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


Recommended Posts

You probably know many people who attended the first year of my FOR classes, before I even knew Wendy. You probably know Caroline Roper-Deyo, for example, and she will tell you that I was teaching FOR while I was living on Van Ness (in Hollywood) with Diane (my first wife), long before Wendy ever entered the picture. Indeed, Caroline contributed some useful suggestions to FOR, and she also helped with my "Forum For Philosophical Studies" in 1975, while I was giving monthly lectures at Larchmont Hall.

Go ahead, Brad -- contact Caroline and ask her if Wendy had any role whatsoever in the creation or development of FOR. Or don't you have the balls to learn the truth?

Ghs

I took George’s “Fundamentals of Reasoning” course in the mid 1970’s when he was living on Van Ness in Hollywood. He was either married or living with Diane Hunter at that time. I am quite certain that George was singularly responsible for writing the material in the course. To my knowledge, Wendy McElroy had nothing to do with the preparation of the FOR material. Her name was never mentioned, either in that context or any other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I called this a "transcript," because that's exactly what it was. It was a verbatim transcript taken from my FOR tapes. It included Q&A and even jokes that I told -- one of which ended up nearly verbatim in TRW.

Here is the joke. This was among the eight pages of parallel passages between FOR and TRW that I sent out in 1998. I think I also posted the same thing previously on this thread, but I'm not sure.

Smith, FOR Transcript (cont., lines 4-22): “For example, there is an old joke in philosophy about a man who runs to the doctor and says “doctor, doctor I’m dead.” The doctor looks at him and says, “no, you are not.” The man replies, “yes, I am; I am dead.” The doctor thinks of how to convince the man that he isn’t dead. Finally he says to the guy, “would you agree with me that dead men don’t bleed?” The guy agreed. The doctor pricks the man’s [sic] and he bleeds. “Aha,” the doctor proclaims, “see, dead men don’t bleed and you bleed; therefore you are alive.” The man reflects on this and replies, “I was obviously wrong. Dead men do bleed afterall [sic].””

McElroy, p. 212: “There’s an old joke in philosophy about a man who says to his doctor, “Doctor, doctor, I’m dead.” The doctor replies, “No you are not.” The man persists. “Yes, I am; I am dead.” The doctor argues with the fellow, “Would you agree with me that dead men don’t bleed?” The man agrees. The doctor then pricks his patient’s finger and he bleeds. “Aha,” the doctor proclaims, “See, dead men don’t bleed and here is blood, therefore, you are alive.” The man reflects on this and concludes, “I was obviously wrong. Dead men do bleed.”

I'm sure the similarity in wording is just a coincidence. After all, Wendy has repeatedly said that she erased my FOR transcripts before she began writing TRW. And now her hubby, Brad, has assured us that he knows this to be true, because he personally deleted all those FOR files from Wendy's computer (as if Wendy doesn't know how to delete files).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSkv_29Rncg

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You probably know many people who attended the first year of my FOR classes, before I even knew Wendy. You probably know Caroline Roper-Deyo, for example, and she will tell you that I was teaching FOR while I was living on Van Ness (in Hollywood) with Diane (my first wife), long before Wendy ever entered the picture. Indeed, Caroline contributed some useful suggestions to FOR, and she also helped with my "Forum For Philosophical Studies" in 1975, while I was giving monthly lectures at Larchmont Hall.

Go ahead, Brad -- contact Caroline and ask her if Wendy had any role whatsoever in the creation or development of FOR. Or don't you have the balls to learn the truth?

Ghs

I took George’s “Fundamentals of Reasoning” course in the mid 1970’s when he was living on Van Ness in Hollywood. He was either married or living with Diane Hunter at that time. I am quite certain that George was singularly responsible for writing the material in the course. To my knowledge, Wendy McElroy had nothing to do with the preparation of the FOR material. Her name was never mentioned, either in that context or any other.

Thank you, Dennis! I knew you had attended an early class, but I couldn't remember the exact year.

For the record: I didn't ask Dennis to post this comment. It was unsolicited.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to your proposed higher-price copy of evidence, it seems to me that you could collate much of your electronically extant evidence and analysis, publish it as an e-book on Amazon for $4.99 or $2.99 (or $.99, for widest distribution but lower-percentage royalties; about a third of payments versus about two thirds), and then add a note to the review comment at the Amazon page for "Wendy's" book saying: "Hey, I've just published an e-book elaborating the evidence for my accusation of plagiarism, entitled xyz, available right here on Amazon."

You could put it together quickly just by collating emails in this thread, cutting a few obvious overlaps, and perhaps adding a few other items. Creating a clean Amazon Kindle doc from an MS Word doc and uploading it to a self-publishing account at Amazon.com requires only a few hours of work. (The widgets in the WordStar letter might not be easily reproducable.)

Edited by Starbuckle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In addition to your proposed higher-price copy of evidence, it seems to me that you could collate much of your electronically extant evidence and analysis, publish it as an e-book on Amazon for $4.99 or $2.99 (or $.99, for widest distribution but lower-percentage royalties; about a third of payments versus about two thirds), and then add a note to the review comment at the Amazon page for "Wendy's" book saying: "Hey, I've just published an e-book elaborating the evidence for my accusation of plagiarism, entitled xyz, available right here on Amazon."

You could put it together quickly just by collating emails in this thread, cutting a few obvious overlaps, and perhaps adding a few other items. Creating a clean Amazon Kindle doc from an MS Word doc and uploading it to a self-publishing account at Amazon.com requires only a few hours of work. (The widgets in the WordStar letter might not be easily reproducable.)

There are a number of possibilities. but I'm in no hurry. I made the offer of selling printouts of my original FOR transcripts for $40, in case some people wanted to examine the truly important evidence for themselves now, instead of waiting for another year or so.

This is scarcely my top priority now.

