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

[George H. Smith]

Hey, Stephan Kinsella!

Have you heard the story about the lawyer who refused to sell out his principles?

Of course you haven't.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Hey, Brad!

Wanna know what you should do the next time someone calls Wendy a "slut" at a party?

Nothing, that's what. And who wrote that godawful speech that Wendy read to me? It had definite touches of Clueless Brad.

The next time Wendy calls me in a panic, leave the damned room so Wendy can talk freely when I tell her that I understand her problem and will help her with it, but that she needs to be alone because you are Clueless Brad. If Wendy had been able to talk openly to me on that New Year's morning, I could have resolved the problem pretty quickly, and none of this other crap would have happened. But No, Clueless Brad had to protect his lady from the infamous liar and sex pervert.

Thanks a bunch, Clueless Brad.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

The key to SDP is to be brutally honest about the pros and cons of rational hedonism. I also plan to have a chapter on misconceptions about hedonism.

So which philosopher is your best reference for rational hedonism? From my study of Epicurus, I’d say it’s got to be someone else. While he’s associated with the pleasures of the table, in real life he had a thing for barley cakes, talk about a non sequitur. Ultimately he was more interested in minimizing discomfort than pursuing pleasure. I find the stories of Diogenes the Cynic pleasuring himself in the market hilarious.

This is a bit complicated, but I will discuss it in my book in some detail. Btw, this will not be a conventional autobiography. I plan to discuss general principles within the context of my own experiences, using those real experiences as examples instead of using hypothetical examples.

I've been thinking about this book for over 15 years, so I already have a lot of it mapped out. As I have said, however, I delayed writing the book because everyone would know that where I went, Wendy went, and I feared I might jeopardize Wendy's marriage, owing to all the lies she had told to Brad. I don't give a shit any more -- obviously. Wendy got away with all she has by counting on my unwillingness to reveal certain information about her. And that borders on pure evil.

Anyway, you are correct -- Epicurus was not a hedonist in the sense I am using the term. Epicurus was a hedonist in the technical philosophical sense, in which hedonism is contrasted with eudaemonism. This difference pertains to the nature of happiness.

According to (technical) hedonists, happiness is a sum of pleasures. This approach does not commit a hedonist to claiming that physical pleasure is better than mental pleasure, such as the pursuit of knowledge or contemplation.

According to eudaemonists, such as Aristotle, happiness is something more than a sum of pleasures. What is this "something more"? Various answers have been given which need not concern us here.

Hedonism may also be profitably contrasted with Stoicism, as follows: Imagine a perfect state of happiness as consisting of a 1 to 1 ratio of satisfied desires over the total number of my desires. Thus if I have 100 desires,a perfect state of happiness would be 100/100.

So how can we achieve the best ratio? According to hedonism, we should strive to maximize the number of our satisfied desires. According to Stoicism, we should strive to minimize the total number of our desires.

Thus if we begin at 50/100, a hedonist would strive for 51/100. A Stoic would strive for 50/99.

I need to get something to eat. I will pick this up later.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Hey, Stephan Kinsella!

I just got up, and since I like to begin each day with thinking happy thoughts, I naturally thought of you.

So who is on Ghs Watch today? -- you or Clueless Brad? Do you guys work in shifts? If you do, and if you would like to tell me your schedule, I would be happy to adjust my timing so that my "Hey, Brad!" posts appear when Clueless Brad is on duty and my "Hey, Stephan Kinsella!" posts appear when you are on duty.

To tell the truth, I enjoy writing greetings to you more than to Clueless Brad. Why? Well, because, as I have said several times before, Clueless Brad is a stand-up guy who has stood by Wendy through thick and thin, and there is something admirable in his loyalty. Yet my dog is very loyal to me, which I like, but even if I beat my dog on occasion (which I would never do). he would still remain loyal. This is because my dog is not very bright. If I yell at him for peeing on the floor, he cowers in a corner, but all I need do is rub his belly and all is right in his world. Rubbing my dog's belly is a cure for all that ails him. He just lies there on his back, his legs flopped open like a Hustler Centerfold,, with a stupid grin on his face, and he is happy as a clam afterwards.

Clueless Brad reminds me of my dog. I have no doubt that Clueless Brad has gone through psychological hell over this plagiarism spat, and in a sense I feel sorry for him. But knowing Wendy as I do, I'm sure all she has to do is give her cute and cuddly dog a nice belly rub to make all this worries fade away, at least for a while.

Whether the loyalty of a dog is an admirable trait in humans is an interesting and profound philosophical question that I have not yet fully resolved, but I have my doubts.

