william.scherk

Those who are intrigued/appalled by scathing reviews of Atlas Shrugged might want to have a gander at the post "What I Think About Atlas Shrugged" by John Scalzi at his Whatever blog. The review is unfair, unbalanced, sophomoric, and strangely . . . funny. The 300-odd comments that follow are sometimes hilarious also. Here's a sample:

I didn't put up the text of her note to members, considering it to be private, but she has also posted the same text on her blog (which features a new posting on Pam Geller, Rand and the NYC mosque whoop-up). Here's the text to be found at her Wordpress blog:

According to a message sent to readers/members at her Facebook page "Ayn Rand and the World She Made by Anne C. Heller," Heller is shortly to visit the Archives as a registered user. She invites members of her page to send her research questions via email (questions based on her book or other reputable sources) and writes that she will report on her visit later this month. Interesting news.

There is a bit of commentary on Anthemgate at Greg Nyquist's blog. He came up with an interesting phrase in a comment: "Mummified Reason" Although glib and somewhat nasty, it has the tang of a useful metaphor. What is, by all measures, one of the most dynamic and useful of human attributes, and revered by all who are Objectivish -- pickled and swaddled and lodged under the temple at Mount ARI.

Yup. Another question -- one that seems to relate to his 'casting out' McCaskey:

OL readers may be aware that three provisions of Canada's criminal code have just been struck down by an Ontario Superior Court Judge [Bedford v Canada]. The three laws judged unconstitutional (in Canucki parlance, 'contrary to Charter rights') cover 'Living off the avails of prostitution,' 'soliciting for the purpose of prostitution,' and 'keeping a common bawdy house.' Prostitution itself is legal in Canada, in that no law on the books prohibits anyone from paying for sex. The three criminal laws struck down, however, prohibited any public selling/soliciting, prohibited the operation of brothels (bawdy houses) and prohibited anyone profiting from prostitution. Now, we find a grand debate underway in Canada. I am interested in Objectivish takes on prostitution law, and also in any prognostications on how the laws will likely be rewritten or revised or updated. As some may be aware, two other 'moral' laws have been struck down in Canada in the past decades. The first to go were laws against abortion: there is presently no law on the books with regard to abortion. The second was marriage law (marriage is a federal concern) that made marriage unavailable to same-sex couples. In the first instance, no law concerning abortion has been able to pass Parliament, and realistically, no party can hope to pass any such law. In the second instance, the feds wrote a law that recognizes no distinction of gender, and directed the provinces to revise their statutes. As a result, abortion is entirely a matter between a woman and her doctor, and marriages are solemnized in all Canadian jurisdictions regardless of gender. What is interesting to me is that a socialist hellhole like Canada has had laws disappear, with no chance in hell that the Charter freedoms will be abridged again. The basis for the decisions on abortion and gay marriage has been the supposed balance between 'society' and the 'individual.' In each case, judgements have come down on the side of the individual. The harm caused to individuals by the laws has been judged to be much more important than any harm supposed to apply to the collective. The debate now raging has made some strange bedfellows; moralistic religious groups are making common cause with a wing of the feminist intelligentsia to demand fresh criminal law. It seems to me that once a Charter case has been decided in Canada, that is that . . . it gives me satisfaction to see individual rights trump notions of state/social interests. If an appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada fails, I suspect that prostitution will become a regulated trade as with the situation in the Netherlands or New Zealand, rather than with the current Nordic model.