Up to now, I have posted maybe a dozen pages of parallel quotations from TRW and my FOR transcripts. I have also posted a link to my online articles on definitions, which I originally published in the LD/Extemp Monthly c. 1986, and which appear nearly verbatim in TRW. (In the latter case, people with a copy of TRW can compare the many parallel passages for themselves. In some cases, Wendy did little more than to change "he" to "she.")

These two sources alone are more than sufficient to substantiate my charge of plagiarism against Wendy. I looked through TRW again a few months ago, and since I know my own material very well, I was easily able to spot another 75-100 pages of similar plagiarism. But I'm not going to take the time, at least not now, to write down each and every instance, when people with a serious interest in this scandal can now obtain a complete copy of my FOR transcripts and do this job themselves. Indeed, I already posted my "11raw" file from my FOR transcripts, and it would be a relatively easy job for people to match up almost everything I said there with passages from TRW.

I mean, how many virtually identical parargraphs do people need before they will conclude, "Yup, Wendy plagiarized all right"? Dennis Hardin just shot to hell Wendy's claim to have "co-created" and "co-developed" FOR, and that was the foundation of her entire defense. Who would believe anything else Wendy has to say, after seeing how outrageously she lied about this fundamental subject?

I will eventually get around to putting all this together in a convenient and inexpensive format, but, as I said, I'm in no hurry. I will continue to post things here every few months or so, as I obtain new documents. (I have many now that I haven't posted yet.) But Wendy can be sure that I will not let this slide for another 12 years. I will be hitting her again and again with new evidence.

Wendy had many chances to resolve this conflict in a reasonable manner, and, if she had, all this would have been over long ago. (Even a simple public apology would have sufficed at one point.) But she refused, so she will now twist in the wind for the rest of her life.

I will never drop this thing. I promise you, Wendy McElroy will go down in the books as the greatest plagiarist in the history of libertarianism. That will be her legacy.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, let's trudge through a little more of this godawful muck:

Some time later, George informed Wendy that Prometheus was not interested in the book. From comments he has made here, I conjecture that in fact George was not interested in submitting it to Prometheus, preferring a different publisher; when that publisher declined, he took it no further.

I never said anything of the kind to Wendy, and I never submitted anything regarding FOR to Prometheus, because their distribution stinks. I told Wendy from the outset that our book would have considerable sales potential if it were properly written and published by a major publisher, or at least a publisher with decent outlets.

As it turns out, Wendy published our book under her name, she did a crappy job of it, and she had it published by Prometheus, after all.

There was a reason why I hesitated all those years before attempting to make my FOR material into a book. The reason is that FOR was an interactive class -- a class restricted to eight participants. Much of the success of my FOR classes -- I made a decent living teaching them for years -- depended on its relaxed, informal nature, and on the conversations of participants. But I couldn't figure out how to translate this into a book form. I finally figured out some ideas that I thought would work, and that's when I agreed to co-author a book with Wendy, one with broader scope.

What Wendy did was to take my verbal comments and notes (I never got those back, either) and fiddle with them a bit. If that's all I had in mind, I would have published the book years ago. It pissed me off that she made such a mess of some of my ideas.

At the end of 1991, for reasons unrelated to the FOR project but involving a breach of trust on George's part, Wendy broke off all contact with George. Wanting nothing more to do with him, Wendy packaged up the FOR materials -- manuscript, disks, and tapes -- and sent them to George. (I mailed the package.)

Breach of trust, my ass. Do you really want to go there, Brad? I already commented on that pathetic phone call that Wendy made to me early on New Year's Day, because some gal had called her a "slut" at a party the night before. That was some script you had her read to me on the phone. When I said to Wendy, "Brad's in the room listening, isn't he? Call me back when he isn't around and we will figure this out," Wendy got so flummoxed that she had to start over.

I finally told Wendy that I understood the problem and that I was willing to help her get out of the fix she was in (i.e., with you), but that I wouldn't be the fall guy because of the many lies she had told you. When Wendy kept reading, I finally said, "Fuck you," and I hung up the phone.

Wendy and I spoke only one more time after that, shortly after I had moved to SF and was staying with JR. (I believe this was 1995, but it might have been late 1994. Wendy called me back, after JR had called her.) Wendy probably didn't mention that brief conversation to you, did she? I recall exactly what Wendy said --and it was probably the most honest thing she had said to anyone in years. Why don't you ask her about it?

As I have said before, if you had just stayed out of that damned New Years Eve incident and let Wendy and I handle it on our own, things probably would have worked out fine. You didn't have a clue of what was going on at the time, and there is still a lot you don't know. Wendy is light years ahead of you in terms of her intelligence, sexual experiences, and psychological complexities, and she frequently expressed to me her fears that you would leave her if you ever found out the truth. (She told me you knew part of the truth, but far from all of it, and that she had flat-out lied to you about a number of things.) So back off, you clueless bumpkin, or I will go into even more personal detail than I have before.

To be continued....

Ghs

Addendum: Sharon Presley is one of the few people who knows what I have not yet revealed about that incident on New Years morning. Sharon is probably following this thread, so she can reinforce my warning that this is something you had better leave alone, for Wendy's sake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A few years later -- after the completion of XXX -- Wendy expressed a renewed interest in writing a book on reasoning, by herself. Being familiar with "clean room design," I suggested that she erase all trace of the FOR manuscript from her computer, so that she would be forced to write it from scratch. She agreed, and as I am her computer "tech support," I took responsibility for the erasure. So I know those files were deleted.

Oh, really? Then I suppose parallel passages like the following, which are only part of what I emailed to people on May 17, 1998, are purely coincidental. There are dozens upon dozens of examples like this. ("Smith" refers, of course, to my FOR transcripts.)

Smith, Chapter 8, p.4, line 3:“Subjectivists are made, not born.”

McElroy, p. 295:“Subjectivists are made, not born.”

