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


Recommended Posts

I checked Bertrand's profile. He lists his full name as "Bertrand Russ." This is obviously a take on "Bertrand Russell."

I think we have another troll on our hands, folks. He certainly doesn't write like a serious teacher or philosopher. He writes like an undergraduate student, or someone with a smattering of knowledge in philosophy. I've encountered his type many times before. If we ignore him, he will probably tire of his silly game and go away, eventually.

I could be wrong, but my guess is that he is another one of Wendy's hit men. My god, she must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find these rubes.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I could be wrong, but my guess is that he is another one of Wendy's hit men. My god, she must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find these rubes.

No, no, he's got me converted now, you vile liar! Hey Bertie, you're welcome to come to tea anytime, just please bring your teapot.

russells-teapot-tshirt_design.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but my guess is that he is another one of Wendy's hit men. My god, she must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find these rubes.

No, no, he's got me converted now, you vile liar! Hey Bertie, you're welcome to come to tea anytime, just please bring your teapot.

russells-teapot-tshirt_design.jpg

Can I come too? I'll be mother and pour out. I promise to dress in my frumpy best.

Granny L

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be wrong, but my guess is that he is another one of Wendy's hit men. My god, she must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find these rubes.

No, no, he's got me converted now, you vile liar! Hey Bertie, you're welcome to come to tea anytime, just please bring your teapot.

russells-teapot-tshirt_design.jpg

And old friend of mine. with the last name of Russell, is a distant relative of Bertrand Russell. He has two PhDs, one in physics and one in applied mathematics, and has published widely in professional journals; he played semi-pro basketball for a few years, and even pro-ball for one year; he worked as a civilian "black op" for the goverment for a number of years, which required that he complete the full training for Navy Seals; he has at least one black belt in some martial art; he worked on the space shuttle in its early stages of development; he started his own computer business and made millions, and then he lost millions during the dot.com crash; and now he is back to teaching physics, which is where he started.

Our "Bertrand Russ," in contast, is an alleged teacher of philosophy who misuses expressions like "fallacious argument" and "logical fallacy" -- rather like our dear departed Phil consistently misused the term "ad hominem argument"; who doesn't understand the kind of inductive evidence needed to prove a charge of plagiarism; and who writes long and nearly incoherent posts, and then demands that I answer each and every point; and who is excessively fond of the prefix "meta," because it makes common points sound really impressive.

There definitely is not a drop of authentic Russell blood in that anemic clown. :lol:

NEXT!

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nipsy Russel makes more sense:

And Bill Russel had much better logic:

Get that shit out of here!

The best center to ever play the game!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B.R. isn't interested in the charges of plagiarism, but logic and bullying and jejune fallacies. That's why he's here? Why do these Wendy champions keep showing up jumping into the deep end of the pool expecting shallow water?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

B.R. isn't interested in the charges of plagiarism, but logic and bullying and jejune fallacies. That's why he's here? Why do these Wendy champions keep showing up jumping into the deep end of the pool expecting shallow water?

--Brant

As admirers of Wendy, they have grown accustomed to shallow water.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked Bertrand's profile. He lists his full name as "Bertrand Russ." This is obviously a take on "Bertrand Russell."

I think we have another troll on our hands, folks. He certainly doesn't write like a serious teacher or philosopher. He writes like an undergraduate student, or someone with a smattering of knowledge in philosophy. I've encountered his type many times before. If we ignore him, he will probably tire of his silly game and go away, eventually.

I could be wrong, but my guess is that he is another one of Wendy's hit men. My god, she must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find these rubes.

Ghs

Maybe Wendy called upon the rubes, but now they come unbidden?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plot thickens....

I have now notched this controversy up a step. I have expanded the discussion of Wendy's plagiarism to two Yahoo lists: Atlantis II and LeftLibertarian2 (The latter is an anarchist list.)

This is why I created the "Master Post" with documentary links a little earlier on OL. I did so because I wanted to be able to take this controversy to other forums in a simple format. Here, for example, is my post to LL2:

----- Original Message -----

From: "George H. Smith" <smikro@comcast.net>

To: "LL2" <LeftLibertarian2@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, June 17, 2011 7:00 PM

Subject: Fw: Plagiarism Scandal -- The Master Post

The OL thread on Wendy McElroy's plagiarism in very long

and very involved. Many of the posts are tangential or

irrelevant to the key issues. And some are very seamy.