Anyway, you are a profound philosopher, so I thought you might have some thoughts to offer on this profound philosophical problem. Then again, your time might be better spent giving more thought to the relationship between theory and practice.

I don't mean to be overly critical, for you are a profound philosopher, but I have never encountered the argument before that one's moral principles are completely irrelevant to living one's life and that one should therefore ignore them whenever life becomes difficult. I have always believed that we need our moral principles most in difficult times, because this is when our passions are most likely to overrule our reason. Our moral principles are like fixed stars that enable us to navigate through treacherous waters.

I could be wrong about this because, unlike you, I am not a profound philosopher. Any thoughts you may have on this matter would be most welcome. If you would like to begin a thread titled "Why Theory Means Zilch in Practice," I would be happy to participate. I would never miss an opportunity to learn from you, a profound philosopher.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Earlier on this thread I posted a lengthy 1998 letter that I wrote to Bob Kephart (who founded Human Events, published Libertarian Review, etc.) That detailed letter was written very late in the 1998 controversy and was intended to be a summary of much that had happened. Wendy's excuses were so convoluted and inconsistent that people who were not following our exchanges with extreme care might not notice how utterly absurd some of her claims were. Hence my letter to Bob.

I didn't give any background when I posted my letter on OL, and since many details of this controversy were not yet known to OLers, some of my remarks might have been difficult to understand. One such problem, which I discussed in my letter to Bob, was the significance of the fact that the original FOR manuscript is written with the singular pronoun "I" throughout.

This is because that manuscript was a transcription from my FOR classes. I recorded each class because I knew that I would be writing an FOR book one day, and I wanted access to all my remarks. (I typically spoke from notes.) Thus, when Wendy transcribed those tapes, she naturally followed my language.

This is extremely significant for the following reason. Wendy later claimed that the FOR manuscript was not a transcription of my classes at all. Rather, it was a preliminary draft that she wrote that would later be the core of a co-authored book on reasoning.

Okay, are you with me so far? If so, consider: If Wendy sat down to write a preliminary draft of a book that would bear both of our names, then why did she use the singular pronoun "I" throughout? When you co-author a book, you use the plural pronoun "We," not the singular pronoun "I." So why didn't Wendy write "We"?

Wendy's explanation was, as usual, bizarre. But she had to come up with something, because she knew that her claim that she wrote that preliminary draft would fall to pieces if she could not wiggle out of this problem. So what was her explanation? She said that she used "I" as a matter of "convenience" and had intended to go through the FOR manuscript at a later time and change all the pronouns to "We."

Think about this for a moment. Wendy supposedly used "I" as a matter of convenience. Now, that pronoun occurs literally hundreds of time in my FOR transcriptions. This means that Wendy would later need to go back and makes hundreds of tedious changes. Sound convenient to you? Would it not have been a tad more convenient for Wendy to have used "We" at the outset so no such changes would be required.

Now that you know the context, please read or reread this excerpt from my letter to Bob:

Now to the key claim that destroys her entire case, and ranks second in absurdity to only her 1994 fiction. . Recall that Wendy’s first defense refers (again in passing) to the fact that the FOR manuscript makes extensive use of singular pronouns throughout (I, me). This is because they were largely transcriptions of my classroom conversations. Thus Wendy had to explain away this problem, because I had raised it in my original letter to her, and she wanted to post that letter. A transcriber would leave the style as it was originally spoken, but what would a co-writer do, fully aware that the final draft, having been written by two people, would need to use the plural pronouns “we” and “us”?

Note how Wendy gave a very brief explanation, and then let it drop. She said that, while writing the FOR manuscript, she used the singular pronouns for the sake of convenience? Convenience? Would it not have been equally convenient to to use the plurals? Does it take that much additional time to type “we” and “us” instead of “I” and “me”?

More importantly, what writer in their right mind would use hundreds of improper pronouns knowing that they would all have to be changed for the final version? Wendy’s argument indicates that she chose the singular form after consciously deliberating the question of convenience. This was no oversight, therefore, but a reasoned decision on her part. Are we to believe, then, that it didn’t occur to her that she was creating a good deal of tedious and needless labor for herself in the near future, when hundreds of pronouns would needed to be changed, one by one, from singular to plural -- and that this would also change the sense of some passages, which would need to be rewritten as well?

I have my problems with Wendy, but I would never accuse her of such gross stupidity. Ask any professional writer – Barbara, Sharon, whomever – about the likelihood that another professional writer would ever do such a thing, and I guarantee you that all of them will classify the credibility of Wendy convenience story as on a par with the miraculous. One thing writers dread, and avoid at all costs, are those extensive and tedious corrections that, according to Wendy, she purposely inflicted upon herself for the sake of “convenience.”

