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


Recommended Posts

The bottom line of it is, George, simple: that you are so talented you would never find the need to steal. Too good for that. I just can't see someone like you ever having such a need.

Best,

rde

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The bottom line of it is, George, simple: that you are so talented you would never find the need to steal. Too good for that. I just can't see someone like you ever having such a need.

Best,

rde

Thank you, Rich. I appreciate the kind remarks.

One reason I haven't published very many books is because I don't see the point unless I have something original to say. Nor do I see the point, as many authors apparently do, of essentially rewriting the same book over again in various forms. That would bore me to tears. And the notion of plagiarizing someone else's material repulses me.

I identify with the autobiographical comments of various writers. One of my favorite comments is by Montesquieu, author of Spirit of the Laws, one of the most influential books of the eighteenth century and an important text in the history of classical liberalism. Concerning this book, which took many years to write, Montesquieu said: "I swear, that book almost killed me."

Any writer who has invested serious time and labor in a book will know exactly what Montesquieu meant. If a lot of your blood doesn't go into a book, then it probably wasn't worth writing.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line of it is, George, simple: that you are so talented you would never find the need to steal. Too good for that. I just can't see someone like you ever having such a need.

Best,

rde

Thank you, Rich. I appreciate the kind remarks.

One reason I haven't published very many books is because I don't see the point unless I have something original to say. Nor do I see the point, as many authors apparently do, of essentially rewriting the same book over again in various forms. That would bore me to tears. And the notion of plagiarizing someone else's material repulses me.

I identify with the autobiographical comments of various writers. One of my favorite comments is by Montesquieu, author of Spirit of the Laws, one of the most influential books of the eighteenth century and an important text in the history of classical liberalism. Concerning this book, which took many years to write, Montesquieu said: "I swear, that book almost killed me."

Any writer who has invested serious time and labor in a book will know exactly what Montesquieu meant. If a lot of your blood doesn't go into a book, then it probably wasn't worth writing.

Ghs

I see your point, George. But on the other hand, what you wrote right there is more intriguing than most people do in posting alone. You have a defined style as a writer, and it flows well. Sort of like the thing with Howard Stern . . .the Stern haters actually listened to him longer than the Stern lovers. Reason: wanted to see what he would do next.

You're fine, dude. Roll like a fuckin' pirate, per usual.

EDIT/ADD: I hate when afterthoughts come, but to clarify a bit more, by way of example, I can tell instantly when you write, because it has that unique fingerprint. And I read a lot of stuff. You have a voice. Oh, you handle heavier topics than I ever will, and it might take a few lines to see it, but in the end I always know it is you. Isn't that one of the things writing is about? So, yeah, GHS lifting. Sure. I bet you wake up every morning thinking about that.

rde

Ops Normal

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

I want to make something clear about Sharon's support of me in this matter.

I have little doubt that Wendy has explained Sharon's position to friends by claiming that she and Sharon have a history of personal antagonism. Now, this was true, to a certain extent, for a while, but things changed dramatically later on.

Between 1995-1998 -- after I moved to the Bay area but before the plagiarism scandal erupted -- Sharon mentioned to me several times that she and Wendy were getting along fine, and she hoped they could work together on some projects. (There may have already been some plans to do this, but I'm not sure.)

When the plagiarism scandal erupted in 1998, Sharon expressed her disappointment that any such projects were no longer possible. In short, there was nothing personal about Sharon's stand on Wendy's plagiarism. Quite the contrary. It disturbed Sharon deeply, partly for personal reasons and partly because it was a black mark for libertarian feminists. Sharon showed great courage in taking the stand she did, knowing that the critics of libertarian feminists would eventually exploit the scandal for their own purposes.

I frankly regret that aspect of this conflict as well, which is one reason why I wish Wendy had at least attempted to resolve this matter with me.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line of it is, George, simple: that you are so talented you would never find the need to steal. Too good for that. I just can't see someone like you ever having such a need.

Best,

rde

Thank you, Rich. I appreciate the kind remarks.

One reason I haven't published very many books is because I don't see the point unless I have something original to say. Nor do I see the point, as many authors apparently do, of essentially rewriting the same book over again in various forms. That would bore me to tears. And the notion of plagiarizing someone else's material repulses me.

