The OL "tribe" and the Tribal Mindset

[Ellen Stuttle]

Ms. Stuttle has still not come out and actually said whether she ever saw any of the other 38 chapters in the first printing of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: A Philosophical and Literary Companion.

I now strongly suspect that she really didn't see any of them.

I would have expected my saying, as I did --:

link

I was never sure, until I saw the email to Younkins which Robert posted yesterday, if there really had been bad copyediting as well as uncredited material. I'm now convinced that there were two categories of problem.

[...]

The uncredited material was in the Introduction and in the chapter by Younkins which wasn't used. Or so I've heard about the second, the original of which I never saw.

-- to have strongly indicated that, no, I didn't. Wouldn't I have been sure if there was a copyediting (as you've styled it) problem if I had seen the other chapters? And why didn't you just ask in so many words if you wanted to know if I saw any of the other chapters?

All I saw from the original was the Introduction. I was told that there was also uncredited material in the deleted Younkins chapter. I don't know from my own perusing, having never seen that chapter, if there was. However, yes, my sources were persuasive.

Re Valliant, I'm no less aware today than I was of his strange quoting practices. They aren't the whole of his book, though of course they badly mar his arguments.

And, Robert, I think you really demonstrate where you're coming from with this comment:

So is Ms. Stuttle condemning this individual, or lending aid and comfort to those bent on discrediting him?

Who's on whose enemy list, who takes "sides" with whom. And as if Valliant's book had anything to do with the truth of it regarding the problems with the Younkins-edited volume.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is silly. Here's how the game is played.

1. You slime a person and claim there is all kinds of evidence backing you up.

2. When pushed about it, you become evasive and make snarky comments all basically saying, "I know many hidden truths that you don't."

3. You insinuate that it is even worse than people imagine, but because you are such a good person, you will not disclose the full extent of the slime so as to not damage the person being slimed.

4. When really pushed against the wall, you admit the lameness of your real evidence and say someone else told you.

5. Then you coyly ask why didn't the person objecting ask you about this in the first place.

Does anyone know what the point of this kind of BS is? I see it all the time, now Stuttle is doing it.

I think it's vanity and craving unearned admiration from the reading public. But I keep getting the feeling that this is only part of the story.

I'm kinda amused that Stuttle is now asking who is on whose enemy list--and insinuates that there are no "sides"--with respect to Objectivist fundamentalist backstage maneuvers. Maybe she's been living under a rock here in the Objectivist subcommunity, say, for the last half a century.

Nah...

She knows. She's just being coy in a snarky kind of manner she never used to be. She has always been a bit snarky, but in an academic snob's "I'm right and you're an idiot for disagreeing, oh ho ho, mmm mmm mmm, that's rich that's rich!" manner, not the coy manner of asking really dumb questions.

This coy-question manner is typical of Objectivist fundamentalists who think they are imitating Ayn Rand's way of analyzing a situation--that they are cutting to the premise. (Stuttle is not really an Objectivist fundamentalist yet, but she now apes them.) The news flash is that there is a wide gap between seeing what others haven't yet seen, which changes perception of obvious stuff, and refusing to consider obvious stuff at all. What Ayn Rand did comes from profound thinking, even when she got it wrong. What the apers do is plain old garden-variety dumbass.

In fundy-land, I see coy-questioning most often used to insinuate a put-down of others. But what I see underneath is a fundy slamming his mind shut on any real thinking and covering it with the mental blanket of his tribe.

Michael

[9thdoctor]

1. You slime a person and claim there is all kinds of evidence backing you up.

2. When pushed about it, you become evasive and make snarky comments all basically saying, "I know many hidden truths that you don't."

3. You insinuate that it is even worse than people imagine, but because you are such a good person, you will not disclose the full extent of the slime so as to not damage the person being slimed.

Could it be that anyone associated with JARS is automatically put on Double Secret Probation?

This includes those who sanction such sanctioners of unsanctified sanctioning.

[Robert Campbell]

All I saw from the original was the Introduction. I was told that there was also uncredited material in the deleted Younkins chapter. I don't know from my own perusing, having never seen that chapter, if there was. However, yes, my sources were persuasive.

Wow.