Smith, Chapter 8, page19, lines 10-20: “But the most important and most comprehensive variety of skepticism is what I call epistemological skepticism: that is, skepticism with regard to the possibility of human knowledge….But all skeptics share the common premise that reality lies beyond the scope of human reason.”

McElroy, p289: “Philosophically, the most common sort of skepticism is epistemological skepticism, that is, a skepticism that denies the possibility of human knowledge. Epistemological skeptics share the common belief that reality lies beyond the scope of human perception and reason.”

Smith, Chapter 7, p. 4, lines 51-3: “Consider this fact: for this being, there would be no distinction between what it believes to be true and what actually is true.”

McElroy, p. 293: “Consider this fact alone: For an omniscient being there is no distinction between what it believes is true and what actually is true.”

Smith: Chapter 7., p.4, , lines 41-54: “Ask yourself: If there were an infallible being, how would its reasoning processes differ from ours. What would reasoning mean to a being who was incapable of reaching a wrong conclusion? It might have to go through some sort of process of thinking, but would it be a human process?

McElroy, p. 293:“Ask yourself a question: If you were an infallible, omniscient being, how would your reasoning process differ from what they are now? If you knew everything immediately and simultaneously, what would thinking out a problem entail? You might go through a series of mental processes, but how closely would they resemble the human process of reasoning?”

Smith, Chapter 8, p.5, line 37- page 6, line 2 “The word “skepticism” is used in a variety of ways and some are not objectionable. For example, we sometimes use the word “skeptical” to refer to mental attitude of cautiousness. A skeptic in this case is one who refuses to believe a proposition until sufficient evidence is presented in its favor…The desirability of skepticism depends on the context in which it is applied..”

McElroy, p. 289: “The word “skepticism is used in many ways and some are not objectionable. For example, it can refer to an attitude of intellectual cautiousness. That is, a skeptic may be simply someone who refuses to believe anything without sufficient evidence. The desirability of skepticism depends on how the word is being used.”

Smith, Chapter 10, page 3, lines24- :”Popper observed that you could never conclusively verify a scientific theory, no matter how many cases you observe, because there was this problem of affirming the consequent. In other words, scientists were trapped in the invalid form of: If P, then Q: Q, therefore P. To translate this into common terms, scientists were arguing:

“If my theory is correct, swans are black.

Here is a black swan.

Therefore, my theory is correct.”

McElroy, p. 211: He observed that you could never conclusively verify a scientific theory, no matter how many confirming cases you observe. To speak in terms of logic, you would be running up against a fallacy known as affirming the consequent. In other words, you would be trapped in an invalid form of syllogism that would run as follows: If P, then Q; Q, therefore, P. To translate this into common English, you would be arguing along the lines of:

If my theory is correct, then all swans are black.

Here is a black swan.

Therefore my theory is correct.”

Smith (cont., p. 4, lines 3-9 ) “Popper concluded that scientific investigation was a process of what he called conjecture and refutation. In other words, scientists were confronted with a problem, and they offered a conjecture of what they thought the solution might be., Then they searched for ways of falsifying that possible solution.”

McElroy, p. 211: “Popper concluded that scientific investigation is a process of conjecture and refutation. When scientists are confronted with a question, they offer a conjecture – that is, an opinion without sufficient evidence for proof – about what they think the solution might be. Then they searched for ways to refute or falsify the very solution they have suggested.”

Smith, page 4, lines 37-41: “Too often, people look only to confirming cases. They only look for those things that will support what they want to be true.”

McElroy p. 212: “People commonly look only for confirming cases….and take notice only of the evidence supporting what they believe to be true. Or what they want to be true.”

Smith (cont., lines 41-47): “But as you can see, disconfirming cases can be a powerful intellectual tool, because they can tell you right away if there is something wrong with your theory.”

McElroy, p. 212: “Yet seeking out such disconfirming cases can be a powerful intellectual tool because they tell you right away if there is something wrong with a theory.”

Smith (page 4, lines 55-p. 5, line 4): “Another avenue of ignoring, or shutting out, disconfirming cases, is by presenting arguments which, in principle cannot be refuted.”

McElroy, p. 212: “Another way of shutting out disconfirming cases is by presenting arguments which, by their very nature, cannot be refuted.”

Smith (cont., lines 24-32): “The moral of this joke is that, too often, when people do not want to have a theory refuted, they construct their arguments in such a way that the arguments cannot be falsified. The construct a theory in such a way that there is nothing that will disconfirm it.”

McElroy, p. 212: “The moral is: when people do not want to have a theory refuted, they often construct their arguments in such a manner as to make them unfalsifiable. They construct arguments in such a way that no amount of evidence will disconfirm them.”

Smith, under the heading THEORY AS A RISK TAKING VENTURE: Chapter 10, p. 5, lines 35-54: “To put this a different way – advancing a theory is an intellectual risk. If you are attempting to reach out into the real world and prove, then you are making yourself vulnerable. Because whenever there is a possibility of verification, there is a possibility of falsification.”

McElroy, p. 213 (under the heading THEORY IS A RISKY BUSINESS), p. 213: “To advance a theory is to take a risk that the real-world evidence might prove you wrong…. [W]herever there is the possibility of verification, there is also the possibility of falsification.”

Smith, page 6, lines 1-9: “When you say, “If my theory is correct, all swans are black,” you are running the risk of seeing a non-black swan, and losing your theory. Only by an intellectual slight [sic]-of-hand, such as labelling [sic] an[sic] non-black swan to be a goose, can you avoid this risk.”

McElroy, p. 213: “For example, when you way, “If my theory is correct, all swans are black,” and wander down to the local pond to check the evidence, you risk seeing a white swan and disproving your theory. Only by an intellectual sleight of hand, can you eschew the risk.”

Smith (cont., lines 11-15): “A person who claims to want his theory verified, but doesn’t want to take the corresponding risk of possibly falsifying it, is not being intellectually honest.”

McElroy, p. 213: “A person who claims to respect evidence, but doesn’t want to take the risk of being proven wrong, is not being intellectually honest.”

