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

[Selene]

George:

First of all, it does not have to make linear, male logical sense.

Second, the new "normal" appears to be that as long as you are from the politically correct point of view, you are automatically protected.

Finally, she knows you just as well as you know her. Moreover, she knows that you will not pursue her legally and her "social network" will be as blind as is necessary.

What bloody knife sticking in his back?

What gulags in Russia? Dewey got the guided tour.

Adam

just some quick random thoughts on your paradox

[George H. Smith]

Meanwhile, feel free to post your own theories.

FWIW, my theory is that she expected you to be dead in a ditch, from an overdose or whatever, by the time the book was out. Just a guess, really.

To her credit, Wendy stopped her serious use of drugs when we separated in 1985, years before I did.

Some months after Wendy had moved to Canada, she called me on the phone, drunk as a skunk on wine. She explained that Brad didn't approve of her drinking, but he was gone for a while so she was able to indulge.

I asked Wendy why she would tolerate that kind of control from Brad. Wendy was not an alcoholic, so what business was it of Brad's if she liked to indulge, even to excess, on occasion? It frankly bothered me that Wendy would capitulate like this to that puritanical dimwit, but she didn't say anything more about it.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George:

First of all, it does not have to make linear, male logical sense.

I can assure you that the explanation does not make linear sense, male or female. Nor does it make non-linear sense. But it makes "Wendy sense," i.e., sui generis sense.

Ghs

[caroljane]

George:

Finally, she knows you just as well as you know her. Moreover, she knows that you will not pursue her legally...

Adam

just some quick random thoughts on your paradox

Why not?

[George H. Smith]

George:

Finally, she knows you just as well as you know her. Moreover, she knows that you will not pursue her legally...

Adam

just some quick random thoughts on your paradox

Why not?

I have explained this several times before, but I will explain it again:

First, I am philosophically opposed to copyright laws, or at least I can find no way to defend them.

Second, my FOR transcripts were preliminary material for a book, and as such they were never copyrighted in the first place. My mistake was trusting Wendy with the material.

Third, early on in the 1998 controversy, I made a public pledge not to take legal action against Wendy, as a matter of principle. I resolved to pursue this matter in the court of public opinion.

Ghs

ADDENDUM:

For the sake of historical accuracy, I should mention that in my first private email to Wendy in 1998, I did refer in passing to a "possible lawsuit." I was actually thinking of a possible lawsuit filed by Prometheus against Wendy, but I concede that my language was ambiguous.

Wendy used my ambiguous reference as a reason to stand mute, on the advice of Kinsella, her attorney. I immediately replied with an explanation of my reference, and with a public pledge never to take legal action against Wendy for plagiarism. Wendy continued her silence, however, and continues it to this day, even though I have repeated my pledge several times.

As I have suggested before, it is possible that Wendy fears that any admission by her might prompt a lawsuit from Prometheus.

Ghs

[Selene]

George:

Finally, she knows you just as well as you know her. Moreover, she knows that you will not pursue her legally...

Adam

just some quick random thoughts on your paradox

Why not?

Asking Tony will not help...sorry, sometimes I just cannot help myself .

First of all, George has announced that he does not believe in using the state to make himself whole in a legal sense.

Second, it is an expensive and time consuming process which would involve several layers of law, jurisdiction, etc.

Finally, I am not sure if George even copyrighted his FOR material.

Adam

again just quick thoughts on the issue

[Brant Gaede]

Tumbleweed Compadre Ranch

That brings back a lot of memories, Adam.

--Brant

Brant:

How so?

And I hope they were good ones...

Adam

"Tumbleweed Compadre Ranch" sounds like the name of a gay cowboy bar.

Yep. And I thought it was particularly funny since the horses looked like they were ready to consummate their "relationship" lol.

I was making a little joke at my expense. Remember, the ranch is for "developmentally disabled adults."

--Brant

[Selene]

Brant:

Damn...lol.

I should have known!

Definitely missed that one.

