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

[George H. Smith]

I miss Ellen Moore. Any world that could afford her was a better place than what's since. She never claimed she was smart--she wasn't very--only invincibly authoritatively right about Objectivism--that is, invincible ignorance and a queer kind of integrity one should not aspire to.

--Brant

Ellen was definitely sui generis. But she could also be vicious, as illustrated by her unprovoked attacks on BB. There was a screw loose somewhere.

Btw, was Ellen Moore Canadian? I seem to recall she was. If so, that would explain a lot. Too many years of staring at all that snow?

Ghs

I think she lived in North Dakota. Same difference.

--Brant

I'm pretty sure she was Canadian.

J

Sure, blame Canada again. Less than 9% of the North American population and we are accused of contributing lady wackjobs to the US in disproportionate numbers.

I bet these gals were fine until they went down to the States and met up with you guys.

During my years in Southern California, I was close friends with another Canadian lady. She was also something of a wackjob, but she was very sweet, and I liked her a great deal.

Anarchist Sam Konkin, whom I knew for years, was Canadian. The Brandens are also Canadian, so your "country" gave us some good things.

[Jonathan]

I miss Ellen Moore. Any world that could afford her was a better place than what's since. She never claimed she was smart--she wasn't very--only invincibly authoritatively right about Objectivism--that is, invincible ignorance and a queer kind of integrity one should not aspire to.

--Brant

Ellen was definitely sui generis. But she could also be vicious, as illustrated by her unprovoked attacks on BB. There was a screw loose somewhere.

Btw, was Ellen Moore Canadian? I seem to recall she was. If so, that would explain a lot. Too many years of staring at all that snow?

Ghs

I think she lived in North Dakota. Same difference.

--Brant

I'm pretty sure she was Canadian.

J

Sure, blame Canada again. Less than 9% of the North American population and we are accused of contributing lady wackjobs to the US in disproportionate numbers.

I bet these gals were fine until they went down to the States and met up with you guys.

I could be misremembering, but I think after a discussion on architecture back in about 2002, Ellen sent me a message about how she and her husband had designed and built their Canadian home. To me she seemed to be a little less of a wackjob in private conversations, but still quite obviously Canadian.

J

[George H. Smith]

I find these recent developments very ironic. Wendy McElroy steals seven years of my work and my former best friend, Richard Martin, steals my briefcase containing dozens (maybe hundreds) of highly personal photographs -- and yet I'm supposed to be the bad guy.

There are times when this world really sucks.

Ghs

[Jonathan]

Anarchist Sam Konkin, whom I knew for years, was Canadian. The Brandens are also Canadian, so your "country" gave us some good things.

Didn't all of the above eventually escape Canada?

J

[George H. Smith]

Here is the info I got on Richard Martin by following up on an old business number I have for him. The number was originally for his realty company in Long Beach, but it connected me to his newer business.

Richard is the CEO of the construction company Martin Bros. Marcowall, though I have been told that he is no longer active with the company. Here is the website.

http://www.martinbros-marcowall.com/

Please, folks, I don't want anyone to harass Richard. I just want people to know who this creep is.

Richard has obviously transformed himself into a respectable businessman, a pillar of his community. I'm very surprised that such a person would log onto a public forum to announce that he stole his friend's private porn stash many years ago and still has it, and then complain about the Vaseline.

There is now virtually no doubt in my mind that Wendy or Brad contacted Richard. I doubt if Richard knew anything about this OL thread before this.

If I am wrong, then Brad can make another entrance on OL and say so. Otherwise, I will assume I am right.

Ghs

I'm tired of tracking down a cowardly thief, so I have a favor to ask. I cannot find any kind of email address for Richard Martin, not even on the Martin Bros. Marcowall website. I would like to email Richard offlist and see if we can resolve this issue between the two of us. I doubt if this will go anywhere, since Richard could easily have emailed me if he had any interest in returning my property to me, but I would like to try.

Can anyone out there find an e-address for Richard Martin? Even an e-address for his company might work. So far as I can tell, the website only gives a street address.

If you happen across a personal e-address for Richard, please don't post it. Send it to me at:

smikro@comcast.net.

Thanks,

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Anarchist Sam Konkin, whom I knew for years, was Canadian. The Brandens are also Canadian, so your "country" gave us some good things.

Didn't all of the above eventually escape Canada?

J

Yes, of course. They were among the intelligent Canadians.

[caroljane]

Anarchist Sam Konkin, whom I knew for years, was Canadian. The Brandens are also Canadian, so your "country" gave us some good things.

Didn't all of the above eventually escape Canada?

