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

[Brant Gaede]

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

I think now that Wendys has sold most of her stake in Arbys, she might be able to better concentrate on her core business.

--Brant

somewhat confused

[George H. Smith]

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

I think now that Wendys has sold most of her stake in Arbys, she might be able to better concentrate on her core business.

--Brant

somewhat confused

I'm afraid that I can't follow your comment. Please translate. And what are you confused about?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

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

I think now that Wendys has sold most of her stake in Arbys, she might be able to better concentrate on her core business.

--Brant

somewhat confused

I'm afraid that I can't follow your comment. Please translate. And what are you confused about?

Ghs

Wendys, the hamburger chain, has divested itself today of Arbys, another burger chain that's a gross underperformer and a distraction to Wendys management. The expectation is now Wendys can do better without the distraction.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I regret that so many of my posts over the past two days have dealt with personal and potentially embarrassing details. I had no intention of getting into more of that stuff. All I wanted to do was get back to posting hard facts, especially parallel quotations between FOR and TRW. As you can see, I have attempted to get back on track in my most recent posts.

But I have no intention of apologizing for all the personal information I posted about Richard Martin. Since he decided to act as Wendy's attack dog by posting information about private porn that he stole from me years ago, and which he expected would embarrass me, he deserves whatever I gave him -- and more. And if he shows up here again, he will get more.

I took Richard's remarks about that briefcase as a warning shot, orchestrated by Wendy and possibly Brad, across the bow. The message was, in effect: Shut the hell up, or pics of you will be all over the place. I say this because I know exactly how Wendy's mind works. This is how she thinks, and, by this time, she must be absolutely desperate to stop me from continuing my quest for justice.

I said this before, and I will say it again. If I am wrong about all this -- if Wendy and/or Brad had absolutely nothing to do with Richard's appearance on OL -- then one of them had better speak up now. Brad can easily post another comment to this effect. Otherwise, I will assume that my conspiracy theory is correct.

When I knew him, Richard Martin would not have acted as anyone's lapdog. He has become quite the wimp. I much perferred the disreputable thief over the respectable coward.

Ghs

[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

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

A movie similar to my experience has already been made, viz: Throw Mamma from the Train.

The main character, Larry (played by Billy Crystal), writes a novel that is stolen by his ex-wife, and published under her name. As Larry shouts at the television screen while watching his ex, Margaret, being interviewed about "her" book:

"It's my life, Margaret. It's MY life and I want it back!"

ADDENDUM

I know exactly how Larry felt.

Of course, I will not and, in the nature of things, cannot ever get my life back in regard to FOR. Here are some details that I have never mentioned before on OL.

After I got out of rehab and moved to S.F. in 1995, I was destitute. I had lost almost all my belongings, including my books (my most treasured possessions), in storage, because I could not afford to pay the bill while in rehab. If not for the help of good friends, such as Jeff Riggenbach and Vince Miller (who gave me places to live for a while), I don't know what I would have done. At age 45, I was starting over from scratch.

I showed up at Jeff's apartment with a single small suitcase. It contained some clothes, five books that I had managed to save, and some computer disks -- including my FOR floppy, fortunately. I had less than $100 in my wallet -- the remainder, after plane fare from LAX, of some money that Laissez-Faire Books had paid me for the rights to a lecture I had given at a Long beach libertarian supper club some time before. (My talk was titled "The Good, the Bad, and the Puritans.")

I needed to pull myself out of a deep hole and rehabilitate my reputation and career. The natural course lay in my FOR material. I hadn't taught the classes in years and I had never taught them in S.F., so I had a new pool of potential participants to draw from. I had made a good living from teaching those classes for seven years in Hollywood, and I saw no reason why I could not repeat that success.

Sharon Presley was then running her Resources for Independent Thinking in Oakland, and I taught some FOR classes there. All were filled to capacity (eight participants) and were successful. I also emailed Wendy in 1996 and told her that, despite our personal conflict, we had "unfinished business" that I would like to complete, since I was broke and needed to come out with a new book. (I have told this part of the story before.) This is when Wendy emailed Vince Miller (the President of ISIL whose computer I had used) and told him that she would block all emails from him, if he ever permitted me to use his computer to contact her again.