It sure took a while for Ms. Stuttle to get around to this statement.

Problem is, we still don't know who her sources were.

Nor do we know how they persuaded her.

Did Ms. Stuttle ever ask to see all three pages of the chapter in question?

Did she ever bother to ask anyone else for a copy? (As I've said, the dud first printings weren't all tossed into the incinerator.)

Did she ask for specifics of what was allegedly used without credit in it?

Or did she accept what her unnamed sources said because it was personally convenient for Ms. Stuttle to do so?

For someone who likes to parse statements every way to Sunday before maybe tentatively provisionally accepting them, Ms. Stuttle comes across as remarkably compliant with what she's been told.

And Ms. Stuttle's beam-versus-mote disease is headed toward critical condition.

Not only does she lecture people about "honorable paraphrasing" while squirting clouds of squid ink on behalf of Jim Valliant...

She lectures people about verbal bullying while kissing up to Lindsay Perigo.

For another example of the faux-naïveté of which Michael was speaking, see this exchange with Brant over at SOLOP:

http://www.solopassi...7#comment-85644

Conversion to ARIanism seems unlikely for Ms. Stuttle; more probably, she will find a way to shill for the Orthodoxy without actually joining it.

We'll know she has actually committed herself to the West Coast Church of Ayn Rand if at any time she

• Refuses to criticize Andy Bernstein for his public act of penance

or

• Joins the chorus that chants, whenever criticisms are leveled at Harriman, Schwartz, Podritske, Boeckmann, or Mayhew, that they were just editing for clarity. Editing for clarity. Editing for clarity.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

This is silly. Here's how the game is played.

1. You slime a person and claim there is all kinds of evidence backing you up.

2. When pushed about it, you become evasive and make snarky comments all basically saying, "I know many hidden truths that you don't."

3. You insinuate that it is even worse than people imagine, but because you are such a good person, you will not disclose the full extent of the slime so as to not damage the person being slimed.

4. When really pushed against the wall, you admit the lameness of your real evidence and say someone else told you.

5. Then you coyly ask why didn't the person objecting ask you about this in the first place.

What are you talking about?

I did not make the charges against Younkins. I never mentioned those charges until they were brought up here.

Far from insinuating "that it is even worse than people imagine," I've twice said that I don't agree with the description "plagiarism"; I think it's too strong.

So what is the problem? The fact that I know there was uncredited material in the original Introduction and believe there was in the deleted chapter?

And nothing I said would have given Robert reasonable basis to think that I saw the original book, quite the contrary. If he was genuinely unsure on that point, all he had to do was ask.

His fishing for the information for which he's been fishing, however, will remain unsuccessful.

--

I sent a note to Mayhew.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What are you talking about?

Stuttle,

You.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Added thought to the last post.

Outside of all the game-playing, Stuttle refuses to deal with the real issue: Is Ed Younkins a dishonest author or was he careless with one project?

And a corollary question: Would Ed Younkins have persisted in his alleged dishonesty if not for the heroic efforts and mighty threats of the ARI fundies?

And even another corollary question: Is the product description correct, i.e., is Mayhew's book the first scholarly one on Atlas Shrugged?

All of these issues are on the table over at Amazon.

But Stuttle won't even come close to them. She prefers innuendo at sliming Younkins and deniability.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

Michael,

I have no personal experience with Younkins. I might have read a few posts of his, but, if so, I don't remember what they were about or what I thought of them.

I doubt that he had dishonest intent, for one reason because two of his own contributors were among those not cited, for another because complying with correct procedure would have been so easy, it seems to me he probably just didn't know the ropes. But if not, this doesn't speak to scholarly competence.

Re:

And even another corollary question: Is the product description correct, i.e., is Mayhew's book the first scholarly one on Atlas Shrugged?

I think I've already said that, given Mayhews' intended meaning as explained in his post, I think he has a good case for the description's accuracy (minus the comma, as discussed). If he does add "comprehensive," that would make the case stronger (and the comma would be ok as is).

Ellen

[9thdoctor]

I think he has a good case for the description's accuracy (minus the comma, as discussed).

Reference the law of the excluded middle, meaning the comma is either there or not.