Parts of the thread read like sex novel.

I have therefore created a Master Post, which contains links

to the purely documentary evidence I have provided.

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

This is the link to use if you want to stay current, or if

you want to inform others about this scandal. I will update

it from time to time, as the need arises. As I said, all the

links in this post will take you to various parallel

passages between Wendy's TRW and my FOR transcripts. No

conjectures. No theories. Just hard facts.

You may want to keep this link for future reference, since

the Master Post will grow over time.

Ghs

In the near future, I will be posting the master link on other forums as well. The master link should also make it easy for OLers to make others aware of this controversy, without making them read through a bunch of weird posts (some of which were written by me).

There has been a method to my madness, as you can now see. I emailed Wendy early this morning because I wanted to give her one last chance to resolve this matter with me (I was going to let her make the first suggestion for terms) before spreading all this evidence to a much broader audience. As usual, Wendy didn't do anything, so I will.

If you are outraged by Wendy's massive plagiarism. then please send some version of my LL2 post to other forums (Objectivist, libertarian, feminist, etc.) and to friends. It might require some minor rewording, of course.

Thansk.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I think Bertroll Rustic has proved that the very citation of relevant evidence proves that the evidence is irrelevant. That is just elementary logicks 101. What moore is required to show that George H. Smith--if that's his real name--indeed fabricated his own speakings and writings, planting the "evidence" years in advance just to fake-substantiate the fact of Wendy McElroy's plagiarism (probably using the time machine for which photographic evidence was presented in another thread)? Let Smith (Jones?) admit at last that his creations have all been concoctions from the get-go, the mere confections of his own mind!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plot thickens....

I have now notched this controversy up a step. I have expanded the discussion of Wendy's plagiarism to two Yahoo lists: Atlantis II and LeftLibertarian2 (The latter is an anarchist list.)

There has been a method to my madness, as you can now see. I emailed Wendy early this morning because I wanted to give her one last chance to resolve this matter with me (I was going to let her make the first suggestion for terms) before spreading all this evidence to a much broader audience. As usual, Wendy didn't do anything, so I will.

Ghs

So it's WAR!!

rifle.gifduel.gifmachinegun.gifstar-wars-smiley-5472.gif

duel-7.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The plot thickens....

I have now notched this controversy up a step. I have expanded the discussion of Wendy's plagiarism to two Yahoo lists: Atlantis II and LeftLibertarian2 (The latter is an anarchist list.)

There has been a method to my madness, as you can now see. I emailed Wendy early this morning because I wanted to give her one last chance to resolve this matter with me (I was going to let her make the first suggestion for terms) before spreading all this evidence to a much broader audience. As usual, Wendy didn't do anything, so I will.

Ghs

So it's WAR!!

rifle.gifduel.gifmachinegun.gifstar-wars-smiley-5472.gif

duel-7.jpg

Not war, exactly. More like a Citizen's Committee in the Old West -- a.k.a. the Internet -- hunting down a horse thief.

Before I fired up this controversy on OL, I was pretty much alone -- except for Sharon Presley, who has been a staunch ally throughout, and who has urged me since 1998 not to let this matter die. Now I have an OL posse to assist me -- and it is a formidable posse indeed.

Wendy will never be able to muster defenders of the same caliber. She won't even come close.

So far Wendy has sent her clueless hubby, who claimed that he personally deleted all FOR files from her computer; Richard Martin, a high-powered CEO who posted a vague threat about a bunch of private porn that he stole from me 17 years ago; and, today, a confused dunce who doesn't understand what plagiarism is, having informed us that the example of white swans is commonly used in philosophy and that "but" is a common word.

If you guys and gals who have been supporting me on this thread don't let this matter die, then Wendy doesn't stand a chance. Thanks.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I checked Bertrand's profile. He lists his full name as "Bertrand Russ." This is obviously a take on "Bertrand Russell."

