you would rather avoid altogether. (If so, I suggest you're thinking with the wrong head.) But do try pointing at my words instead of my crotch if you want me to take your argument seriously.

It's all well and good to say the Brandens "put this behind them" now, after they published their books and the world thinks Ayn Rand was all that they claimed of her. But, frankly, it's weak and evasive to say "move on" after their bitter smearjobs and to claim that pointing out their distortions and contradictions and misrepresentations and omissions is hurting Objectivism. I suppose this means that objectivity has no place in Objectivism? We should just look the other way and pretend the Brandens were honest even when glaring evidence proves they were (and are) not?

And by now you should know that I am not one to say "Move along, there's nothing to see here" next to the chalked outline of Rand's reputation. Not gonna happen. I know too well the Brandens tactics, and I know too well the grievous damage they have done to Objectivism. And as for loyalty, mine is to the facts, and to people honest enough to respect them. My loyalty to you would prove just as fierce if you were engaged in a search for the truth, I assure you, no matter what side you come down on. But a "move along" mentality doesn't win that loyalty from me.

Heck, I've even endorsed Michael when he's right. ;)

Post 161

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 2:04pm

How silly this gets... I was just rereading one of Brant's posts thinking about it.

So, in other words, if I were to say that I asked someone that is under some form of, uh, moderation (and I'm not saying I did because that is a Big Secret<tm> one way or the other) if they knew this Mr. Allen, and I was given a reply, I would not be able to mention that, right? Prime directive, and all? Not that it would matter, because one way or another that information would require some kind of endless and impossible "verification" process.

Alrighty then.

rde
And here I thought learning backgammon rules kind of sucked.

Post 162

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 2:10pm

Casey,

This is where you are, then. I've was like that for a very long time. I hope you find out that there is a much better place to be. You might come to find that life is far too short for that stance. Or not. You might need that kind of thing. I'm sure you're a really decent guy, and that's what counts.

best,
rde

Post 163

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 2:14pm

Rich,

I'm sure you are, too.

Thanks for the understanding.

Casey

Post 164

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 2:53pm

Back at you, Casey... :)

Our new friend is playing with our delicate sensibilities.

Gone coquette-ish, now that he's got our hearts all a fluttering.

This better not be you, Valliant- there's a place in Hell for guys that attack their own dust-jackets.... ;)

Post 165

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 3:27pm

"Allen" is neither me nor my wife, Holly, with whom I created Ideas in Action. Together, we were in full control of the project from start to finish.
(Edited by James S. Valliant on 10/19, 3:29pm)

Post 166

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 3:32pm

Casey,

Whenever things come up like the Cindy Awards, I always go look for myself.

Here is the link for the 1996 winners where it looks like WJM Productions (USA) actually was the winner of two bronze Cindy awards in the Experimental/Essay/Personal Statement category for Episode One of Ideas in Action: "James Valliant & Dr. Leonard Peikoff," and Episode Two of Ideas in Action: "Brad Hunt & James Valliant": http://www.cindys.com/win96/imwin96.htm#M

I believe that Mr. Allen's beef was not with false information, but with a "false impression" (please see his first post).

When kudos are by implication or omission, it's called hype. There's nothing wrong with hype. Everybody starting out in publishing does it.

I think Mr Allen was objecting to a high level of hype from a person on a work seemingly dedicated to exacting strict standards of honesty of others. The beef was probably about the lack of consistency in standards, which gives the impression of hypocrisy.

Michael

Post 167

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 3:46pm

Michael,

Again, I quote the sentence on the book flap:

"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 sentence plainly says in English that the SHOW, not Valliant and his wife, was "the winner" of two awards. It is only misleading if you don't know how to read ENGLISH. No where in that sentence does it claim that James and Holly were the winners (although they created and produced the show).

"He and his wife" is PLURAL. The singular reference to "the winner" cannot refer to James and Holly, but to the SHOW, which is singular, as is the word "winner." If "the winner" was referring to James by himself, then the sentence is incorrect as the subject of the sentence is NOT James, but JAMES AND HOLLY. OK? Jeesh.

Everything's misleading if you don't know how to read. I suggest that Mr. Allan knows better, and so do you. No?

In fact, it is MR. ALLAN's post that is misleading, not the other way round. Mr. Allan depends on an incorrect scanning of the sentence to conjure up his claim that the sentence is misleading. He's got huevos, I'll grant him that, but let's not fall for it, even a little bit, all right?

Post 168

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 3:50pm

Casey,

I seem to have hit some nerves, here. But I must say, the light is now brighter.

No, I most definitely am not either of the Brandens. And, yes, Michael, I am one of the "old guard," as you put it and I'm very glad to meet you, too.

Yes, guys, I do have one helluva story, which I promise not to embellish. It has been a painful road, which brings me to Mr. Engle (I think it was), life IS definitely too short to stay angry for as long as I have, which is the main reason I haven't frequented the Rand-devoted sites on the web. In fact, I've pretty much stayed away from orchestrated Objectivism since moving to California in 1983. (I left CA in '89, about 5 months after my first wife shot herself to death with her own S&W 38. We had been married less than 6 years. I now live southwest of Denver, in an area called Wet Mountain Valley.)

But every once and awhile something comes along where I have to make a stand. I'm glad to say that even my second wife now understands that.

Dr. Campbell, I'm very pleased to meet you. I, too, think that Rand was (and is) wrong on several important, MAJOR points, from metaphysics all the way through art. I look forward to having an opportunity to discuss those things you no longer agree with, AND to hear about your own field of work.

So, thanks for the compliments, gentleman. I have no idea what special rules you may operate by, here, and it may not matter. I only know how to be me, for better or worse.