Smith, p. 6, lines 34-p. 7, line 2): “Let me give you two examples of theories, which place themselves beyond the possibility of falsification. When Karl Popper was going to school in Vienna, he noticed two very popular movements, or schools of thought, which were both claiming to be scientific: Freudianism and Marxism. Popper was very interested in the scientific method, but whenever he would get into an argument with either a Freudian or a Marxism [sic], he encountered insurmountable obstacles. Namely, they were immune to refutation. Note: this is quite different from saying that they could not be refuted because they were correct. Instead, the theories were constructed in such a manner as to eliminate any possibility of disconfirming cases.”

McElroy, p. 214: “When he was a student in Vienna, Karl Popper took special note of a school of thought that was popular in his day: Freudianism. In analyzing Freudian theory, Popper encountered a strange and insurmountable obstacle. Namely, it seemed immune to refutation. It was not that Freudian theory could not be refuted because it was correct, but that the system of theory was constructed in such a manner as to eliminate the very possibility of disconfirming cases.”

Smith, page 7, lines 4-22: “For example, in discussing the psychological condition which Freud called the oedipal (elektra) complex, the Freudian would claim it was “universal” – that is, everyone had this complex. Popper would point out that a lot of people have no memory, no feeling, no indication whatever of this desire. Such evidence would seem to be disconfirming. To put it in logical terms, Popper was saying to the Freudian:

“If you correct [sic], then all men have an oedipal complex:

But there are men without such a complex.

Therefore you are not correct.”

McElroy, page 214: “Consider the Freudian psychological phenomenon called the Oedipal (Electra) complex – the sexual attachment that every child is alleged to fee4l toward a parent of the opposite sex. Freud claimed this phenomenon was “universal.” It was a stage of development that everyone went through. Popper would point out that a great many well-adjusted people, who had happy and happy and apparently unrepressed childhoods, have no memory, no feeling, no indication whatsoever of every having had such a desire. Surely such recurring evidence seems to disconfirm the claim that the Oedipal complex is universal.

“To put Popper’s objection in more logical terms:

If Freudian theory is correct, all people have experienced an Oedipal complex.

But many people claim not to have had such an experience.

Therefore, the theory is not correct.”

Smith, (cont., lines 24-40): “But the Freudians, faced with disconfirming cases of their theory, simply defined those cases out of existence. They said, “men you don’t manifest any sign whatsoever of an oedipal complex are merely repressing it.” In other words, Freudians simply produced another, companion theory to define out of existence any counter evidence. No matter how Popper argued with them, they [sic] was always another theory – or an unstated aspect of the original theory – which made is impossible for them to be refuted.”

McElroy, p. 214: “Yet when the Freudians were confronted with cases that falsified their theory, they simply defined those cases out of existence, rather as the white swan was redefined as a duck. They said: “People who don’t manifest any sign whatsoever of an Oedipal complex are merely repressing it.” In other words, Freudians produced a companion theory to define out of existence any counterevidence. …The position was so constructed as to preclude falsification.”

Smith, Chapter 10, p. 10, line39-40. “To rephrase this point: whenever someone attempts to prove something, he must assume the risk of his claim being disproven.”

McElroy, p. 216: To rephrase this point, whenever you attempt to prove something, you must assume the risk of your claim being disproven.”

Smith, p. 15, line 54: “Theories should be dealt with on a theoretical level.”

McElroy, p. 216: “Theories must be dealt with on a theoretical level.”

My, oh my! This is some pile of coincidences, is it not? And either you are lying through your teeth when you say that you personally erased my FOR files from Wendy's computer, or she pulled a fast one on you. Have you considered the possibility that Wendy had a backup disk? :lol:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't send a man to do a woman's job.

--Brant

Wendy is so far ahead of Brad that she has completed a full circle and can easily sneak up behind him. :lol:

True story: Shortly before Wendy moved to Canada, we met for lunch at a Marie Callender's in the Long Beach area. The whole thing was very cordial and rather poignant. This was our farewell.

Wendy and I were always remarkably straightforward with one another, at least on most things. So, while I wished her the best, I told Wendy that I was a little worried. I said, somewhat tongue-in-cheek: "Brad's a nice guy, and I know he loves you, and I suppose on some level you love him. But, Jesus, for years you have lived in a different dimension than Brad, and you are so complex and so far ahead of him that I'm afraid you will get really bored living with him in the Canadian outback, staring at all that snow. Then one day I will read in the news about how some anarchist Canadian woman went bonkers."

Wendy laughed and said she knew what I meant, but she added: "Brad puts me on a pedestal and worships me, and that's what I need right now."

I said, "Okay, but I don't think you will want that kind of unconditional adoration for the rest of your life. You want a husband, not a puppy."

In retrospect, it looks like I was wrong. The good news is that Brad makes an excellent puppy. <_<

In case people think I'm being too hard on Brad, keep in mind that he concluded his post with the suggestion that I might have forged all the FOR material that I have been posting.

Yeah, right. That stuff was first sent out (1998) within a week of when Sharon Presley gave me her copy of TRW. I must have been productive indeed to write a phony 200-page manuscript in a few days. I also sent the original large floppy disk to Prometheus, and I suspect they still have the copies of FOR on file that they made from the disk. They returned the original disk, of course, and I still have it.

I used to sympathize with Brad to a certain extent, but no longer. He is the most pussy-whipped guy I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the Canadian outback, staring at all that snow.

Ghs

A slight correction: Canada does not have an outback. It has only a heartland, ie a centre of the universe.

Staring at snow is a highly spiritual, and creatively productive experience. This can be empirically proved.

For what it's worth, from the evidence I have read, Ms McElroy has behaved in a very UnCanadian manner altogether.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know how much more time I want to waste with Brad's post. There is scarcely a sentence that is not either false or misleading. But I will see if I can wade through another paragraph, one that especially egregious.