I think we have another troll on our hands, folks. He certainly doesn't write like a serious teacher or philosopher. He writes like an undergraduate student, or someone with a smattering of knowledge in philosophy. I've encountered his type many times before. If we ignore him, he will probably tire of his silly game and go away, eventually.

I could be wrong, but my guess is that he is another one of Wendy's hit men. My god, she must be scraping the bottom of the barrel to find these rubes.

Ghs

Maybe Wendy called upon the rubes, but now they come unbidden?

--Brant

It's quite possible that Wendy was not personally responsible for the Rise of the Rube, but I seriously doubt if we are talking about more than two degrees of separation. The Rube might know Brad. Rubes tend to stick together, after all. Flocks of birds, gaggles of geese, schools of fish -- and rabbles of rubes.

Any guy who arrives on this thread and, not having examined any of the hard evidence, argues that my supposition -- i.e., that Wendy wanted to cause me personal pain -- is a logical fallacy of some kind -- well, we are obviously not dealing with an impartial party here. HIs role seems to have been to kick up a dust storm, just as Richard Martin, the Briefcase Boy, attempted to do with his complaints that the personal property he stole from me years ago was in unsatisfactory condition.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what's next? Will "Smith" claim to be the author of The Obvious Parallels?

Excellent choice of words! If I ever publish a book on this scandal, I will steal your idea and title it The Obvious Parallels. Wonderful!

But if I wrote such a book, would Wendy later claim that she co-authored it?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, given the attacks already received, I'd say that caution was very well advised.

As for my teaching logic, believe it or not. It is not a part of the argument (that would be an appeal to authority, which is a fallacy despite George's denials)

I was providing a link for a friend to TRW. As for who told me about that thread, why on earth does that matter? What does that have to do with the content of the cited fallacies or refutations? I know that emotions are running high on this thread and I would rather not have even a FB friend attacked because I dare to question abuse of reason.

Notice how none of the counter-examples or fallacies have been addressed, but only ad hominems have been offered?

I am still working through the thread, making notes as I go. The anti-intellectualism, incivility, and intellectual dishonesty being presented by a few actual trolls (as judged by behavior) does not dissuade me from trying to find out the truth and consistently applying reason to the claims being made.

I am curious though as to when asking for evidence, noting that "I found it on my computer" or "I have private knowledge of it" are not evidence, and demonstrating irrefutably that arguments are based upon fallacies is "troll" behavior. I have been and will remain honest and civil. There is no point to any discussion without those.

I stumbled across the Amazon comments (it is not actually a review after all), and thanks to a facebook friend referral I came to this site.

Mr. Russel, welcome to OL.

Out of curiosity, what were you looking for when you "...stumbled across the Amazon comments...?"

Secondly, who was the friend who referred you to this site?

Adam

Bert:

Whoa Skippy!

I said out of curiosity. I do not have a dog in this fight.

My friend, I perceive a tad bit of defensiveness in your quick protestations. No one will bother your Facebook friend from this site.

At least give us some evidence of your ethos regarding teaching logic. Chalk it up to the fact that I taught Aristotelian rhetoric.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bertrand:

You established the foundation of your teaching experience as the ethos for your judgments.

You also declared that objective evidence should be presented.

I asked for your teaching credentials to establish the foundation of ethical proof that you argued from had merit.

Am I misunderstanding how you argued?

Additionally, the "attacks already received" is like Snow White complaining about seven dents on her maidenhead. You entered the fray and the "attacks" were well within the normal argumentation structures of this forum. If you read nine (9) pages, you should have been well prepared.

Surely, a person of your clear, self declared experience in the nature of argument could not possibly be hurt by the discourse so far.

Adam

easily confused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, given the attacks already received, I'd say that caution was very well advised.

If you would read all the parallel passages I posted and stick to that material, no one would attack you. You are wandering all over the map with irrelevancies. Deal with the evidence -- all the evidence, not just snippets.

So what is your real name? I want to know if I am dealing with a troll. You have the apparent characteristics of one. Why are you afraid to reveal your identity?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More new material.

Here is another published article by me from which Wendy plagiarized outrageously in TRW.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate

Applying Logic to LD , by George H. Smith.