Yes, she was definitely an adherent -- in that she was a leading practitioner until she became disenchanted. She tells the story -- repeated several times on the TFT-ALGO list at Yahoo and elsewhere -- that she had hoped her research would support VT (I refer to the study that blinded participants receiving either VT-derived or randomly-derived 'algorhythms,' and compared outcomes**). It didn't support VT, and she eventually bailed on the entire TFT enterprise. Here is one of the tellings of the story, from her blog at Psychjourney. I add emphasis to the part that sketches out her adherence to VT, in the context of her understanding of the bias of allegiance effects†: VT is claimed to give people precise individualized sequences of meridian points that they are then instructed to tap on. What my results demonstrate is that one can get the same results from completely randomly selected sequences, costing nothing to produce, as one gets from the $100,000 VT. There is no difference. People might be wondering what kind of impact this has had on the VT community. One VT practitioner did resign along with me because of this. However, for the vast majority of VT practitioners that were still practicing, it has been business as usual, even after the announcement of my publication. [i should note that of the 25-30 people who trained in VT, only around 12 still practice it, so others have become disillusioned for various reasons as well]. I have received no requests from the VT community to view a preprint of my article. Apparently, they want to pretend that it doesn't exist, but wishing doesn't make it so. Most likely if any do bother to read it, they will come up with a way to rationalize and explain it all away. I did want to make all this widely known on the internet, though, because I know that many people are now knowledgeable enough to do websearches when learning more about various topics. If people look into TFT and VT doing Google searches on "Thought Field Therapy" or "Voice Technology", I want them to be able to go beyond the grandiose claims being made and to know that there is another side to this story. Brandon Gaudiano and Paul Lee's websites do an excellent job of this and I wish to make a contribution to this as someone who has had personal experience in the "Granfalloon" of the TFT world, as well as having done research. It has been noted that many studies done by proponents of various therapies that do not come out favorably, suffer from "file drawer" syndrome. That is, the results never get made public. Having had this experience, I can now understand why this is. It was very difficult for me, after having had such a strong and very public commitment commitment (financially, intellectually and emotionally) to have to let people know that I had been wrong. It's much easier to rationalize away the results and I fell into that trap for awhile. However, there came a time in my involvement with TFT and VT that too much wasn't adding up and I realized that I could no longer ignore it, if I wanted to maintain any kind of integrity and self- respect. ** For those who would like to read the study, it is published in the Spring/Summer 2005 issue of The Scientific Review Of Mental Health Practice, under the title "Thought Field Therapy Voice Technology vs. Random Meridian Point Sequences: A Single-blind Controlled Experiment." † Allegiance effects are a kind of confirmation bias . . . 'investigators commonly find the most effective treatment is the one to which they hold a theoretical allegiance.' [link]

Are you suggesting that Hawking's disability prevents him from expressing himself, or that any production in print or on stage/video is suspect in some way? If yes, if as it seems you consider that the productions in his name are suspect, can you give us an idea of what you think happens between him and the apparatus he appears to use? Have you ever watched Hawking in recent video, Ellen, seen or read of him in action answering questions from an interviewer or audience? If you are wondering what story is told to explain his synthesized speech productions, and his abilities to use language, there is a page on his website, under the title "Prof Stephen Hawking's Disability Advice." If you watch a recent video of Hawking 'speaking' through his voice synthesizer, you can see that the only thing that he moves on his body is his right cheek. I have also seen a video of him answering questions recently, which did not edit out the entire time it takes him to answer a question put to him. The video crew showed the screen that he watched. As far as I could tell, the synthesizer is no simple 'hunt and peck' device. In any case, there have been a few cases of folks who have been paralyzed by cerebral accident who have used computers to 'write' . . . I will try to find a reference for you if you like. I am very interested in your reply. I wonder what kinds of material -- if anything -- might satisfy your skepticism that a production labeled "Stephen Hawking" is actually a production of the man himself. There is a relatively recent (March 2010) report from BBC that should interest you. See the video of "Giving Stephen Hawking A Voice." There are some other enlightening stories on communication devices and strategies for disabled people on the same page. PS -- see also an article in the Guardian in which the reporter claims to have interviewed Hawking. I give just a brief excerpt to entice readers who doubt the man can communicate/write/think in consecutive, coherent thought. Those not paralyzed by doubt, who are yet capable of coherent consecutive action, can use Google to find the whole dang thing . . . "Behind his shoulder, his assistant nods. There will now be some time for live questions. Stupidly, given that I have read all about it, I fail to realise just how arduous and time-consuming the process of live communication is. If I did, I wouldn't squander the time on asking a joke, warm-up question. I tell him I have heard he has six different voices on his synthesizer and that one is a woman's. Hawking lowers his eyes and starts responding. After five minutes of silence the nurse sitting beside me closes her eyes and appears to go to sleep. I look around. On the windowsill are framed photos stretching back through Hawking's life. There are photos of one of his daughters with her baby. I notice Hawking's hands are thin and tapering. He is wearing black suede Kickers. Another five minutes pass. There are pictures of Marilyn Monroe on the wall, one of which has been digitally manipulated to feature Hawking in the foreground. I see a card printed with the slogan: "Yes, I am the centre of the universe." I write it down and turn the page in my notebook. It makes a tearing sound and the nurse's eyes snap open. She goes over to Hawking and, putting her hand on his head, says, "Now then, Stephen," and gently wipes saliva from the side of his mouth. Another five minutes pass. Then another. Hawking's assistant, who sits behind him to see what is going on on his screen, nods slightly. Here it comes: "That was true of one speech synthesizer I had. But the one I use normally has only one voice. It is 20 years old, but I stick to it because I haven't found better and because I'm known by it worldwide." That's it? The fruit of 20 minutes' effort? This man is a Hercules." NB -- the purported co-author is Mlodinow, not Mendelev.