Adam

reminding myself of the multiple sides and prisms of Brant

[Rich Engle]

Where's Bertrand?

That is some of the goopiest stuff I've seen in a very long time. Yet, at the same time very limited scope-wise in terms of philosophical buzz words--a tendency to repeat what appears to be a very limited lexicon. Small tool bag.

For the record, I'd be surprised if that were Phil. Disappointed, really. Oh, it has some of that pedantic snarkiness, no doubt about it, but still . . .

I don't see the motivation. And, he would have had to actually do quite a bit of trial work to reanimate as this creature.

Maybe I have missed something. I've seen Phil do a lot of bizarre shit, sniffy shit, all manner of Phil-crobatics, but not something like this. If he really has this in him, I've definitely not seen it out of him before. It almost looks like more than one person is writing this--really does! It's got that kitchen sink dealio going on.

rde

Show Yourself, O Great One.

[william.scherk]

I have it from Phil that Bertrand the terrier is another entity entirely. Phil would like it known that "It Ain't Me, Babe...No, NO, No,....It Ain't Me, Babe..."

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm sorry I have been so absent. I am working on a project that is taking almost all of my time.

I was asked offline to look at this thread. When I clicked on the last post I had not examined, I was on Page 9--Brad's long post.

Dayaamm!

I won't even discuss the merits right now. But since there has been some question about anonymity, I started looking at IP logs. Here is what I found.

The IP of the poster who calls himself "Normal" resolves to Chicago, IL. I don't know if this is Richard Martin, but regarding whoever it is, it is a good bet that the person lives in Chicago. The reason is that the person signed up and posted under IP numbers that, although different, all resolve to Chicago and the same ISP Provider: SingleHop. (As an aside, I looked at the SingleHop page and it is not a cheap provider--it is business oriented. Actually, I liked what I saw for my own purposes...)

Bertrand is a far, far more interesting case. To start with, he/she/it registered under a Hushmail email account. For those who don't know what this is, you can sign up for a free account and they encrypt your data. It's good (but not foolproof) if you want to hide. Say if you were a respectable person and wanted to sign up to porn sites. Or whatever...

I've even had one of these myself.

(Not for porn, though. My covert interests are different right now... )

Bertrand has to be careful. If he/she/it is using the free version and doesn't sign into his/her/its Hushmail account within a certain time limit (I forget how long, but I vaguely remember something like 2 weeks), they delete the account.

Now for the IP number. Bertrand's signup IP number (using Hushmail) resolves to Tahlequah, Oklahoma.

But the posts are all over the place. As of this writing, he/she/it has made 10 posts, almost all using different IP numbers. Here is the smorgasbord of the different locations.

Russian Federation (IP Longitude: 60, IP Latitude: 100)

Calgary, Canada

Gutersloh, Germany

Switzerland (IP Longitude: 47, IP Latitude: 8)

Dresden, Germany

Luxembourg

San Francisco, California

Hamburg, Germany

Now, given the proximity in time of the posts, either Bertrand is a world-class traveler with a Star Trek transporter machine, or he/she/it is using proxies.

Fake name. Fake accounts. Fake IP numbers.

Here on OL, almost all of the regulars use their real names--or, at the least, their real names are listed in their profiles.

Not so for Bertrand. So I'll let the reader decide about the credibility and intentions of Bertrand.

For myself, I already know what I think. I am not favorably inclined towards anonymous people with vanishing email accounts who cover their tracks when they enter discussions of this nature. If for nothing else, it reminds me too much of the way the George Soros flunkies act on political forums.

Michael

EDIT: btw - That doesn't sound anything like the Phil we all know and love. Anyway, one of Phil's footprints is that his formatting is all over the map, like a big muddy shaggy mutt bounding into a clean house out of the rain. Bertrand's formatting is neat.

[George H. Smith]

I have it from Phil that Bertrand the terrier is another entity entirely. Phil would like it known that "It Ain't Me, Babe...No, NO, No,....It Ain't Me, Babe..."