I identify with the autobiographical comments of various writers. One of my favorite comments is by Montesquieu, author of Spirit of the Laws, one of the most influential books of the eighteenth century and an important text in the history of classical liberalism. Concerning this book, which took many years to write, Montesquieu said: "I swear, that book almost killed me."

Any writer who has invested serious time and labor in a book will know exactly what Montesquieu meant. If a lot of your blood doesn't go into a book, then it probably wasn't worth writing.

Ghs

I see your point, George. But on the other hand, what you wrote right there is more intriguing than most people do in posting alone. You have a defined style as a writer, and it flows well. Sort of like the thing with Howard Stern . . .the Stern haters actually listened to him longer than the Stern lovers. Reason: wanted to see what he would do next.

You're fine, dude. Roll like a fuckin' pirate, per usual.

EDIT/ADD: I hate when afterthoughts come, but to clarify a bit more, by way of example, I can tell instantly when you write, because it has that unique fingerprint. And I read a lot of stuff. You have a voice. Oh, you handle heavier topics than I ever will, and it might take a few lines to see it, but in the end I always know it is you. Isn't that one of the things writing is about? So, yeah, GHS lifting. Sure. I bet you wake up every morning thinking about that.

rde

Ops Normal

Books are extraordinarily difficult for me to write, but for some reason I can write quality shorter pieces, such as posts on OL, very quickly.

About my "defined style" and "voice." I agree, which is one reason why it was so weird and disturbing when I first read TRW. It was like looking at a picture of myself but being told that it was a picture of someone else. Much of TRW is not written in Wendy's style at all.

Here is an interesting story about that dreadful evening when Sharon brought a copy of TRW to one of JR's Beer Busts in SF.

At one point, while skimming the book and shaking my head in disbelief, I did the following: When I located a passage in TRW that began with a verbatim line from my FOR transcripts, I handed the book to someone else and then completed the paragraph from memory. In every case I came very close to being correct, word for word.

Spooky, very spooky. And unsettling beyond belief.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bottom line of it is, George, simple: that you are so talented you would never find the need to steal. Too good for that. I just can't see someone like you ever having such a need.

Best,

rde

Thank you, Rich. I appreciate the kind remarks.

One reason I haven't published very many books is because I don't see the point unless I have something original to say. Nor do I see the point, as many authors apparently do, of essentially rewriting the same book over again in various forms. That would bore me to tears. And the notion of plagiarizing someone else's material repulses me.

I identify with the autobiographical comments of various writers. One of my favorite comments is by Montesquieu, author of Spirit of the Laws, one of the most influential books of the eighteenth century and an important text in the history of classical liberalism. Concerning this book, which took many years to write, Montesquieu said: "I swear, that book almost killed me."

Any writer who has invested serious time and labor in a book will know exactly what Montesquieu meant. If a lot of your blood doesn't go into a book, then it probably wasn't worth writing.

Ghs

I see your point, George. But on the other hand, what you wrote right there is more intriguing than most people do in posting alone. You have a defined style as a writer, and it flows well. Sort of like the thing with Howard Stern . . .the Stern haters actually listened to him longer than the Stern lovers. Reason: wanted to see what he would do next.

You're fine, dude. Roll like a fuckin' pirate, per usual.

EDIT/ADD: I hate when afterthoughts come, but to clarify a bit more, by way of example, I can tell instantly when you write, because it has that unique fingerprint. And I read a lot of stuff. You have a voice. Oh, you handle heavier topics than I ever will, and it might take a few lines to see it, but in the end I always know it is you. Isn't that one of the things writing is about? So, yeah, GHS lifting. Sure. I bet you wake up every morning thinking about that.

rde

Ops Normal

Books are extraordinarily difficult for me to write, but for some reason I can write quality shorter pieces, such as posts on OL, very quickly.

About "defined style" and "voice." I agree, which I one reason why it was so weird and disturbing when I first read TRW. It was like looking at a picture of myself but being told that it is a picture of someone else.

