My AmazonReview of "The Reasonable Woman," allegedly by Wendy McElroy

[Brant Gaede]

Bertrand, I still think George started too strong when he started this thread, but things settled down. Now, do you think Wendy extensively plagiarized George's work? If you say "No," then you have to counter George's evidence. If "Yes," then you are much more entitled to say the other things you've been saying here, especially if we get some idea from you who the f___ you are.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Why are there so many different IP numbers? I don't understand how this sort of thing works. Does it take some sophistication with computers, or is it just an aspect of the server that "Bertrand" is using?

George,

You gotta do this stuff on purpose. Hackers do it. Black Hat Internet marketers do it. Spies do it. Trolls do it.

(Here's a light-weight freeby present for Bertrand that I doubt he/she/it needs: Elite Proxy Switcher. Or FoxyProxy, but everybody does that one. I personally don't mess with this stuff too much, although I do use Charon once in a blue moon for simple checking. The reason I don't like it is that when you use free public proxies, they track you. You think you are being clever, but if you start doing some shit for real, you can be got--like real bad got--easily. You need a thing called Socks 5 private proxies to do the real deal, and even then, I wouldn't want to tangle with the authorities using them.)

Once you learn how to do this stuff, it's not too hard, but there is a learning curve. And it's easy for someone who knows about these things to give a small easy-to-do routine to a total newbie.

btw - I wonder if Bertrand is actually Wendy...

(Man, am I feeling feisty after taking so much time off... )

Michael

No way "Bertrand" is Wendy. There is no way she would write the dumbass shit we have been getting from that troll. But then your suggestion was obviously meant as a joke.

There is also no way that Bertrand teaches philosophy. He doesn't have a clue how the Law of Contradiction applies to arguments; he just applies it to everything, indiscriminately. The guy is a troll, pure and simple

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

Yeah. I just couldn't buy into the Phil thing--as far as I know he has never participated in the Truly Nefarious Shit.

I was waiting around for MSK to run down the address lines. This is not just the work of a coward, but a fucking stupid coward.

Keep it up, Ace. You're doing all the work for us. All that silly spy crap just to smear that kind of poopy on the wall? Head full of bad wires, creep.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

I created this Master Post, and I have updated it twice.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=137297

Is it possible to move or copy this Master Post to the beginning of this thread? My reasons should be obvious.

Ghs

George,

That is not so easy, but there is a real simple work-around.

Copy/paste the stuff at the bottom of your opening post, with the big honking headline and all. You can even say you started it elsewhere and link to it. And you can mention in the post itself that it is reproduced in the opening post with all future updates.

That would be easy to link to from elsewhere.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Bertrand, I still think George started too strong when he started this thread, but things settled down. Now, do you think Wendy extensively plagiarized George's work? If you say "No," then you have to counter George's evidence. If "Yes," then you are much more entitled to say the other things you've been saying here, especially if we get some idea from you who the f___ you are.

--Brant

I agree with you, Brant; this thread did get off on the wrong foot. But that was a matter of circumstances. I didn't orginally plan to get so deeply into all the technical aspects once again, but now that I have, I would like to highlight that documentary evidence. Hence my Master Post. Anyone who reads the posts linked there can have no doubt about Wendy's plagiarism.

One problem relates to the sundry inconsistent stories that Wendy told in 1998. Going through all that crap again proved very complicated.

I finally boiled things down to this: Wendy claimed that she had absolutely no access to my FOR transcripts while she wrote TRW, and that she wrote the book from scratch. Kinsella repeated this claim in his legal threats from 1998, and Brad, in his recent OL post, confirmed it once again -- even claiming that he personally deleted all the FOR files from Wendy's computer in 1994.

Thus, all I need to show is that this is one big lie, that Wendy obviously did draw heavily from the FOR transcripts. I have proven that beyond doubt. I have even linked some of my published articles which Wendy copied, virtually word for word, in TRW.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Michael,

I created this Master Post, and I have updated it twice.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=137297

Is it possible to move or copy this Master Post to the beginning of this thread? My reasons should be obvious.

Ghs

George,

That is not so easy, but there is a real simple work-around.

Copy/paste the stuff at the bottom of your opening post, with the big honking headline and all. You can even say you started it elsewhere and link to it. And you can mention in the post itself that it is reproduced in the opening post with all future updates.

