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

[George H. Smith]

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.

I have never characterized Wendy as a "slut," and I have never believed she is one. I defended her against that allegation, so stop misrepresenting my posts.

Funny that you speak of this both as some grand revelation which you personally have kept secret for decades, and also as “common knowledge.”

Where do you come up with this crap? There was no secrecy about any of this. Many of our friends knew what was going on. I simply had not discusssed it in a public forum before.

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.

Since I substantially wrote the material on logic in TRW, I am very familiar with the content. For example, see my post from last night.

There is no reference to the Law of Contradiction in the index to TRW, nor is it discussed anywhere in the text. I did not discuss the Law of Contradiction in my FOR classes, so it never showed up in the FOR transcripts -- and Wendy had nothing to plagiarize.

What is your real name, troll?

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

So, Bertrand, you don't think Wendy is a plagiarist?

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Note: I have been getting a lot of disconnects lately. (Comcast has apparently been having problems). When this happens while I am writing a post, I can lose everything and must begin over. Consequently, I have been posting my stuff before editing it, and I frequently change things within the next 10 minutes. I would therefore ask that people not respond to my posts for at least 10 minutes after they first appear. Thanks. Ghs

Reality, not personality, determines what is true.

Correct -- so why don't you deal with reality for a change by reading the dozens of parallel passages I have posted so far? There are also my published articles, which are available online and which Wendy lifted wholesale for TRW. Those published articles are part of reality, you know.

Here is a logical procedure for you. First, examine the hard evidence I have posted about Wendy's massive plagiarism. Second, make a judgment about my allegation based on that evidence -- and that evidence alone.

Your personal opinion of me is irrelevant to all this, as are my posts that discuss personal matters. None of this is gemane to the hard evidence I have provided. Deal with reality for a change.

Look to the refutations and note that they all stand on their own merit.

Oh, you mean "refutations" like pointing out that the example of white swans is commonplace, and your observation that "but" is a common word?

If someone offered a "refutation" of my charge of plagiarism by writing How now, brown cow, I would not waste my time commenting on it, except to dismiss it as a joke. And your "refutations" are a joke.

I still don't believe that you teach philosophy. Where did you get your degree -- from Three Stooges University?

What is your real name, troll?

Ghs

[caroljane]

Rubes tend to stick together, after all. Flocks of birds, gaggles of geese, schools of fish -- and rabbles of rubes.

Ghs

And penuries of plagiarists.

[Brant Gaede]

If it walks like a troll, writes like a troll . . . well, by golly! It is a troll!!

--Brant

all this guy does is lay smoke

[George H. Smith]

Rubes tend to stick together, after all. Flocks of birds, gaggles of geese, schools of fish -- and rabbles of rubes.

Ghs

And penuries of plagiarists.

Let us not forget Cliques of Canucks!

Btw, I fiddled with you quote tags so they would work. I hope you don't mind.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

If it walks like a troll, writes like a troll . . . well, by golly! It is a troll!!

--Brant

all this guy does is lay smoke

I don't wish to accuse anyone unfairly, but do you suppose Phil would seek revenge by posting under the pseudonym "Bertrand"? The posts in question have the same style of argument that Phil used to use, e.g., the stress on logic and fallacies written by someone who doesn't understand much of either. And then there is the pedantic stress on irrelevancies.

As I recall, Bertrand has spoken of his "students," but he has not specifically said that he teaches philosophy at a university. I think Phil teaches some kind of logic course for high school students.

If I am wrong, I hereby apologize to Phil for suggesting that he may be "Bertrand." My theory obviously doesn't fit with Bertrand's remark about having learned of this thread on some Facebook page, though that might have been a cover story. But my theory does explain why Bertrand will not reveal his real name.

Just a thought....

Ghs

[caroljane]

If it walks like a troll, writes like a troll . . . well, by golly! It is a troll!!