Result of reality check: It’s there.

William F. Buckley, in one of his forgotten spy novels, depended on a report stating that on a certain date: Beria, aides executed. It should have read: Beria aides executed. He dramatized Beria dying a year late as a result. Damn commas.

Pretty tiresome topic. This is nearly as fun as debating Xray.

CORRECTION: for Pericles-style misspelling of "aides".

Edited March 21, 2010 by Ninth Doctor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pretty tiresome topic. This is nearly as fun as debating Xray.

Dennis,

Debating Stuttle always has been irritating. She will argue a subject to death and throw all kinds of twisted logic at you. And she will not stop until she has the last word. Her prime message is she is always right about everything--except a few minor permitted areas (misspelling, commas out of place, typos, words left out or repeated, blatant error in attribution, etc.).

Her message of worthless hubris is there--and it is the same--irrespective of whatever the topic may be. (Think Xray and "all values are subjective." Stuttle's version is "you are wrong and I am right.")

Take the last post, for example. Stuttle wrote, "I doubt that he had dishonest intent, for one reason because two of his own contributors were among those not cited..."

How does that have anything to do with anything? The only passage specifically being called plagiarism was written by Ed Younkins. Boekmann was specifically talking about Younkins--author--qua plagiarist, not his contributors. They were only nameless plagiarists by insinuation, not by specific citation.

So if you are going to discuss whether Younkins's is an honest author or not, his writing has to be on the table. But Stuttle wants to be right and does not want to discuss that, preferring instead to insinuate that he is a "softer" kind of plagiarist. (And act surprised when someone notices what she is doing.) So, to throw off the discussion, she throws out a meaningless tangent that sounds somewhat academic.

Apropos, what the hell does two have to do with anything? There goes Stuttle with that number "two" again over something blatantly not essential to explain something blatantly essential. I wonder if this is her "two" technique for smokescreen rhetoric...

EDIT: Just as curiosity, I wonder if the ARI fundies are giving out Stuttle decoder rings to the general public so they will be able to translate "Mayhews' intended meaning as explained." To your average reader, the meaning of "scholarly" is pretty clear. It means a work containing crtical analysis by scholars. This is not rocket science or an esoteric mystery, sorely in need of translation.

Unless true understanding of meaning is not your true meaing, if you get what I mean...

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

Pretty tiresome topic. This is nearly as fun as debating Xray.

About that fun to read, also. I scan the thread periodically to see if there is progress. To no avail.

Bill P

[jeffrey smith]

I think he has a good case for the description's accuracy (minus the comma, as discussed).

Reference the law of the excluded middle, meaning the comma is either there or not.

Result of reality check: It’s there.

William F. Buckley, in one of his forgotten spy novels, depended on a report stating that on a certain date: Beria, aids executed. It should have read: Beria aids executed. He dramatized Beria dying a year late as a result. Damn commas.

Pretty tiresome topic. This is nearly as fun as debating Xray.

Well, then have a joke (or sort of a joke) that's partially related to your comment, for your sake and Bill P.'s

Soviet Union, Moscow, approximately 1930. Stalin convenes a meeting of the Politburo in great excitement. "Comrades! A telegram from Trotsky! He concedes everything to us right thinking Marxist-Leninists!"

Everyone perks up and listens intently as Stalin reads the telegram.

"You are right. I was wrong. I will recant all I have said or written to this point if you ask me to do so. Regards, Trotsky."

"Isn't this wonderful?" Stalin exults.

"On the contrary," says one of the older members of the Politburo. "It's a scurrilous insult."

"What! How is that!"

"Allow me to read it with the correct punctuation, Great Captain of the People."

He takes the telegram, clears his throat and begins.

"You are right? I was wrong? I will recant all I have said or written to this point if you ask me to do so? Regards," he ends with a great sneer, "Trotsky!"

Jeffrey S.

No, it's got nothing related to the current topic, but it's probably a lot more interesting.

[Robert Campbell]

Ms. Stuttle's predilection for picking topics to death might lead some to mistake her for a superabundantly critical thinker.

In fact, the compulsive nitpicking functions to disguise her deficiencies in that department.