Anyway, I had plans for the FOR material. If Wendy didn't want to co-author a book with me, I would write a book from my own FOR transcripts. I also planned to expand the teaching of my FOR classes. This, more than anything else, gave me hope for the future during those difficult years.

Then TRW was published in 1998 and made all this effectively impossible. If I wrote a book based on my own material, it would look like I was plagiarizing from Wendy's TRW. If I taught any more FOR classes, people could say that I was merely teaching a version of Wendy McElroy's ideas.

Wendy did more than steal seven years of my work. She also made any future use of my FOR material nearly impossible for me, for all practical purposes. I have not taught any FOR classes since 1998.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

One can simply assume Wendy is a plagiarist. After 430 posts on this thread, where is she? If she is innocent of George's charges she could wipe the floor with him here. Shit, she could even end up with his corner--the one George exited in disgrace.

No, instead strange and weak creatures appear and feed themselves into George's inferno. What next? A nuclear option? A hacker attack?

What feminists generally do or did was exclude or denigrate men. That was the culture. This was much stronger in the 1970s and 80s than today. Inertia helps it continue. How could she have a man as a co-author?

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

One can simply assume Wendy is a plagiarist. After 430 posts on this thread, where is she? If she is innocent of George's charges she could wipe the floor with him here. Shit, she could even end up with his corner--the one George exited in disgrace.

No, instead strange and weak creatures appear and feed themselves into George's inferno. What next? A nuclear option? A hacker attack?

What feminists generally do or did was exclude or denigrate men. That was the culture. This was much stronger in the 1970s and 80s than today. Inertia helps it continue. How could she have a man as a co-author?

--Brant

If you had read all public emails that Wendy wrote in 1998 in response to my charge of plagiarism, you would appreciate why she won't make public statements any longer. Her emails, as I have said before, went all over the map with absurd and contradictory explanations, until she finally shut up on the advice of her attorney, Stephen Kinsella.

In its final form, as stated in the lengthy legal document that I and others received from Kinsella (sent via FedX), which threatened to sue me and at least four other people for libel and defamation of character, Wendy's defense rested on two pillars:

First, Wendy supposedly erased the FOR transcripts from her computer in 1994 and wrote TRW from scratch, with no access to those transcripts.

Second, even if Wendy had used the FOR transcripts, she had a right to do so, because she had co-created and co-developed FOR, and was the co-author of those transcripts. This is the claim that really infuriated me.

Those who purchased my FOR transcripts ($40) will receive a xerox copy of this imperious document, along with other relevant material. Kinsella, acting on Wendy's behalf, demanded that I and others cease saying anything about the plagiarism. We were forbidden to discuss it even in private emails and forbidden to forward emails from others that discussed it. Kinsella also sent some kind of threat to Laura Kroutil's Internet server, demanding that they discontinue her service, since I had used her computer to send my emails. I honestly wish Wendy had proceeded with that lawsuit. It could have been a major and sensational case about freedom of speech on the Internet, and it might have catapulted her plagiarism to national attention.

Early in 2000, shortly after I moved to Bloomington, I was invited my old friend Sam Konkin, creator of the original left libertarian list on Yahoo, to participate in some online discussions. He told me that Wendy had defended herself against the plagiarism charge on that list (though I never saw her posts), while adding that he didn't want me to post any responses to her whatsoever.

I was enraged. How was it that Wendy could say anything she liked on that list, but I was forbidden by Sam to give my side of the story? Sam and I exchanged many emails on this problem. His excuse was basically that he didn't want to lose Wendy's friendship. When I asked Sam if he had a personal opinion on the matter, he conceded that I was probably right, but this didn't matter, since he didn't believe in copyright laws.

When I responded that this issue had nothing to do with copyright, and that I was in fact pursuing justice in the court of public opinion -- something that Sam had always advocated -- Sam dropped the subject. I liked Sam, but he wimped out on this controversy.

When, in 1998, I sent all my emails to a prominent Neo-Objectivist who had published a favorable comment on TRW, he responded by saying that, yes, Wendy had obviously committed plagiarism, but he had praised only TRW, not Wendy per se. Thus, in the final analysis, it didn't matter who had really written TRW. It was still a good book, and he saw no reason to publish a disclaimer.