That would be easy to link to from elsewhere.

Michael

Great idea, Michael! I will do that now.

Thanks.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Michael,

I created this Master Post, and I have updated it twice.

http://www.objectivi...ndpost&p=137297

Is it possible to move or copy this Master Post to the beginning of this thread? My reasons should be obvious.

Ghs

George,

That is not so easy, but there is a real simple work-around.

Copy/paste the stuff at the bottom of your opening post, with the big honking headline and all. You can even say you started it elsewhere and link to it. And you can mention in the post itself that it is reproduced in the opening post with all future updates.

That would be easy to link to from elsewhere.

Michael

Great idea, Michael! I will do that now.

Thanks.

Ghs

Done!

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=120805

This will make things much easier for people who first venture onto this thread. Of course, it won't matter at all to trolls like "Bertrand," who are not interested in evidence.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I am now going to type some pertinent passages from a lengthy letter (June 1, 1998) I received from Wendy's McElroy's attorney, N. Stephen Kinsella. (The complete letter will be included with copies of my FOR transcript, which I am selling for $40.)

Kinsella expresses the two main lines of defense that Wendy had expressed earlier in her emails. Let's begin with her claim that she erased all FOR files from her computer in 1994, after which she wrote TRW from scratch.

I have abundantly demonstrated the absurdity of this claim with extensive parallel quotations between TRW and FOR, many of which Kinsella read in 1998, when I first distributed them. Nevertheless, Kinsella wrote (p. 3):

[bold font has been added by Ghs]

...Ms. McElroy did not did not copy any portion of FOR in the preparation of TRW and, indeed, had disposed of all of her copies of FOR before beginning writing TRW in 1994. Any similarity in wording is easily explicable, given Ms. McElroy's co-authorship of FOR and her intimate familiarity with the course material, having participated five times to help and improve the course material, and having drawn in TRW from some of the same primary sources as used in preparing material for FOR and for the associated courses....Ms. McElroy did not plagiarize your work -- i.e., she did not publish "your" writings as if they were her own. The simple fact of the matter is that Ms. McElroy authored a new work, TRW, based in limited part on previous ideas co-developed by you and her and which were also the subject of her very own co-authored work, FOR. Therefore, your accusations of plagiarism are completely groundless and libelous.

You can now begin to see how deep Wendy's lies went. Not only did she claim to have erased all FOR files from her hard drive in 1994 (an obvious lie), but she also claimed to have co-developed the selfsame FOR material (even though I began teaching FOR classes a full year before we met) and to have co-authored an FOR book that never existed. (Where is that mysterious FOR book? Did Wendy delete that from her computer as well?)

I have commented on all aspects of Kinsella's absurd claims in various posts on this thread, but I may cover some of the same ground again as we go along. In subsequent posts, as I get the time, I will type out some other keys passages from Kinsella's letter of 6 pages.

Ghs

[jriggenbach]

ghs already apologized in advance to Phil if the not-so-great theory was wrong. It would be gracious of JR and Doubting Thomas Brant to do likewise.

Smugly,

Carol

It's "Ghs," carol.

The Phil thing was speculation. I don't think any apologies are necessary, especially since Phil never apologized to anyone for anything.

Ghs

I didn't say it was necessary. I said it would be gracious. Uncharacteristic, but gracious.

cjs

Oh, Phil, can you ever forgive me for suspecting you of being "Bertrand"? How well I recall the events of only a few weeks ago, when you were under attack on this list - under merciless attack by mean-spirited participants who ridiculed your ideals of civility and benevolence and gradually but inexorably backed you into a corner so that you found yourself in an almost impossible situation in which the only remaining thing you could do that was both civil and benevolent was to address Ellen as a "cunt." Everything else had been systematically stripped from you. It was like nothing I've ever witnessed before. Like a pack of hyenas. Or jackals. Oh, the shame I feel when I look in the mirror and realize that I was a part of that attack!

JR

[Bosco]

I have been following this dispute since 1998, when the first email exchanges were made public between George and Wendy. Frankly, I'm not the slightest bit surprised that Wendy has not made an appearance; she obviously doesn't have a leg to stand on, and I can't remember an accusation that was so well argued and documented. The earlier material and the information contained in this very lengthy (and fascinating) thread, doesn't leave much doubt that George was a victim of plagiarism. And as a longtime admirer of Wendy and her work, this is really disappointing.