To paraphrase Herbert Spencer: Another great theory destroyed by a nasty little fact.

[caroljane]

I have it from Phil that Bertrand the terrier is another entity entirely. Phil would like it known that "It Ain't Me, Babe...No, NO, No,....It Ain't Me, Babe..."

To paraphrase Herbert Spencer: Another great theory destroyed by a nasty little fact.

ghs already apologized in advance to Phil if the not-so-great theory was wrong. It would be gracious of JR and Doubting Thomas Brant to do likewise.

Smugly,

Carol

[Bertrand]

Another installment making the case for skepticism instead of faith based belief:

“. I'm not out to get Wendy on this stuff. “

“I'm not trying to cajole Wendy into anything. I wouldn't accept her apology now, even if she offered it. Nor will I accept any other kind of offer. Wendy McElroy is toast. “

Hm again with the problem of disregarding the law of non-contradiction. You repeatedly claim that you are seeking to harm Wendy, to cause her embarassment and troubles, if she does not pay you for her writing. You make explicit the threat to “reveal” all of this stuff which you claim will harm her, and do post all of this irrelevant, sexist, and bizarre “crude and boorish” (This is George's phrase, I claim no authorship of it) which is in no way supportive of your claims or your arguments. The fact is that you cannot have it both ways. X does not equal -X.

You also claimed several times after this that you would accept an apology (in fact you demanded it again and again) and even made other offers, so clearly the only consistency is in the use of contradictions.

Contract appears in post #86

from #88:

“Thanks for posting this. It shows that I wrote at least least half of TRW. MOre later. “ Ghs

Perhaps this is part of the problem: a failure to understand the concept of proof. This proves that there was a book co-authored. The contract does not prove that you had written it, or anything about it at all. Again countless alternatives exist, given the absence of reason in this thread for the claim of theft, it could be that Wendy was simply being overly generous to someone she cared about at the time, or was herself merely foolish. Of course there are near infinite other explanations as well which any reasonable person can consider.

Furthermore it does not name the book. Add to this the fact that you have repeatedly said that you have still not written your book, and also have repeatedly claimed that Wendy had not written TRW at the time, and you have a hard time (well impossible logically speaking) making the case that this was in reference to TRW. What book was already written by the two of you given that you have denied your book is written and admitted that Mcelroy's was not yet written?

From post #62:

“Get thee to a lawfirm. “ - Ted

“It it interesting to learn that you have no respect for moral principles whatsoever. I will keep my distance. “ George

From post #100

“Btw, if Wendy actually files a lawsuit aginst me, then all bets are off. I will file a plagiarism lawsuit aganst her for big bucks, and I will win. “

So though you claim that filing a law suit would be having no principles, and you deny that you would ever file one, you then in post 100 clearly state that you would file one. Hm, so if Ted has no respect for moral principles because there are instances where he would file, what does that say about you George since you have now cited at least one of the cases that you would file? You cannot claim self defense, because when you embrace government you are harming innocents, even if you are so lucky to as be able to harm the one you seek to harm, moreover if you can really prove your case as you repeatedly claim, then there would be no threat at all, so no self-defense. Such a suit would be simply another way to seek harm, which we see from the quote above you claimed you are not doing.

Brant had quite a clear example of George's failure to abide by the law of non-contradiction as well from post #80:

“George is out to get Wendy. George is not out to get Wendy. George has left me dizzy and confused.

This is enough for me.

--Brant “

I cite these because they show the clear disrespect for the truth and for logic itself, as well as the inconsistency of the entire story, which continues to change. There is obviously damn good reason to be skeptical, and no reason to abandon reason as has been demanded.

I noticed, but I will save addressing the most recent posts for when I get to them. Well, if any appear that are not merely ad hominems, red herrings, and other less than intellectually honest tactics of course.

[George H. Smith]

Hm again with the problem of disregarding the law of non-contradiction.

What a dope.

What is your real name? Either tell us who you are or get the hell off this thread, coward.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I cite these because they show the clear disrespect for the truth and for logic itself, as well as the inconsistency of the entire story, which continues to change.