J

You are right - didn't Young Lenny P. walk all the way to Los Angeles, or something?

I don't know of Konkin but my impression of the Brandens is that they escaped not from, but to-- towards their ideal which happened to be in the US. The Winnipeg of the 50s and 60s had a unique intellectual and social subculture which Barbara (I vaguely remember from PAR) found stifling, but which produced many notable artists, thinkers and writers.

Anyway you can escape Canada, but being Canadian you are stuck with unless you escape very, very young. "Choosing to be American" was fine for Ayn Rand and other unique souls who can transcend nationalism. The rest of us are just mired in our tribalism and collectivism.

[George H. Smith]

Anarchist Sam Konkin, whom I knew for years, was Canadian. The Brandens are also Canadian, so your "country" gave us some good things.

Didn't all of the above eventually escape Canada?

J

You are right - didn't Young Lenny P. walk all the way to Los Angeles, or something?

I don't know of Konkin but my impression of the Brandens is that they escaped not from, but to-- towards their ideal which happened to be in the US. The Winnipeg of the 50s and 60s had a unique intellectual and social subculture which Barbara (I vaguely remember from PAR) found stifling, but which produced many notable artists, thinkers and writers.

Anyway you can escape Canada, but being Canadian you are stuck with unless you escape very, very young. "Choosing to be American" was fine for Ayn Rand and other unique souls who can transcend nationalism. The rest of us are just mired in our tribalism and collectivism.

This has to be the most bizarre thread I have ever seen, much less participated in. Plagiarism, sex, drugs, porn, theft, shotguns, Vaseline -- and now Canadians.

Well, we needed to switch to a bland topic for a while, and discussing Canada should do the trick.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Jesus H. Christ! I AM NOT CANADIAN!

--Brant

nipping it in the bud even before there is a bud

[caroljane]

Jesus H. Christ! I AM NOT CANADIAN!

--Brant

nipping it in the bud even before there is a bud

Oh really Brant? Not even a great-grandmother somewhere? Not even a yen for bacon and maple syrup?

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

[Selene]

Jesus H. Christ! I AM NOT CANADIAN!

--Brant

nipping it in the bud even before there is a bud

Oh really Brant? Not even a great-grandmother somewhere? Not even a yen for bacon and maple syrup?

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

I am NOT CANADIAN

So you're from Canada ...eh!

In Canada we have some NICE beaver!

Hmmmm

Adam

[caroljane]

Jesus H. Christ! I AM NOT CANADIAN!

--Brant

nipping it in the bud even before there is a bud

Oh really Brant? Not even a great-grandmother somewhere? Not even a yen for bacon and maple syrup?

Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much.

I am NOT CANADIAN

So you're from Canada ...eh!

In Canada we have some NICE beaver!

Hmmmm

Adam

Nice ones brother A! The Secret Plan goes from strength to strength.

ISS

Gord

[Xray]

Imo this is very convincing evidence presented by Ghs here.

You ain't seen nothing yet. There are many dozens (possibly hundreds) of parallel passages like these. I haven't even posted all the parallels on OL yet that I originally sent out in 1998, since I'm double checking the stuff.

Wendy was very thorough when she pillaged my FOR transcripts. There is scarcely a passage in them that she did not appropriate for TRW, in one form or another. Some of the parallels are less literal than those I posted yesterday; i.e., Wendy rewrote my material more in some cases than in others. But the point at issue here is whether Wendy used my FOR transcripts when writing TRW. She says she didn't; I say she did. And when you read page after page of parallels -- many of which are virtually identical and some of which amount to paraphrases -- there can be no question that Wendy is lying.

My estimate in 1998, when I originally examined this material much more closely than I have since, was as follows: Approximately one-third of TRW contains verbatim or nearly verbatim passages from FOR; one-third contains paraphrases from FOR; and one third is Wendy's own material, i.e., material she did not take from FOR.

This estimate may be high, but, at minimum, one-quarter of TRW consists of verbatim or nearly verbatim passages from FOR -- and that is a one big hunk of plagiarism.

Such estimates ultimately depend on how one defines "paraphrasing."

Ghs

Quite ironic that a person who wrote a book called The Reasonable Woman could be that unreasonable to believe she could get away with such brazen 'copycatting' of the FOR transcripts.

I find these recent developments very ironic. Wendy McElroy steals seven years of my work and my former best friend, Richard Martin, steals my briefcase containing dozens (maybe hundreds) of highly personal photographs -- and yet I'm supposed to be the bad guy.

There are times when this world really sucks.

