As incendiary as any post that a someone associated with Mr. Valliant’s book always seems to be here, at least I am an “outsider” to all of this. There are a few things that any reasonable observers cannot fail to miss.

SOLOists are frequently rude, insulting and abusive. The whole point of this website is serious discussion. Ms. Branden has every right—indeed a solid argument—to quit SOLO on this basis.

Linz’s verbal abuse certainly pissed off James K. and Ms. B., but they were not content to let that be that. Instead, on their way out the door, they publicaly accused Linz of being an “alcoholic.”

To conjecture that it was the “alcohol” talking--not the “real” Linz—when the insults flew, is not a sufficient reason to post such a conjecture. Nor are any of the pseudo-benevolent reasons of loving and Caring for Linz a good reason to post it. Even if Linz is an alcoholic (for which no evidence has been presented), there was no good reason to post it.

The quite certain effect on Linz’s reputation was the designed effect, obviously, not the more speculative hope of “helping” Linz, as any Objectivist-egoist should be able to see immediately. It was a “parting shot,” precisely because they were “gone”--outta here--as they introduced poison into the system.

It had no chance of “helping” (they even now admit that their private efforts to get his attention about this failed—so going public with it would?!) No, it was designed to discredit Linz and anything he might say about them in the future.

The fact that Linz allowed it to be posted is no defense. James K. had done everything he needed to do in order to get it posted. His wrongdoing was already in the bag at that point. (No, it’s not defamation, Linz approved its publication, but it WAS an invasion of privacy—again, as no Objectivist audience should need to be reminded.) 

Should Linz have allowed it to be posted? Well, if he had done anything else—suppressed it with no comment, or suppressed it with a denial—then the rumor would have the INCREASED aura of credibility because of Linz’s alleged “suppression” of it. Linz was in a Catch-22 the minute that the article was submitted. One could argue that Linz was compelled to post it.

Does Linz’s abusiveness have a point? Usually, it does. Does it get worse when has had a couple? Who knows? But, more importantly, WHO CARES?

When Linz insults, it is in a substantive post. Their post was all about someone's  “personal problem.” Why the hell was it ever submitted?

Besides, James K. and Ms. B. are shown to be utter hypocrites: in effect they complain about the personal abuse and insults even as they walk out the door with the yell, “You drunk!” Thus, they commit the very sin they complain about Linz committing—even as they shut the door on his face because of it. Linz at least was complaining about foreign policy or the defense of those who advocate child-molesting when he got mad. They did a whole special post just on Linz himself.

Also, what precisely was the reason to guage Linz’s alleged problem with that terminology? Did either James K. or Ms. Branden really have the goods to say THAT?

Or, is it simply their “way” to suggest things of a negative character about former friends with whom they have had a falling out? In Barbara's case, at least, there IS evidence of this kind of behavior.