Although these were extreme cases, they illustrate what I noted earlier on this thread, namely, that some well-known libertarians refused to come out publicly against Wendy in 1998 -- not because they didn't believe me but because of some horseshit technical reason. In fact, they simply did not want to alienate Wendy and lose her friendship.

I honestly believe that Wendy is still counting on this passive reaction by libertarians, especially men. She is probably hoping that this controversy will again die down after a while, as it did in the post-1998 years. But guess what? I won't let it die down this time.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

One can simply assume Wendy is a plagiarist. After 430 posts on this thread, where is she? If she is innocent of George's charges she could wipe the floor with him here. Shit, she could even end up with his corner--the one George exited in disgrace.

No, instead strange and weak creatures appear and feed themselves into George's inferno. What next? A nuclear option? A hacker attack?

What feminists generally do or did was exclude or denigrate men. That was the culture. This was much stronger in the 1970s and 80s than today. Inertia helps it continue. How could she have a man as a co-author?

--Brant

If you had read all public emails that Wendy wrote in 1998 in response to my charge of plagiarism, you would appreciate why she won't make public statements any longer. Her emails, as I have said before, went all over the map with absurd and contradictory explanations, until she finally shut up on the advice of her attorney, Stephen Kinsella.

In its final form, as stated in the lengthy legal document that I and others received from Kinsella (sent via FedX), which threatened to sue me and at least four other people for libel and defamation of character, Wendy's defense rested on two pillars:

First, Wendy supposedly erased the FOR transcripts from her computer in 1994 and wrote TRW from scratch, with no access to those transcripts.

Second, even if Wendy had used the FOR transcripts, she had a right to do so, because she had co-created and co-developed FOR, and was the co-author of those transcripts. This is the claim that really infuriated me.

Those who purchased my FOR transcripts ($40) will receive a xerox copy of this imperious document, along with other relevant material. Kinsella, acting on Wendy's behalf, demanded that I and others cease saying anything about the plagiarism. We were forbidden to discuss it even in private emails and forbidden to forward emails from others that discuss it. Kinsella also sent some kind of threat to Laura Kroutil's Internet server, demanding that they discontinue her service, since I had used her computer to send my emails. I honestly wish Wendy had proceeded with that lawsuit. It could have been a major and sensational case about freedom of speech on the Internet, and it might have catapulted her plagiarism to national attention.

Early in 2000, shortly after I moved to Bloomington, I was invited my old friend Sam Konkin, creator of the original left libertarian list on Yahoo, to participate in some online discussions. He told me that Wendy had defended herself against the plagiarism charge on that list (though I never saw her posts), while adding that he didn't want me to post any responses to her whatsoever.

I was enraged. How was it that Wendy could say anything she liked on that list, but I was forbidden by Sam to give my side of the story? Sam and I exchanged many emails on this problem. His excuse was basically that he didn't want to lose Wendy's friendship. When I asked Sam if he had a personal opinion on the matter, he conceded that I was probably right, but this didn't matter, since he didn't believe in copyright laws.

When I responded that this issue had nothing to do with copyright, and that I was in fact pursuing justice in the court of public opinion -- something that Sam had always advocated -- Sam dropped the subject. I liked Sam, but he wimped out on this controversy.

When, in 1998, I sent all my emails to a prominent Neo-Objectivist who had published a favorable comment on TRW, he responded by saying that, yes, Wendy had obviously committed plagiarism, but he had praised only TRW, not Wendy per se. Thus, in the final analysis, it didn't matter who had really written TRW. It was still a good book, and he saw no reason to publish a disclaimer.

Although these were extreme cases, they illustrate what I noted earlier on this thread, namely, that some well-known libertarians refused to come out publicly against Wendy in 1998 -- not because they didn't believe me but because of some horseshit technical reason. In fact, they simply did not want to alienate Wendy and lose her friendship.

I honestly believe that Wendy is still counting on this passive reaction by libertarians, especially men. She is probably hoping that this controversy will again die down after a while, as it did in the post-1998 years. But guess what? I won't let it die down this time.

Ghs

Addendum

During my exchanges with Sam, I asked what he thought of Wendy's legal threats against me and others, given that she (and Kinsella) claimed to oppose all libel and defamation of character laws, and had even published articles to that effect.