I will put some "stuff" in the extended bio box; I no longer have a web site (or a blog).

A few more points: Nathaniel Branden might remember me, if only because I am fairly certain he spoofed me once about six years ago, via e-mail. Barbara wouldn't, because we only met once, in 1966. I will, however, confess that I have more respect for her than for Nathan, whom I consider to be a sociopathic personality, whose wit is exceeded only by his immorally earned self esteem.

What I think of LP and his gang on the west coast, we will get to eventually.

Was it Mr. Engle (sorry if I am spelling your name incorrectly) or Brant who keeps chiding me over the miniscule relevance of those CINDYs. You see, I take them as representative of Mr. Valliant's entire methodology, along with 100 other little things, which in themselves seem perfectly innocent and innocuous.

At this point, anyone interested should look at pages 210 through 215 of Vallient's book. That is where his ignorance of psychology REALLY starts to show. (Michael, that's where the "repression" thing comes from.

... to be continued...

JA

Post 169

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:11pm

Casey,

I've been in showbiz too long. Everything you stated I saw from the time I bought the book several months ago. I also drafted those kinds of things for my artists in Brazil. Technically correct things that just "appear" to be different on a fast reading.

Hype, like I said. Also, please note that I said that there is nothing wrong with it. It's a publicity thing to boost a product in a competitive market. Everyone who wants to make it does it.

I was just answering your question as to what I thought John Allen's "beef" was.

To me, his beef was not with the fact, but with the impression.

Now tell me that this kind of impression simply doesn't exist in reality and I will show you a bunch of examples from PARC where this is precisely James's complaint against the Brandens' books.

btw - I believe that the production company was the winner, not the shows as entities - technically speaking of course. I might be wrong, but the way it is listed on the Cindy site sure gives that impression.

Michael

Edit - John, doing the reading right now...

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/19, 4:12pm)

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/19, 4:15pm)

Post 170

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:19pm

Mr. Allan,

You state concerning the statement on PARC's book flap:

"Was it Mr. Engle (sorry if I am spelling your name incorrectly) or Brant who keeps chiding me over the miniscule relevance of those CINDYs. You see, I take them as representative of Mr. Valliant's entire methodology, along with 100 other little things, which in themselves seem perfectly innocent and innocuous."

Yes, the sentence IS indicative of Valliant's methodology, in that it is entirely and meticulously ACCURATE and states nothing that is not verifiably CORRECT, and that it states such in plain, clear English. Don't try to act like you've scored a point here -- you're starting in the negative column with an inaccurate accusation like that, and only admitting that you misread the sentence in the first place is going to dig you out.

I hope this false claim against PARC and Valliant is not indicative of your methodology, or your lack of understanding of the English language, either of which would badly handicap any points you may have drawn from other parts of Valliant's book and would lead to a waste of time similar to the one this claim has already caused.

Post 171

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:38pm

As the book flap clearly indicates, the show won the awards. The production company, Michael? Do you even know who -- what persons -- that was? Do you know who made what technical decisions? Perhaps the statement was too modest. Why don't you call and ask? My wife will probably pick up the phone, but I'm not sure.

But how absurd is this whole discussion?

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 10/19, 5:20pm)

Post 172

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:43pm

Didn't you read my post above, James?

WJM Productions.

The way the awards are mentioned, you get the impression that the award winner is the company for a specific production. Correct me if I am wrong. I am just going by what is on the Cindy site.

Edit - Here's the link again if you don't want to scroll up:
http://www.cindys.com/win96/imwin96.htm#M

Michael

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/19, 4:44pm)

Post 173

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:45pm

Exactly, Michael. Who is that?

(Edited by James S. Valliant
on 10/19, 4:46pm)

Post 174

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:21pm

Allen, about post 146.

Are you implying movie stars don't win oscars because the industry pays for it. Have you told anyone else about this? This is a major story!

You said in #128 you knew Ayn Rand "bound to be obvious to anyone, such as myself, who not only HAD met her, but who actually knew her before, during and long after "the Break."

But then in #140 you said, "In spring/summer of 1969, Miss Rand gave a writing course...That is where I met her, formally, for the first time."

When did you learn your "ability to interpret the various nuances present in the words of her journals?"

Post 175

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:48pm

James,

"Absurd" or "exactly"?

//;-)

(Just fucking with you.)

Michael

Edit - Our edits crossed. How the hell should I know? I ain't got no crystal ball.

(Edited by Michael Stuart Kelly on 10/19, 4:49pm)

Post 176

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:53pm

My point is made, then, Michael.

WJM Productions comprised two individuals: our dear friend, W. J. Missett, and my wife. Period.

Post 177

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 5:01pm

Technically speaking, James, you stated clearly - Post 171:

As the book flap clearly indicates, the show won the awards.

Not the production company? I thought you liked precision. I certainly do.

But what point? That I and other readers should have a crystal ball?

(As a former promoter, I suggest you mention the company in future releases that include the Cindy awards. It's really not bad info and avoids confusion, since the press uses this. But, it's your thing...)

Michael

Post 178

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 4:53pm

For the record, this is the first post from me that contains the word "Cindy."

Mr. Allen: Did you write your first SOLO post or did Barbara Branden? Did she have any input? Did you do something at her behest here? I can't ask her and post here what she says (house rule; she's persona non grata at SOLO), so I'm asking you. I will take your word for it. This is the second time I've asked you. Simple questions. Because I've defended her in the past, I am on a very short lease at SOLO. If you don't answer I will ask her and post what she has to say, or paraphrase it, with the owners' permission.

--Brant

Post 179

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 - 5:33pm