--Brant

all this guy does is lay smoke

I don't wish to accuse anyone unfairly, but do you suppose Phil would seek revenge by posting under the pseudonym "Bertrand"? The posts in question have the same style of argument that Phil used to use, e.g., the stress on logic and fallacies written by someone who doesn't understand much of either. And then there is the pedantic stress on irrelevancies.

As I recall, Bertrand has spoken of his "students," but he has not specifically said that he teaches philosophy at a university. I think Phil teaches some kind of logic course for high school students.

If I am wrong, I hereby apologize to Phil for suggesting that he may be "Bertrand." My theory obviously doesn't fit with Bertrand's remark about having learned of this thread on some Facebook page, though that might have been a cover story. But my theory does explain why Bertrand will not reveal his real name.

Just a thought....

Ghs

I'm sure you are wrong. "Necessities and niceties of logic" does not sound like his style at all. Bertie might even be Roberta, for all we know.

Also I don't think anonymous attacks are his style either. I could be wrong too of course, but I don't think so.

[Jonathan]

The opening lines of The Headwaters by Wendy McElroy

Hannah Rork giggled.

She stood nude at the edge of a precipice. The river lay far below her. An ice-cold detonation of sandstone burst in flight to the sky over motionless water. The water seemed immovable, the rock – flowing, like liquid or something. The rock had the stillness of a brief moment during a war when thrust meets thrust and the currents are held in a pause more dynamic than motion. The rock glowed and sparkled and stuff in the wet sunlight...

J

[George H. Smith]

If it walks like a troll, writes like a troll . . . well, by golly! It is a troll!!

--Brant

all this guy does is lay smoke

I don't wish to accuse anyone unfairly, but do you suppose Phil would seek revenge by posting under the pseudonym "Bertrand"? The posts in question have the same style of argument that Phil used to use, e.g., the stress on logic and fallacies written by someone who doesn't understand much of either. And then there is the pedantic stress on irrelevancies.

As I recall, Bertrand has spoken of his "students," but he has not specifically said that he teaches philosophy at a university. I think Phil teaches some kind of logic course for high school students.

If I am wrong, I hereby apologize to Phil for suggesting that he may be "Bertrand." My theory obviously doesn't fit with Bertrand's remark about having learned of this thread on some Facebook page, though that might have been a cover story. But my theory does explain why Bertrand will not reveal his real name.

Just a thought....

Ghs

I'm sure you are wrong. "Necessities and niceties of logic" does not sound like his style at all. Bertie might even be Roberta, for all we know.

Also I don't think anonymous attacks are his style either. I could be wrong too of course, but I don't think so.

You are probably right. I probably should not have gone public with my idle speculation, but I tend to view OL as a small community of friends in which I can speak freely. I sometimes forget that millions of people can access OL, if they like.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Phil's style is more truncated than B.R.'s. He'd have to sweat bullets to write Bertrand's posts, assuming he even could, and Bertrand is quite relaxed, even phlegmatic, and his writing has a sophisticated flow. Phil is quite passionate while B.R. tries to be as passionless as possible, pretending he's all about reasonable reason and logic. Phil could be dishonest, but it was so above board it was hard to tell if he even knew what he was doing. B.R. knows exactly what he's doing and why and he hasn't written one honest thing since he came here--that is, this thread isn't about anything he's talking about of which he's said nothing.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Phil's style is more truncated than B.R.'s. He'd have to sweat bullets to write Bertrand's posts, assuming he even could, and Bertrand is quite relaxed, even phlegmatic, and his writing has a sophisticated flow. Phil is quite passionate while B.R. tries to be as passionless as possible, pretending he's all about reasonable reason and logic. Phil could be dishonest, but it was so above board it was hard to tell if he even knew what he was doing. B.R. knows exactly what he's doing and why and he hasn't written one honest thing since he came here--that is, this thread isn't about anything he's talking about of which he's said nothing.

--Brant

You are probably right about Bertrand, but he might also be extremely dense -- a kind of Internet Aspie. Consider his first post, in which he mentioned my remark that I think Wendy was motivated by the desire to cause me pain.