Sam said that, yes, this was a serious problem, but that Wendy conceded to him that she had erred and had apologized to him for threatening to bring the power of the state down upon me and others for exercising our right of free speech.

Think about this for a second. If Sam's account was accurate (and I think it was), Wendy apologized to someone who was not even remotely involved in the legal threats, but she has never apologized to me, Sharon Presley, Tim Starr, and others against whom she threatened to initiate force.

Go figure....

Ghs

[caroljane]

And on the next Judge Judy....

Author GEORGE H. SMITH is suing RICHARD MARTIN and WENDY MCELROY for theft of personal and intellectual property.

HE says: "He stole my briefcase and she stole my book."

THEY say: "WAAAH!"George is a horrible, terrible, very bad man!"

[Rich Engle]

Geezus H. Xstian, George . . .

How long does the Fear last? Is there a way to do TedRemoval<tm>? I ask you as a professional. Lordy knows, I have tried, and hit it pretty hard.

I think one of the most annoying wounds is one of those like, say, where you get bit from a Brown Recluse Spider, and it starts creating necrotic flesh on your ass. He reminds of that.

Anyway: Possible Solution.

Read, review, purchase "Punk Rox Warriors." Buy a bunch of copies (@3.99, I'll go in for a few dozen). Send to him. After they arrive in a shipping carton, it is pretty much up to you how you wish to proceed. I mean, we could really get into this, if your tolerance levels have dropped.

Tempting, George. Real tempting. But I think we are both busy.

Either way, have at it. I'm sure you'll figure something out.

EDIT: Or, we could just start up on the Angie/CNN jokes, but that is fairly well-mined. Options, friend: options.

PS: I was there through all that. Let's say it simple: Wendy is a cunt. You heard me.

Regards,

rde

Edited June 16, 2011 by Rich Engle

[George H. Smith]

And on the next Judge Judy....

Author GEORGE H. SMITH is suing RICHARD MARTIN and WENDY MCELROY for theft of personal and intellectual property.

HE says: "He stole my briefcase and she stole my book."

THEY say: "WAAAH!"George is a horrible, terrible, very bad man!"

LOL!

JR, who knows all the details of my personal life, used to joke by calling me "Rasputin," because I appeared to have a mysterious hypnotic effect on helpless women, and I used my almost-supernatural powers to draw them into my degenerate lifestyle.

I got so pissed-off by the women (including Wendy) who refused to take personal responsibility for their own decisions, that I initiated a policy: If a woman expressed interest in following me down the path to perdition, she had to say she wanted to do this explicitly and at least two times. If I said, "Do you want to do X," and she said, "Yes," this wasn't enough. I would have her expressly say, "I want to do X," and then repeat this statement. And I would always tell the woman that she was engaging in a risky activity and might later regret her decision.

I guess I should have gotten all this in writing, because some of these helpless waifs later complained that I had seduced them into a corrupt lifestyle, despite their explicit consent, which was typically given with great enthusiasm.

I really wish I had those Rasputin-like powers over women. Those hypnotic powers would really come in handy now, since I have grown very tired of the celibate life.

Ghs

[caroljane]

And on the next Judge Judy....

Author GEORGE H. SMITH is suing RICHARD MARTIN and WENDY MCELROY for theft of personal and intellectual property.

HE says: "He stole my briefcase and she stole my book."

THEY say: "WAAAH!"George is a horrible, terrible, very bad man!"

LOL!

JR, who knows all the details of my personal life, used to joke by calling me "Rasputin," because I appeared to have a mysterious hypnotic effect on helpless women, and used my almost-supernatural powers to draw them into my degenerate lifestyle.

I got so pissed-off by the women (including Wendy) who refused to take personal responsibility for their own decisions, that I initiated a policy: If a woman expressed interest in following me down the path to perdition, she had to say she wanted to do this explicitly and at least two times. If I said, "Do you want to do X," and she said, "Yes," this wasn't enough. I would have her expressly say, "I want to do X," and then repeat this statement. And I would always tell the woman that she was engaging in a risky activity and might later regret her decision.

I guess I should have gotten all this in writing, because some of these helpless waifs later complained that I had seduced them into a corrupt lifestyle, despite their explicit consent, which was typically given with great enthusiasm.