Thanks for forking this up, Mr Threepwood. I have seen the documentary before, and enjoyed it. The BBC reporter was featured in Scientology propaganda once the Panorama programme appeared -- as they had followed him around with their own cameras. You have probably seen the footage of him flipping out on a Church creep (see below). I don't believe the TFT cultists ever approach the concerted actions of the Church when confronted by critics and investigators. In that sense, TFT is benign in comparison. Incidentally, did you know that Monica Pignotti, the highest profile 'defector' from TFT, was a Sea Org Scientologist? She details her experience in the Church in a lengthy piece, "My Nine Lives In Scientology." It is spellbinding reading, highly recommended. Pignotti has been subject to online harassment in the past couple of years. I doubt that any TFT proponents are leading this action, but she certainly has ticked off a few people. Pignotti is also an Objectivist.

Do yourself a favour and put your tormenter on your ignore list, as has been already suggested by MSK. It is easy. You simply won't see posts from him ever again. It might give you some relief. Click your name at the top of the screen. Click 'manage ignored users.' Scroll down on the new page. Enter the name of the person you want to ignore. Check 'Ignore Personal Conversations.' Check 'Ignore Posts.' Click 'Save changes.' Voila !! Your stalker/tormenter disappears from your OL experience (except for inside quotes made by other posters).

I don't have an aversion to the whole notion of psychotherapy, Brant. I think we can find a difference between a therapy 'art' that is modest in its claims -- or that limits its claims -- and a therapy that claims to be revolutionary and better than anything else on the market. I cut my skeptical teeth in the 1990s on a really gruesome outbreak of irrational and dangerous psychotherapy, Recovered Memory Therapy. I spent a solid five years 'in the trenches' so to speak, in the real world and online, doing my best to counter that madness. Psychotherapy offers hope that distress can be understood and relieved. Whether depression, phobia, anxiety or even Borderline Personality Disorder, there are thousands of arts offered for sale to those who suffer. I am supportive of those therapies that are advertised with their limitations spelled out. I am also interested in the clinical/research gap, which showed itself most starkly in the RMT horror. There is tension between the two poles. It seems to me that one can be an eclectic practitioner like Nathaniel Branden (or even Doctor Hardin) and use a variety of tools to help clients with their distress. The issues for me are concerned with the age-old epistemic puzzles -- "how do you know/believe?" When the claims of TFT are examined rationally, they dissolve. So, in the context of the Five Minute Phobia Cure and TFT encrustations, what interests me is how we can tell the difference between therapies that work as advertised and those that don't. I want reliable knowledge and I certainly haven't found it in the hucksterism and snake oil offered by the worst of the TFT proponents. I have empathy for Doctor Hardin. He wants to help his clients. He wants to use the best tools he can find to give that help. My points have been addressed to the paucity of support for the claims made; if I could start again, I would probably ask Doctor Hardin how he would know that he is wrong about TFT, or ask him if he was familiar with critical inquiry into TFT. It surprised me that he set the tone for discussion with all out boosterism, and has since dissolved into irrational denunciations of 'evul' anti-life Scherk fools and so on.

