odd duck,if anyone does.
That said, unlike with Gabb, you don’t generally see those two criticisms coming from the same group of people in Preston’s case. The people who bag on his NA-sympathies don’t generally also complain about his sympathies for Carsonian economic views, at least as far as I know.
]]>As for whether he’s right or whether his critics are, I don’t really know — although I will say that if someone is simultaneously being blasted (1) for giving too much credence to Kevin Carson and other mutualist writers; and also (2) for being a supporter of the BNP, then either (a) that person really is an odd duck (much odder than most ducks I know)
Keith Preston?
]]>Speaking for myself, I don’t seem to get along well with these types of people. But I don’t know if it’s just me, or that the kind of person who would lie, rage, and throw tantrums over a 49% stock share doesn’t like people in general.
]]>I was slightly put off by his explanation that other people are “envious” of his achievements and just out to get him. Aside from the implication that unmarried people are worthless, are his numerous books and journal articles really so amazing that people are trying to attack him over it?
I found that section pretty odd, and somewhat off-putting, too. I guess maybe it was partly motivated by the extent to which people have been attacking him as, in various respects, incapable? But I doubt that that’s the best way to reply to such attacks, and in any case I hadn’t read the attacks before I came to Gabb’s response, so it just seemed very odd from where I was sitting.
As for whether he’s right or whether his critics are, I don’t really know — although I will say that if someone is simultaneously being blasted (1) for giving too much credence to Kevin Carson and other mutualist writers; and also (2) for being a supporter of the BNP, then either (a) that person really is an odd duck (much odder than most ducks I know); or else (b) his critics probably have failed, somewhere along the line, to exercise enough care and charity in their reading of what he has had to say. On that narrowly limited issue, I am pretty sure that Gabb is probably being unfairly attacked by his critics. About the broader issues of organizational politics, financial malfeasance, the last wishes of Chris R. Tame, etc., I just don’t know.
]]>I was slightly put off by his explanation that other people are “envious” of his achievements and just out to get him. Aside from the implication that unmarried people are worthless, are his numerous books and journal articles really so amazing that people are trying to attack him over it?
]]>The whole article reads like one of those old Objectivist schisms that crop up from time to time.
]]>