Ghs

All that would provide helluva stuff for a movie thriller though. It seems to have all the ingredients. ;)

Edited June 15, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

Not without the kidnapping..................imprisonment .........................and torture segment for a finale.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm beginning to get a little paranoid now. Maybe I should go to the emergency room--or stop reading this thread.

--Brant

[caroljane]

Another interesting angle to all this is the autobio/memory angle, which ghs discussed briefly with me (maybe on this thread, can't remember). The whole subject of true memory, memoir and so on--- then I thought of the detestable, but understandable James Frey, who turned his own novel into a "memoir" because he couldn't sell it as a novel. McElroy turned George's work into a female-themed tract because that would sell better.

The marketplace rules, I guess. But caveat emptor.

[9thdoctor]

I'm tired of tracking down a cowardly thief, so I have a favor to ask.

Is it possible (or at all likely) that “Normal” is an imposter, somehow privy to enough relevant facts, now trying to get you to publicly humiliate an old friend, giving him cause to sue for damages? As a theory, this violates Hanlon’s Razor, but "Hell hath no fury" is an equally valid heuristic.

[Selene]

I'm tired of tracking down a cowardly thief, so I have a favor to ask.

Is it possible (or at all likely) that "Normal" is an imposter, somehow privy to enough relevant facts, now trying to get you to publicly humiliate an old friend, giving him cause to sue for damages? As a theory, this violates Hanlon's Razor, but "Hell hath no fury" is an equally valid heuristic.

ND:

I thought about that, but I did not want to post it.

Why would they pick him. though?

Adam

still. I wonder

[9thdoctor]

Why would they pick him. though?

There's a phrase in military circles: You go to war with the army that you have.

[George H. Smith]

I just typed out some more parallel passages between TRW and my FOR transcripts. This is the first time I have posted this material. The quotations from my FOR transcripts are from the 11raw file that I posted on this thread a few days ago.

I have added some boldface in what follows. None of the boldface font was in the originals. I have inserted it to call your attention to key points.

In TRW (155) Wendy mentions "the intellectual therapy (IT)" groups "with which I was involved years ago." This presumably refers to my FOR classes. Then Wendy (TRW, 160) discusses the "intellectual journals" that I had participants keep. She writes:

Had the diary been maintained each day? If not, why not? The following are typical -- though again not actual -- responses:

Compare this to what I said about these responses in my 11raw file:

During a class which I conducted -- entitled The Fundamentals of Reasoning -- it was the custom for students to report on progress in their journals. To give you a better idea of the sort of interaction possible between you and your journal, the following are actual reports I received from students:

Okay, before proceeding with the parallels, let's be clear about what is going on here. First, put aside for now the technical issue of plagiarism. Since Wendy copied comments by my students nearly verbatim, I don't know whether this would technically constitute plagiarism. But that is not the issue here.

You must always keep in mind that Wendy has repeatedly claimed that she had absolutely no access to my FOR transcripts while writing TRW, that she erased all my FOR material in 1994 before beginning work on TRW. So, when reading the following parallels, ask yourself: How likely is it that Wendy could have duplicated these remarks without my FOR transcripts in front of her -- in this case, the 11raw file specifically. (As I said, you can find this complete FOR file above.)

In what follows, "FOR" refers to the 11raw file that I posted a few days ago, and TRW refers to The Reasonable Woman. As we have seen, Wendy claims that the responses, as she published them, were "not actual...responses." She presents them as hypothetical responses that she wrote to illustrate her point. We shall see....

FOR: A. I sit behind my desk at work and turn off the typewriter and say to myself that I am going to think about the question of knowledge. The biggest problem I have is that I ask questions like "How do I know there is a wall there". Then I say to myself, "Well, I know there is a wall there," and then I pack the argument against it. In other words, I don't do an analysis. I defend a position. I don't have an open mind.

TRW, 160: I sat behind my desk and turned on the computer, and decided to write about the question of how people know anything. I asked questions like, "How do I know there is a desk here?" Then I said to myself, "Well, I know there is a desk here." I didn't do an analysis, I just defend a position. Which probably means I don't have an open mind."

FOR: B. I was a failure. I would lie back and I would try to think about something and immediately my mind would wander.I couldn't focus. When I tried to focus, I got a headache and gave up. Every day the same thing happened.

TRW, 160: I was a failure. When I tried to think about something, my mind would immediately wander. I couldn't focus. When I tried to focus, I got a headache and gave up. Every day the same thing happened.

FOR: C. I was fortunate in that we had some company over the other night and someone made a comment that made me think. I just didn't want to think about religion and such. It didn't seem purposeful to me or useful. It was difficult to sit and think about the subject. I would think in snatches, but not really in what I consider to be a train of thought. And maybe I misidentified the process of thought. I think of thought as being the same way you construct a sentence. I had more success at writing than at just sitting and thinking. I didn't keep it in a diary but I wrote a letter to a friend. I would form thoughts more easily then.

