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


Recommended Posts

My review of a book that Wendy McElroy supposedly wrote, The Reasonable Woman, appeared today on Amazon.

This review is from: The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival (Paperback)

A serious controversy has attended TRW ever since its publication. Specifically, the allegation is that over half of it is plagiarized. This charge was leveled not only by myself (who wrote the original manuscript from which much of TRW was taken) but also by respected academics, such as Sharon Presley, a retired professor of psychology who has her own books available on Amazon.

[...]

It is very disturbing to read long passages -- indeed, entire chapters -- under the name of someone else, especially when you once considered that person a trusted friend and did everything in your power to help her professionally.

I have no explanation for this outrage. You will need to ask Wendy McElroy that question. But I ask that you take a look at the evidence. It is overwhelming.

George H. Smith

The following post is #487 on this thread. I have copied it here because this thread has gotten very long, very complex, and, at times, very personal. The links provided below present the hard documentary evidence of Wendy McElroy's plagiarism. If you are new to this controversy -- and even if you are not -- the links provided in this post are the best place to begin reading.

DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF WENDY McELROY'S PLAGIARISM

This is a very long and involved thread, so I appreciate how confusing it must be for outsiders to venture into all this stuff, some of which is personal and very seamy.

I am therefore compiling a list of links to essential posts that discuss only the hard evidence. Thus, if OLers wish to refer friends and others to this thread, please link this post. This will get newbies started with the parallel passages, which is the foundation of my charge that Wendy McElroy committed massive plagiarism in TRW (The Reasonable Woman).

I will update this post as needed. There are other key posts on OL that I may add, as I locate them.

Here are the essential links thus far:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=136775

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=136780

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=136967

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137121

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137125

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137134

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137245

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137247

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=136884

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137294

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137352

(Added 6/18/2011 - 1:28 a.m.)

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=136944

(Added 6/19/2011 - 2:01 p.m.)

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=137519

(Added 6/20/2011 - 2:23 a.m.)

Again, please refer to this page as the root link. This will enable newbies to view the essentials without all the tangential and irrelevant stuff. They can then review the entire thread, if they like.

All you need do is copy and paste the following link for this page:

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

This one link will do the trick.

I am selling xerox copies of my FOR transcripts (98 pages, single spaced) for $40. People who purchase these transcripts will be able to locate all the plagiarized passages in TRW. If you are interested, write to me at: smikro@comcast.net.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My review of a book that Wendy McElroy supposedly wrote, The Reasonable Woman, appeared today on Amazon.

This review is from: The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival (Paperback)

A serious controversy has attended TRW ever since its publication. Specifically, the allegation is that over half of it is plagiarized. This charge was leveled not only by myself (who wrote the original manuscript from which much of TRW was taken) but also by respected academics, such as Sharon Presley, a retired professor of psychology who has her own books available on Amazon.

[...]

It is very disturbing to read long passages -- indeed, entire chapters -- under the name of someone else, especially when you once considered that person a trusted friend and did everything in your power to help her professionally.

I have no explanation for this outrage. You will need to ask Wendy McElroy that question. But I ask that you take a look at the evidence. It is overwhelming.

George H. Smith

George, what were and what are your legal options? It seems a suit was/is in order . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, what were and what are your legal options? It seems a suit was/is in order . . .

Nope, that was never an option. If I don't believe in copyright laws, then I would hypocritical to pursue a course just because it is my ox that has been gored.

Wendy and Kinsella didn't seem to have the same problem. For years both professed to oppose libel and defamation laws, and Kinsella recently trumpted his opposition on OL. Yet, as I recently explained on another OL thread:

All the rest will be raw and unvarnished, including some choice emails I wrote to one Stephan Kinsella -- you know, the guy who opposes libel and defamation laws -- when I, along with Sharon Presley, Tim Starr, and one or two others who had the temerity to forward my emails about this scandal --received Fed-X envelopes with long winded threats of legal action if we did not cease and desist from libeling and defaming one Wendy McElroy (who also doesn't' believe in libel and defamation laws, but who seems to have had no problem enlisting Kinsella's help.) I still have the original document, and I may include a copy as a bonus for subscribers.

Now, on to a few examples of things you will find. Here in an excerpt from a five page open letter I wrote to Mr. Kinsella:

The Sun-King Kinsella has also threatened legal action against Sharon Presley, Tim Starr, Laura Kroutil and other third parties who might have the temerity to forward my postings to various lists. (See Sharon Presley’s letter, Addendum II below.)