I think the difference is the extent of the penetration of the story. It is pumped up a lot larger than the earlier expulsion -- the meme has legs. Plus this one is easier to understand for the ARI-infected. The apparent injustice is more stark, and easier to grasp. The Reisman/Packer expulsions were more involved. This one is hugely public.

Sometimes testimonials have a value above and beyond the obvious. One of the world's leading practitioners and trainers in TFT has a full page of glowing tributes to the effectiveness of TFT. Here is the one that made the biggest impression on me. From Dr Ng's Testimonials page. "I certainly saw the efficacy of TFT demonstrated in a powerful way. Our pet, a lizard, had been acting depressed and anxious for the past 6-9 months. While this may sound strange, he would become very anxious when it came time for him to eat and he gradually ate less and less and required a lot of time-consuming coaxing and reassurance to eat. He spent most of his time in his "box" in his cage, showing little interest in the world outside his cage, and not getting the time he needed under his heat lamp so his body was able to properly digest his food. In years past, he'd been very active and instinctively headed for the heat lamp after eating. After Dr. Ng held and tapped for him, for depression, trauma, etc... he began "perking up". The improvement was gradual and incremental, but by the 3rd day following treatment, the improvement was unmistakable. He's more active now than he's ever been, dashing to explore new territory around the house when allowed, and completely fearless in his feeding cage. And he heads for the heat lamp after eating, each time. It's certainly not a placebo effect with a lizard! Our whole family is relieved and delighted with the dramatic improvement."