I really wish I had those Rasputin-like powers over women. Those hypnotic powers would really come in handy now, since I have grown very tired of the celibate life.

Ghs

Ah, but you still have your memories. Oh wait, you only have 2/3 of them, courtesy of Mr. Martin.

But you do know, don't you, that those willing women were thinking simultaneously, "He wants me to do X" and "I want to"--or maybe sequentially.

[George H. Smith]

Ah, but you still have your memories. Oh wait, you only have 2/3 of them, courtesy of Mr. Martin.

Nope. As I stated yesterday, I destroyed my remaining two-thirds of those memories long ago (around 12 years), shortly before I moved in with Laura, my future wife, in SF. For one thing, I now had a stepdaughter, and I certainly didn't want her to stumble across my "memories" at some point.

There is a punch line to this story. Laura knew about my past, and she once asked me about those pics. I said that I had cut all of them up three months earlier with a pair of shears -- a task that took two hours and left me with a sore hand. Laura replied, "That's too bad. I wish you had kept some of them. I really would like to have seen them. You didn't keep any at all?"

"Nope."

It seems that even "conventional" women have an interest in such things.

Ghs

[Selene]

And on the next Judge Judy....

Author GEORGE H. SMITH is suing RICHARD MARTIN and WENDY MCELROY for theft of personal and intellectual property.

HE says: "He stole my briefcase and she stole my book."

THEY say: "WAAAH!"George is a horrible, terrible, very bad man!"

LOL!

JR, who knows all the details of my personal life, used to joke by calling me "Rasputin," because I appeared to have a mysterious hypnotic effect on helpless women, and used my almost-supernatural powers to draw them into my degenerate lifestyle.

I got so pissed-off by the women (including Wendy) who refused to take personal responsibility for their own decisions, that I initiated a policy: If a woman expressed interest in following me down the path to perdition, she had to say she wanted to do this explicitly and at least two times. If I said, "Do you want to do X," and she said, "Yes," this wasn't enough. I would have her expressly say, "I want to do X," and then repeat this statement. And I would always tell the woman that she was engaging in a risky activity and might later regret her decision.

I guess I should have gotten all this in writing, because some of these helpless waifs later complained that I had seduced them into a corrupt lifestyle, despite their explicit consent, which was typically given with great enthusiasm.

I really wish I had those Rasputin-like powers over women. Those hypnotic powers would really come in handy now, since I have grown very tired of the celibate life.

Ghs

One of the largest "blind spots" men have is remaining unaware of precisely how promiscuous and degenerate women are about their own sexual desires and needs. Since we [men] have the idea that we have a corner on debauchery, there is a subconscious guilt mechanism that can operate to cause us to think that we are "leading" the lady down the path to hell.

Additionally, since we [men] are conditioned to take the lead, be the initiator etc., that "myth" is constantly preserved.

Essentially, men and women are just as primal sexually, just as debauched and just as "experimental," possibly more so than men. They just get trained to hide it!

Adam

[George H. Smith]

Essentially, men and women are just as primal sexually, just as debauched and just as "experimental," possibly more so than men. They just get trained to hide it!

Adam

You make an excellent point here. I would say that most women are more interested in, and attuned to, the psychological aspects of sex than are most men. And those psychological aspects are where the truly interesting stuff lies in experimentation, since there are only so many things you can do physically.

Gay men are a notable exception. Many of the gays I have known have been keenly aware of sexual nuances, and I have almost always found gay men more interesting to talk to about sex than I have found straight men; they are certainly more sexually aware and savvy. Such generalizations alway have exceptions, of course.

Ghs

[Xray]

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.

Interesting perspective on the issue, Carol.

If one goes by the premise that every single action performed by an individual is directed to fulfill a personal need of the individual (all our wishes can be traced back to our needs - I have not yet found a single exception to this priniciple), and that we decide in favor of that which we believe serves best to fulfill our need(s), Wendy's personal need to gain recognition by being successful on the book market may well have led her to proceed as you described above.

And once the decision was made, possible ethical scruples about borrowing someone else's thoughts may have taken a backseat in her mind, which may have been in an "the end justifed the means" mode.

Just my speculations though, hence the frequent use of "may" in my post.

Edited June 16, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

And on the next Judge Judy....