McElroy’s lawsuit, should it occur, promises to be an important challenge to freedom of speech on the Internet. I encourage every libertarian out there to become a participant in this historic event. Here’s how. Simply forward one or more of my postings to someone else. This, according to McElroy’s attorney – who apparently received his law degree through an Iraqi correspondence course– will make you guilty of libel and defamation of character. Thus you need only confess your crime to this intrepid enemy of the First Amendment to earn your place among the future champions of free speech.

I encourage libertarians (especially attorneys) to defy the imperious edict of Wendy McElroy and her ventriloquist’s dummy, the Sun-King Kinsella. Wear your little fingers to the bone by hitting that “send” icon on your computer screens, thereby striking a blow for freedom of speech and press. As for the Sun-King Kinsella, I responded (in part) as follows:

“SUBJECT: Idiot lawyers.

Dear Mr. Kinsella:

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

Yours truly,

George H. Smith”

You can confess your crime to the Sun-King Kinsella at: <NSKinsella@compuserve.com.>

Or confess directly to Wendy McElroy, Court Censor, at:

<mac@zetetics.com>

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an amusing bit of OL trivia -- a delicious bit of irony that most readers probably missed.

Imagine my surprise when Stephan Kinsella, who had overtly threatened me and several of my friends with legal coercion for violating some principles that he professes to oppose, showed up on OL recently. Here was my cryptic response:

There is a growing recognition among libertarians of the evil of IP and defamation law ("reputation rights"), and from what I can tell, this is also true, to a smaller degree, among Objectivists.

So you are opposed to defamation laws? Hmmm.... That comes as a surprise to me. I'm sure it would also surprise Sharon Presley, Tim Starr, and some other libertarians who were based in SF in 1998.

Ghs

Of course, Kinsella never responded -- gee, I wonder why?

That thread is titled "Kinsella and Thin Air." It should have been called "Kinsella on Thin Ice." :lol:

Is there such an organization as "Hypocrites Anonymous"? Or must all lawyers take a pledge to be whores who will do anything for money?

I doubt if Mr. Kinsella will be returning to OL any time soon. But I really wish he would. If you think you've seen me go for the throat before, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Come on, Kinsella, you fucking coward. You got any balls, or did Wendy cut them off? You are a second rate intellectual hack who merely parrots Rothbard and others. I doubt if you have ever had an original idea in your soon-to-be miserable life.

Wanna threaten to sue me again for defamation of character?. Wanna sue others who might forward my posts where I listed dozens upon dozens of passages of plagiarized material?. Go ahead, you two-bit legal whore. Take your best shot and we will see who is left standing.

Wanna know why you could never win a defamation of character lawsuit against me? Because you cannot defame the character of someone who has no character.

I rest my case and appeal to the good sense of the jury.

Ghs

P.S. If you want something current to sue me for, here is one of the missives that I wrote in 1998, when this volcano of shit first erupted. Pay attention, OLers. This is one of the many things that that great defender of free speech and opponent of the State, Stephan Kinsella, wanted to use the power of the State to keep Sharon Presley, Tim Starr, Laura Kroutil (my future wife) and others from circulating to others, even in private emails. In other words, according to our great champion of freedom, if any OLer should forward the following ditty, via the Internet, to anyone else in the world, even a single person, then the power of Leviathan should be used against you.

THE LIGHTER SIDE OF PLAGIARISM

George H. Smith

I wish to thank the many people who have emailed me and expressed their outrage at the overt and massive plagiarism of Wendy McElroy in THE REASONABLE WOMAN. Many of you have asked whether I contacted Wendy before going public. The answer is yes: I emailed her two days earlier with some of the evidence, told her I had a good deal more, and offered to settle this between the two of us. She refused, though I cannot imagine why.

Now that the dust is beginning to settle on this controversy, and now that my anger is beginning to subside (thanks largely to the moral support I have received), I thought some of you out there might be interested in the lighter side of plagiarism.

A problem arises when a person copies from someone else’s material, namely, the plagiarist may not understand what the original writer was getting at and so may misconstrue his meaning. There are two notable examples of this in the eight pages of parallel quotations that I distributed earlier.

The first appears on page 5, beginning with the sentence “But!” (This is italicized in both my original and in Wendy’s copy.)

Smith: “But!, Popper pointed out, you can disprove a theory by observing one single white swan. Therefore a theory which cannot be verified, can be disproven. All it takes is one counterinstance, one counter factual condition and the theory is proven false.”