[ . . . ] I was primarily trying to correct the sadly mistaken idea that you can do the same sort of “objective, scientific” testing in psychology that you can do in the medical field. As it stands, we have to rely pretty much on tests that are essentially just self-reports or testimonials. Self-reports are not quite the same thing as testimonials in the context of psychological testing. A self-report is necessarily a kind of test, but a testimonial, as generally understood, is not. A testimonial is generally understood as an advertising technique. Do you not accept that distinction? Consider a doctor treating patients for anxiety, and inquiring, or 'testing' the action of a anxiolytic on her patients. She must, of course, ask each patient for a self-report ("are you feeling better, worse, the same? Have there been any side-effects?"). If she attempts to generalize the effect of the anxiolytic on her patients, it would be irrational and unethical to put aside negative self-reports. On the other hand, a huckster will set aside negative self-reports when touting the benefits of his product. Consider the fate of Zyprexa, an atypical anti-psychotic medication marketed by Lilly. Why was Lilly subject to a criminal fine of half a billion dollars? In a nutshell, Lilly marketed the product as safe and effective, while concealing or discounting negative self-reports. Similarly, Roger Callahan's promotional materials for the five minute phobia contain no negative self-reports, only positive testimonials. I should think the answer is obvious -- in the context of the positive testimonial you put forward in the other thread, "Five Minute Phobia Cure Energy: Psychology In One Lesson," the 'test' you urge non-masochists to apply is to read an out of print book, and then, seemingly, to do the tapping cure. For those of us without crippling anxiety or phobias, the utility of our 'testing' the tapping cure on ourselves is obviously zero. No person here has used the term you put in scare quoats. No one here has asked for "proof." So, it seems you are generalizing, equating a questioning attitude to shit. That is, on its face, suspect. The composition of the argument you have put forward in your testimonial is suspect on several grounds: -- those who don't try tapping are masochists -- those who ask for evidence are full of shit -- those who are critical of TFT claims are assholes -- those who question you are 'anti-life' and evul It seems that you accept TFT claims of superior efficacy on rather thin grounds -- and when challenged you apply dire epithets. I will close with an excerpt from a posting by Monica Pignotti on the Yahoo list TFT-ALGO. She is the person who was one of Roger Callahan's inner circle, and an adherent of TFT (including its secret Voice Technology). I wonder, Doctor Hardin, if you would characterize Pignotti as a full of shit asshole for needing 'objective, scientific' support for TFT. Many of TFT's critics are specialists in anxiety disorders and have themselves been working very hard, doing research on therapies, such as cognitive behavioral approaches. Rich McNally has been involved in leading edge research on panic disorder. James Herbert is involved in research on some of the newer CBT approaches, such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) which is showing great promise. The difference is, we don't see them out there making grandiose claims, developing businesses, trade secrets, offering weekend certification workshops, etc. Instead, they are doing their homework in the form of well-designed studies. Go to the ACT website and you'll see a real difference. Alot of the information is right there for people to read, even some of the actual protocols. They present the research evidence that is available thus far and don't make grandiose claims. By contrast, proponents of "energy" and "power" therapies came along, claiming to have a new "paradigm" and making grandiose claims of superiority over these approaches, without adequate evidence to support their claims. What this comes down to is that they are seeking acceptance they have not earned and in many cases, when they are criticized, claiming to be victims of a closed-minded, turf-protecting establishment. Contrary to this popular belief, turf protection of academic psychologists is ~not~ the issue here, no matter how loudly Callahan and others proclaim that it is. What these critics are saying is that the burden of proof is on proponents to support their claims and to do the same kind of homework that has been done for the CBT approaches. Until this is done, proponents have no right to make such claims. As I currently see things, this is quite a reasonable position to take. Many pseudoscientists promoting incredible belief systems point to these historical examples of Columbus or Galileo to attempt to legitimize their own, but the fact that people have been wrong in the past, doesn't make for a very credible argument. As Carl Sagan has noted: "They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown." The real issue here isn't whether the belief is a departure from an accepted paradigm; the issue is how people are going about gathering evidence (or not) for the radical theory.

Dr Hardin again turns questioning the loopy TFT protocols and 'discoveries' into something personal. Tiresome but to be expected from someone who doesn't seem to understand that criticism of TFT is justified and necessary. Can an argument on TFT's efficacy be based on the post hoc justification of 'psychological reversal'? No. Not at all. Such a notion renders TFT unfalsifiable. As a post hoc rationalization for failure, 'psychological reversal' is flabby enough. But when you realize that the means of removing the 'reversal' it to tap some more . . . the mind boggles anew. Consider the loopy explication of the 'reversal' -- it is a reversal of the energy flow. The question is obvious: What freaking energy flow? What evidence is there for the freaking existence of the notion of the 'energy flow' in the first place? Zero, at least as adduced by Drs Hardin and Callahan. Adding a further layer of bumptious, loopy murk to the hooey is not helping you, Doctor. Adding further notes about my evulness is really, really stupid argumentation. "It would be one thing for him to admit that he lacks the personal courage to pursue a technique that has helped so many people improve their lives" Has it not occured to you, dear doctor, that I don't have a problem? What am I supposed to tap for, ferchrissakes? I don't have anxieties or social phobias or vague psychic pain or subsidiary torments. Please fork up something other than hooey, murk, and pearl-clutching . . . As for "Do you really think Nathaniel Branden would incorporate Callahan’s methods into his own therapeutic practice if they did not usually achieve extraordinary results?" This is an argument from authority, doc. Sad. Funny. Kooky. In any case, Branden claimed more success wacking the chakras that whacking the 'meridians.' And you are begging the question. What evidence do we have of 'extraordinary results'? The laughed at Galileo. They also laughed at Bozo the Clown.