Here is an interesting story about that dreadful evening when Sharon brought a copy of TRW at one of JR's Beer Busts in SF.

At one point, while skimming the book and shaking my head in disbelief, I did the following: When I located a passage in TRW that began with a verbatim line from my FOR transcripts, I handed the book to someone else and then completed the paragraph from memory. In every case I came very close to being correct, word for word.

Spooky, very spooky. And unsettling beyond belief.

Ghs

You know, you basically said what I was already considering, in a certain fashion. I mean, I'm way too vain to be a GHS fan or apologist or whatever. But you got me going on the thinking. Normally, I won't hold onto something this long. First time for everything.

For what is worth then, I am going to Hold Forth.

I was around even before all this started. Green screen, Atlantis, whatever. I got the better part of it, including reading Wendy's posts. I was there because I was trying to learn. I am a music instructor by trade, and one of the things I picked up on early (much to my success) had to do with continuous learning. So I read, and participated lightly. It was a brutal thing, back then. But, you stuck out--I always knew when it was you; you didn't have to sign it, though you always did.

I digress, sorry.

I think there is such a thing as reverse plagiarism, I do. But there is a line to it. When I use things, which I often do, they are, hopefully, obvious, and loving. You know, like if I drop in some Hunter Thompson or whatever. I'll say "savage burn," and you either get that, or you don't.

And I see this crap in the guitar gunslinger biz all the time, for fuck's sake. There's quoting, in music improv, and then there is quoting and acting like you own it. Just the usual crap. Toss it off to creative problems, whatever.

In your particular case, I felt like she was drifting off your tail quite early on. So, you could say she regurged early on. Then, assumed credit for her "style" and threw it back on you. Happens all the damn time. These are not joyous makers, people that have such mentality. It is entirely possible that she really feels she has a case, but is not conscious of her beginnings, which, as I remember, largely involved your influence.

That kind of thing.

I just move on. I am glad to say that many things have been said about me, but I have never gotten the plagiarism shit. And I know why. And I know you wouldn't do it, because you simply aren't wired that way. You're just not.

That's about as clear as I can make it, but it lights my ass up to hear about this junk. It smells like a ham and feet sandwich, to quote Drew Carey.

Finest Kind,

rde

Play "find the quotes" in that post. There are a bunch, and I did them on purpose.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is entirely possible that she really feels she has a case, but is not conscious of her beginnings, which, as I remember, largely involved your influence.

This explanation might float if Wendy had not concocted what I call her Immaculate Conception story about having erased all FOR material from her hard drive in 1994, after which she supposedly wrote TRW from scratch. Even the parallels I have posted thus far, which only constitute a small fraction of the total, prove that the Immaculate Conception is a crock -- an outright lie that Wendy made up early in the 1998 controversy, when I had only posted a few parallels between TRW and my FOR handout. .

Wendy obviously didn't believe at that point that I still had my FOR floppy disk, because in my 1996 email to her, I said that I had "lost everything in storage." She assumed that "everything" included my computer disks, which of course I had never put in storage. (With so many years of my work on those disks, that would have been extremely dumb.)

Thus, acting from the belief that I had already posted everything I had with the FOR handout parallels, Wendy invented the Immaculate Conception story, while claiming that she had an "excellent memory" (she later claimed to have kept a journal) and so may have duplicated parts of my handout inadvertently.

This excuse would never fly with my 200 page FOR manuscript, however, so after I posted eight pages of parallel passages from that source, Wendy was stuck with her Immaculate Conception Story, no matter what. It has haunted her ever since, because it proves beyond doubt that Wendy was willing to manufacture a major lie to cover her ass.

There is no way Wendy could have deceived herself about the falsity of the Immaculate Conception story. That was a flat-out, deliberate lie. She obviously managed to fool her hubby. She even managed to persuade that clueless dunce to go public on OL with the claim that he had personally erased the FOR files from her computer. But Wendy won't be able to fool anyone who bothers to read all the parallel passages I have already posted, not to mention the parallels that I will be posting in the future.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, did you write A: TCAG, or was it Wendy? BE HONEST.

Yes, of course she did. Wendy has co-written all my stuff, including material I wrote years before we ever met.