McElroy, p. 211: “But! Popper pointed out, you can disprove the theory by observing one single white swan. Therefore, a theory that cannot be conclusively verified can be absolutely disproven. All it takes to falsify a theory, such as “Swans are black birds,” is the presence of one swan that is not black.”

.

Consider the thrice-accentuated “But!” in this passage – the first emphasis consisting of a single-word sentence, the second of placing the word in italics, and the third of using an exclamation point. The context of this passage scarcely justifies this kind of rhetorical device, to say the least. It would be more suited to a pamphlet written by an evangelical preacher, e.g., “Believe as you like. But! You will suffer the agonies of hell for all eternity.”

I never intended for this “But!” to appear as part of a published manuscript. For one thing it reeks of cheap theatrics ( which may explain why Wendy included it in her book.). This passage is a verbatim transcript from one of my Fundamentals of Reasoning classes, where I was speaking off the cuff, without any notes in front of me. . When looking through the transcript, however, I realized that this was in fact a misinterpretation of Karl Popper, so I inserted the “But!” to remind myself that this passage needed to be reworked at a later time.

Professional writers will know what I mean. All of us have flags that we insert in early manuscripts as an alert not to leave the passage as is. That was my purpose in inserting an italicized “But!” in the comment about Popper. (Incidentally, when I knew her, Wendy had never read even a page of Popper or anything else on the philosophy of science.) Popper did not in fact claim that one counterexample could always disprove a theory. He was fully aware that theories can and often do incorporate apparent counterexamples by resorting to ad hoc explanations, and that a theory long-established is never likely to be discarded on this basis (nor should it be, according to Popper). . .

At the time I read this passage in the transcript, I had not figured out a way to do justice to Popper’s approach, so I tagged it for later revision. I needed to bring in the notion of a “crucial experiment,” but hadn’t yet figured out a way to explain this in a non-technical way. (Indeed, I considered cutting out the section on Popper altogether, owing to the complexities involved.)

All this, of course, went right by Wendy while she was busy lifting my material. She included the “But!” as if were meant to be part of the finished manuscript!

A similar example occurs on pp. 7-8, where I inserted a note to myself in the rough draft of my FOR transcripts.:

Smith: “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.”

Again, I inserted this note in the discussion of Popper, because I felt that something else needed to be explained in more detail, when I undertook a rewrite. In my loose and informal account of Popper, I had not mentioned that he viewed his falsification test as a “line of demarcation” between science and philosophy (or, to use his word, “metaphysics”). . The main problem was that I do not really agree with Popper on this issue, though I found his approach useful as a kind of informal test. I therefore felt I should explain my disagreement in more detail. Some propositions cannot be falsified because they are self-evidently true (such as the laws of logic), but I don’t regard these as “unscientific.” Moreover, Popper’s falsification principle suffers from the same flaw as all such quasi-positivistic criteria, viz., the principle itself cannot pass its own test. Hence I inserted a note to remind myself that I needed to take these (and other) issues into account later on.

True to form, however, Wendy forged ahead in her plagiarism, oblivious to the significance of my “Note.” Thus she wrote:

McElroy, p. 214: “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.”

Exactly what does it mean to say: “It was not that Freudian theory could not be refuted because it was correct….etc..”? This passage borders on gibberish; certainly Popper never said anything like this. Rather, Wendy simply removed the word “Note,” and, instead of realizing that there was a problem with Popper’s approach -- one that I needed to flesh out at a later time -- she blended my remark into her text with no understanding of its meaning.

This is not only plagiarism, this is incompetent plagiarism.

All of you future plagiarists out there take heed! If you are going to steal someone’s material, try at least to understand the meaning of what you are about to steal. Otherwise you will, like Wendy McElroy, only succeed in making a fool of yourself.

Ghs

Oh, what a horrible crime it would be to send this post to others! Such monsters must be stopped, or they must pay dearly!

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George commented on Amazon: "I would appreciate it if the Amazon editor would correct these errors. since I can find no way to correct them myself."

I can edit a review of mine on Amazon and have done so several times. When I look at one of my reviews and am signed in, there are "edit review" and "delete review" buttons below the stars icon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wendy had 12 years to do something about the problem, and she did absolutely nothing. She could have emailed or called me on the phone or contacted me via a third party at any time, and I would have done almost anything to resolve this. But nothing, zilch, not even the courtesy of a reply when I tried to contact her.