It is clear that Wendy, in her haste to manufacture a reply to the remark in my initial letter, failed to consider the implications of her convenience story. She had many things on her mind – other stories to concoct – and so could not spend much time on any one of them. Thus, desperate to answer my previous argument about those singular pronouns, fully aware that this could destroy her entire case, she hastily came up with the convenience story, while failing to understand its fatal deficiencies.

My argument here, however trivial it may seem at first glance, totally undercuts Wendy’s claim to have co-written the FOR manuscript. It is an obvious lie. But why would this lie be necessary, if she was telling the truth about other things? It would serve no purpose. But, short on time, she didn’t bother to come up with a better explanation. She threw out her convenience story and hoped it would float. But it quickly sinks upon even a cursory examination, taking the rest of her story with it.

In short, if the convenience story is clearly absurd, then the rest of her story is clearly false. Period. There is no other explanation whatever. And when combined with her other obvious falsehoods, such as the 1994 [immaculate Conception] story – which even those who grant some credence to Wendy do not dare defend – then the probability of any of her contested claims being true reduces to absolute zero. If a person is caught in several obvious and significant lies in a controversy like this, while her opponent has been accused of none, then the presumption of truth shifts entirely to the innocent party (i.e., me), and the liar assumes the burden to explain other inconsistent and improbable assertions.

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. In Wendy’s two defenses, on the other hand, she has committed many such blunders.

I would like to add one more comment: Q.E.D.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I know that it is unlikely that most people will follow all the details of the plagiarism scandal, so I want to provide a summary of some key points. All of these points have been discussed in previous posts.

1. Wendy concedes that I gave her all my FOR cassette tapes (dozens of them) shortly before she moved to Canada. So what happened to those tapes? Wendy claims she later returned those tapes to me. Of course, this is just another outright lie. I never saw them again. There was no way Wendy would have ever returned those tapes to me, because they would have provided incontrovertible proof of her massive plagiarism. Wendy is a liar and a plagiarist, but she is not stupid.

2) Wendy conceded that she had my FOR manuscript on her hard drive, but also said that she deleted it, along with all other material relating to FOR, such as my handout, in 1994. She then claimed to have written TRW from scratch, with no access to any of the FOR material. Any similarities between TRW and FOR were the inadvertent result of her "excellent memory."

3. This was Wendy's first line of defense, written before she knew that I still had a copy of the FOR transcripts. She had no idea that I would be able to present so much evidence of plagiarism. This is the bozo story that I dubbed the Immaculate Conception theory of TRW.

4. Note how this Immaculate Conception story conflicts with Wendy's later claims:

# If Wendy wrote half of the original FOR, then why the need to erase it from her hard drive? Why delete your own material?

# If Wendy knew she supposedly had a legal right to the entire FOR manuscript, owing to some incredible bullshit about my supposedly not having reviewed a final draft of FOR in 90 days, then why did she erase 200 pages of her material, only to rewrite that material over again in nearly identical words? (Wendy has an excellent memory, you know.)

5. If Wendy did in fact present me with a polished draft of FOR at some point for my review, then where the hell is that final draft? Are we to believe that Wendy erased a final draft of a book, half of which was supposedly written by her, only to write the same book over again, starting in 1994?

6. If Wendy erased all FOR material from her hard drive in 1994, before beginning work on TRW, then how does she explain the hundreds of passages in TRW that are nearly identical to passages in FOR, including peculiarities such as her hilarious use of But! -- a note to self in my FOR transcripts that Wendy didn't understand and stupidly included in TRW. (See my Lighter Side of Plagiarism for details.)

Excellent memory, my ass.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

George,

Do you think the cassette tapes still exist?

Robert Campbell

[9thdoctor]

I'm sorry. I'm just goofing with you. Don't take any "criticism" I write on this subject very seriously.

Not to worry, I can take a poke in the ribs just as well as I can deliver one.

She said that she used "I" as a matter of "convenience" and had intended to go through the FOR manuscript at a later time and change all the pronouns to "We."

if you’ve written a novel with a Confederate hero named Rhett Butler and a fickle girl named Scarlett and then change your mind, all you have to do is punch a key and Abu will global replace the Rhett Butlers to Prince Andreis, the Scarletts to Natashas, Atlanta to Moscow, and lo! you’ve written war and peace.

Umberto Eco,

Foucault’s Pendulum

, Chapter 3

In this case, however, one would have to fiddle with all the verb conjugations and tenses. Nolle prosequi.

[George H. Smith]

I want to explain something.