This is the most accessible copy of my article, but it is also the first chapter in the online book Liberalism, Values & Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

It would take me a long time -- time that I don't currently have -- to type out all the parallel passages to TRW, but those of you who own a copy can find the plagiarism.

This is an example where Wendy placed different parts of my article in different parts of TRW. You will find some of it in "Syllogistic Strategy" on pp. 190-194. My comments on authority can be found in TRW, 279-280 ("Hiding Behind Authority").

I have not yet located all of the parts in TRW where Wendy plagiarized from my article on value debating, but if I wrote it, you can bet she plagiarized it -- and the other sections should not be too difficult to find in TRW. (One exception might be my section on rights.)

The background of my article on value debating is as follows: In early 1986, I began doing seminars, sponsored by the Economics in Education Foundation, for high school debaters. One of my jobs was to give a talk, suitable for high school students, on how to debate value topics (which is the point of the Lincoln-Douglas style of debate). The talk was so well received that Greg Rehmke, who ran the seminars, asked me to write my talk up for the newsletter L/D Extemp Monthly. I believe my article was first published in late 1986.

Wendy and I separated in 1985. I had written nothing on value debating during my years with her -- it was not something I ever talked about in my FOR classes -- but I included my LD/Extemp article in my FOR computer files, because I thought some of the material would make a good addition for my future book on The Fundamentals of Reasoning.

Wendy then plagiarized my LD/Extemp article, nearly lock, stock, and barrel, from my FOR files, but -- and this is the delicious part -- she had no idea that I had already published my article 8 years earlier in the LD/Extemp monthly.

Thus did Wendy plagiarize from yet another one of my published articles. Read my online article and the TRW sections I cited above, and you will see exactly what I mean.

As with my published articles on definitions, we are not dealing here with a he said/she said disagreement. Rather, we are dealing with overt, unvarnished, old-fashioned plagiarism by Wendy McElroy from one of my published articles.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I stumbled across the Amazon comments (it is not actually a review after all), and thanks to a facebook friend referral I came to this site. I have only just begun reading the thread, I'm about 9 pages in at this point, but several things have already struck me as peculiar to say the least. I will try to present these as I go. This is not the first, but it is substantive and telling.

“I had no explanation, except that Wendy did this solely and specifically to cause me immense and lasting pain. “

One of the traits of the logician, or anyone who is knowledgeable of logic is the ability to see alternatives. This is derived from the necessity to avoid the false dichotomy fallacy. I can come up with dozens of possible explanations, the first of which is that your premise is false, off of the top of my head, as could anyone who had actually written a book on logic. This failure to see possibilities give any of us familiar with logic one good reason for skepticism.

I also found the very early use of bullying disturbing, as bullying is never necessary if you have a sound argument.

“But I want to say again that you should refrain offering unsolicited criticims at this stage, because, to be perfectly blunt, you dont have all the facts, and you don't know what the hell you are talking about. This is a lot more complicated that most people realize. “[sic]

This is naught but simple bullying of someone who pointed out, quite rightly, that you have not proved your case. Just as with the “excerpt” you offered prior to that remark, everything you have offered has been purely from your stash of “private knowledge.” It has all been naught but an appeal to authority, with a bit of a god complex thrown in. Anyone who had read the book, much less written it would know better than to make such obvious logical errors.

Criticism certainly can be offered without total knowledge, if that criticism is limited to what has been offered. For instance my own is directly squarely at the logical errors presented, as well as the example of bullying. I don't need to know what shirt you were wearing in on February 5th, 1982 in order to criticize the bullying or recognize the use of fallacious arguments.

Though I am only through page 9, all of the references there to a "reasonable offer" pointed to unreasonable demands. I will wait until I get to this last page before saying for certain, but I would suspect that this latest email reference to a "reasonable offer" falls into the same category. A reasonable offer might take the form of "I am sorry, I will drop this now. You need not reply. ghs"

Well, I sure am impressed with your obvious brilliance. You've demonstrated a grasp of logic that is nothing short of genius! All of those logical fallacies of which George is so clearly guilty, and you discovered them all after only reading 9 pages of an internet thread. For example, your brilliant logical insight that George was not making a reasonable offer to Wendy by asking her to apologize after stealing and plagiarizing 7 years of his work. Instead, you have determined that the logical thing for George to do was to say "I am sorry", in other words, for George to apologize to Wendy for her stealing and plagiarizing his work. That is brilliant logical deduction of the highest order. If there were such a thing as a Nobel prize for philosophy, you would surely be awarded it. I am literally dazzled by the force of your logic!