Last Call, Little Mac. You should email me immediately so we can discuss a resolution. after which we will announce that this conflict has been resolved and nothing more will be said by either side on this subject.

All I want, in essence, is this: A public apology, (not necessarily a confession of every allegation I have made against you). And I want that damned book taken off the market forever. You could then, if you like, publish another version in which I am given full credit as co-author. You can even take the first spot, i.e. by Wendy McElroy and George H. Smith. I also want half of all advances and royalties that you have made from TRW, which probably doesn't amount to much, so this is more of a token gesture.

Wendy, I know you are following this thread, so I implore you to email me immediately so we can work something out. Then I will post nothing more about this mess, ever, except a co-signed public document that this matter has been resolved. And I don't want to hear from Kinsella, or from your decent and well-meaning but clueless hubbie who doesn't have a clue what has happened between us since 1985. I want to hear from you and only from you. This can be settled within a few days, if you want it to be. And then I will be out of your life for good. I would even write letters in your behalf to foundations or publishers if this ugly incident made them unwilling to deal with you, if you like.

We meant a lot to each other for nearly a decade. Those were interesting times. Both of use changed a lot, so it was inevitable that things would end. But they didn't, and don't, have to end like this.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendy_McElroy

I don't see anything here about plagiarism.

So?

I am going to remain mute on this topic for 24 hours, so Wendy has a chance to email me. I have good reason to believe that she is following this thread. But in case I am wrong, I know that some OLers know and like Wendy, so I would ask that someone tell Wendy what has been going on here.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia....i/Wendy_McElroy

I don't see anything here about plagiarism.

So?

The timing of and venue for your accusations struck me as odd. Had you only just become aware of the issue? The wikipedia article implies the two of you were close, but says nothing about any controversy or controversies. I have no reason to doubt what you say, and I don't see anything wrong with you handling this however you want, but do be aware that your badmouthing her here and then waiting for an email seems to imply to the observer that there's a lot going on that isn't being explained publicly.

As for Amazon, Merlin is right. Log in to Amazon, click on George H Smith's Amazon at the top left, scroll down to Your Reviews, and then find the review in the list and click the Edit button.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia....i/Wendy_McElroy

I don't see anything here about plagiarism.

So?

The timing of and venue for your accusations struck me as odd. Had you only just become aware of the issue? The wikipedia article implies the two of you were close, but says nothing about any controversy or controversies. I have no reason to doubt what you say, and I don't see anything wrong with you handling this however you want, but do be aware that your badmouthing her here and then waiting for an email seems to imply to the observer that there's a lot going on that isn't being explained publicly.

As for Amazon, Merlin is right. Log in to Amazon, click on George H Smith's Amazon at the top left, scroll down to Your Reviews, and then find the review in the list and click the Edit button.

Have you been paying attention? There was a huge controversy in 1998. What do you suppose would happen if I tried to revise the Wiki bio with this accusation? It would never make it. I wrote lots of stuff in 1998, but I emailed all of it to private parties. And I don't give a damn what Wiki says. Amazon published my review. They did so because they checked the links I provided and found them credible.

Yeah, of course there was a lot more going on. But I don't think Wendy would want me to reveal it. You would be jacking off until you died of a heart attack if I did.

As for the timing of my venue, how much longer should I have waited before I brought this up again? Another decade. Two?

As for not seeing anything wrong with the way I am handling this, gosh, golly gee --thanks so very much. Your opinion in this matter means so very much to me.

My offer to reconcile was a last minute inspiration. I had been typing for hours. I had many pages of material ready to go-- enough to virtually guarantee that no respectable publisher would ever deal with Wendy again. I was in Preview Post Mode, ready hit the Add Reply button, when I felt this sick feeling, knowing that nothing would ever be the same for Wendy if I hit that button. So I thought, "Well, one more quick attempt wouldn't kill me." So I copied all the other stuff and pasted it into a word file, so it it would be quickly avaiable, if needed. I then wrote the final offer.

Here is some of the material that I didn't post earlier. It is not the rough stuff that will truly sink Wendy, so I will post it now.

I was told by Prometheus in 1999, not long before I moved to Bloomington, that their lawyer had investigated the matter and that there was no doubt about the plagiarism. But for reasons that I will explain later, Prometheus has dragged its heels in

taking action. I'm fed up. I would like to start a public campaign to push them along on the path to justice. 12 years is way too long. They have delayed because they know I won't sue them. But they are afraid Wendy might, and they don't want to get involved in a lengthy and costly litigation.