The IP of this post by Bertrand, 202.37.129.159, resolves to Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand.

Just making sure we are keeping the "continues to change" part up-to-date.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

ghs already apologized in advance to Phil if the not-so-great theory was wrong. It would be gracious of JR and Doubting Thomas Brant to do likewise.

Smugly,

Carol

It's "Ghs," carol.

The Phil thing was speculation. I don't think any apologies are necessary, especially since Phil never apologized to anyone for anything.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I cite these because they show the clear disrespect for the truth and for logic itself, as well as the inconsistency of the entire story, which continues to change.

The IP of this post by Bertrand, 202.37.129.159, resolves to Hamilton, Waikato, New Zealand.

Just making sure we are keeping the "continues to change" part up-to-date.

Michael

Why are there so many different IP numbers? I don't understand how this sort of thing works. Does it take some sophistication with computers, or is it just an aspect of the server that "Bertrand" is using?

[caroljane]

ghs already apologized in advance to Phil if the not-so-great theory was wrong. It would be gracious of JR and Doubting Thomas Brant to do likewise.

Smugly,

Carol

It's "Ghs," carol.

The Phil thing was speculation. I don't think any apologies are necessary, especially since Phil never apologized to anyone for anything.

Ghs

I didn't say it was necessary. I said it would be gracious. Uncharacteristic, but gracious.

cjs

[George H. Smith]

Michael,

I created this Master Post, and I have updated it twice.

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

Is it possible to move or copy this Master Post to the beginning of this thread? My reasons should be obvious.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Sorry Phil!--for thinking and saying you were sneaking around.

I think on some level we miss ya!

--Brant

[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.

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

or Cackles of Canucks.

But beware when an Anger of Anarchists approacheth!

[George H. Smith]

ghs already apologized in advance to Phil if the not-so-great theory was wrong. It would be gracious of JR and Doubting Thomas Brant to do likewise.

Smugly,

Carol

It's "Ghs," carol.

The Phil thing was speculation. I don't think any apologies are necessary, especially since Phil never apologized to anyone for anything.

Ghs

I didn't say it was necessary. I said it would be gracious. Uncharacteristic, but gracious.

cjs

If Phil needed to be contacted offlist, this means that he is not even following this thread.

If you shout an apology in the woods where no one can hear it, is it really an apology?. We have a serious philosophical problem here.

gHs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Why are there so many different IP numbers? I don't understand how this sort of thing works. Does it take some sophistication with computers, or is it just an aspect of the server that "Bertrand" is using?

George,

You gotta do this stuff on purpose. Hackers do it. Black Hat Internet marketers do it. Spies do it. Trolls do it.

(Here's a light-weight freeby present for Bertrand that I doubt he/she/it needs: Elite Proxy Switcher. Or FoxyProxy, but everybody does that one. I personally don't mess with this stuff too much, although I do use Charon once in a blue moon for simple checking. The reason I don't like it is that when you use free public proxies, they track you. You think you are being clever, but if you start doing some shit for real, you can be got--like real bad got--easily. You need a thing called Socks 5 private proxies to do the real deal, and even then, I wouldn't want to tangle with the authorities using them.)

Once you learn how to do this stuff, it's not too hard, but there is a learning curve. And it's easy for someone who knows about these things to give a small easy-to-do routine to a total newbie.

btw - I wonder if Bertrand is actually Wendy...

(Man, am I feeling feisty after taking so much time off... )

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

ghs already apologized in advance to Phil if the not-so-great theory was wrong. It would be gracious of JR and Doubting Thomas Brant to do likewise.

Smugly,

Carol

It's "Ghs," carol.

The Phil thing was speculation. I don't think any apologies are necessary, especially since Phil never apologized to anyone for anything.

Ghs

I'm pretty good with apologies. I do them for my sake. I have to think I was wrong and I want to keep going along with other things. Usually the other party is a pretty tough exemplar of humanity any way.

--Brant