I may be posting summaries of the FOR conflict that includes stuff that I have posted before on OL. I am doing this for a reason. I am now in the process of writing a Preface for my Evidentiary E-Book. This will be the collection of 400 pages of evidence (including my original 200 page FOR manuscript) of Wendy's massive plagiarism. As I noted before, this E-Book will be sent out by the thousands to various universities, publishers, news organizations, Internet outlets, etc. etc.

This may take a little time to finish, because I want to include around 20 signed and notarized statements from people (including two attorneys) that attended my FOR classes during the first year. I have already located a number of these people, and all have agreed to cooperate. Indeed, I have already received two statements that prove beyond doubt that Wendy was nowhere to be seen during the first year of FOR. I was living with Diane, my first wife who helped with classes and sat in on all of them. I had not yet even met Wendy McElroy. I received email versions of those statements, but it should not take much time before the signed and notarized hard copies begin pouring in.

This is going to be a very unpleasant time for Wendy. But she brought it on herself. I virtually begged Wendy from the very beginning to talk to me, one on one, so we could figure a way out of this mess. She never talked to me, not once. All I got in return were threats by Stephan Kinsella to initiate force against me if I didn't keep my mouth shut.

Well, my mouth isn't ever going to shut on this matter. So Kinsella can take his threats of force and shove them up his ass. Any semi-competent attorney would have advised Wendy to have settled this matter 12 years ago. If Wendy wants to sue someone, she should sue Kinsella for malpractice and gross incompetence.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George,

Do you think the cassette tapes still exist?

Robert Campbell

Maybe, if some some participants have copies. I don't think Wendy would have been dumb enough to keep the original cassettes lying around, lest Clueless Brad should stumble upon them.

It pisses the hell out of me I don't even have taped records of 7 years of classes, solely because Wendy needed to destroy evidence in order to cover her plagiarism tracks.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I have been doing searches on thousands of computer files, using words like "plagiarism." Although I have a folder with that name, I suspected that other relevant files might be buried in folders with names like like "misc" and "drafts." (Those of you who have purchased my complete set of Cds will have a field day searching out this and other stuff that I have long forgotten.)

Anyway, I just found this file (named "Wiggle 2."). I can't recall the story behind this. I believe that the last part about the contract was included in one of my 1998 original missives, which I may have reposted on OL. But I don't think this is true of the first part. I vaguely recall wanting to present a philosophical analysis of coherence as a method by which third parties could evaluate the conflicting claims, and this appears to have been a discussion of that topic.

Whether I intended to make this public I cannot say. As I have mentioned before, many of my files are mini-essays written in order to clarify my ideas -- a method I have used for decades -- essays that I never intended for publication. In any case, here is that file, warts and all. I have changed absolutely nothing. In fact I haven't even read it closely, because I wanted to avoid any temptation to correct errors.

So, as Rod Serling might say, here for your consideration is another visit to the Twilight Zone.

WIGGLE, PART II

Plagiarism is the most serious charge that can be made against a professional writer, so third parties will reasonably demand that I prove my accusation against Wendy McElroy with a substantial amount of evidence. I have already provided a good deal of the necessary evidence: first, eight pages of parallel quotations between transcripts from my Fundamentals of Reasoning (FOR) classes and THE REASONABLE WOMAN; second, nearly verbatim passages that McElroy took from my standard FOR handout; third, a number of parallel passages between my book, ATHEISM, AYN RAND, AND HERESIES and TRW.

All of this, however, will pale in comparison with new evidence that I will be posting in the near future. Years ago I published several articles on logic and definitions for a high-school debate newsletter, “The LD/Extemp Monthly.” THESE ARTICLES HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED NEARLY VERBATIM IN EIGHT CONSECUTIVE PAGES IN MCELROY’S BOOK.

Even McElroy will find it difficult to explain away this evidence. No doubt she will try, however. Perhaps she will once again resort to her standard explanation, namely, that she really co-authored these articles, even though they were published in my name alone. I suspect that her standard defense is already wearing thin among even her most ardent admirers. I have been writing and teaching philosophy professionally since the early 1970s. When I knew her McElroy had read very little in philosophy (except Ayn Rand), so the question arises as to why I would possibly need to consult her in matters pertaining to elementary logic.

There are in philosophy two standard theories of truth, viz., correspondence and coherence. In the first approach, a proposition is said to be true when it corresponds, or identifies, a fact of reality. In the second approach, a proposition is said to be true when it can be integrated coherently (i.e., without contradiction) into the system of one’s previous knowledge.

Though I subscribe to the correspondence theory, it should be noted that coherence, if not the definition of truth, can often serve as a TEST of truth. We are often unable to check theories against facts directly, and so must assess whether the theory makes sense within the context of the knowledge we already have.