Here is a funny tidbit. I was outraged when I learned that

Prometheus had published yet another book by The Great

Plagiarist, a bio of the freethinker Queen Silver, a good

friend of mine for many years in LA.

So I wrote the following email to the editor-in-chief:

I see that Prometheus has published a biography of Queen

Silver, My congratulations to the author, whomever that may

be."

A zinger worthy of Oscar Wilde, if I do say so myself.

Btw, someone should write a book about this thing. Two

ex-lovers, huge plagiarism scandal, the same publisher -- I

mean this is the stuff that best-sellers are made of. All

the material is still available, and the principals are

still alive -- what more could a writer want? I won't do it

because it would leave me continually agitated. This really

cut deep for me. Wendy and I had had our differences, but I

never expected anything like this from her. I felt like my

heart had been cut out and stepped on. It haunted me for

years, because I could not understand how she could have

done such a thing. Wendy is a good writer; she could have

easily worked the same basic ideas into her own words. She

knew how passionately I felt about claiming originality for

something one didn't write. I spoke about this often during

our years together. And she turns around and does this,

which she had to know would inflict a terrible wound on me.

I was vomiting frequently for the first two weeks. Sharon

Presley can tell you this whole story, if she wants, since

she was involved with this scandal from the very beginning.

The same is true of Jeff Riggenbach.

I had no explanation, except that Wendy did this solely and

specifically to cause me immense and lasting pain. But

whatever my sins may have been, I never deserved anything

like this. It was one of the most vicious acts I have

experienced.

Why did Wendy think she could pull off this scam? The answer

is very clear, very interesting, and Machiavellian almost

beyond belief. It is linked to Wendy's belief, based on a

phone converastion we had, that I had lost "everything" in

storage while in rehab and unable to pay the bill. She

didn't understand that by "everything," I didn't literally

mean everything. Fearing this outcome, I had placed several

boxes of essential material (written notes, floppy discs,

etc.) in the home of a friend. But if, per Wendy's

understanding, I had literally lost everything, then,

without my FOR manuscript, my FOR handout, and some other

things, I couldn't prove anything.

Damn, this sends chills down my spine even now. This was a

deliberate and caculated plan to exploit my misfortunes

during that difficult time, not some misunderstanding or

mistake. And that, my friends, is why I am now out for blood.

Happy now, you ignorant, insensitive jackass?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://en.wikipedia....i/Wendy_McElroy

I don't see anything here about plagiarism.

So?

The timing of and venue for your accusations struck me as odd. Had you only just become aware of the issue? The wikipedia article implies the two of you were close, but says nothing about any controversy or controversies. I have no reason to doubt what you say, and I don't see anything wrong with you handling this however you want, but do be aware that your badmouthing her here and then waiting for an email seems to imply to the observer that there's a lot going on that isn't being explained publicly.

As for Amazon, Merlin is right. Log in to Amazon, click on George H Smith's Amazon at the top left, scroll down to Your Reviews, and then find the review in the list and click the Edit button.

Are you been paying attention? There was a huge controversy in 1998. What do you suppose would happen if I tried to revise the Wiki bio with this accusation? It would never make it. I wrote lots of stuff in 1998, but I emailed all of it to private parties. And I don't give a damn what Wiki says. Amazon published my review. They did so because they checked the links I provided and found them credible.

Yeah, of course there was a lot more going on. But I don't think Wendy would want me to reveal it. You would be jacking off until you died of a heart attack if I did.

As for the timing of my venue, how much longer should I have waited before I brought this up again? Another decade. Two?

As for not seeing anything wrong with the way I am handling this, gosh, golly gee --thanks so very much. Your opinion in this matter means so very much to me.

My offer to reconcile was a last minute inspiration. I had been typing for hours. I had many pages of material ready to go-- enought to virtually guarantee that no respectable publisher would ever deal with Wendy again. I was in Preview Post Mode, ready hit the Add Reply button, when I felt this sick feeling, knowing that nothing would ever be the same for Wendy if I hit that button. So I thought, "Well, one more quick attempt wouldn't kill me." So I copied all the other stuff and pasted it into a word file, so it it would be quickly avaiable, if needed. I then wrote the final offer.

Here is some of the material that I didn't post earlier. It is not the rough stuff that will truly sink Wendy, I will post it now.