Now, this was obviously speculation on my part. I never tried to prove it or even to offer evidence for it. I simply stated what I believed to be the most likely conjecture.

Then along came Bertrand, who went on and on about how illogical my remark was, because I had not considered alternative explanations, etc. -- as if I were writing some formal treatise about Wendy's psychology.

It is possible that Bertrand just wanted to blow smoke up my ass, but it is also possible that he is, well, just plain dense. He might be a prime example of "the proofreader's mentality."

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

The opening lines of The Headwaters by Wendy McElroy

Hannah Rork giggled.

She stood nude at the edge of a precipice. The river lay far below her. An ice-cold detonation of sandstone burst in flight to the sky over motionless water. The water seemed immovable, the rock – flowing, like liquid or something. The rock had the stillness of a brief moment during a war when thrust meets thrust and the currents are held in a pause more dynamic than motion. The rock glowed and sparkled and stuff in the wet sunlight...

J

That's a brilliant piece of satirical writing.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

The opening lines of The Headwaters by Wendy McElroy

Hannah Rork giggled.

She stood nude at the edge of a precipice. The river lay far below her. An ice-cold detonation of sandstone burst in flight to the sky over motionless water. The water seemed immovable, the rock – flowing, like liquid or something. The rock had the stillness of a brief moment during a war when thrust meets thrust and the currents are held in a pause more dynamic than motion. The rock glowed and sparkled and stuff in the wet sunlight...

J

That's a brilliant piece of satirical writing.

--Brant

Do I detect sexual metaphors in this satire? Or do I just have a dirty mind?

In order to save Bertrand the trouble of writing a post about logic, I should mention that both propositions might be true. Or, for that matter, both might be false. For Bertrand's sake, we should always mention every possibility when making offhand remarks.

Ghs

[Xray]

George, I will look into the links. I am also still catching up on the thread, though the only confusions so far are why the rampant use of fallacies along with the magical appearance of new material have not been the focus.

Bertrand,

It looks like you did the 'catching-up' way too hastily, the result being mistakes on your part like claiming it was Ghs who characterized Wendy as a slut:

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.

At the end of 1991, for reasons unrelated to the FOR project but involving a breach of trust on George's part, Wendy broke off all contact with George. Wanting nothing more to do with him, Wendy packaged up the FOR materials -- manuscript, disks, and tapes -- and sent them to George. (I mailed the package.)

Breach of trust, my ass. Do you really want to go there, Brad? I already commented on that pathetic phone call that Wendy made to me early on New Year's Day, because some gal had called her a "slut" at a party the night before.

Got it, Bertrand? "Some gal" quite obviously is is not Ghs.

Have you ever come across the Law of Non-Contradiction?

Thanks for bringing it up here, Bertrand.

If there exists such a thing as a "Law of Non-Contradiction", then I assume contradictions will violate that law - right?

I just want to make sure I've got your premise right, for you will have to fasten your seatbelt when reading the cascade of of contradictions coming from 'Team Wendy' (see post #642 to get a taste of it).

Edited June 18, 2011 by Xray

[jriggenbach]

Phil's style is more truncated than B.R.'s. He'd have to sweat bullets to write Bertrand's posts, assuming he even could, and Bertrand is quite relaxed, even phlegmatic, and his writing has a sophisticated flow. Phil is quite passionate while B.R. tries to be as passionless as possible, pretending he's all about reasonable reason and logic. Phil could be dishonest, but it was so above board it was hard to tell if he even knew what he was doing. B.R. knows exactly what he's doing and why and he hasn't written one honest thing since he came here--that is, this thread isn't about anything he's talking about of which he's said nothing.