Anyone who has observed the legal process knows that an attorney will try to present multiple, independent lines of argument.

For "multiple, independent lines of arguments" read: Contradictory ad hoc excuses that Wendy fabricated in a state of panic and could not wiggle out of later.

So it is with Wendy. Her primary defense is that TRW was written with no reference to the FOR manuscript; and I can attest first-hand that that was truly the case.

Everyone who has followed this thread knows that this claim is a crock. .

But a second, independent defense is that Wendy was contractually a full co-author of the FOR manuscript, and morally and legally entitled to draw upon that material in future works.

Oh, Christ -- more of this bullshit. For the last time, there never was an FOR manuscript per se, in the sense of a written draft. All there was were verbatim transcriptions of my FOR classes, which I had planned to use as the basis for a manuscript.

This is a matter of common sense. Read the FOR stuff I have posted so far. Most of it is conversational and very informal -- and all of it is in first person singular. I this, and I that -- not we this, and we that, as one would expect to find in the draft of a co-authored book. There are even conversations between myself and the participants.

Guess what, Brad? The fact that Wendy volunteered to transcribe the tapes of my classes didn't give her any rights to my material, and our agreement says nothing like this.

(It would appear that George used some of that material in his Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies, and Wendy has never objected to that use. Contrary to George's claim, Wendy has never suggested that because George missed some six-week deadline, the rights "revert" to her.)

Did you ever read Wendy's 1998 replies? Apparently not, for if you had, you would know, first, that Wendy went so far as to accuse me of plagiarizing from her in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies; and, second, that on at least one occasion, she did in fact claim that I had defaulted on some six-week deadline, so all rights to FOR reverted to her.

I'm finding more and more of this stuff, so I probably have all of her replies somewhere, and I will post them when I get everything together. Then people can see for themselves what a lying sack of shit you are.

In fact, I did not draw my material for "Atheism and the Virtue of Reasonableness" (a chapter in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies) from my earlier FOR material. Rather, I wrote it from scratch for a keynote address that I delivered at a convention of The Freedom From Religion Foundation in Madison. (This was around 1977; maybe it was '78.) I then incorprated much of the material into my later FOR classes -- and Wendy then plagiarized the material from the tapes of those later classes. This is why there are so many similarities and parallels between my talk (which I later reprinted in my anthology) and TRW.

Does everyone get the point here? The argument, which Wendy concocted before Brad, is that Wendy was even responsible to some extent for my published material. Can you imagine the balls it takes to say this?-- that virtually nothing I did for seven years, and even after, was entirely my own, that everything I published on reasoning was somehow "co-written" by a woman who knew virtually nothing about philosophy? How insulting can it get?

I hope OLers are now getting a sense of why I am so enraged, and why I will never let this matter rest. This controversy has gone far beyond the plagiarism issue. Since 1998, Wendy has been claiming credit for much of my work of nearly a decade.

Speaking for myself, I conjecture that what has really annoyed George is that, when researching TRW, Wendy read behind George for the first time...and discovered that much of the FOR material had been taken, uncredited, from other authors such as Antony Flew, Mortimer Adler, and Brand Blanshard. When Wendy identified such, she credited the primary sources in TRW. Do read the extensive footnotes for yourself.

Now this is very interesting. I have a question: If, as Wendy claims, she in fact co-created and co-developed all the FOR material, then wouldn't she have already been aware of the sources that influenced me? Why would she have needed, years later, to "read behind" me to discover all this? This sounds like the activity of a woman who knew absolutely nothing about the creation of FOR -- very strange for a supposed co-creator.

Here's a tip, Brad. When you guys make up stories, try to make them consistent.

And what is meant by saying that I failed to credit the writers who influenced me? Failed to credit where? In the FOR transcripts? Really? But according to Brad, it was Wendy and not I who wrote that "first draft." So exactly where did I fail to credit sources? Blank out, as Rand would say.

In fact, Wendy identified nothing. This is more unadulterated bullshit. I typically had a pile of books next to me during the first FOR class, and I would hold them up one by one and discuss what I liked and didn't like about them. The books I especially recommended were: Antony Flew's Thinking About Thinking and Brand Blanshard's The Uses of a Liberal Education. (Btw, Brad, the copy that Wendy has of Blanshard's book is really mine. Look at it and you will see my notations all over the place. I want it back. Where the hell do you think Wendy first learned about Blanshard?)

I even reviewed The Uses of a Liberal Education for LR in 1977. You can find my review here. I frequently gave FOR participants xerox copies of this review. I guess I didn't hide my sources very well, eh?

I have no idea what Mortimer Adler has to do with any of this. Are you thinking of How to Read a Book? I never liked that book, I didn't recommend it, and I was not influenced by it.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone who just ordered my FOR transcripts pointed out that I fouled up my email address in the original post. My correct email address is:

smikro@comcast.net

If you sent an email to the address I originally gave, it may have gone somewhere, but it didn't get to me. Please resend.

Again, I am selling copies of my original FOR files (98 single-spaced pages) for $40, postpaid. This manuscript will enable OLers to see for themselves the extent of Wendy's plagiarism in TRW.

I apologize for this foul-up. It will come as no surprise when I say that this subject always puts me on edge emotionally, and my typing suffers as a result. So do my proofreading skills, which were never good to begin with. <_<

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me say something else in case anyone is brain-damaged and didn't get my previous point: Wendy is extremely smart. George is extremely smart. If she is right and George is wrong she should certainly be able to appear here and blast George to hell and gone for it's really not about smarts but right and wrong so where the f..k is she? As much as I like and believe George you'd better believe I'd consider and support what rightness she has to support. I'm sure there are others I don't know about who have done what I've done, but I've already on this very thread told George to put it where the sun doesn't shine and I can do it again. So c'mon, Wendy! WhereTF are you? You think I can't or won't stick up for you? You bet your ass I can!