Author GEORGE H. SMITH is suing RICHARD MARTIN and WENDY MCELROY for theft of personal and intellectual property.

HE says: "He stole my briefcase and she stole my book."

THEY say: "WAAAH!"George is a horrible, terrible, very bad man!"

LOL!

JR, who knows all the details of my personal life, used to joke by calling me "Rasputin," because I appeared to have a mysterious hypnotic effect on helpless women, and I used my almost-supernatural powers to draw them into my degenerate lifestyle.

Imo "helpless" may not quite fit it. For women are rarely as helpless as they might appear to men.

[George H. Smith]

And on the next Judge Judy....

Author GEORGE H. SMITH is suing RICHARD MARTIN and WENDY MCELROY for theft of personal and intellectual property.

HE says: "He stole my briefcase and she stole my book."

THEY say: "WAAAH!"George is a horrible, terrible, very bad man!"

LOL!

JR, who knows all the details of my personal life, used to joke by calling me "Rasputin," because I appeared to have a mysterious hypnotic effect on helpless women, and I used my almost-supernatural powers to draw them into my degenerate lifestyle.

Imo "helpless" may not quite fit it. For women are rarely as helpless as they might appear to men.

Of course. I was being sarcastic. Perhaps I should have placed scare quotes around "helpless."

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

And on the next Judge Judy....

Author GEORGE H. SMITH is suing RICHARD MARTIN and WENDY MCELROY for theft of personal and intellectual property.

HE says: "He stole my briefcase and she stole my book."

THEY say: "WAAAH!"George is a horrible, terrible, very bad man!"

LOL!

JR, who knows all the details of my personal life, used to joke by calling me "Rasputin," because I appeared to have a mysterious hypnotic effect on helpless women, and I used my almost-supernatural powers to draw them into my degenerate lifestyle.

Imo "helpless" may not quite fit it. For women are rarely as helpless as they might appear to men.

Especially if they have their own man on hand--and are carrying their .38 Specials.

--Brant

Pit Bulls help too

[slpresley]

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.

Yes, that's right, Brad. You really don't want to go there if you are trying to protect Wendy. The consequences of that info being revealed will hurt Wendy and it will hurt you. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. The results will be bloody.

[slpresley]

Of course. I was being sarcastic. Perhaps I should have placed scare quotes around "helpless."

Ghs

I should say. Wendy may be manipulative but she is anything but helpless. There's a whole book there. If I (or George) were a fiction writer, the story I (he) could write would be a scorcher indeed, with events that would top any soap opera.

[slpresley]

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

Thanks, Sharon. I very much appreciate your support.

You know, of course, that you have just committed libel and defamation of character against Wendy the Pure, and so may be subject to an attack by Wendy's vicious but not very bright lapdog, Stephen Kinsella.

Consider this comment my official endorsement of the position that Sharon Presley is a great lady.

Ghs

Thanks, George. You know I support you 100% and I'm not afraid of Kinsella. They can't prove libel because everything you say is true. Defamation? Hard to prove and frankly, Wendy will come out looking so much worse than you once the controversy makes the rounds. She would be the loser. Would they dare risk that?

Some things are worth repeating.

--Brant

Thanks, George. And thanks, Brant. Yes it is worth repeating. I would not risk my (considerable) reputation as a libertarian activist, feminist, author, and co-founder of Laissez Faire Books if I were not 101% convinced that George is right 100% and Wendy is wrong 100%. This is not one of those cases where the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's such a terrible state of affairs. Wendy has contributed a great deal to the libertarian movement. But she has shot herself in both feet with this one. As George has suggested, she will likely be remembered as much (if not more) for the plagiarism than for her more constructive efforts. We have so few women writers in the movement and she has to muck up her reputation like this. What a waste!

[Brant Gaede]

I first visited Laissez Faire Books within a week of its opening in 1972. I well remember the storefront location just south of the NYU campus. I visited several times that year and subsequently. I liked the openness and the natural light. I don't remember you in particular, but one day John Muller was talking nearby to someone remarking on how fortunate none of the customers' checks had yet bounced.