This is especially relevant to my dispute with McElroy. Many of you are not in a position to verify directly the claims made by either of us – especially when they reduce to a “He said, She said” -- but you can evaluate the coherence of our claims in two ways: First, is a given claim consistent with previous statements made by that person? Second, do a person’s statements cohere (make sense) given what you know about how people customarily act and interact?

Anyone who knows me and how I work will also know that I am a loner when it comes to the preparation and writing of my material, whether that material is to be published or presented as lectures. I read a good deal, have learned much from others, and take seriously my obligation to cite my sources where appropriate. (Just look at the extensive footnotes IN some of the chapters in my ATHEISM, AYN RAND, AND OTHER HERESIES.) I have occasionally co-written manuscripts, such as a few audio tapes for Knowledge Products, but only in the sense that I wrote some sections and my partner wrote others. I have never sat down with another person and crafted the same lines together. In this sense, I have always worked alone and always will. I simply cannot conceive of intellectual work as a collective effort, the work of a committee rather than an individual mind.

I say this because of McElroy’s claims to have co-written the FOR manuscript that has been mentioned throughout this controversy. Just taking common sense into account, 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? I have more work than I can presently handle, and I frankly resent having to spend so much time on this issue. Am I so jealous of McElroy’s intellectual accomplishments, and have nothing better to do, that I would launch a vicious and unprovoked public campaign against her?

McElroy and I have not gotten along for a number of years now, but that was personal, and I have said very little about this to anyone, even close friends. I defy anyone to cite even one case where I have belittled McElroy’s professional accomplishments. Indeed, before this present controversy, I have always spoken well of her in this regard. She has done excellent work in the past. There was no reason why she needed to plagiarize seven years of my work. If she had presented my ideas in her own words, I would have had no objection. But that is not in fact what she did.

A few words need to be said about the contract that McElroy and I signed and the FOR transcripts which she claims to have co-developed and co-written. In reading what follows, I bid you to keep in mind the previous remarks about coherence.

I had thought a good deal about whether I should mention the contract in my initial posting, and I discussed it with a number of friends. The contract was clearly a point in my favor, because it would AT LEAST demonstrate that I had written HALF of McElroy’s book. (And if that doesn’t prove plagiarism, what would?) But I faced a serious strategic problem, namely, that I had lost my copy of the contract years ago and had no way to prove my claim. Were I to mention it, I feared that McElroy would deny that we had ever signed a contract and demand that I produce the evidence. (In retrospect, considering her extensive lies up to this point, I believe that is exactly what she would have done.)

I resolved, therefore, to claim only what I could substantiate with the evidence in hand. I was frankly surprised when McElroy went public with the contract, because – again – it shows that I wrote AT LEAST half of her book. Of course, she tried to avoid this implication with her absurd claim that she started writing her book from scratch in 1994, having destroyed all previous transcripts and drafts. And in her latest missive, having realized that she painted herself into a corner with her 1994 fiction, McElroy has revealed that she possesses detailed “diary” notes from my FOR classes, from which some of her book MAY have been taken.

This is an example of where third parties should apply the coherence test. Given my serious charges against her, why would McElroy have neglected to mention her mysterious diary in her first reply, leaving instead the clear impression that her book had been written from scratch, starting in 1994?

Now, about the FOR mansucript, from which I quoted extensively in my original posting.

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.” .

Note that this date is more than ONE YEAR before McElroy and I signed the contract on November 29, 1989. THE MATERIAL ON THIS DISK, FROM WHICH McELROY TOOK MUCH OF HER BOOK, IS ENTIRELY MY OWN. McElroy did nothing more that transcribe and arrange that material.

This rough draft of my FOR book sat untouched for some time, because I was still busy with other things. McElroy encouraged me to work on it during a number of our phone conversations (again, to her credit), stating that it had commercial potential.

Finally, around one year after she had sent me the disk, McElroy proposed the following: She would take responsibility for writing a polished draft and contribute two or three chapters of her own, if I would be willing to list her as the second author. This seemed reasonable to me at the time (and still does), since I seriously doubted whether I would be able to finish the FOR book on my own in the near future.

Shortly thereafter, Wendy presented me with the contract, which we both signed. She also said that she would be sending her chapters in the near future, and encouraged me to write a finished draft of the first three chapters, so we could submit a proposal to a publisher. I spent a couple of weeks doing so and wrote to Nathaniel Branden asking if he would write an advance letter to one of his publishers, asking them to consider it for publication. He did so. I submitted the first three chapters, but they were rejected.

Both Wendy and I were disappointed, of course, and after this we let the project slide. She never submitted her material to me, nor did I press her for it, and we both went on to other things, thinking (I suppose) that we would take it up at another time. A few years later, we ended our personal association, and that was that. There was no question that the material I had worked on over a seven-year period was mine, and whatever Wendy had written was hers.