--Brant

I thought I'd chime in here to say that I think Phil could write Bertrand's posts without breaking a sweat. I had myself suspected that Bertrand might be Phil. Then George gave voice to the same suspicion. In addition to the points George made, I'd note further Bertrand's devotion to tiresome bilge about "civility" and "namecalling" and "attacks" and supposedly "childish" conduct (to say nothing of his tacit asumption that we're all here for the identical reason - the only valid reason to be here, namely that we yearn to have a polite, structured discussion of important issues and "persuade" each other of our points of view on those issues. All this is very reminiscent of Phil.

JR

Edited June 18, 2011 by Jeff Riggenbach

[Xray]

What Wendy did, she did deliberately and for a reason -- a very personal reason.

What was this very personal reason?

I had my problems with Wendy, as she had her problems with me. That is normal. But even after Wendy and I did stop speaking (around 8 years before the plagiarism scandal), I never imagined she would publish seven years of my work under her own name.

As I have said, Wendy later claimed that I had defaulted on our agreement, because I had not "reviewed" a mythical polished draft that she supposedly gave to me, sent to me, or whatever, within 6 weeks, so all rights to my material supposedly reverted to her, and she was legally free to publish my material under her name alone.

This is pure bullshit, of course (for several reasons), but note how this excuse concedes that Wendy did in fact publish my writing under her own name, while claiming she supposedly had the legal right to do so. It is an outright confession that I did in fact write at least half of TRW.

It is a confession, no doubt.

Note also how this excuse (one of 3 that Wendy gave) contradicts her claim to have erased all of my FOR material from her hard drive in 1994. According to her "default" story, she had a polished manuscript in hand, one suitable for publication, and she had full rights to everything, owing to my supposed default. But did Wendy publish that manuscript? No. For some inexplicable reason, she deleted "her" entire book from her computer in 1994 and proceeded to write the same book over again from scratch, while using the same large chunks of material from my FOR transcripts that she had used in the manuscript that she had supposedly deleted.

This should provide illustrative material for "Bertrand" who has been so eager to point out the "Law of Non-Contradiction".

Edited June 18, 2011 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

What Wendy did, she did deliberately and for a reason -- a very personal reason.

What was this very personal reason?

I'm a little reluctant to go into detail about this. I posted a lot of personal stuff earlier on this thread, and some friends have criticized me for it (offlist), suggesting that it makes me look bad.

Well, that may be, but this conflict has had a strong personal aspect from the very beginning. I posted the personal stuff earlier to set the context for the plagiarism scandal.

For people who wonder about Wendy's motives, let me pose this question. Why did she post that allegation (I guess it was on her own website) some years ago, stating that I had physically abused her during our years together, indeed, that I had punched her so hard in the face that she lost sight in one eye?

That was a vicious, vicious lie, as I explained in my response. (Sharon backed me up on this.) I never, not once, touched Wendy in anger -- nor have I ever struck anyone, female or male, in anger (if you don't count some fights with my brother when we were kids).

So why would Wendy fabricate an outrageous lie like this? And why, just a week or so after that weird phone call I got from her on New Year's morning, would she write a letter to Richard Martin, whom she had never even talked to at that point, stating that I was a "sex pervert"? And why, around the same time, did she call my old friend and professional colleague of many years, the historian Ralph Raico, and say to him many of the same things that she wrote to Richard?. (Ralph called me about this and said, "What's the matter with Wendy? Has she gone crazy?")

I don't how many more of my friends Wendy called to relate her sex pervert story, but this stuff came out of the blue for me. I hadn't even been in contact with Wendy for some time, and only rarely did we speak on the phone.

Now what were her motives for all this crap? We were getting along fine until that gal called Wendy a "slut" at that New Year's Eve Party. I know about the "slut" incident because I was able to get Wendy off-script long enough during that weird phone call to learn about it. So why did she turn against me so viciously after the slut incident?

I wasn't there, so I don't know the details, but I'm virtually certain the story goes something like this:

The party gal probably said something more to Wendy than calling her a "slut"; she probably added some details. And Brad probably heard everything, so he asked Wendy what this was all about.