BTW, I seem to remember a few years ago another user on this forum was flagged for having copied much of George's work, passing it off as his own. I remember the person in question made a public admission, and that was the end of it. I have a feeling this too could have passed if there wasn't such a desperate attempt to dodge the truth.

Even discounting the very detailed evidence George has provided, there is the issue of evasion on Wendy's part; where the hell is she to confront these charges in person? If her defense is so solid, what did she have to lose? And there is the issue of credibility, which hasn't received much emphasis here at all. Given that a lawsuit has been ruled out on principle, the most likely restitution George can receive is a public apology, and we all know the probability of that is close to zero.

So we are left with two possibilities; either George hallucinated the whole thing, or has run out of ideas and must freeload off an ex-girlfriend, OR he has actually seen several years of his work go into the toilet and is both angry and right. I'm betting on the latter.

[George H. Smith]

I am now going to type some pertinent passages from a lengthy letter (June 1, 1998) I received from Wendy's McElroy's attorney, N. Stephen Kinsella. (The complete letter will be included with copies of my FOR transcript, which I am selling for $40.)

Kinsella expresses the two main lines of defense that Wendy had expressed earlier in her emails. Let's begin with her claim that she erased all FOR files from her computer in 1994, after which she wrote TRW from scratch.

I have abundantly demonstrated the absurdity of this claim with extensive parallel quotations between TRW and FOR, many of which Kinsella read in 1998, when I first distributed them. Nevertheless, Kinsella wrote (p. 3):

[bold font has been added by Ghs]

...Ms. McElroy did not did not copy any portion of FOR in the preparation of TRW and, indeed, had disposed of all of her copies of FOR before beginning writing TRW in 1994. Any similarity in wording is easily explicable, given Ms. McElroy's co-authorship of FOR and her intimate familiarity with the course material, having participated five times to help and improve the course material, and having drawn in TRW from some of the same primary sources as used in preparing material for FOR and for the associated courses....Ms. McElroy did not plagiarize your work -- i.e., she did not publish "your" writings as if they were her own. The simple fact of the matter is that Ms. McElroy authored a new work, TRW, based in limited part on previous ideas co-developed by you and her and which were also the subject of her very own co-authored work, FOR. Therefore, your accusations of plagiarism are completely groundless and libelous.

You can now begin to see how deep Wendy's lies went. Not only did she claim to have erased all FOR files from her hard drive in 1994 (an obvious lie), but she also claimed to have co-developed the selfsame FOR material (even though I began teaching FOR classes a full year before we met) and to have co-authored an FOR book that never existed. (Where is that mysterious FOR book? Did Wendy delete that from her computer as well?)

I have commented on all aspects of Kinsella's absurd claims in various posts on this thread, but I may cover some of the same ground again as we go along. In subsequent posts, as I get the time, I will type out some other keys passages from Kinsella's letter of 6 pages.

Ghs

I will now pick up where I left off in Kinsella's letter. I will really need to suck it in to type this crap, but here goes:

Moreover, even if Ms. McElroy had copied portions of FOR in writing TRW, your claims of would be equally groundless and libelous. As noted, the 1989 contract provides unassailable proof that Ms. McElroy was a co-author of FOR. [it says nothing of the kind. FOR is never mentioned- Ghs.] She was thus also a co-owner of the copyright thereto [it was never copyrighted - Ghs], and is therefore entitled to use this material in any way she sees fit, without your permission or approval. [Can you believe this crap? - Ghs] Similarly, you yourself have used these co-authored materials without McElroy's permission (or objection). Some of the materials by you in your book Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies (Prometheus 1991), [bullshit! -- Ghs] and continue to be used in courses conducted by you and held under the auspices of the Resources for Independent Thinking in Oakland, California. Just as it is your right to use your own co-authored material as you see fit, so with Ms. McElroy.