It's too bad for Wendy that, back when George was giving those seminars on fundamentals of logic, you weren't giving them instead in his place, given your obvious vastly superior grasp of logic. That way, when she stole and plagiarized your work instead of George's, TRW would have been a much better work of philosophy.

Martin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bertrand:

You established the foundation of your teaching experience as the ethos for your judgments.

You also declared that objective evidence should be presented.

I asked for your teaching credentials to establish the foundation of ethical proof that you argued from had merit.

Am I misunderstanding how you argued?

Additionally, the "attacks already received" is like Snow White complaining about seven dents on her maidenhead. You entered the fray and the "attacks" were well within the normal argumentation structures of this forum. If you read nine (9) pages, you should have been well prepared.

Surely, a person of your clear, self declared experience in the nature of argument could not possibly be hurt by the discourse so far.

Adam

easily confused

I second this.

Bertie, every person on this thread, especially George, has been attacked with high words and low blows, vicious venom and scorching scorn, and that's just by each other, on topics far less incendiary than plagiarism, which is particularly detested on this site.

They have counterattacked with facts, truth and, yes, logic - not as you use it, as a feint, but as a bridge between facts and truth. Also, of course, with high words, low blows,etc.

In this particular fray you appear to be unarmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the Amazon published the review therefore that is proof of plagiarism, argument:

Amazon publishes just about every review, so appealing to that “authority” is also fallacious. Even if they didn't publish anything that does not contain excessive profanity, you would have a difficult time making the case that they have or even do the sort of research necessary to rely upon them at all as an authority. And even then still it would be at best fallacious.

I already offered this one, but since George denies it I will present it again. There is no room for doubt as to the invalidity of the argument.

“I had no explanation, except that Wendy did this solely and specifically to cause me immense and lasting pain. “

One of the traits of the logician, or anyone who has written a good book on logic is the ability to see alternatives. This is derived from the necessity to avoid the false dichotomy fallacy. I can come up with dozens of possible explanations, the first of which is that your premise is false, off of the top of my head, as could anyone who had actually written a book on logic.

“When is someone going to get the balls around here to say, "Yup, it sure looks like Wendy McElroy is a plagiarist, pure and simple." “

Let's say that you wrote your own bible 20 years ago. Now, today I come onto the site and I start tossing about ad hominems, and a nice reference library of examples of logical fallacies, interspersed with naught but my own claims that I had actually written much of your bible. I offer as “proof” simply more of my own claims, and I bully anyone who dares point this out. Would you really expect anyone to believe me or accept that what I was claiming was true, because I say so? Or do you have a double standard?

“This will make the Rand/Branden affair look like two high school sweethearts holding hands.”

Like it or not, you are simply not that important. The best result for you of all of this will be nothing more than deception of a few who believe you, and everyone else will pretty well forget you exist, if they ever knew, else a vague memory of that guy who threw what can honestly be called a multi-decade tantrum by your own admissions. Even if you do eventually offer up what the real world understands as evidence (verifiable in other words), the whole matter will still remain unknown to 99.999% or more of the world. Only a very tiny fraction of the people who have even heard of Ayn Rand, know you or McElroy exist. It simply is not ever going to be on the radar of more than a trivial percentage of the people in an already small group. Tiny ripple for a tiny fish, in a tiny pond, nothing more.

“I know some you are now thinking, how could I be so insensitive as to reveal such personal information about my former girfriend? This is crude and boorish. “

Finally you said something accurate: this is crude and boorish. It is also a red herring, and a fallacious appeal to emotion. By trying to characterize Wendy Mcelroy as a slut, you are not only showing your own disregard for women in general and your double standards regarding men and women, but you are also trying to distract from the absence of a reasoned argument and evidence supporting your claims and behavior.