Let's follow the most likely story, as it has emerged amongst all of Ms. Stuttle's bobbing and weaving.

Some source or sources connected with the Ayn Rand Institute told Ms. Stuttle that there were, um, uncredited borrowings from some ARI-affiliated author or authors—in Ed Younkins' Introduction to his volume, and in his 3-page chapter on Dr. Robert Stadler.

These sources provided Ms. Stuttle with a PDF of the Introduction as it appeared in the first printing of the book (or possibly she obtained it by some other means). The sources purportedly instructed her not to publicize the PDF, for reasons Ms. Stuttle has preferred not to explain to us. (The most likely explanation is that they weren't supposed to be talking to her about it in the first place, but I'll get to that later.)

These sources did not provide Ms. Stuttle with a copy of Chapter 34 as it appeared in the first printing of the book. Ms. Stuttle has never explained why.

Nor did Ms. Stuttle go to any trouble to see the original Chapter 34 for herself, even though in 2007 she was on reasonably good terms with several contributors to the book. (She won't be any more.)

Yet Ms. Stuttle was willing to accept without question her sources' allegations concerning a chapter she had not seen. One wonders whether she even asked these sources to provide specifics of the infractions purportedly committed by Dr. Younkins.

I'm looking right at old Chapter 34 and seeing statements such as "Robert Stadler ... is a Plato-like character who holds a theoretical versus applied science split."

Uh, yeah... Dr. Stadler is Rand's poster boy for the theory-practice dichotomy. And this kind of statement is supposed to have been filched from someone else?

What's more, I'm guessing Ms. Stuttle's source or sources said one thing that was kinda Boeckmannian. You know, along the lines of: "Psst... they're pretending that the copy-editing was screwed up. It wasn't. That was just a pretext for redoing the book."

Did Ms. Stuttle look at any other chapter in the book to see whether the text was screwed up in the first printing? Apparently not. Apparently she was happy to rely on the authority of her sources.

Not smart. Not at all smart.

What's more, all of Ms. Stuttle's elaborate secrecy, charges of "fishing," blah blah blah, could well be in the service of an informant or informants who said, "I'm not supposed to tell you this, but..." Said informants, in their turn, would have been told "I'm not supposed to tell you this, but..." until we get back to some complainant or complainants at ARI who intended to keep their original complaints confidential and wouldn't be thrilled to know that whatever they had to impart ever reached the ear of Ms. Stuttle.

Well, OK, such things are occasionally known to happen in human social relationships. Ms. Stuttle could still have protected her source(s), via the simple of expedient of not wading into the discussions about the two rival sets of essays on Atlas Shrugged.

But no, Ms. Stuttle had to get her licks in. She needed to be one up on somebody.

She always has licks to get in. She always needs to be one up.

So here she is backing Bob Mayhew, with some bullshit account of his "true" meaning in writing the Product Description for his book. (Ms. Stuttle couldn't be caught agreeing with Tibor Machan or Doug Rasmussen or l'Alpha Bête Noire about that sort of thing. It's just not done...)

Here she is chiming in with Allan Gotthelf—Jesus, even with a third-rate hanger-on like Paul Beaird—because they were ripping somebody she doesn't like. Couldn't pass it up.

Ms. Stuttle needn't worry that I might "out" her sources. It isn't rocket science, figuring out their probable identities. I don't appreciate their spreading some of the stories they appear to have been spreading about Ed Younkins.

But more damage has been done by others in the ARIan orbit, like Tore Boeckmann and Ed Cline, who look to be a good deal more irresponsible than they.

More has been done by Ms. Stuttle, puffing herself up and adding a yowl to the ARIan chorus when she ought to have had the sense not to.

What I went "fishing" for is what Ms. Stuttle's sources actually claimed Ed Younkins had done. I won't be finding that out from Ms. Stuttle—if she ever knew.

What the fishing expedition has hooked onto, and solidly, is how little critical thinking Ms. Stuttle is able to bring to these kinds of issues.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

In lending her voice the ARIan chorus concerning Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged: A Philosophical and Literary Companion, Ms. Stuttle isn't just helping them go after Ed Younkins, one of the few non-ARIans who gets money from BB&T.