Here's what I consider the meatiest part of Tracinski's article: "One of the first questions I had for McCaskey was: how did he get Peikoff's permission to release the e-mail? Here is how he explained it. He offered to resign from the board on the condition that Peikoff allow the release of some kind of statement naming Peikoff's problems with McCaskey—and that e-mail is what was given to him as the statement. He was surprised, to say the least, that Peikoff was content to let a half- edited e-mail rant stand as his statement to McCaskey and to the world as the grounds for his action. Peikoff's decision not to write anything more formal or to offer any other information on the issue is an expression of contempt for the minds of others. The message is: you don't deserve anything better." The dogmatists are in full fingers-in-ears mode at the Facebook site of Chip Joyce. The stupidity and ignorance is striking. See Addressing the public insults against Dr. Leonard Peikoff.

Do you get the feeling he means this "not counting OL"? The site none of y'all ever check out, having heard it was unsanitary? While I can't speak for TAS, I'm confident they won't ever invite Lindsay Perigo to appear again. Live and learn, c'mon, cut them some slack finally. Live and learn, cut slack, you bet. It seems to me that TAS is back cutting Perigo some slack -- a lot of slack -- considering that Ed Hudgins continues to post and discuss at SolitaryPassion&Rage.com. See the thread "Tea Party Candidates and the “Crane Rule." Considering the invective that Lindsay has spewed and encouraged to be spewed on Hudgins in the aftermath of the most awful thing to befall Western Civilization since Kant (the rescinding of TAS's invitation to speak at its final whoopup), it seems 'tolerance' is the order of the day. Mind you, Ed seems to post his articles wherever he has an account, whether RoR, SolitaryWankOff.com or OL. Ed must be a very kind, very forgiving man. Or he likes the venue. Or whatever.

This is hooey of the highest order. A so-called 'psychological reversal' is a claim made after failure of TFT tapping. If you can't tap your troubles away, you see, it is your own fault. Here is what Herbert and Gaudiano had to say about 'psychological reversal,' from the same cautionary article I cited above and that Dr Hardin has dismissed unread (emphasis added): Here is what another passionate booster of TFT has to say about 'psychological reversal':

Walter who, Stephen? By my urgent question, I expect you mean this: "What would it be like if Objectivists were all screamingly irrational also-rans?" My answer was, essentially, "see here." I find value there. I am glad you (and perhaps the mysterious Walter) enjoyed some of my over-the-top polemic. Thanks for the link to your post.

The story in the LA Times is a surprise to me. I didn't think the kind of temperatures in LA yesterday were possible in California anywhere outside of Death Valley. L.A.'s hottest day ever "It was so hot Monday that it broke the all-time record — and the weatherman's thermometer. The National Weather Service's thermometer for downtown Los Angeles headed into uncharted territory at 12:15 p.m. Monday, reaching 113 degrees for the first time since records began being kept in 1877." Glad I live in the Cold White North where hot is 35 degrees (Celsius). If nature is asking us to obey her, what does she want us to do besides turn up the air-conditioning?

Which extreme means keep Hawking alive, to your knowledge?