You think I'm kidding? Well, consider: There is material in TRW about the nature of philosophy. I originally wrote much of that while I was still a student at the University of Arizona during the the late 1960s, long before I ever wrote ATCAG.

I spent many hours in the UA library researching this topic and working on a talk, which I eventually hoped to publish as an article titled "The Philosophy of Philosophy." I accumulated a thick folder of notes and rough drafts, and I then developed a final draft good enough to deliver as a lecture for the UA Students of Objectivism in early 1970.

I later used much of this material in my FOR classes, so it showed up in the FOR transcripts. Wendy plagiarized -- uh, excuse me, I meant "co-wrote" -- it from there.

Thus did Wendy co-author a good deal of material from my college years. Amazing, I know, but true. <_<

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George, did you write A: TCAG, or was it Wendy? BE HONEST.

Yes, of course she did. Wendy has co-written all my stuff, including material I wrote years before we ever met.

You think I'm kidding? Well, consider: There is material in TRW about the nature of philosophy. I originally wrote much of that while I was still a student at the University of Arizona during the the late 1960s, long before I ever wrote ATCAG.

I spent many hours in the UA library researching this topic and working on a talk, which I eventually hoped to publish as an article titled "What is Philosophy?" I accumulated a thick folder of notes and rough drafts, and I then developed a final draft good enough to deliver as a lecture for the UA Students of Objectivism in early 1970.

I later used much of this material in my FOR classes, so it showed up the FOR transcripts. Wendy plagiarized -- uh, excuse me, I meant "co-wrote" -- it from there.

Thus did Wendy co-author a good deal of material from my college years. Amazing, I know, but true. dry.gif

Ghs

I can vouch for the library. I used it in 1967-68 and again in 1971. It really existed! In fact, I first became aware of it as a ten-yo living nearby. Since, it has been moved to the other side of the campus. But what I really enjoyed was the museum across the street with the stuffed buffalo!

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a brief example of how Wendy plagiarized from my "Philosophy of Philosophy" talk (originally delivered in 1970 for the UA Students of Objectivism), some of which I later included in my FOR classes. The following passages by me are straight out of that 1970 talk, and there is much, much more.

FOR, p. 53: Philosophy deserves your attention, if not always your respect. When you are dealing with philosophy, you are dealing with -- excepting religion -- the oldest intellectual discipline known to man. Almost every conceivable belief has been defended in the name of philosophy.

TRW, p. 287: Philosophy deserves your attention, if not always your respect. After all, when you deal with philosophy, you are in the presence of the oldest intellectual discipline known to man. Even religion was considered to be a branch of philosophy. It is true that almost every conceivable absurd belief has been defended in the name of philosophy.

FOR (cont.) Doctrines without a shred of evidence, doctrines which contradict evidence, doctrines which claim knowledge can never be acquired, doctrines that proclaim no effort is required to attain knowledge -- these, to name but a few, have been defended in the name of philosophy

TRW (cont.) Doctrines without a shred of evidence, doctrines that contradict evidence, doctrines for which no evidence can be acquired -- all these positions, and many many more -- have been defended in the name of philosophy.

Can you believe this shit? I've been dealing with this overt and extensive plagiarism since 1998, and I still have trouble believing it at times. Un-fucking-believable.

To say that Wendy McElroy has the literary ethics of a snail would be an insult to snails.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, George. It would appear that all in all you've made your point. I hope it benefits you if you continue with this. It won't benefit anyone else, I think.

--Brant

I understand your point, though I learned the hard way in 1998 that no amount of evidence will convince some people that Wendy is a plagiarist and a liar of the first rank.

I don't plan on writing out more parallels for a while, since this is tedious and unrewarding work -- and, as you pointed out, overkill. I think even many people on OL believed I was originally exaggerating when I talked about the extent of the plagiarism in TRW. It is absolutely massive.

From time to time, as the mood strikes me, I will type out a few more parallels and post them on OL. There is no hurry. Why do I plan to do this? Well, partly for the public record, but also because each new round will drive another stake into the heart of that bloodsucking literary vampire, Wendy McElroy.