TRW, 160: We had some company over the other night and someone made a comment that made me think. But, before that, I didn't know what to think about so I only wrote for the last three days. I would think about something in snatches, but not really in what I consider to be a train of thought. And maybe I misidentified the process of thought. I think of a thought as being the same way you construct a sentence. I had more success at writing than at just sitting and thinking. I didn't keep it in a diary but I wrote a letter to a friend.

...

FOR: D. Pass

TRW, 161: Pass (This is always a valid response as long as it doesn't become habitual.)

FOR: E. I have been trying to attack the problem of defining the boundaries of a problem I mentioned to you. And I just started a stream of consciousness in writing it down, figuring that some other time I would organize what the thoughts were. Something I had known about my writing before was that I tend to think of it in terms of all the other people who have said something on the subject. I have been involved in arguments or taken classes or something and I just wasn't aware of the extent that I substituted all that I had heard about something for my own thoughts about something. I don't know if I am appealing to authority or whether it is just lazyiness.

TRW, 161: I missed two days because I forgot. On the other days, I just started a stream of consciousness in writing, in figuring that some other time I would organize the thoughts. I tended to think of a subject in terms of all the other people who have said something about it. I wasn't aware of the extent to which I substituted all that I had heard about something for my own thoughts about it. I don't know if I am appealling to authority or whether it is just laziness.

FOR: F. I enjoyed the assignment....

TRW, 161: I enjoyed the assignment.

There are mountains of this crap, so I will type out these parallels a few at a time. To be continued....

Meanwhile, what do you think? Do you think that perhaps -- just perhaps -- innocent little Wendy did in fact have my FOR transcripts in front of her while writing TRW -- even though her valiant hubby, Brad, assures us that he personally deleted all my FOR files from Wendy's computer?

The BS doesn't get any thicker than this.

Ghs

[Selene]

Why would they pick him. though?

There's a phrase in military circles: You go to war with the army that you have.

True. You dance with the one that "brung" you...

[George H. Smith]

Here are a few more parallels, which I selected at random. In this case, I am the one speaking in the FOR transcripts, not my students.

Again, the FOR passages are from my 11raw file, which I posted earlier in this thread. As it turns out, 11raw is indeed part of the original FOR transcripts that I converted and printed out in 1988, It is Chapter 11.

As before, I am posting these for the first time anywhere.

FOR: Brainstorming is a commonly used psychological technique. It consists simply of this: when you are considering any type of problem, you should write down every thought that occurs to you without censoring anything.

TRW, 69: Brainstorming is a commonly used technique in both psychology and creative thinking to overcome such a block. Brainstorming consists simply of this: when considering a problem or trying to envision a situation, you should write down every thought that occurs to you about it, without censoring anything.

FOR: Write all your ideas down, no matter how wild they seem....Instead of racking your mind to be brilliant or correct, just write down everything. Try only for speed.

TRW (cont): Write all your ideas down no matter how wild they seem. Instead of racking your mind to be brilliant or correct. try only for speed in writing.

FOR ... In other words, just allow youself to sit down in a freewheeling, non-critical way write down as many alternatives as possible....If you are evaluating what you write, you are defeating the exercise.

TRW (cont.): In short, be as freewheeling and noncritical in your ideas as possible. If you are evaluating what you write down as you write it, you are absolutely defeating the exercise.

FOR: ...The basic rules of brainstorming are: no evaluation, freewheeling, the wilder the better. It is easy to tame down ideas, but not easy to think them up, so quantity not quality is your goal.

TRW (cont): The most basic rule of brainstorming is: no evaluation, the wilder the idea or its expression the better. It is easy to tame down, to edit your ideas when you go through them later on; it is much more difficult to come up with them in the first place.

Honest to God, folks, I can flip to virtually any passage in my FOR transcripts and find parallel passages in TRW. Wendy plagiarized virtually the entire 200 pages (double-spaced) of my FOR transcripts.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

Somewhere in the movie Striptease there's a scene of Burt Reynolds covered in Vaseline, I don't have time to look for it right now (might not even be on YouTube), but here it belongs.

[George H. Smith]

Somewhere in the movie Striptease there's a scene of Burt Reynolds covered in Vaseline, I don't have time to look for it right now (might not even be on YouTube), but here it belongs.