I was told by Prometheus in 1999, not long before I moved to Bloomington, that their lawyer had investigated the matter and that there was no doubt about the plagiarism. But for reasons that I will explain later, Prometheus has dragged its heels in

taking action. I'm fed up. I would like to start a public campaign to push them along on the path to justice. 12 years is way too long. They have delayed because they know I won't sue them. But they are afraid Wendy might, and they don't want to get involved n lengthy litigation, if they can help it.

Here is a funny tidbit. I was outraged what I learned that

Prometheus had published yet another book by The Great

Plagiarist, a bio of the freethinker Queen Silver, a good

friend of mine for many years in LA.

So I wrote the following email to the editor-in-chief:

I see that Prometheus has published a biography of Queen

Silver, My congratulations to the author, whomever that may

be."

A zinger worthy of Oscar Wilde, if I do say so myself.

Btw, someone should write a book about this thing. Two

ex-lovers, huge plagiarism scandal, the same publisher -- I

mean this is the stuff that best-sellers are made of. All

the material is still available, and the principals are

still alive -- what more could a writer want? I won't do it

because it would leave me continually agitated. This really

cut deep for me. Wendy and I had had our differences, but I

never expected anything like this from her. I felt like my

heart had been cut out and stepped on. It haunted me for

years, because I could not understand how she could have

done such a thing. Wendy is a good writer; she could have

easily worked the same basic ideas into her own words. She

knew how passionately I felt about claiming originality for

something one didn't write. I spoke about this often during

our years together. And she turns around and does this,

which she had to know would inflict a terrible wound on me.

I was vomiting frequently for the first two weeks. Sharon

Presley can tell you this whole story, if she wants, since

she was involved with this scandal from the very beginning.

The same is true of Jeff Riggenbach.

I had no explanation, except that Wendy did this solely and

specifically to cause me immense and lasting pain. But

whatever my sins may have been, I never deserved anything

like this. It was one of the most vicious acts I have

experienced.

Why did Wendy think she could pull off this scam? The answer

is very clear, very intersting, and Machiavellian almost

beyond belief. It is linked to Wendy's belief, based on a

phone converastion we had, that I had lost "everything" in

storage while in rehab and unable to pay the bill. She

didn't understand that by "everything," I didn't literally

mean everything. Fearing this outcome, I had placed several

boxes of essential material (written notes, floopy discs,

etc.) in the home of a friend. But if, per Wendy's

understanding, I had literally lost everything, then,

without my FOR manuscript, my FOR handout, and some other

things, I couldn't prove anything.

Damn, this sends chills down my spine even now. This was a

deliberate and caculated plan to exploit my misfortunes

during that difficult time, not some misunderstanding or

mistake. And that, my frieds, is why I am now out for blood.

Happy now, you ignorant, insensitive jackass?

Ghs

I wasn't unhappy before. I have absolutely no emotional involvement beyond a mild bemusement. I see little here to be knowledgeable of or sensitive towards. I simply explained that this looks bizarre to someone looking in from the outside. And with this last Rand-contra-Branden-redux response, even moreso. Don't waste you time justifying yourself to me. I don't care and haven't accused you of anything.

As for wikipedia, if you publish accusations in some notable venue they could be reported there as your accusations.

Not that I am saying you want to do this, you silly, sour drama queen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, what were and what are your legal options? It seems a suit was/is in order . . .

Nope, that was never an option. If I don't believe in copyright laws, then I would hypocritical to pursue a course just because it is my ox that has been gored.

Sorry, George, I hadn't even considered that.

You are both published by Prometheus -- and they acknowledge that she plagiarized your work?

"I would like to start a public campaign to push them along on the path to justice."

Sign me up.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If what George is saying is true then it's not surprising that she hasn't apologized. For Wendy McElroy (again, assuming that she did plagiarize George Smith's work) to do so might be percieved as an acknolwedgement of guilt in some way.

However, based on the comparison with what George posted comparing his essay to Wendy's it looks more like she paraphrased his work.

If she did resort to paraphrasing it is legal and might resort in a lawsuit being thrown out of court anyway. While I feel George's pain, if (that's a big IF) he was wronged then he should pursue his legal options and not cop out of not filing a copyright lawsuit because it may conflict with his principles.

By not doing so, George is actually denying himself having an injustice righted.

Wendy had 12 years to do something about the problem, and she did absolutely nothing. She could have emailed or called me on the phone or contacted me via a third party at any time, and I would have done almost anything to resolve this. But nothing, zilch, not even the courtesy of a reply when I tried to contact her.

Last Call, Little Mac. You should email me immediately so we can discuss a resolution. after which we will announce that this conflict has been resolved and nothing more will be said by either side on this subject.