Wendy, having lied to Brad about her past for so many years, had to think up a quick explanation, so she said that all the stories were false. So how could she explain the "slut" stories? Well, she blamed everything on me. She said that I was spreading "vicious rumors" about her in an attempt to destroy her reputation.

"Vicious rumors" -- those are the words that Wendy read from her phone script on that New Year's morn. I replied, "What are you talking about? I rarely talk about you at all, and when I do, it is always in very positive terms. I haven't been spreading any rumors about you."

My theory is that Wendy didn't expect things to go as far as they did. I think she came up with the "vicious rumors" story, off the the cuff, to get herself out of a bad situation with Brad, because she couldn't think of anything else to say -- short of confessing the truth, which she would never have done.

Then, I think that Brad, being the protective hubby, was so outraged by my "vicious rumors" that he insisted that Wendy call me early the next morning and sever all relationship with me, because I had supposedly betrayed poor, innocent Wendy in an unforgivable way.

Wendy was thus stuck with her story, so what could she do? During our phone conversation, Wendy's voice was quivering and she spoke mechanically. It quickly became obvious to me that she was reading from a script, and that's when I asked if Brad was in the room listening to her, which he obviously was. (I have told this part of the story before, so I won't repeat it here.)

Wendy has a very expressive voice, and I could read it like a book. I could tell that she really didn't want to have that conversation. She was speaking under duress. But once she had made the phone call, there was a danger, namely, that I would strike back by actually telling true stories about our past that she had lied to Brad about. That's why she went on the warpath. She contacted friends of mine and told them that I was a "sex pervert" as a preemptive strike, in effect, in the hope of discrediting in advance anything I might say.

Sound complicated and unlikely? -- like something out of a romance novel, a spider web of intrigue and revenge? Well, maybe, but such was Life With Wendy.

Now we come to the motive for her FOR plagiarism, beginning in 1994, but I will need to write about that in a subsequent post.

Stay tuned.....

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Phil's style is more truncated than B.R.'s. He'd have to sweat bullets to write Bertrand's posts, assuming he even could, and Bertrand is quite relaxed, even phlegmatic, and his writing has a sophisticated flow. Phil is quite passionate while B.R. tries to be as passionless as possible, pretending he's all about reasonable reason and logic. Phil could be dishonest, but it was so above board it was hard to tell if he even knew what he was doing. B.R. knows exactly what he's doing and why and he hasn't written one honest thing since he came here--that is, this thread isn't about anything he's talking about of which he's said nothing.

--Brant

I thought I'd chime in here to say that I think Phil could write Bertrand's posts without breaking a sweat. I had myself suspected that Bertrand might be Phil. Then George gave voice to the same suspicion. In addition to the points George made, I'd note further Bertrand's devotion to tiresome bilge about "civility" and "namecalling" and "attacks" and supposedly "childish" conduct (to say nothing of his tacit asumption that we're all here for the identical reason - the only valid reason to be here, namely that we yearn to have a polite, structured discussion of important issues and "persuade" each other of our points of view on those issues. All this is very reminiscent of Phil.

JR

That's very interesting, Jeff. I'm going back and read every word again and see if I can grok what you say.

--Brant

[anthony]

Phil's style is more truncated than B.R.'s. He'd have to sweat bullets to write Bertrand's posts, assuming he even could, and Bertrand is quite relaxed, even phlegmatic, and his writing has a sophisticated flow. Phil is quite passionate while B.R. tries to be as passionless as possible, pretending he's all about reasonable reason and logic. Phil could be dishonest, but it was so above board it was hard to tell if he even knew what he was doing. B.R. knows exactly what he's doing and why and he hasn't written one honest thing since he came here--that is, this thread isn't about anything he's talking about of which he's said nothing.

--Brant

I thought I'd chime in here to say that I think Phil could write Bertrand's posts without breaking a sweat. I had myself suspected that Bertrand might be Phil. Then George gave voice to the same suspicion. In addition to the points George made, I'd note further Bertrand's devotion to tiresome bilge about "civility" and "namecalling" and "attacks" and supposedly "childish" conduct (to say nothing of his tacit asumption that we're all here for the identical reason - the only valid reason to be here, namely that we yearn to have a polite, structured discussion of important issues and "persuade" each other of our points of view on those issues. All this is very reminiscent of Phil.