Wendy has put me through hell for 13 years and has arrogantly ignored my sincere and repeated efforts to resolve this matter. My 13 years are up. Wendy's 13 years are just beginning.

Meanwhile, those who would like to get a copy of the complete FOR transcript, signed and numbered by me, can purchase it for $40. This will be regarded as a historic document one day, believe me. Email me at smikro@comcast net.

With these transcripts you can wile the hours away by matching up passages between FOR and TRW. This is an interesting forensic exercise, because (as I mentioned previously), Wendy frequently breaks up my FOR material and distributes it throughout TRW. It almost seems she did this so as not to be too obvious.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FOR (cont.) Doctrines without a shred of evidence, doctrines which contradict evidence, doctrines which claim knowledge can never be acquired, doctrines that proclaim no effort is required to attain knowledge -- these, to name but a few, have been defended in the name of philosophy

TRW (cont.) Doctrines without a shred of evidence, doctrines that contradict evidence, doctrines for which no evidence can be acquired -- all these positions, and many many more -- have been defended in the name of philosophy.

Earlier, Rich mentioned my distinctive style. Well, the above is a good example of my style, especially during my earlier years. Readers of ATCAG will find many similar constructions in that book.

When Wendy isn't plagiarizing, she doesn't write like this at all.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FOR (cont.) Doctrines without a shred of evidence, doctrines which contradict evidence, doctrines which claim knowledge can never be acquired, doctrines that proclaim no effort is required to attain knowledge -- these, to name but a few, have been defended in the name of philosophy

TRW (cont.) Doctrines without a shred of evidence, doctrines that contradict evidence, doctrines for which no evidence can be acquired -- all these positions, and many many more -- have been defended in the name of philosophy.

Earlier, Rich mentioned my distinctive style. Well, the above is a good example of my style, especially during my earlier years. Readers of ATCAG will find many similar constructions in that book.

When Wendy isn't plagiarizing, she doesn't write like this at all.

Ghs

I have to defend my turf every day because where I live is attached to one of the most buck-ass wild trailer parks on the planet. Overkill? Believe me, there is something to be said for it. Oh yeah, it's annoying and requires a certain kind of patience. Some days I just want to stop and go smoke dope, watch Roku, whatever. But you have to answer with the thunder in certain types of engagements.

So I have no problem wearing that bitch out. Any responses? I don't go chumming O-sites, I can't stomach it anymore.

Oh, and yes, that tract you put up is exactly what I was talking about. I remember that feel. You are a one-off, and she can suck drain from a rotted pig's ass.

Have a Joyous Day!

rde

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

If you go to the LFB page on Wiki, there's a photo of Muller and me taken at that time. I edited the LFB Catalog and Review for 5 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is a brief example of how Wendy plagiarized from my "Philosophy of Philosophy" talk (originally delivered in 1970 for the UA Students of Objectivism), some of which I later included in my FOR classes. The following passages by me are straight out of that 1970 talk, and there is much, much more.

FOR, p. 53: Philosophy deserves your attention, if not always your respect. When you are dealing with philosophy, you are dealing with -- excepting religion -- the oldest intellectual discipline known to man. Almost every conceivable belief has been defended in the name of philosophy.

TRW, p. 287: Philosophy deserves your attention, if not always your respect. After all, when you deal with philosophy, you are in the presence of the oldest intellectual discipline known to man. Even religion was considered to be a branch of philosophy. It is true that almost every conceivable absurd belief has been defended in the name of philosophy.

FOR (cont.) Doctrines without a shred of evidence, doctrines which contradict evidence, doctrines which claim knowledge can never be acquired, doctrines that proclaim no effort is required to attain knowledge -- these, to name but a few, have been defended in the name of philosophy

TRW (cont.) Doctrines without a shred of evidence, doctrines that contradict evidence, doctrines for which no evidence can be acquired -- all these positions, and many many more -- have been defended in the name of philosophy.

Can you believe this shit? I've been dealing with this overt and extensive plagiarism since 1998, and I still have trouble believing it at times. Un-fucking-believable.

To say that Wendy McElroy has the literary ethics of a snail would be an insult to snails.