All I want, in essence, is this: A public apology, (not necessarily a confession of every allegation I have made against you). And I want that damned book taken off the market forever. You could then, if you like, publish another version in which I am given full credit as co-author. You can even take the first spot, i.e. by Wendy McElroy and George H. Smith. I also want half of all advances and royalties that you have made from TRW, which probably doesn't amount to much, so this is more of a token gesture.

Wendy, I know you are following this thread, so I implore you to email me immediately so we can work something out. Then I will post nothing more about this mess, ever, except a co-signed public document that this matter has been resolved. And I don't want to hear from Kinsella, or from your decent and well-meaning but clueless hubbie who doesn't have a clue what has happened between us since 1985. I want to hear from you and only from you. This can be settled within a few days, if you want it to be. And then I will be out of your life for good. I would even write letters in your behalf to foundations or publishers if this ugly incident made them unwilling to deal with you, if you like.

We meant a lot to each other for nearly a decade. Those were interesting times. Both of use changed a lot, so it was inevitable that things would end. But they didn't, and don't, have to end like this.

Ghs

Edited by Mike Renzulli
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I am saying you want to do this, you silly, sour drama queen.

In case you haven't noticed, I have not been real cheery and upbeat today, so this may not be the best time to challenge me to a Death Match. You might at least wait long enough until my ravenous craving for human eyeballs dipped in blood and brains diminishes a bit. Just a thought.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, based on the comparison with what George posted comparing his essay to Wendy's it looks more like she paraphrased his work.

That's not how it looks to me. Not even close.

Between this and the tarp story we're getting some primo nuggets from GHS nowadays. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not that I am saying you want to do this, you silly, sour drama queen.

In case you haven't noticed, I have not been real cheery and upbeat today, so this may not be the best time to challenge me to a Death Match.

Forgive Ted. He has not been his usual cheery, thoughtful, compassionate self since he was moderated at Rebirth of Reason. Though I must say his calling you a sour and silly drama queen is irony to the nth.

Incidentally, I asked Kinsella backstage if McElroy will respond. He wrote (I paraphrase), "murk murk murk dodge murkity murk murk can't say murk old news murk murk murk."

From the murk of his response I gather that McElroy has made some kind of murky private response somewhere, and that the matter is closed.

McElroy can be reached via her email address: wendy (at) wendymcelroy (dot) com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wrote (I paraphrase), "murk murk murk dodge murkity murk murk can't say murk old news murk murk murk."

WSS,

Is this lawyerly output an instance of Italian barristry?

Or would hand gestures also be required?

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, based on the comparison with what George posted comparing his essay to Wendy's it looks more like she paraphrased his work.

No, most of what I posted so far is called plagiarism, not paraphrasing. You don't paraphrase by changing a few words. And you ain't seen nothing yet. Wendy's entire chapter on logic is copied, nearly word for word, from some articles that I published in 1986, twelve years before TRW. My articles are available here , so make the comparison for yourself, if you don't believe me. Oh, but Wendy did change he to she, him to her, and man to woman, so maybe she was paraphrasing.

If you guys want to give Wendy a fair chance to respond to my offer, then I suggest that you back off for 24 hours. You have only a small fraction of the evidence. I am ready to to cut Wendy off at the knees right now, if I need to. I will post example after example of Wendy's plagiarism -- at least 200 pages -- immediately, if I need to. I don't owe her anything.

I expected this kind of excuse making for Wendy, especially from men. It has happened before, and it drove Sharon Presley up the wall.

Gosh, George, don't be so quick to condemn. Maybe Wendy just paraphrased everything you have ever written on the subject of reasoning. Maybe Wendy is so innocent and naive that she didn't understand that her paraphrasing would be taken by you as plagiarism. Maybe you don't understand what plagiarism really is -- not every word in every sentence is exactly the same, after all -- so maybe Wendy is right and you are wrong. I've met Wendy. She is cute, and she is bright, and she is funny, and she has a nice laugh, and I love the way she tosses her hair back when she speaks --it reminds me of Rita Hayworth in Gilda -- and I don't believe that someone with all these lovely and charming qualities would ever plagiarize. Have you considered the possibility that your feelings got hurt, that you were angry and overwrought, and that you lost your sense of perspective? Maybe you should think about this for another 12 years before you act on a snap judgment.