There is the site Rebirth Of Reason, Objectivism Online, and THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans. RoR is what remains of the old SOLO, which split up a few years back, giving birth to SOLOpassion and OL. It is worthwhile, I suppose, as there are a few fun and interesting personalities. The subjects are often similar to the subjects at OL. Bear in mind that RoR has a moderation and banning policy that is fraught with peevishness. OLers who have been banned or moderated include Ellen Stuttle, Michael Stuart Kelly, Dragonfly, Daniel Barnes, Ted Keer. It too has dwindled in that last couple of years, and is pretty much a haunt of folks who aren't too bothered by the disappearance of such voices as I have noted. Like a hundred-seat nightclub where a handful of old drunks pretend to be young and vital and at the peak of their powers. Much seems musty and boarded up, and the usual festivities of groupthink and conformity take place. I keep my membership there, but haven't posted (except once, regretted) since I self-exiled in protest at bannings/moderation. The value for any of us is the extensive, searchable archives that seem to go back to the beginning of time. At one time you could find in a thread Barbara Branden and Lindsay Perigo, Chris Sciabarra, Robert Campbell and a gallery of others active in Objectivish circles. Objectivism Online is fun, if you like the idea of a forum where Orthodoxy rules and snippy, arrogant inbred O-fanatics gather to ask each other questions like, "What does Objectivism say about peeing standing up? Hurry, please." A raft of stalwarts do their best to instill Right Thinking in all aspects, and the moderators range from hysterical 300-pound social phobics to hysterically dogmatic Keepers of the Flame. Our Jonathan has been banned, unbanned, moderated and generally fucked over there most wonderfully in the last few years. I have only been partially-banned once, I think, just for challenging some nitwit moderater's dicta. They are often very tetchy and cultish, but for a view of socially-retarded youngsters entering the Orthodox priesthood and a idea of the prognosis for grim, fretful conformity, highly recommended. THE FORUM for Ayn Rand Fans is also a fun, lively Orthodox place, but you must not have appeared anywhere uttering demurrals of OrthoO, or the headmistress Betsy Speicher will return your application with withering contempt. Some of the brightest lights in the firmament of the Objectivish Universe can be found blinking and sparkling in fustiness and rectitude, but there is more grace in the conformity than at OO.net. They don't go in for the "Can I pee now, please?" lunacy, reserving their injunctions for those who counter holy edicts from the cloisters of the ARI monastery. It is fun to read, though; right now they are dealing with the Harriman book in a relatively free and easy discussion, carefully colouring within the lines. You must accept a sort of loyalty oath to the Pope to become a member, but most of us can fake that if unknown to Headmistress. Most of us interested in Online Objectivism also read Diana Hsieh's blog, Noodlefood, if only in secret, because she has a mighty intellect and the kind of sense of humour associated with Torquemada. If you cross her many boundaries you will be banned, if you are not already pre-banned. The primary value is her ferocious energy and her 'round ups.' If you become a regular reader, you will find she and her other blogger-associates dig up pretty much everything that goes on in the properly-O online world, but lately she has become a bit nutty about some bullshit PaleoDiet. I recommend it, however, if only as an example of how Righteous Objectivists efficiently patrol and extinguish dissent. You are probably pre-banned there. On balance, OL is the most free and easy, with room for both Ortho, non-Ortho and non-Objectivists like myself. Michael simply does not ban lightly. What all the lists have in common is the same problem all blogs/forums have when a strong owner is in place. Inevitably an Emperor or Empress or Politburo must get down to street police work and traffic citations. It's a built in feature. Unfortunately the worst kind of Ayn Rand impersonations occur -- as if balefully informing someone of their immorality and citing TVOS is all you need to do to maintain order. OO.net has a Politburo rather than a Emperor, which makes the bannings and chastisings and outrage much more entertaining -- the police officers/moderators indulge their personality disorders in quite novel ways while pretending intellectual superiority over all that walks and crawls. If conformity is your fetish, that is your place. The most damaged by Objectivism, or the most likely to be damaged by Objectivism fret and posture and slap backs and preen and whine and generally behave as would picnickers at an Official "Give me a place to be fucked up and feel at home" event. The most intensely kooky threads usually involve some person who can't get laid under any circumstances wondering why they can't get laid. The obvious answer is never apparent to the nitwits, but watching folks try to figure out how to be a social reject while pretending to be a world-striding superman is, as I say, fun. For the full potent effect of answering the question, "What would it be like if Objectivists were all screamingly irrational also-rans?" nothing beats SOLO, however. Hope that helps.