Furthermore if the co-authored, joint work FOR [What "work"? Transcripts of my conversations in classes? Was Wendy speaking, too? - Ghs] drew on and incorporated some previous work solely authored by you [all of it was "solely authored" by me a year before I met Wendy- Ghs] (such as your 1974 handout), then, since the entire, joint manuscript FOR was co-authored [Wendy apparently put words in my mouth during my classes- Ghs] and co-owned by you and Ms. McElroy, it would be irrelevant if portions of TRW express ideas similar to those found in your previous work, since you and Ms. McElroy were co-authors and joint co-owners of everything in FOR, including particular portions drawing on either of your previous works. Similarly, if some of your subsequent works express ideas similar to those in FOR because you drew on FOR in creating the subsequent work, it would of course be irrelevant that these subsequent works express ideas similar to those expressed in portions of TRW

Those who have wondered why I got so pissed off, and remained pissed off, by Wendy's plagiarism need to read Kinsella's remarks carefully. Essentially, Wendy is claiming "co-authorship" of anything relating to reasoning that I wrote before, during, and after my FOR classes -- even though she didn't have any role whatsover in creating or developing those classes.

I will pick this up later. I need to find a punching bag or something and pretend it is Wendy. Or that sack-of-lying-shit, Kinsella.

Ghs

[Selene]

Point 1. The problem of disregarding the law of non-contradiction.

Point 2. You claimed you would accept an apology.

Point 3. failure to understand the concept of proof. This proves that there was a book co-authored. The contract does not prove that you had written it, or anything about it at all.

Point 4. Furthermore it does not name the book.

Point 5. you have said that you have still not written your book

Point 6. you have claimed that Wendy had not written TRW at the time

Point 8. What book was already written by the two of you given that you have denied your book is written and admitted that Mcelroy's was not yet written?

Point 9. what does that say about you George since you have now cited at least one of the cases that you would file? You cannot claim self defense, because when you embrace government you are harming innocents, even if you are so lucky to as be able to harm the one you seek to harm, moreover if you can really prove your case as you repeatedly claim, then there would be no threat at all, so no self-defense.

Point 10. I cite these because they show the clear disrespect for the truth and for logic itself, as well as the inconsistency of the entire story, which continues to change. There is obviously damn good reason to be skeptical, and no reason to abandon reason as has been demanded.

Point 11. I noticed, but I will save addressing the most recent posts for when I get to them. Well, if any appear that are not merely ad hominems, red herrings, and other less than intellectually honest tactics of course.

Whew!

Picking out your points from all the ...er, so many descriptive phrases to chose from, flotsam and jetsam works because of it's legal semantic, is not a simple task.

At any rate, these are the points that I was able to distill from your post.

If you wish to correct them, I will give you the rest of the day to correct them.

Since you refuse to disclose where or what you allegedly taught, I would expect you to provide links to any of your statements like the "concept of proof," since you cannot speak from authority.

Finally, you have primarily confined your, er, well for lack of a better word, for now, "critique," of the case presented by George Smith against Ms. McElroy to the first 100 or so posts, and, have apparently not dealt with the specific pieces of "evidence" that have been presented, or, the testimony of witnesses that apparently substantiate Mr. Smith's claims, e.g., Presley, Hopkins, etc, your work is cut out for you.

Therefore, since your writing style is, at best, awkward, I am just trying to provide you with some unemotional structure.

Adam

just trying to be helpful and place some structure to your posts so we can advance the debate

Edited June 19, 2011 by Selene

[George H. Smith]

I will post more by Kinsella later, and I will comment in more detail than I have thus far, but I want to jump ahead to the punch line. Recall that both Wendy and Kinsella claim to oppose libel and defamation laws; in fact, both of have published articles to this effect.

So let's take a look at how two champions of free speech apply their libertarian principles, as articulated by Kinsella in his letter to me. All bolding was added by me for emphasis:

Additionally, because you have taken these libelous actions with malice...punitive damages may be available over and above any actual or presumed damages....

In addition to your own liability in this regard, you actions may have unwittingly caused liability to be imposed on others....

In addition, please note that under defamation law, not only is publication of certain false, reputation-harming statements to third parties considered to be defamatory, but each new act of republication is also a new act of defamation and thus gives rise to a new and separate cause of action. Thus, for example, Mr. Tim Starr, Ms. Sharon Presley, and others, in re-publishing your libelous comments, many also be implicated with liability for defamation and libel.....

Accordingly, we demand that you immediately cease transmitting any further email messsaes or making any other communication, in writing or orally, to any third party alleging or even suggesting that Ms. McElroy has plagiarized FOR or any work of yours. We further demand that you immediately cease transmitting any further email messages or making any other communication to any third party alleging or even suggesting that Ms. McElroy did not co-author FOR....