--Brant

after several hundred posts for this thread it's obvious she's toast about this; George has already pledged nuttin' legal!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At the end of 1991, for reasons unrelated to the FOR project but involving a breach of trust on George's part, Wendy broke off all contact with George. Wanting nothing more to do with him, Wendy packaged up the FOR materials -- manuscript, disks, and tapes -- and sent them to George. (I mailed the package.)

I want to comment on the package that was supposedly sent but which I never received.

Brad's account is suspicious on its face, for there were no "disks" to send. I never gave Wendy any disks, and the only disk she ever gave to me was the FOR floppy in 1988 -- three years before the mysterious package was supposedly sent.

Notice how convenient all of Brad's explanations are. He personally erased my FOR files from Wendy's computer. He personally read a polished draft of a book (written by Wendy) that has somehow disappeared. He personally sent a package that I never received. And so on.

Very interesting....

The only thing I ever saw from Wendy around 1991 was a letter she wrote to my best friend, Richard Martin, who had never met Wendy. This letter, which Richard received shortly after that weird phone call I got from Wendy on New Years morning, is the letter in which Wendy called me a "sex pervert" and advised Richard that he should find a better class of friends.

What a sweetheart!

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me say something else in case anyone is brain-damaged and didn't get my previous point: Wendy is extremely smart. George is extremely smart. If she is right and George is wrong she should certainly be able to appear here and blast George to hell and gone for it's really not about smarts but right and wrong so where the f..k is she? As much as I like and believe George you'd better believe I'd consider and support what rightness she has to support. I'm sure there are others I don't know about who have done what I've done, but I've already on this very thread told George to put it where the sun doesn't shine and I can do it again. So c'mon, Wendy! WhereTF are you? You think I can't or won't stick up for you? You bet your ass I can!

--Brant

after several hundred posts for this thread it's obvious she's toast about this; George has already pledged nuttin' legal!

I agree entirely. I would be delighted to have Wendy post her side of the case on OL. And I would pledge not to attack her personally and to stick with the arguments and facts.

I would, however, press Wendy to post all of her missives from 1998. She could then explain their apparent contradictions, if she likes, but people need to see how her defense developed over time, as she became aware that one defense didn't work and so shifted to another. As I remarked to numerous friends at the time, Wendy's emails, before Kinsella told her to shut the hell up, are a fascinating study of a person in panic mode. You can almost hear the gears in her brain turning as she thought to herself, "Damn, that didn't work. Now what am I going to say?"

Of course, Wendy will never take you up on your offer. And I doubt if we will ever hear from Brad again. His debut was not an auspicious one, to say the least.

Maybe Kinsella would like to take a shot. I would love to sink my claws into that hypocrite and thug. I didn't appreciate being threatened with force for exercising free speech and telling the truth. Neither did my future wife (her crime was permitting me to use her server), nor did Sharon Presley (her crime was forwarding my emails), nor did Tim Starr (same crime), etc.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why, but I decided to fiddle around one last time with my FOR files that I could not convert from Wordstar.

Guess what! I finally got the damned things to work! Some of the formatting is a little goofy, but the texts are clear as a bell.

So what did I do? Well, I opened the files in MS Office Word. And when gibberish came up, I clicked the "Other Encoding" tab, and then tried each option in the long list, until I hit US-ASCII. That did the trick.

This will make my life a lot easier. Damn, I hope this works with all my other WS files that I couldn't open before. Who knows what might be lurking in those.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know why, but I decided to fiddle around one last time with my FOR files that I could not convert from Wordstar.

Guess what! I finally got the damned things to work! Some of the formatting is a little goofy, but the texts are clear as a bell.

So what did I do? Well, I opened the files in MS Office Word. And when gibberish came up, I clicked the "Other Encoding" tab, and then tried each option in the long list, until I hit US-ASCII. That did the trick.

This will make my life a lot easier. Damn, I hope this works with all my other WS files that I couldn't open before. Who knows what might be lurking in those.

Ghs

Wow! This is great! I have already opened several of my KP scripts (from c. 1987) that I could not access before. Now, instead of being able to access only two of the scripts that I wrote for KP on the U.S. Constitution (narrated by Cronkite), I can now open all four. You guys who purchased my Files Project (FP) will be happy campers, because I have several hundred more files to try.

I just opened a file of 19 pages called "The Problem of the Dead Philosopher." I vaguely recall this title, but I recall nothing of the content. I doubt if I will get any sleep tonight. :rolleyes:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim Starr. Sigh. Boy, did he ever go off the tracks.

--Brant

Yeah, Tim put on way too much war paint after 9-11, and I've had a few polemical exchanges with him over the years, but he was solid as a rock when the plagiarism scandal erupted in 1998. If you think I get bent out of shape now, you should have seen me in 1998, especially as I learned that Wendy was claiming credit for "co-writing" much of my work of nearly a decade, when in fact I had been mentoring her for most of that time. Boy, did I hit the proverbial ceiling.

Tim, whatever my disagreements with him now, showed remarkable good sense on the plagiarism issue. After Wendy claimed to have erased my FOR material in 1994 and to have written TRW from scratch with no access to any of my material, I drew up eight pages of parallel quotations (some of which I posted on this thread yesterday). Tim immediately understood that Wendy had to be lying about this, and that all of her excuses about having an "excellent memory" and (later) a diary she had kept were flagrant BS.

Some other libertarians, in contrast, kept making excuses for Wendy -- you know, the typical stuff, such as: Well, George and Wendy were in a serious relationship for a decade, and you know how ex-lovers can quarrel. I don't know all the facts, so who I am to judge? Wendy would never do such a horrible thing (as if I would do a horrible thing like make up a vicious lie). And on and on.

That crap made me sick after a while, especially when it came from Objectivist types who claimed to value reason and objective evidence. But Tim never fell for any of this, to his credit.