I am deeply skeptical of the over-the-top claims and appalled at the crass boosterism, and surprised at Objectivish folk who don't apply common critical tools to something that lacks face validity -- something that (to my mind) should clang the bell of inquiry. It is strange to me that testimonials are given such weight (by Objectivists), and further baffled by the manner in which Dr Hardin took offence at pretty basic questioning of the rational value of his own testimonial -- with his offended bluster about Scherk's anti-life evul propaganda. That is dismissal, and it boggles my mind. Perhaps, somewhere in the operation of 'tapping' protocols there can be found something specific, a uniquely efficacious something -- as I noted was the hope of Monica Pignotti even as she completely repudiated TFT and Roger Callahan. If there is a uniquely efficacious something, reseach can tease it out and demonstrate it. The thing is, it's not easy work -- and as those trained in research on the list could probably further extend, there are many possibilities for a purported 'success' with the 5 minute phobia cure. These possibilities include but are not limited to: demand characteristics, non-specific effects, confirmation bias, suggestion, expectancy, compliance, therapeutic alliance, belief-bias effects. Perhaps the most important possibility is that TFT procedures in the 5 minute phobia cure comprise actions and effects and procedures that are shared with other evidence-based interventions (non specific effects, e.g., imaginal exposure). In other words, the cure comprises components of interventions that have demonstrated their efficacy under rigorous tests (notably Cognitive Behavioral Therapy). The phobia cure protocol does not simply consist of tapping.** Beyond that, the evidence adduced in support of the 'success' is thin if not questionable in itself. 'Success' is primarily based on an instrument known as the Subjective Units Of Distress Scale (SUDS). This is all well and good if its limitations are acknowledged, and if the demand characteristics of the situation a client finds themselves in are also acknowledged. TFT boosters count as a cure a score of 1 at the end of the procedure . . . The questions abound once you understand just what happens during the purported cure. The first and most obvious question is whether follow-up on clients is done with the SUDS or other instruments. If the client reports a SUDS of 1 at the end of a treatment, does that report hold over time without further intervention? Is the measure of success valid and reliable? Do success claims fully report the case beyond anecdote? Anyhow, this is probably a boring subject for many here. I will not range over ground that has been thoroughly churned by folks much more astute and critical than I. Just bear in mind that I don't 'dismiss' TFT; I do reject the shoddy evidence adduced by TFT adherents as probative or convincing. I dismiss it as 'good enough.' _________ ** Peer-reviewed research on TFT and its associated tapping schemes is almost completely absent. I point interested readers to the study by Waite and Holder published in The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. Although it is EFT under the scope (Emotional Freedom Technique) the study contains intriguing results, notably that SUDS scales were equally reduced by three tapping protocols -- one of which had the study subjects tapping a paper doll . . . Assessment of the Emotional Freedom Technique: An Alternative Treatment for Fear

The level of dementia has cranked up a notch . . . here is a link to the vibrating-with-scorn Doug Bandler tearing at Neil Parille: http://www.solopassion.com/node/7998#comment-91679 Dire. Holy Shit. Lowlights: "But know this you little worm, Rand's philosophy will live long after you are a rotting piece of filth in your unmarked grave. Neil, you must be such a sorry sack of shit that you have no life outside the internet. No person of healthy self-esteem does this kind of crap. Have you had sex in the last decade? I'm willing to bet yours is a life of involuntary celibacy and your only "joy" is attacking Rand and Objectivism. Lastly, from your picture, you look like a sorry specimen of humanity; like an aging 90 pound weakling. There are some people on this earth that are such scum the only thing they deserve is abuse and contempt. That includes the piece of feces known as Neil Parille." All this because Neil posted an excerpt and a link without comment. That sucking sound you hear is the gurgle of SOLO reaching for the heights.

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/TFT-ALGO I replied with some other information backstage so as not to cause eye-bleeding boredom here on list.