Got it, folks? I was forbidden by Kinsella to speak privately to friends about Wendy's plagiarism, or even make a suggestion to that effect, under the threat of state force.

Let's hear a round of Bronx cheers for Wendy McElroy and Stephen Kinsella, those stalwart defenders of free speech!

Ghs

[Bertrand]

“When McElroy and I separated in 1985, she suggested that I should rework my FOR material into a book. I was very busy writing tapes at the time, however, and didn’t see how I could get the time. She then volunteered -- and for this I give her credit – to transcribe dozens of tapes from years of classes, eliminate duplicated material, and divide everything into preliminary chapters. This sounded like a good idea, so I gave her the box of tapes to take with her when she moved to Canada, along with copies of the many notes that I had accumulated over the years.

Several years went by until, late in 1988, she sent me a disk containing what she had promised to do. (Again, I acknowledge the work she did here; indeed, I promised to give her credit in my FOR book.) This is the disk from which I quoted previously. The original floppy has a label attached with McElroy’s handwriting. It reads: “FOR Book, Oct.,2, 1988.” . “

So you take her up on her offer to rework the material, which you now call “transcribing” when in fact if what you present as the result of her merely transcribing the tapes, then the exclamation point would never have appeared, nor the italics. It would have read “But” and that's all. When notes are merely transcribed, you don't get exclamation points or italics, you get simple plain text. Since you said the work was worthy of credit in whatever book you eventually published from this rough draft, there must have been far more than mere transcribing going on. Essentially then you are comparing what you admit is her work, she sent you so of course it has her handwriting, to her work which was published, and claiming that this is an act of plagiarism. Obviously this is absurd.

[Bertrand]

““This working presumption becomes even stronger when you consider that I have probably posted at least ten-times more on this affair than Wendy. Yet I defy anyone to identify even one inconsistent or improbable statement in any of my pieces. “

Err, I and others have already pointed out several, carefully quoting your own contradictory claims.

“You make the claim that you have people willing to testify that you used the exact same material before you met Wendy. Okay, prove that they are not mistaken? I doubt that you can find a single honest person who can tell you VERBATUM what any lecturer said 25 years ago, particularly on a subject as generic and already well handled as logic. I expect next that you are going after Aristotle for stealing from you as well.. . (That reference is to Aristotle as the father of logic. It appears that explanation will be necessary)”

“so the question arises as to why I would possibly need to consult her in matters pertaining to elementary logic. “ Well it is more than a decade later, in which time you might have come to know some elementary logic, and you've proved that you are a master of fallacies, but incapable of offering a valid, much less sound argument, so perhaps you would consult anyone at all for tips on elementary logic after all it could only help.

“I defy anyone to cite even one case where I have belittled McElroy’s professional accomplishments “

More than a little ironic claim to make. Let's see how far would I have to go to find such an example.. hmmm.. Oh wait, this thread and this entire crusade provides ample examples and of course is itself an example.

#163

“This is an excellent question, one that I thought long and hard about about in 1998. There are two explanations. “

Another false dichotomy. It also introduces a common saying amongst logicians: From a false antecedent anything goes.

“As I have indicated before, there is reason why I have been posting the personal details of the life and Wendy and shared for 10 years. The reason is because it is impossible to understand my General Theory without this information. “

Not true for several reasons, but primarily because your “general theory” makes no (logical) sense with or without the red herrings.

#167

“You know what the libertarian movement really needs? It needs fewer pussy-whipped men. “

Just another in the many examples of the rabid sexism.

#168

“Worry and anxiety about what to expect next can be powerful weapons in psychological warfare. “

Another contradiction given your repeated claim to not want to harm anyone and that you are merely seeking justice.

“"Several years went by until, late in 1988, she sent me a disk

containing what she had promised to do. (Again, I acknowledge the work

she did here; indeed, I promised to give her credit in my FOR book.)

This is the disk from which I quoted previously. The original floppy has

a label attached with McElroy’s handwriting. It reads: “FOR Book,

Oct.,2, 1988.” . "

As noted already, this indicates that far more was done than mere transcribing. Since she did the work, which you even acknowledge in the contract you cite, then sent it to you, of course it would be in her handwriting. What would be surprising and might indicate something towards your claims would be for the disc to have predated any of this, and been in YOUR handwriting.

“why would I have embarked on this filthy little war, professing outrage at McElroy’s plagiarism, if she had really written what she claims to have written?”