Wendy, on the other hand, claims that she submitted a final draft of this manuscript to me at some point, which I then I had six weeks to review, according to the terms of the contract. She then claims that, since I did not do whatever I was supposed to do in six weeks, that all the rights to my material – meaning, the entire book as it existed up to that point – reverted to her, giving her the right to publish it under her own name.

On my word of honor, this claim is absolutely and unequivocally false. I never got anything from her beyond the original transcripts. Again, consider the coherence of McElroy’ claim.

(1) The contract says nothing whatever about her getting the rights to my material should I not review the final manuscript in six weeks. It doesn’t even specify what is meant by “review.” Presumably, had she submitted a “final manuscript” to me, I could simply have accepted it as is. If this manuscript exists, how does she know that I didn’t “review” it? I certainly would have read it and discussed it with her on the phone. Is she claiming that, upon receiving the final manuscript, I never said anything about it, even though we customarily talked by phone at least two times a week? What kind of sense does this make? If I had had a final manuscript in hand, based largely on seven years of my work, would I have just ignored it? And even if I had, by what tortured logic can she claim that all rights to my material reverted to her? The contract says nothing like this, nor is it implied. Who in their right mind would ever sign such a contract? Does McElroy seriously expect people to believe that I would be willing to surrender to her seven years of my work after a six-week deadline had elapsed? I hope that third parties will use some common sense here, since McElroy obviously isn’t.

(2) If McElroy insists that I defaulted on our contract, and that all rights to my writing somehow reverted to her, then third parties should demand some evidence to substantiate this claim. There surely must have been correspondence about this between the two of us.. She assumes the burden of proof in this matter, not me. Let her therefore produce even a scrap of evidence in support of this charge. Or has she conveniently destroyed this evidence along with most everything else, except her mysterious diary?

(3) If things happened as McElroy claims they did, then consider: When she signed her contract with Prometheus Books, why didn’t she notify Prometheus of the situation, stating that she had the right to publish a good deal of my writing? If she had, Prometheus would have (a) asked McElroy to provide documentation of her claim, and (B) contacted me prior to publishing the book.

(4) Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that McElroy is in the right about everything up to this point – that, owing to some legal technicality, she had acquired full rights to my material. My charge against her, however, is plagiarism, which means to represent what someone else has written as your own. Thus, if the preceding is McElroy’s argument, then she is a self-confessed plagiarist. She has in fact admitted that she published a good deal of my writing under her name, representing my work as her own. What else needs to be said about this matter?

I submit, therefore, that McElroy’s argument is absurd on its very face. Is she confessing to plagiarism or not, with the legal excuse that she had acquired all rights to my work? You can evaluate these and other claims by her for their internal coherence, using nothing more than your common sense.

As I said before, this dispute will be put to rest when I post dozens of parallel passages between some of my previously-published writing and her book. After that, if anyone still has doubts that I have been completely truthful in this matter, than I don’t know what else I could possibly say to convince them.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

George,

In your "Wiggle II" file, you said:

McElroy and I have not gotten along for a number of years now, but that was personal, and I have said very little about this to anyone, even close friends. I defy anyone to cite even one case where I have belittled McElroy's professional accomplishments. Indeed, before this present controversy, I have always spoken well of her in this regard. She has done excellent work in the past. There was no reason why she needed to plagiarize seven years of my work. If she had presented my ideas in her own words, I would have had no objection. But that is not in fact what she did.

I know that you don't need evidence of motive to prove plagiarism, but, in light of what you said in the passage I put in bold, why do you think she would plagiarize seven years of your work?

Robert Campbell

[George H. Smith]

George,

In your "Wiggle II" file, you said:

McElroy and I have not gotten along for a number of years now, but that was personal, and I have said very little about this to anyone, even close friends. I defy anyone to cite even one case where I have belittled McElroy's professional accomplishments. Indeed, before this present controversy, I have always spoken well of her in this regard. She has done excellent work in the past. There was no reason why she needed to plagiarize seven years of my work. If she had presented my ideas in her own words, I would have had no objection. But that is not in fact what she did.

I know that you don't need evidence of motive to prove plagiarism, but, in light of what you said in the passage I put in bold, why do you think she would plagiarize seven years of your work?

This is an excellent question, one that I thought long and hard about about in 1998. There are two explanations. The first is technical and speculative. I call this the Special Theory of Wendy's Plagiarism. The second is personal, convoluted, and in my mind absolutely certain. I call this the General Theory of Wendy's Plagiarism.