JR

That's very interesting, Jeff. I'm going back and read every word again and see if I can grok what you say.

--Brant

Reminiscent of Phil, maybe - but I'd put my head on a block, not Phil. This is all too calculating and dishonest for Phil, who I'd hazard takes himself and his Objectivism too seriously to stoop so low.

[Edit: He has always struck me as essentially an innocently sincere guy under the school marm - or because of it. ]

Tony

Edited June 18, 2011 by whYNOT

[Brant Gaede]

It's Phil. Simply read his posts 490 and 522 and make a few minor changes, mostly in lay out. He also doesn't use the quote function. What convinces me also is his selective responses--that is Phil likes to ignore certain posts and posters and simply doesn't respond, like my asking him if he thought Wendy was a plagiarist or not. What is also characteristic of Phil is not contributing substantially to most discussions, just jumping in out of the blue focusing on form and civility.

--Brant

Michael could check the IP addresses

Edited June 18, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Brant Gaede]

I'm afraid not, Tony. It's not so very low, it's just cheap.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

It's Phil. Simply read his posts 490 and 522 and make a few minor changes, mostly in lay out. He also doesn't use the quote function. What convinces me also is his selective responses--that is Phil likes to ignore certain posts and posters and simply doesn't respond, like my asking him if he thought Wendy was a plagiarist or not. What is also characteristic of Phil is not contributing substantially to most discussions, just jumping in out of the blue focusing on form and civility.

--Brant

Michael could check the IP addresses

Now you guys have me really confused!

I went from maybe Phil to probably not Phil to almost certainty not Phil, then back to maybe Phil again, and from there to probably Phil.

Jeez. I feel like I'm living with Wendy again....

Ghs

[caroljane]

Phil's style is more truncated than B.R.'s. He'd have to sweat bullets to write Bertrand's posts, assuming he even could, and Bertrand is quite relaxed, even phlegmatic, and his writing has a sophisticated flow. Phil is quite passionate while B.R. tries to be as passionless as possible, pretending he's all about reasonable reason and logic. Phil could be dishonest, but it was so above board it was hard to tell if he even knew what he was doing. B.R. knows exactly what he's doing and why and he hasn't written one honest thing since he came here--that is, this thread isn't about anything he's talking about of which he's said nothing.

--Brant

I thought I'd chime in here to say that I think Phil could write Bertrand's posts without breaking a sweat. I had myself suspected that Bertrand might be Phil. Then George gave voice to the same suspicion. In addition to the points George made, I'd note further Bertrand's devotion to tiresome bilge about "civility" and "namecalling" and "attacks" and supposedly "childish" conduct (to say nothing of his tacit asumption that we're all here for the identical reason - the only valid reason to be here, namely that we yearn to have a polite, structured discussion of important issues and "persuade" each other of our points of view on those issues. All this is very reminiscent of Phil.

JR

That's very interesting, Jeff. I'm going back and read every word again and see if I can grok what you say.

--Brant

Reminiscent of Phil, maybe - but I'd put my head on a block, not Phil. This is all too calculating and dishonest for Phil, who I'd hazard takes himself and his Objectivism too seriously to stoop so low.

[Edit: He has always struck me as essentially an innocently sincere guy under the school marm - or because of it. ]

Tony

I agree. Regardless of the subject I do not recognize Phil's style in BR's. And was he ever known to post anonymously before when he had flounced off? Brant and JR peg him as a pedantic faulty reasoner but I have noticed that there is more than one of those on the Internet.

Innocent until proven guilty I say.

[Brant Gaede]

Innocent until proven guilty I say.

Phil is, not Bertrand. Why? Bertrand hasn't told us who he is. He's just a name, likely made up.

--Brant