--Brant

[Selene]

I first visited Laissez Faire Books within a week of its opening in 1972. I well remember the storefront location just south of the NYU campus. I visited several times that year and subsequently. I liked the openness and the natural light. I don't remember you in particular, but one day John Muller was talking nearby to someone remarking on how fortunate none of the customers' checks had yet bounced.

--Brant

Brant:

I used to go in there several times a month for several years. Great place.

Adam

thanks for creating it Sharon

[George H. Smith]

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

Thanks, Sharon. I very much appreciate your support.

You know, of course, that you have just committed libel and defamation of character against Wendy the Pure, and so may be subject to an attack by Wendy's vicious but not very bright lapdog, Stephen Kinsella.

Consider this comment my official endorsement of the position that Sharon Presley is a great lady.

Ghs

Thanks, George. You know I support you 100% and I'm not afraid of Kinsella. They can't prove libel because everything you say is true. Defamation? Hard to prove and frankly, Wendy will come out looking so much worse than you once the controversy makes the rounds. She would be the loser. Would they dare risk that?

Some things are worth repeating.

--Brant

Thanks, George. And thanks, Brant. Yes it is worth repeating. I would not risk my (considerable) reputation as a libertarian activist, feminist, author, and co-founder of Laissez Faire Books if I were not 101% convinced that George is right 100% and Wendy is wrong 100%. This is not one of those cases where the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's such a terrible state of affairs. Wendy has contributed a great deal to the libertarian movement. But she has shot herself in both feet with this one. As George has suggested, she will likely be remembered as much (if not more) for the plagiarism than for her more constructive efforts. We have so few women writers in the movement and she has to muck up her reputation like this. What a waste!

Thanks again, Sharon.

As in politics so in plagiarism: It's not so much the errant action that causes damage but the cover-up.

Readers will recall that not long after I started this thread, I offered Wendy extraordinarily generous terms for a settlement that would have enabled her to put this matter behind her and get on with her life. Not once did she even contact me to see if we could work things out.

I don't know who was giving Wendy advice, or if anyone was, but she made a terrible mistake in not even attempting to negotiate a settlement. Now, as I post one parallel passage after another, which will eventually number in the hundreds, the plagiarism issue will haunt her for years to come.

If I had posted a public announcement saying that I had reached an agreement with Wendy and had forgiven her, I think other libertarians would have followed suit. At the very least, if someone ever raised the plagiarism issue during, say, a Q&A session after one of Wendy's lectures, she could have replied that the matter had been settled between us and was past history. I don't know what the hell Wendy is going to say now.

My 1998 emails were ephemeral and were not sent out to very many people, but not so with this thread. As of now, this thread has 11,597 hits. This is just the beginning.

Ghs

Addendum

It's possible that Wendy fears that a "confession" would incur the risk being sued by Prometheus Books. In 1999, not long before I moved from SF to Bloomington, I got a call from Prometheus. I was pissed at them for their cowardice in this matter and had said so in a number of public emails. (Copies will be included in my FOR transcripts, as well as some private emails I sent to the company.) But this isn't why I received a call from the editor-in-chief.

Before this scandal broke in 1998, I had signed a contract to write "Why Atheism?" (published in 2000). I had not submitted anything, however, and the fellow wanted to know when he might expect my manuscript. I replied: "You already published a book by me. It's called The Reasonable Woman. You simply forgot to put my name on it."

At this point I was told that no one at Prometheus doubted that Wendy had committed plagiarism. I was then told about a number of problems Prometheus had encountered in attempting to resolve the problem with Wendy, including the fact that she wouldn't talk to them.

I didn't find any of this very convincing, and I'm not even sure the last part (about Wendy refusing to talk to Prometheus) was true, given that Prometheus later published another book by Wendy -- a bio of the freethinker Queen Silver. When I learned about this bio, I sent a letter to the editor-in-chief. It read: "My congratulations to the author, whoever that may be."

In any case, I had already written quite of bit of Why Atheism?, so I decided not to cut off my nose to spite my face. I submitted the manuscript not long thereafter.

I later agreed to write another book for Prometheus, Happiness in a Godless World. I told them that I would never be able to finish this book if I couldn't get enough money to support myself during the writing process. That is exactly what happened. I wrote some of it, but it was never finished and may never be finished. Just another bunch of unpublished files for those who purchased my FP (Files Project) disks.

Ghs