Hey, Sharon. You were right once again about what would happen with some of the guys. Just wait till they hear Wendy's revolving door of excuses. I hope the "We had a contract" explanation will come up early -- you know, the one that, even if it were 100 percent correct, would mean that I wrote 50 percent of TRW? I love that argument.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McElroy can be reached via her email address: wendy (at) wendymcelroy (dot) com

Wendy is very frightened, and she should be. If we don't resolve this quickly, she will never be able to give another lecture or attend another conference without people whispering, snickering, or talking behind her back. This has already happened numerous times since 1998, but this time the material will be far more thorough and far more widely distributed.

I know how these things work. This will effectively annihilate Wendy's reputation and destroy her career as a writer with publishers. To solve this may prove a little awkward at first, but people are quick to forgive mistakes, when those mistakes are candidly admitted. I know this first hand from having shattering my own reputation with drugs.

All that would be required on the apology end would be something like this.

Look, folks, I screwed up. The reasons are complicated, but I made a serious mistake. I should have acknowledged the mistake immediately, but I panicked and dug myself into an even deeper hole. I want to apologize to George Smith, and I hope we can put this matter behind us.

I would then write something like:

Thank you, Wendy, for your apology. I accept it gladly. I know the apology was not easy for you.. This has been very difficult for both of us, but we can now put it behind us. If there is anything I can do to help repair the damage that this conflict may have inflicted on your reputation, you only need ask. I wish you the best in your career.

Wendy can write any apology she likes, but this gives a general idea of what I want. I'm not looking for some kind of public flogging or humiliation. What is so terrible about this?. We could have this essentially finished in an hour, if Wendy would email me.

Somebody needs to email this part of my proposal to Wendy immediately and insist that she at least read it. Then, if she still wants to play the imperious game of I have nothing more to say on this matter , then that it is it for me. I am not going to beg Wendy to save her own reputation and career.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He wrote (I paraphrase), "murk murk murk dodge murkity murk murk can't say murk old news murk murk murk."

Is this lawyerly output an instance of Italian barristoy?

Or would hand gestures also be required?

Both.

Here is the feeble non-response in Google Italian:

Si tratta di 13 anni fa. Vecchie notizie. Non posso rispondere per ovvi motivi - professionali. E 'ingiusto fare domande che non posso rispondere. (questo è privata). E la sigora McElroy già risposto. Questa è una notizia vecchia.

As for Il giudice istruttore Renzulli, his 'but it's just paraphrase' beggars belief.

Caro Renzulli, paraphrasing without a reference to the original author is plagiarism. Or, in your mother tongue, "Un caso di parafrasare senza un riferimento all'autore originale è plagio. Per parafrasare senza citazione si adatta la definizione giuridica del plagio."

I hope this doesn't become Year Of The Dumbfuck here at Ol, but initial signs are dire . . .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somebody needs to email this part of my proposal to Wendy immediately and insist that she at least read it.

Done. I did not insist she read anything, but noted you had drafted an apology and provided an excerpt and link to your post above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of the same thing happened to my brother some years ago. An extremely close friend and highly regarded southwestern author swiped his material, fictionalized it and tried to pass it off to his publisher. When my brother found out, he actually saw the manuscript in the guy's house, he contacted the publisher and that book was spiked.

The difference is using copyright laws to protect yourself and ending the nonsense in the cradle and not using them and suffering for years on end. I'm not saying that George should have violated his philosophical beliefs and availed himself of the law's protection, just that the publisher is set up to properly deal with such issues, but only in the context of such laws. Everything else is more or less optional. Human social and economic relationships are mostly power relationships and George is preparing to drop the really big one.

I'm not sure why all this is coming to a head right now. I'm going back to rereading this thread.

--Brant

edit: Amazon's been selling this book since at least 2002?!

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sort of the same thing happened to my brother some years ago. An extremely close friend and highly regarded southwestern author swiped his material, fictionalized it and tried to pass it off to his publisher. When my brother found out, he actually saw the manuscript in the guy's house, he contacted the publisher and that book was spiked.

The difference is using copyright laws to protect yourself and ending the nonsense in the cradle and not using them and suffering for years on end. I'm not saying that George should have violated his philosophical beliefs and availed himself of the law's protection, just that the publisher is set up to properly deal with such issues, but only in the context of such laws. Everything else is more or less optional. Human social and economic relationships are mostly power relationships and George is preparing to drop the really big one.

I'm not sure why all this is coming to a head right now. I'm going back to rereading this thread.

--Brant

You mean you haven't been following this for the last twelve years?!?!

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