The broader agenda, not very artfully concealed, of Messrs. Boeckmann and Cline is to slime everyone who contributed to Dr. Younkins' book.

Here are the other contributors (to the corrected edition):

Chris Sciabarra

Doug Rasmussen

Fred Seddon

Lester Hunt

Hans Gregory Schantz

Tibor Machan

Roderick Long

Gennady Stolyarov II

Mimi Reisel Gladstein

Jeff Riggenbach

Kirsti Minsaas

Ronald Lipp

Roger Bissell

Russ Madden

Peter Boettke

Larry Sechrest

Spencer Heath MacCallum

Sam Bostaph

Bryan Caplan

Steven Horwitz

Jack Criss

Karen Michalson

Joy Bushnell

Peter Saint-Andre

Jennifer Iannolo

Susan Love Brown

Virginia Murr

Ken Schoolland

Stuart Hayashi

Robert Campbell

Joanna Krupinski

Jennifer Rhodes

Stephen Cox

Doug Den Uyl

Walter Block

A pretty diverse group, except on one dimension.

None, to my knowledge, is inclined to worship Ayn Rand and Satanize TheBrandens, with the possible exception of Ms. Iannolo.

None is affiliated with the Ayn Rand Institute.

Could it be, then, that every contributor is someone that the more fervent ARIans would like to see drying up, blowing away, and no longer contributing on the subject of Ayn Rand?

Just a thought.

Robert Campbell

[Brant Gaede]

Look, I don't mean to be mean but mean I'll be it I have to. If this thread is not your interest don't worry about it--read something else. Different people have different interests and priorities; that's the way the world turns. We respect yours and expect the same in return. It pains me to say this for I like everybody here, even Ellen, but please get off this shutting anybody off!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Bottom line: It's not Ms. Stuttle this or her that. But what are the facts below the cat?

--Brant

facts 10, Stuttle...

[Ellen Stuttle]

Pretty tiresome topic. This is nearly as fun as debating Xray.

Then don't bother. Re commas, mistakes happen with those. And, yes, they can be significant to the meaning.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[9thdoctor]

It pains me to say this for I like everybody here, even Ellen, but please get off this shutting anybody off!

Who tried to shut anyone off? I merely commented that debating the existence of an existing comma is tiresome.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pretty tiresome topic. This is nearly as fun as debating Xray.

About that fun to read, also. I scan the thread periodically to see if there is progress. To no avail.

Guys,

I feel your pain.

But the underlying issue is for Stuttle to sneak in attacks against Barbara Branden, and Nathaniel by extension. If this means supporting people who harm (or tried to harm) Chris Sciabarra and some select others who do not engage in contact with Stuttle for anything, she has no compunction about getting on with it. I'm not going to let that happen here on OL. If I do nothing, that is exactly where this goes, as it has gone many times and as it keeps going. So the crap you see is what I am doing about it.

(I haven't confirmed this with Robert C, but I imagine his perception of Stuttle's motives are similar.)

However, I do give Stuttle enough rope to hang herself and damage her own reputation. Damage she does and damage she will do. She can't keep her trap shut long enough to perceive what she is doing.

I'm saying this because I like everything clear and out in the open, unlike those with hidden agendas.

That's the way I do things.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

I tend to think that Ms. Stuttle's primary motive is vanity; hence, the unending compulsion to one-up.

But she has discovered over the past couple of years that her vanity may be served by taking dirty pokes and lending support to innuendo against good people who are actually accomplishing something constructive.

She doesn't care whether she is hurting anyone with this crap; she may be so self-infatuated as to be unable to notice.

Whatever she's up to, she's pooched her credibility.

One thing I will no longer be doing is accepting any of Ms. Stuttle's tales about what she saw or heard around Ayn Rand.

For instance, her assertion that the article on psychologizing was a somewhat distorted response to Allan Blumenthal's efforts to get Ms. Rand to stop already with the gratuitous moralizing.

This sounds plausible. But that doesn't make it true.

Now that I've seen Ms. Stuttle in action for an extended period, I won't use the story unless it is confirmed by Dr. Blumenthal himself, or a reliable witness unconnected with Ms. Stuttle attests to it.