1. In 1998, I did a rough-and-ready analysis of how the plagiarized passages are distributed throughout TRW. My conclusion was that the plagiarism gets progressively worse as the book wears on. There are some plagiarized passages early on, but for the most part we find the most overt examples later in the book.

I concluded that Wendy was probably pushing a deadline and running out of time. Hence, rather than take the time needed to rewrite or paraphrase passages from FOR, she decided to copy and paste, in effect, instead.

Please keep in mind that I haven't looked into this subject since 1998, so I cannot claim certainty for my "it gets worse" conclusion. I offer it here only as a hypothesis that others may wish to investigate further.

2. Even if my Special Theory is correct, it leaves unanswered the question of why Wendy would plagiarize at all, given that she clearly had the ability to write my ideas in her own words rather than plagiarize my writing. The ultimate explanation is to be found in my General Theory.

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.

But this is an extremely complicated story, and I have not yet finished telling it -- not by a long shot. Thus until I am able to tell my story in full, it would be pointless, indeed impossible, for me to explain my General Theory. I am therefore afraid that I will need to postpone explaining my General Theory until a later time.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Hey, Brad!

Did you know that after I discovered that you were fucking my girlfriend, Wendy pleaded with me not to leave her? I was upset, but I also knew that Wendy is a complicated woman, so I specified two reasonable conditions that Wendy must fulfill in order for us to remain together. I also insisted that Wendy must tell you about both conditions.

The first condition you already know about. I insisted that Wendy must tell you that I had no idea about your affair. She claimed she had, but that was a lie.

My second condition related to the fact that I was unnerved and didn't want to have to deal with your talking to Wendy on the phone all the time. I told Wendy that I wouldn't leave her if she broke off contact with you for three months. After that we would review the situation.

I thought this would be sufficient time for my wounds to heal. Yes, believe it or not, I was deeply hurt by all this. I didn't blame you, because you believed that Wendy had informed me of your affair. This is why I insisted that Wendy tell you the truth. I thought you had a right to know the facts and go from there.

Wendy told me that she discussed the matter with you, and that she would break off contact for three months. Sure enough, our home phone bill (on Van Ness) showed no traces of calls to or from you for the first two months. But it never occurred to me, since I trusted Wendy to tell me the truth from now on, that she would merely shift her end of your phone conversations to the phone at Lysander's Books (our bookstore), where Wendy spent a lot of time.

Wendy took care of the bills at Lysanders, so I usually didn't see them. But one day Wendy was so careless as to leave a phone bill lying around. I happened to glance at it casually. And what did I see? Page after page of phone calls between the two of you. I felt like Wendy had stabbed me in the heart once again, just after the earlier wound was beginning to heal.

Obviously Wendy had never discussed anything with you. There must have been a time when she gave you some reason why you should always call her at the bookstore and never at our home. I have no idea what her rationale was. Do you remember it? Or were you in on the deceit as well?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Hey, Brad!

Did you know that, roughly two months before you two left for Canada, that Wendy called me on the phone (I was living in Franklin West Towers) in tears, begging me to come back? We talked for over four hours. Wendy cried, pleaded, and cajoled. She promised never to see or even talk to you again, if only we could restore our relationship.

I told Wendy that I understood, because I too had felt the pain of knowing that our intense emotional connections were forever gone. I also told her that as exciting as our adventures of the mind had been, they had pushed us into very hazardous territory, so it was better for both of us to begin our lives anew.

I mention this because it is only a matter of time before Wendy repeats her absurd claim from 1998, viz., that I had launched a vicious attack against her, in the form of accusing her of plagiarism, because I was still pining for her and was angry that I couldn't have her. (That woman has quite an ego, does she not?)

It was Wendy, not I, who pleaded for the restoration of our relationship. And it was I, not Wendy, who refused.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

NOTE TO BRAD

The following is not an offer to settle with Wendy or anything like that. It is based on my belief that it never hurts to talk things over. I have no interest in communicating with that gutless and sleazy rat-fuck Kinsella. But I would be willing to talk to Brad, if he thinks there would be any point in talking to me.

I cannot promise anything, but if Brad feels something might be gained by communicating with me, he can email me, and I will respond immediately.

I have little doubt that Kinsella will give Brad the same incompetent lawyer advice that he has always given. No, no; don't communicate with George in any way. It might hurt our case, etc., etc.

Well, if Brad is stupid enough to bend over and and get fucked in the ass once again by Kinsella's brainless dick, then that is Brad's problem.

Again, this is an offer with a short expiration date -- say, the next few hours. You may wonder why I do this. I do it because I don't want to give Brad enough time to enter into strategy sessions with Kinsella. If I communicate at all with Brad, I want to communicate with the real Brad, not with a lawyered-up Brad who has been advised about how he might trip me up, at least on legal matters.