Funny that you speak of this both as some grand revelation which you personally have kept secret for decades, and also as “common knowledge.” Have you ever come across the Law of Non-Contradiction? You should consider seeing if the index of TRW has it listed and then try to understand it. That or continue to deny that your own arguments are subject to the necessities and niceties of logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam,

No I never claimed any argument, refutation, or criticism is based upon my teaching. That assumption of your argument is false. I did comment tangentially that I would have failed students who offered such sloppy invalid arguments, but that is unimportant with regard to the merit of the refutations. The invalidity of the arguments are inherent to them, not dependent upon ANY viewer or opinion. What you are asking for is a defense of appeal to authority, which I cannot offer since I make no appeal to authority in the first place, for to do so would be fallacious as I have noted.

Reality, not personality, determines what is true. Look to the refutations and note that they all stand on their own merit. Who offers an argument is always unimportant, except to those whose egos are so fragile that they cannot accept that reality rather than their personality, determines what is true.

As for the attacks, you seem to be dodging the point. Yes I could clearly see that intellectual honesty, civility, and reason were not the norm in this thread, but that does not change the existence or nature of the attacks. Having limited knowledge of this forum, I would not dream of disputing your claim that such childish behavior is the norm here, I would only point out that it is not the norm in honest, civil, intellectual discussions where truth, rather than emotion, is the objective. You can believe that or not, go experience it or not. That does not matter to me one whit. As for the implication that I have been personally hurt by the attacks, you again miss the point. Citing the desperation that is exemplified by such attacks, by the abandonment of even the pretense of honesty, reason and evidence, does not indicate any felt pain, rather it simply adds to the growing mountain of reason for skepticism as to the veracity of claims of authorship of anything at all on the nature of reason.

A sound argument is only harmed by fallacies like ad hominems. I cannot seem to recall Susan Haack opting for the tantrum option rather than the sound argument option.

Edited by Bertrand
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what's next? Will "Smith" claim to be the author of The Obvious Parallels?

Excellent choice of words! If I ever publish a book on this scandal, I will steal your idea and title it The Obvious Parallels. Wonderful!

"The Obvious Parallels" - absolutely hilarious!! :D

Kudos to Starbuckle's creativity!

But if I wrote such a book, would Wendy later claim that she co-authored it?

Hilarious as well, that satirical comment! :D

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the Amazon published the review therefore that is proof of plagiarism, argument:

Amazon publishes just about every review, so appealing to that “authority” is also fallacious. Even if they didn't publish anything that does not contain excessive profanity, you would have a difficult time making the case that they have or even do the sort of research necessary to rely upon them at all as an authority. And even then still it would be at best fallacious.

I already offered this one, but since George denies it I will present it again. There is no room for doubt as to the invalidity of the argument.

“I had no explanation, except that Wendy did this solely and specifically to cause me immense and lasting pain. “

One of the traits of the logician, or anyone who has written a good book on logic is the ability to see alternatives. This is derived from the necessity to avoid the false dichotomy fallacy. I can come up with dozens of possible explanations, the first of which is that your premise is false, off of the top of my head, as could anyone who had actually written a book on logic....

I expressed an opinion about Wendy's motive for plagiarizing from my FOR transcripts. I did not give an argument. And where there is no argument, there can be no fallacious argument.

Of course, there are other explanations for her plagiarism, and I have discussed some on this thread. I'm not sure my earlier opinion is correct, since I cannot read Wendy's mind, so I speculated. Attributing motives to others, in whatever context, almost always involves speculation.

Your alternative "explanation" is that Wendy did not plagiarize at all., But that is not an alternative explanation for her plagiarism -- and her motive for plagiarizing is what I was talking about. Got it, dummy?

In the final analysis, I don't really care about the motive for Wendy's plagiarism. It is incidental to the fact that she did in fact plagiarize. I have provided a mountain of evidence to substantiate this charge, most of which you have ignored.

I started this thread for the purpose of discussing a matter of great personal significance to me. I have no interest in dealing with your juvenile antics. For all I know you are Wendy, Brad, Kinsella, Richard Martin, or someone in their clan.

So I will ask you one more time: What is your real name? I have no interest in dealing with a troll, so you if you won't reveal your identity, then get the hell off this thread.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now