Yeah, that was definitely what I looked like after one of those "sessions," except I was naked as a jaybird. And of course I was much better looking than Burt Reynolds.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

FOR: A. I sit behind my desk at work and turn off the typewriter and say to myself that I am going to think about the question of knowledge. The biggest problem I have is that I ask questions like "How do I know there is a wall there". Then I say to myself, "Well, I know there is a wall there," and then I pack the argument against it. In other words, I don't do an analysis. I defend a position. I don't have an open mind.

TRW, 160: I sat behind my desk and turned on the computer, and decided to write about the question of how people know anything. I asked questions like, "How do I know there is a desk here?" Then I said to myself, "Well, I know there is a desk here." I didn't do an analysis, I just defend a position. Which probably means I don't have an open mind."

FOR: B. I was a failure. I would lie back and I would try to think about something and immediately my mind would wander.I couldn't focus. When I tried to focus, I got a headache and gave up. Every day the same thing happened.

TRW, 160: I was a failure. When I tried to think about something, my mind would immediately wander. I couldn't focus. When I tried to focus, I got a headache and gave up. Every day the same thing happened.

FOR: C. I was fortunate in that we had some company over the other night and someone made a comment that made me think. I just didn't want to think about religion and such. It didn't seem purposeful to me or useful. It was difficult to sit and think about the subject. I would think in snatches, but not really in what I consider to be a train of thought. And maybe I misidentified the process of thought. I think of thought as being the same way you construct a sentence. I had more success at writing than at just sitting and thinking. I didn't keep it in a diary but I wrote a letter to a friend. I would form thoughts more easily then.

TRW, 160: We had some company over the other night and someone made a comment that made me think. But, before that, I didn't know what to think about so I only wrote for the last three days. I would think about something in snatches, but not really in what I consider to be a train of thought. And maybe I misidentified the process of thought. I think of a thought as being the same way you construct a sentence. I had more success at writing than at just sitting and thinking. I didn't keep it in a diary but I wrote a letter to a friend.

...

FOR: D. Pass

TRW, 161: Pass (This is always a valid response as long as it doesn't become habitual.)

FOR: E. I have been trying to attack the problem of defining the boundaries of a problem I mentioned to you. And I just started a stream of consciousness in writing it down, figuring that some other time I would organize what the thoughts were. Something I had known about my writing before was that I tend to think of it in terms of all the other people who have said something on the subject. I have been involved in arguments or taken classes or something and I just wasn't aware of the extent that I substituted all that I had heard about something for my own thoughts about something. I don't know if I am appealing to authority or whether it is just lazyiness.

TRW, 161: I missed two days because I forgot. On the other days, I just started a stream of consciousness in writing, in figuring that some other time I would organize the thoughts. I tended to think of a subject in terms of all the other people who have said something about it. I wasn't aware of the extent to which I substituted all that I had heard about something for my own thoughts about it. I don't know if I am appealling to authority or whether it is just laziness.

FOR: F. I enjoyed the assignment....

TRW, 161: I enjoyed the assignment.

I now want to finish up the plagiarism in this section. This is a continuation of where I left off in the preceding parallels.

FOR: G. I got in three sessions, though I found it was easiest for me to do walking to work. I started out thinking about some of the things that have meant a lot to me in my intellectual life -- projects. The books I'd like to write some day and an intuitive concept in understanding economics and such. I wrote some things down. I have been able to correspond with some good people and I write 26 page letters and such. But I tended to zero in on a problem I was having with thinking. I did find it hard to concentrate and to follow subjects through to their logical conclusions. I tended to sort of drift along....

TRW,p. 161: I got in three sessions, because it was hard to write down my thoughts. I think best when I am walking. I started thinking about some of the things that have meant a lot to me in my intellectual life -- projects. The books I'd like to write some day. I wrote some things down, but I found it hard to concentrate and to follow subject through to their general conclusions. I tended to sort of drift along.

FOR: H. I have to write as a full time activity. I edit two publications. I work on two levels. On the one level it is a matter of reporting what is going on, strictly the facts. And on another, I get into philosophical matters. I find the factual writing much easier and much duller. I find the philosophic writing more interesting than I did because I am undergoing a radical change and I am hoping to use these technicques to take an objective approach to things rather than emotional. I am coping with problems. I am interested to see how I react over a period of time. I had resolve to get out of my head. I had boxed myself into an almost totally cerebral approach to everything and I have a good idea that that is at least in part a cause of some of my problems. So I have been wanting to get away from that approach and here I am given an assignment to think. Well, it's not all that difficult. But I am totally resistance to sitting down in my spare time and dealing with abstract matters.

TRW, cont.: I have to write as part of my job, so I am totally resistant to sitting down in my spare time and dealing with abstract matters.

Ghs