Robert Campbell

[Jonathan]

As I see it, if one wants to accuse someone of plagiarism, one should be willing to back up one's accusations with evidence, and to do so at the time that one makes the accusation. In order for me to conclude that Younkins had done anything improper, I'd need to see not only the first printing of the book, but also the original written material as submitted by Younkins and the other authors to the publisher's production crew, and perhaps his contract with the publisher, or other outlines or explanations of who had which responsibilities (such as who would have the opportunity, and when, to review proofs of the book prior to its going to press). I'd have to see proof that Younkins was to blame for any errors or omissions, and not the publisher's productions crew or software glitches.

That or an admission from Younkins that he had done something improper.

Without such evidence or an admission from Younkins, I'm left with the impression that some people have the goal of attempting to intimidate others into avoiding supporting Ayn Rand and her ideas in print, at least if they plan on quoting her, her officially designated followers, or those associated with them. The accusation of plagiarism unaccompanied by evidence leaves the impression of an almost vicious lack of generosity, and an eagerness to assume the worst in others and to smear them when much more reasonable explanations are possible. It makes me wonder if I were to, say, write to a major newspaper or magazine's editorial page in defense of Rand, and the publication's production crew were to accidentally leave out some of my quotation marks or other means of attribution, might I end up being publicly accused of plagiarism or sloppy scholarship because a Randian zealot was unwilling to consider the obvious possibility that the publication had butchered my letter, and that I had no control over it?

If these people indeed want to discourage others from supporting Rand and her ideas in print, I have to wonder if they would prefer that people trash her and her ideas instead? Is that their goal?

J

[Greybird]

Deleted — any response in, to, or about this thread has become pointless.

Edited March 21, 2010 by Greybird

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I tend to think that Ms. Stuttle's primary motive is vanity; hence, the unending compulsion to one-up.

Robert,

Ain't that the truth?

I don't see the conclusions of our different perspectives as mutually exclusive. On the contrary, Stuttle is vain and she is trying to sneak in attacks on Barbara. I agree, from observing her writing and interacting with her, that the main root is vanity and feeding it. But on the negative side, Barbara is definitely a major target in her sites.

I'm kinda in the way of both. You are, too...

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

[....] Stuttle wrote, "I doubt that he had dishonest intent, for one reason because two of his own contributors were among those not cited..."

How does that have anything to do with anything? The only passage specifically being called plagiarism was written by Ed Younkins. Boekmann was specifically talking about Younkins--author--qua plagiarist, not his contributors. They were only nameless plagiarists by insinuation, not by specific citation.

So if you are going to discuss whether Younkins's is an honest author or not, his writing has to be on the table.

The issue with the passage referred to, on pg. 2 of the Introduction, was that Younkins presented an analysis of Rand's process of revisions of Atlas Shrugged as if it were his own analysis. It was not. It was taken from a pair of audio lectures given by Shoshanna Milgram Knapp in 1998, titled Ayn Rand's Drafts: The Labors of a Literary Genius.

The paragraph has now been modified so as to credit the person who did the research. It begins:

As illustrated and described in the original archival research of Shoshanna Milgram Knapp (1998), [...].

Also, one of the numbered points included in the original version -- a statement which was inappropriate pertaining to Atlas Shrugged -- has been left out.

The current version of the Introduction has a reference section listing five sources. Along with the material from Milgram, material from the other four sources now cited was originally used without citation. Two of those sources -- Gladstein and Hunt -- are among the contributors to the book. Thus my statement that one reason I doubt that Younkins was intending to use uncredited material as if it were his own original work is "because two of his own contributors were among those not cited."

--

Addressing something Jonathan said: There were no typographical mess-ups in the original Introduction. The changes from the first version to the second version were:

-- adding of citations and references to sources, plus adding a footnote;

-- taking out a few phrases which were inaccurate or had used directly borrowed unquoted wording;

-- adjustments needed because of the changes in the chapters included (taking out the references to the deleted Younkins and Fram-Cohen chapters, adding a reference to a new chapter by Criss).

Ellen

Edited March 21, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Ellen Stuttle]

Mayhew replied. In maximally briefly paraphrased synopsis, he says not now.

Ellen