Ghs

Speaking of ethics, here is an interesting aside that I have only mentioned in the ALF (Assn. of Libertarian Feminists) Newsletter till now. When Wendy put together her second anthology, Liberty for Women, she did not ask me to contribute. No matter that Wendy, Joan Kennedy Taylor and I were the leading libertarian feminists at that time (and now). She hates me and wasn't about to ask me to contribute. She asked Joan to write a pro-choice article (even though abortion is MY issue, not Joan's [see www.alf.org./abortion.php. Article copyright 1979!]. However, when Joan took my position, the editor at the Independent Institute (the publisher) told her to change it to their party line and she refused. They pulled the article and this GUY wrote the article with his party line.

In contrast, later when ALF had a panel at FreedomFest in 2002, Joan and I asked Wendy to be on the panel, even after what she had done to both of us. Who is the petty one here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should say. Wendy may be manipulative but she is anything but helpless.

If Wendy really brazenly copied from the FOR files to such an extent (and the evidence presented by Ghs here clearly seems to point in this direction) - the callousness revealed by proceeding like that indeed does not indicate any helplessness.

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.

Reality quite often tops fiction indeed.

I don't know much about copyright laws, but as far a I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) , the issue here is not about violating legal copyright, but about violating the ethical principle of intellectual honesty which implies giving credit to those whose text(s) one has used, by providing the reader - whether one has used directly quoted text material or indirect paraphrases - with the source from which one has taken it.

Another thing I can't quite get into focus: If Wendy actually 'borrowed' from the FOR files, then for some reason she must have felt quite "safe" in doing so; I find this quite baffling.

For surely it must have been clear to her that George would recognize the texts taken from his files.

But this didn't seem to bother her. Why?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

If Wendy really brazenly copied from the FOR files to such an extent (and the evidence presented by Ghs here clearly seems to point in this direction) - the callousness revealed by proceeding like that indeed does not indicate any helplessness.

I don't know much about copyright laws, but as far a I understand it (correct me if I'm wrong) , the issue here is not about violating legal copyright, but about violating the ethical principle of intellectual honesty which implies giving credit to those whose text(s) one has used, by providing the reader - be it directly quoted text material or indirect paraphrases - with the source from which one has taken it.

Even if I believed in copyright laws, this is not an issue of copyright per se, because I never copyrighted my FOR transcripts. Rather, I made the mistake of trusting someone I regarded as a close friend with over seven years of my work, which she then proceeded to steal, publish and claim as her own.

I have mentioned the following before, but it may have gotten lost in the sea of posts on this thread.

In Kinsella's lengthy legal threats (1998) to me , Sharon, and others, he mentions the parallels that I posted between TRW and my FOR handout, which I wrote in 1974. He claims that this handout was in the public domain because it was not copyrighted, so I had no case against Wendy.

Since I was arguing a moral rather than a legal case against Wendy, Kinsella's observation amounts to a confession of guilt on behalf of his client. My case all along was, and remains, that Wendy plagiarized from my FOR material.

Plagiarism is not an exclusively legal concept. On the contrary, here is the complete entry for "plagiarism" in the American Heritage Dictionary.

v. tr.

1. To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own.

2. To appropriate for use as one's own passages or ideas from (another).

v. intr.

To put forth as original to oneself the ideas or words of another.

I posed the following question to Wendy in one of my 1998 transcripts: Are you claiming that you did in fact plagiarize my FOR transcripts but that you had the legal right to do so, because my transcripts were not copyrighted?

If this was the case, then Wendy was confessing to plagiarism, and there was nothing further for me to argue. Whether she had a legal right to plagiarize didn't interest me in the least. That we might have a legal right to take an action doesn't make that action moral or right.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing I can't quite get into focus: If Wendy actually 'borrowed' from the FOR files, then for some reason she must have felt quite "safe" in doing so; I find this quite baffling.

For surely it must have been clear to her that George would recognize the texts taken from his files.

But this didn't seem to bother her. Why?

Yeah.

Been puzzling me, too.

He wouldn't know about it?

Impossible.

He wouldn't care?

Not a chance.

She has something over Ghs?