If Brad does email me, I will suggest that we conduct any further conservations via phone. I can get a much better sense of a person's sincerity when I can hear his voice.

So if anyone would care to email Brad about this suggestion, please do so immediately.

[George H. Smith]

Here is an interesting tidbit that I have never told anyone before.

In 2000 or 2001, not long after moving to Bloomington, I joined Sam Konkin's original LeftLibertarian List. Sam informed me that he had discussed the plagiarism issue with Wendy and that she had apologized to him for threatening to file a lawsuit against me. Wendy candidly admitted that her threat was wrong. Of course, Wendy never apologized to me.

Also, before I joined LL, Wendy had apparently posted some explanations of her side of the scandal on LL. Nevertheless, Sam absolutely refused to post even one comment by me that had anything to do with that controversy.

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

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Over the past few days many OLers have sent me emails or private messages. If I have not yet responded, please be patient. I've been very busy lately.

Also, if anyone knows the whereabouts of either Robert Murphy or Agnes Regier, I would appreciate it if you let them know about my recent posts regarding Robert's vicious assault against me. I don't want to be in contact with them myself, but I do want them to know that this issue has not been forgotten.

I think it was Brant who commented on settling the score. Well, one way to begin this process is to make them aware of what they have to look forward to in terms of their reputations in the libertarian movement. Worry and anxiety about what to expect next can be powerful weapons in psychological warfare.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

There is a free-market economist named Robert Murphy who wrote an Introduction an edition of Rothbard's Man, Economy, and State.

Unless I am badly mistaken, this is NOT the RM I am looking for. The RM who assaulted me wasn't smart enough to write much of anything.

Thanks to Roger Bissell for the heads-up.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I just learned that Agnes Regier is dead. I take no pleasure in this. Agnes was a very good woman who made a very bad error in passively going along with Robert's plan,

http://www.okcemeteries.net/washita/miscobit/beacon/r/amregier.htm

Agnes battled cancer in the final months of her life. During her illness she grappled strenuously with her relationship with God. She wondered if her sins could be forgiven. A couple of weeks before her death she once again placed her trust in Jesus Christ and received assurance of forgiveness. She joyfully declared that she would be in heaven with the lord.

Ghs

[slpresley]

Consider this comment my "official" endorsement of everything George Smith has said about Wendy McElroy and the book The Reasonable Women. I have indeed seen the evidence of the plagiarism and am satisfied that George's allegations are true. If I were not totally convinced of this, I would not risk my reputation this way. It's a sorry state of affairs, very sad to see, but there it is.

[George H. Smith]

I just learned that Agnes Regier is dead. I take no pleasure in this. Agnes was a very good woman who made a very bad error in passively going along with Robert's plan,

http://www.okcemeteries.net/washita/miscobit/beacon/r/amregier.htm

Agnes battled cancer in the final months of her life. During her illness she grappled strenuously with her relationship with God. She wondered if her sins could be forgiven. A couple of weeks before her death she once again placed her trust in Jesus Christ and received assurance of forgiveness. She joyfully declared that she would be in heaven with the lord.

Ghs

This news is very upsetting for me. Prior to that incident, Agnes was always very good to me, and I think she got in over her head. As I said before, Agnes was not present during any phase of the assault. She deliberately stayed away. Although this was moral cowardice, I have long thought that Agnes simply could not bear to see what was going to happen.

Until around 3 hours into my "Indian Therapy," I assumed Agnes knew nothing about Robert's plan. Indeed, I repeatedly said to Robert that if he would let me go now, I wouldn't say anything to anyone, including Agnes.

Eventually Robert told me that Agnes knew about his plan. Despite all the terror, humiliation, and pain of those 8 hours, that one moment where I learned the truth hurt me more than everything else combined.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

http://django.newsok.com/government/elections/candidates/bio/571/

Here is the that sadisic SOB, Robert Murphy.

Thanks again to Roger Bissell.

Ghs

[Roger Bissell]

http://django.newsok.com/government/elections/candidates/bio/571/

Here is the that sadisic SOB, Robert Murphy.

Thanks again to Roger Bissell.

Ghs

Please don't tie me to a tree, Mr. Murphy. I'm just the messenger! :-/

REB

[Bosco]

From George's link on Robert Murphy:

• Reason for running:
  The candidate has not answered this question
• What three areas of state government would be your funding priorities?
  The candidate has not answered this question
• What would you do to reform the state's worker compensation system?
  The candidate has not answered this question
• How do you view the relationship between state and federal government?
  The candidate has not answered this question

Gee George, I can't understand why you didn't respect him intellectually.

Tim

Edited January 18, 2011 by Tim Hopkins