If I had been born cute, and if I had breasts and a cute ass, I would have had a much easier time persuading O'ist men in this controversy. As I have said before, many women didn't fall for Wendy's "poor little me" routine, so I tended to have more female than male supporters. :mellow:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had been born cute, and if I had breasts and a cute ass, I would have had a much easier time persuading O'ist men in this controversy.

I don't know about that. Breasts and a cute ass on a dude wouldn't make his arguments more persuasive to me, and I think most men feel the same way. In fact, I might side against a dude with breasts and a cute ass just to make sure that he didn't think that I wanted to go out with him or whatever.

Anyway, does the bitch still make public appearances? If so, I think I'd really enjoy showing up and questioning her in front of one of her audiences about all of the evidence you've presented here.

J

Edited by Jonathan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I had been born cute, and if I had breasts and a cute ass, I would have had a much easier time persuading O'ist men in this controversy.

I don't about that. Breasts and a cute ass on a dude wouldn't make his arguments more persuasive to me, and I think most men feel the same way. In fact, I might side against a dude with breasts and a cute ass just to make sure that he didn't think that I wanted to go out with him or whatever.

Anyway, does the bitch still make public appearances? If so, I think I'd really enjoy showing up and questioning her in front of one of her audiences about all of the evidence you've presented here.

J

Yes! Where does she live in Canada? (I've never heard of her here in Toronto, except on OL.) If she does appearances I wouldn't mind asking a few mild questions. Calling herself a feminist!

Indignantly,

Carol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Smith, Chapter 8, p.4, line 3:“Subjectivists are made, not born.”

McElroy, p. 295:“Subjectivists are made, not born.”

Smith, Chapter 8, page19, lines 10-20: “But the most important and most comprehensive variety of skepticism is what I call epistemological skepticism: that is, skepticism with regard to the possibility of human knowledge….But all skeptics share the common premise that reality lies beyond the scope of human reason.”

McElroy, p289: “Philosophically, the most common sort of skepticism is epistemological skepticism, that is, a skepticism that denies the possibility of human knowledge. Epistemological skeptics share the common belief that reality lies beyond the scope of human perception and reason.”

Smith, Chapter 7, p. 4, lines 51-3: “Consider this fact: for this being, there would be no distinction between what it believes to be true and what actually is true.”

McElroy, p. 293: “Consider this fact alone: For an omniscient being there is no distinction between what it believes is true and what actually is true.”

Smith: Chapter 7., p.4, , lines 41-54: “Ask yourself: If there were an infallible being, how would its reasoning processes differ from ours. What would reasoning mean to a being who was incapable of reaching a wrong conclusion? It might have to go through some sort of process of thinking, but would it be a human process?

McElroy, p. 293:“Ask yourself a question: If you were an infallible, omniscient being, how would your reasoning process differ from what they are now? If you knew everything immediately and simultaneously, what would thinking out a problem entail? You might go through a series of mental processes, but how closely would they resemble the human process of reasoning?”

Smith, Chapter 8, p.5, line 37- page 6, line 2 “The word “skepticism” is used in a variety of ways and some are not objectionable. For example, we sometimes use the word “skeptical” to refer to mental attitude of cautiousness. A skeptic in this case is one who refuses to believe a proposition until sufficient evidence is presented in its favor…The desirability of skepticism depends on the context in which it is applied..”

McElroy, p. 289: “The word “skepticism is used in many ways and some are not objectionable. For example, it can refer to an attitude of intellectual cautiousness. That is, a skeptic may be simply someone who refuses to believe anything without sufficient evidence. The desirability of skepticism depends on how the word is being used.”

Smith, Chapter 10, page 3, lines24- :”Popper observed that you could never conclusively verify a scientific theory, no matter how many cases you observe, because there was this problem of affirming the consequent. In other words, scientists were trapped in the invalid form of: If P, then Q: Q, therefore P. To translate this into common terms, scientists were arguing:

“If my theory is correct, swans are black.

Here is a black swan.

Therefore, my theory is correct.”

McElroy, p. 211: He observed that you could never conclusively verify a scientific theory, no matter how many confirming cases you observe. To speak in terms of logic, you would be running up against a fallacy known as affirming the consequent. In other words, you would be trapped in an invalid form of syllogism that would run as follows: If P, then Q; Q, therefore, P. To translate this into common English, you would be arguing along the lines of:

If my theory is correct, then all swans are black.

Here is a black swan.

Therefore my theory is correct.”

Smith (cont., p. 4, lines 3-9 ) “Popper concluded that scientific investigation was a process of what he called conjecture and refutation. In other words, scientists were confronted with a problem, and they offered a conjecture of what they thought the solution might be., Then they searched for ways of falsifying that possible solution.”

McElroy, p. 211: “Popper concluded that scientific investigation is a process of conjecture and refutation. When scientists are confronted with a question, they offer a conjecture – that is, an opinion without sufficient evidence for proof – about what they think the solution might be. Then they searched for ways to refute or falsify the very solution they have suggested.”

Smith, page 4, lines 37-41: “Too often, people look only to confirming cases. They only look for those things that will support what they want to be true.”

McElroy p. 212: “People commonly look only for confirming cases….and take notice only of the evidence supporting what they believe to be true. Or what they want to be true.”

Smith (cont., lines 41-47): “But as you can see, disconfirming cases can be a powerful intellectual tool, because they can tell you right away if there is something wrong with your theory.”

McElroy, p. 212: “Yet seeking out such disconfirming cases can be a powerful intellectual tool because they tell you right away if there is something wrong with a theory.”

Smith (page 4, lines 55-p. 5, line 4): “Another avenue of ignoring, or shutting out, disconfirming cases, is by presenting arguments which, in principle cannot be refuted.”

McElroy, p. 212: “Another way of shutting out disconfirming cases is by presenting arguments which, by their very nature, cannot be refuted.”