He's been as upfront as a man can be, and you can't extort from an honest person, so unlikely.

About all that's left, is the insane desire to make an academic name for herself, at all costs: second-hander, deluxe.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thing I can't quite get into focus: If Wendy actually 'borrowed' from the FOR files, then for some reason she must have felt quite "safe" in doing so; I find this quite baffling.

For surely it must have been clear to her that George would recognize the texts taken from his files.

But this didn't seem to bother her. Why?

Yeah.

Been puzzling me, too.

He wouldn't know about it?

Impossible.

He wouldn't care?

Not a chance.

She has something over Ghs?

He's been as upfront as a man can be, and you can't extort from an honest person, so unlikely.

About all that's left, is the insane desire to make an academic name for herself, at all costs: second-hander, deluxe.

Tony

I have a theory about this, which I will discuss in a subsequent post, but first some observations about TRW that I have never mentioned before. In the quotations that follow, all boldface was added by me for the purpose of emphasis.

So far as I can tell (and according to the TRW index) I am only mentioned by name only once in TRW (p. 142):

The next two chapters are devoted to examining a unique intellectual therapy group created by the philosopher George Smith, in which I was fortunate enough to participate.

Okay, so far so good, but shortly after this passage (143), Wendy writes:

About fifteen years ago, I was intimately associated with a remarkable experiment in intellectual therapy, based largely on the work of Dr. Ellis and psychologist Branden.

Thus, in the span of a few paragraphs, my FOR classes were demoted from being a "unique intellectual therapy group" to being "based largely" on the world of Ellis and Branden.

Next, in a passage (143) that I had overlooked until recently, Wendy writes:

The chapter and the next one one provide an all-too-sketchy blueprint for setting up an intellectual therapy group. During my stint as an assistant in such groups, I found my former exposure to psychology to be invaluable.

Three things:

First: Wendy was never an assistant in my FOR classes. I didn't need an assistant with only eight participants. There would have been nothing for her to do.

Second: Although Wendy fabribicated a role for herself that she never performed, in calling herself an "assistant," she effectively concedes that she was not a co-creator and co-developer of FOR. Assistants typically perform routine and sometimes menial tasks. Wendy may have helped with some FOR mailings -- I don't recall for sure -- but that would have been all. As I said, I had no need for an assistant in the FOR classes themselves; there would have been absolutely nothing for an assistant to do, except maybe pick up cups and glasses afterwards.

Third: We come to a very significant point, namely, that nowhere in her references to my "unique intellectual therapy group" (I never called FOR "therapy, btw, because it wasn't therapy) does Wendy mention the name of my group, viz: "The Fundamentals of Reasoning."

Indeed, at no point in TRW does Wendy mention "The Fundamentals of Reasoning" by name. She mentions a ton of books by name (some of which I used and some of which I didn't), but "The Fundamentals of Reasoning" never gets a mention, not once, even though she states (142) that two chapters in TRW "are devoted to examining [this] unique intellectual therapy group created by George Smith."

I find this omission fascinating -- and very revealing. I have no doubt that it was deliberate. Before I proceed with my own explanation, I would like to hear how others would account for this strange "oversight."

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

That really pisses me off. What chance is there for liberty if the intellectuals who are advocating it are either plagiarizing others' work or looking the other way when a friend's work is plagiarized? Fuck! It makes libertarianism look like a crappy little movement populated with pointy-headed shitbags who do a lot of showboat intellectual theorizing but who have to be dragged kicking and screaming into practicing what they preach. They almost come across as trying to give opponents of liberty proof that even freedom's advocates can't handle the responsibility of freedom.

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...

I just did a Google image search for "Wendy McElroy," and to me she looks like a frumpy hippy granny. Okay, so why are libertarian men so gaga over her? Is she the only woman they know, or the only one who doesn't treat them like ugly, socially awkward, loner dorks?

Or is there more to it? Have some of these twerps actually gotten a little taste of granny-sugar, and they're hoping to get more? If so, how easy would it be to turn most of these "libertarians" into statists? With the promise of a handjob from Pam Anderson, would SEK3 have been goose-stepping in jackboots?

J

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