Well unless you admit to the real reason we can only make reasonable conclusions judging by the actions, claims, contradictions and falsehoods offered. Except of course for your offering of an explanation in the very next paragraph:

“McElroy and I have not gotten along for a number of years now, but that was personal.“

People who are harboring anger, such as you have repeatedly expressed here, will go to amazing lengths.

“I submitted the first three chapters, but they were rejected.”

Hm.. okay so your material has been rejected, then your claims of plagiarism, rejected by the publisher who can and does carefully research such things, and you even admit that the publisher's reaction after your tantrum to them was to publish another book by Mcelroy?

In an earlier post I called you on your appeal to authority of Amazon as “proof” that your claims are true, but here we have a far more legitimate authority, the very publisher, and you want to reject that as proof? More of the same old changing of the story and inconsistencies.

[George H. Smith]

“When McElroy and I separated in 1985, she suggested that I should rework my FOR material into a book. I was very busy writing tapes at the time, however, and didn’t see how I could get the time. She then volunteered -- and for this I give her credit – to transcribe dozens of tapes from years of classes, eliminate duplicated material, and divide everything into preliminary chapters. This sounded like a good idea, so I gave her the box of tapes to take with her when she moved to Canada, along with copies of the many notes that I had accumulated over the years.

Several years went by until, late in 1988, she sent me a disk containing what she had promised to do. (Again, I acknowledge the work she did here; indeed, I promised to give her credit in my FOR book.) This is the disk from which I quoted previously. The original floppy has a label attached with McElroy’s handwriting. It reads: “FOR Book, Oct.,2, 1988.” . “

So you take her up on her offer to rework the material, which you now call “transcribing” when in fact if what you present as the result of her merely transcribing the tapes, then the exclamation point would never have appeared, nor the italics. It would have read “But” and that's all. When notes are merely transcribed, you don't get exclamation points or italics, you get simple plain text. Since you said the work was worthy of credit in whatever book you eventually published from this rough draft, there must have been far more than mere transcribing going on. Essentially then you are comparing what you admit is her work, she sent you so of course it has her handwriting, to her work which was published, and claiming that this is an act of plagiarism. Obviously this is absurd.

Wendy didn't "rework" anything. Putting spaces between sections does not constitute "reworking."

I didn't say that I didn't go through and change any of the FOR material. I said that I didn't have time to rework the material into a book.

Learn to read, troll!

Ghs

P.S. All this is irrelevant in any case, because Wendy claims, along with her attorney and husband, that she deleted all the FOR material from her computer in 1994 and began writing TRW from scratch.

So do you believe that bullshit? Are you really that stupid, troll? Are you at least smart enough to learn how to use the quote function, so people can easily locate the post that you quote from?

[Bertrand]

Adam, I am making no attempt to speak from authority. Nothing I have said relies upon me, my teaching experience, or even my posting it here. All of the refutations, citations, and criticisms stand on their own. That I included a tangential remark commenting not the fact that the fallacies existed, that was objectively established prior, but to the extremely poor quality of those argument, of the use of those fallacies, is irrelevant. As I suggested earlier, ignore that comment if it offends you, but please don't pretend that I have ever made any appeal to authority.

I just happened to catch that post by you as I was sending the last two posts, else I would not have even seen it until I worked through the contradictions, red herrings, and rantings that seem to fill this thread. I am further along, but at the pace that this thread grows I am still only about half way through making notes and citing the errors. Forgive me for being so careful so as to avoid the very errors and falsehoods that I am citing here.

If you feel you must try to threaten me by tracking me down, then do so, but even if you are successful in posing the threat, heck if you are successful going through with the threat, even then the refutations would still refute the arguments made. The citations of the fallacies would remain accurate and until/unless they are deleted would remain verifiable. There is no purpose whatsoever with this tactic. It cannot and does not cause the problems already cited disappear. It won't make logic apply differently for George's claims, nor will it change reality.

Why not focus on the issues instead? Why this rather obvious red herring? Can't George's arguments stand up to the light of examination? (Well, we've seen that they cannot, but this tactic won't change that either).

I look forward to reading your answers when I work my way to this page.

[George H. Smith]

Why not focus on the issues instead?