Smith (cont., lines 24-32): “The moral of this joke is that, too often, when people do not want to have a theory refuted, they construct their arguments in such a way that the arguments cannot be falsified. The construct a theory in such a way that there is nothing that will disconfirm it.”

McElroy, p. 212: “The moral is: when people do not want to have a theory refuted, they often construct their arguments in such a manner as to make them unfalsifiable. They construct arguments in such a way that no amount of evidence will disconfirm them.”

Smith, under the heading THEORY AS A RISK TAKING VENTURE: Chapter 10, p. 5, lines 35-54: “To put this a different way – advancing a theory is an intellectual risk. If you are attempting to reach out into the real world and prove, then you are making yourself vulnerable. Because whenever there is a possibility of verification, there is a possibility of falsification.”

McElroy, p. 213 (under the heading THEORY IS A RISKY BUSINESS), p. 213: “To advance a theory is to take a risk that the real-world evidence might prove you wrong…. [W]herever there is the possibility of verification, there is also the possibility of falsification.”

Smith, page 6, lines 1-9: “When you say, “If my theory is correct, all swans are black,” you are running the risk of seeing a non-black swan, and losing your theory. Only by an intellectual slight [sic]-of-hand, such as labelling [sic] an[sic] non-black swan to be a goose, can you avoid this risk.”

McElroy, p. 213: “For example, when you way, “If my theory is correct, all swans are black,” and wander down to the local pond to check the evidence, you risk seeing a white swan and disproving your theory. Only by an intellectual sleight of hand, can you eschew the risk.”

Smith (cont., lines 11-15): “A person who claims to want his theory verified, but doesn’t want to take the corresponding risk of possibly falsifying it, is not being intellectually honest.”

McElroy, p. 213: “A person who claims to respect evidence, but doesn’t want to take the risk of being proven wrong, is not being intellectually honest.”

Smith, p. 6, lines 34-p. 7, line 2): “Let me give you two examples of theories, which place themselves beyond the possibility of falsification. When Karl Popper was going to school in Vienna, he noticed two very popular movements, or schools of thought, which were both claiming to be scientific: Freudianism and Marxism. Popper was very interested in the scientific method, but whenever he would get into an argument with either a Freudian or a Marxism [sic], he encountered insurmountable obstacles. Namely, they were immune to refutation. Note: this is quite different from saying that they could not be refuted because they were correct. Instead, the theories were constructed in such a manner as to eliminate any possibility of disconfirming cases.”

McElroy, p. 214: “When he was a student in Vienna, Karl Popper took special note of a school of thought that was popular in his day: Freudianism. In analyzing Freudian theory, Popper encountered a strange and insurmountable obstacle. Namely, it seemed immune to refutation. It was not that Freudian theory could not be refuted because it was correct, but that the system of theory was constructed in such a manner as to eliminate the very possibility of disconfirming cases.”

Smith, page 7, lines 4-22: “For example, in discussing the psychological condition which Freud called the oedipal (elektra) complex, the Freudian would claim it was “universal” – that is, everyone had this complex. Popper would point out that a lot of people have no memory, no feeling, no indication whatever of this desire. Such evidence would seem to be disconfirming. To put it in logical terms, Popper was saying to the Freudian:

“If you correct [sic], then all men have an oedipal complex:

But there are men without such a complex.

Therefore you are not correct.”

McElroy, page 214: “Consider the Freudian psychological phenomenon called the Oedipal (Electra) complex – the sexual attachment that every child is alleged to fee4l toward a parent of the opposite sex. Freud claimed this phenomenon was “universal.” It was a stage of development that everyone went through. Popper would point out that a great many well-adjusted people, who had happy and happy and apparently unrepressed childhoods, have no memory, no feeling, no indication whatsoever of every having had such a desire. Surely such recurring evidence seems to disconfirm the claim that the Oedipal complex is universal.

“To put Popper’s objection in more logical terms:

If Freudian theory is correct, all people have experienced an Oedipal complex.

But many people claim not to have had such an experience.

Therefore, the theory is not correct.”

Smith, (cont., lines 24-40): “But the Freudians, faced with disconfirming cases of their theory, simply defined those cases out of existence. They said, “men you don’t manifest any sign whatsoever of an oedipal complex are merely repressing it.” In other words, Freudians simply produced another, companion theory to define out of existence any counter evidence. No matter how Popper argued with them, they [sic] was always another theory – or an unstated aspect of the original theory – which made is impossible for them to be refuted.”

McElroy, p. 214: “Yet when the Freudians were confronted with cases that falsified their theory, they simply defined those cases out of existence, rather as the white swan was redefined as a duck. They said: “People who don’t manifest any sign whatsoever of an Oedipal complex are merely repressing it.” In other words, Freudians produced a companion theory to define out of existence any counterevidence. …The position was so constructed as to preclude falsification.”

Smith, Chapter 10, p. 10, line39-40. “To rephrase this point: whenever someone attempts to prove something, he must assume the risk of his claim being disproven.”

McElroy, p. 216: To rephrase this point, whenever you attempt to prove something, you must assume the risk of your claim being disproven.”

Smith, p. 15, line 54: “Theories should be dealt with on a theoretical level.”

McElroy, p. 216: “Theories must be dealt with on a theoretical level.”

Imo this is very convincing evidence presented by Ghs here.

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't reply to "Normal." Spamster.

--Brant

Judging by the details, it sounds like a counterattack by someone in the Wendy circle. He/she just joined OL this afternoon. It could even be Wendy herself, though I doubt it, since getting into the subject of that briefcase would embarrass her a lot more than it would me. But I'm certainly willing to discuss the matter, if it will make "Normal" happy.

What these pot-shotters need to understand is that I have nothing to hide. My life is already an open book, and whatever details I have not yet discussed will be discussed in my autobiography: Sex, Drugs, and Philosophy: In Pursuit of a Hedonistic Life.

I expected something like this, sooner or later. This could get very interesting. I'm looking forward to it. :lol:

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now