Good idea, troll. Focus on the issues. The documentary evidence is here. Read it:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137297

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

No way "Bertrand" is Wendy. There is no way she would write the dumbass shit we have been getting from that troll.

To me it’s obvious that Bertie is an interested party. Consider all the trouble involved with protecting anonymity, plus the volume of posts. No one would put in this much time otherwise. If I'm right, that should reduce the list of suspects.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KBtzEeGjoXc

[George H. Smith]

To me it’s obvious that Bertie is an interested party.

Of course "Bertrand" is an interested party. He doesn't give a shit about the facts. He won't even read the posts that I linked on my Master Post and to which I have referred him several times. He ignores this essential evidence and combs my other posts (apparently while taking notes) in search of out-of-context comments that might trip me up. Typical troll behavior.

Fortunately, this troll is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Teacher, my ass. He couldn't teach a bear to shit in the woods. And he is a coward to boot.

Ghs

[caroljane]

To me it’s obvious that Bertie is an interested party.

Of course "Bertrand" is an interested party. He doesn't give a shit about the facts. He won't even read the posts that I linked on my Master Post and to which I have referred him several times. He ignores this essential evidence and combs my other posts (apparently while taking notes) in search of out-of-context comments that might trip me up. Typical troll behavior.

Fortunately, this troll is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Teacher, my ass. He couldn't teach a bear to shit in the woods. And he is a coward to boot.

Ghs

I'd guess a student - there's a dogged immaturity that's emerging from him/her.

But why would a young person be so interested in ancient events?

[George H. Smith]

To me it’s obvious that Bertie is an interested party.

Of course "Bertrand" is an interested party. He doesn't give a shit about the facts. He won't even read the posts that I linked on my Master Post and to which I have referred him several times. He ignores this essential evidence and combs my other posts (apparently while taking notes) in search of out-of-context comments that might trip me up. Typical troll behavior.

Fortunately, this troll is not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. Teacher, my ass. He couldn't teach a bear to shit in the woods. And he is a coward to boot.

Ghs

I'd guess a student - there's a dogged immaturity that's emerging from him/her.

But why would a young person be so interested in ancient events?

In my experience, Wendy's Hobby could persuade a young fellow to do almost anything. Do you think I'm kidding? Well, I'm not. I saw it happen too many times. How do you think Richard Martin got won over to the Wendy camp?

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

To me it’s obvious that Bertie is an interested party.

Of course "Bertrand" is an interested party. He doesn't give a shit about the facts.

By interested party I meant it’s either the author, a family member, the publisher, the attorney, um, someone like that. Someone with something to lose, or gain.

[Rich Engle]

The work reeks of student. Just about anyone who has an invested history in studying intellectual forums (and, more importantly, investing the work that goes with the subject matters) is able to see what this kind of writing is about. It is sloppy, free-floating, elusive, and limited even as prose. It is very poor writing of its own accord, much less having any philosophical, logical back to it. It is the work of a disturbed amateur. Combine that with the very-poorly executed (and pointless, dishonest) anonymity, and there you have it.

Misplaced loyalty will do strange things to a person, I suppose. Especially, one who is challenged in terms of emotional intelligence.

Even the works of most dedicated hacks have more to offer, at times.

I stay away from writing technical philosophy, because I do not enjoy writing it (and this person doesn't even really approach true technical writing), but I sure know what the real thing looks like when I see it. As a matter of fact, with a little work, most times I even understand it. This is more like throwing a few shitbombs on the wall. And above all, never staying on the point of the debate, the counter. Hack, hack, hack.

To hide. Why would a person hide? Hide, and send out what is clearly hack work?

rde

Someone Needs A Support Group. Or Maybe Just Good Meds

Edited June 20, 2011 by Rich Engle

[George H. Smith]

To me it’s obvious that Bertie is an interested party.

Of course "Bertrand" is an interested party. He doesn't give a shit about the facts.

By interested party I meant it’s either the author, a family member, the publisher, the attorney, um, someone like that. Someone with something to lose, or gain.

I mean someone who. at the very least, is friends with Wendy, Brad, or someone in their circle.

The posts written by that troll thus far were not the work of some guy who came here curious to learn the facts. They were witten by someone intent on tripping me up with trivia. The fact that the troll will not reveal his real name, and that is making such an effort to conceal it, would suggest that we would recognize his name. If we wouldn't know him from Adam, there would be no need for all the secrecy.

Ghs