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

[George H. Smith]

Hey, I noticed a recent absence of these weenie bitches.

Do y'all think they will invoke, further?

I'm figurin' they got at least one or two more in 'em.

rde

workin' on his ciphers, and figurin'.

For the record, Jim was not involved with the Wendy Clan. He doesn't know either Wendy or Brad; I am as certain of this as I can possibly be.

I originally suspected that Jim was acting in collusion with Brendy because of the timing of his allegation, which came close on the heels of a similar allegation by "Mitchell" (i.e., Richard Martin). But when this topic came up on LL2, Jim lost his temper and repeated the allegation for polemical reasons.

I might normally have ignored a comment like this, but, as I have explained before, I was afraid that Jim's hot-headed remark would be quoted, out of context, at some point by Brendy and offered to corroborate Wendy's original charge against me. (Jim's profession would have added to his credibility, in the eyes of some people.) This is why I insisted on a simple, unambiguous retraction. I wanted something I could refer to in the future should Brendy continue with their lowlife tactics.

Ghs

Ghs

[Xray]

I originally suspected that Jim was acting in collusion with Brendy because of the timing of his allegation, which came close on the heels of a similar allegation by "Mitchell" (i.e., Richard Martin). But when this topic came up on LL2, Jim lost his temper and repeated the allegation for polemical reasons.

What do you think drove Jim to attack you like that initially? What could have been his motive?

Edited July 1, 2011 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

I originally suspected that Jim was acting in collusion with Brendy because of the timing of his allegation, which came close on the heels of a similar allegation by "Mitchell" (i.e., Richard Martin). But when this topic came up on LL2, Jim lost his temper and repeated the allegation for polemical reasons.

What do you think drove Jim to attack you like that initially? What could have been his motive?

Jim's accusations grew out of a mini-flamewar that we had on LL2, one that lasted the better part of a day. It began when Brad showed up on LL2 and posted my original 1998 email to Wendy -- the same one Brad had posted on OL earlier -- in which I say that I might take legal action against Wendy.

I responded by reposting my OL reply, in which I said I was extremely angry at the time and had followed up within a few days with a public pledge never to initiate legal action against Wendy. I also posted my pledge on LL2, which I had already posted on OL.

Jim, who knew zilch about this controversy, somehow got it into his head that I had previously lied on LL2 by supposedly claiming that I had never threatened legal action against Wendy. I never said this, of course, so I challenged Jim to quote the LL2 post where this passage supposedly occurs. Jim then beat all around the bush, telling me to reread the earlier posts, referring me to cascading posts that contained nothing about this matter, etc.

I kept pushing Jim to produce any evidence that I had lied, until he finally hit the breaking point and burst out with his accusation that I was a liar, a failure, and "a beater of women." The "beater of women" remark came of the blue, and this is what convinced me at the time that Jim had been communicating with Brad. This turned out to be a mistaken conclusion, as I have said before. My change of mind was heavily influenced by an offlist email that JR sent to me.

Jim later backtracked with qualifications, stating that he wouldn't be surprised to learn that I had physically abused Wendy, given what a liar and reprobate I obviously was, and that he believed I was a beater of women, even though he couldn't prove anythng. I had discussed Wendy's allegation a little earlier on LL2, and Jim -- who is known for flying off the handle with reckless accusations, though I didn't know this at the time -- simply picked up any garbage he could find and threw it at me.

You would think an attorney would show more good sense than this, but there you have it.

Ghs

[slpresley]

I originally suspected that Jim was acting in collusion with Brendy because of the timing of his allegation, which came close on the heels of a similar allegation by "Mitchell" (i.e., Richard Martin). But when this topic came up on LL2, Jim lost his temper and repeated the allegation for polemical reasons.

What do you think drove Jim to attack you like that initially? What could have been his motive?

Jim's accusations grew out of a mini-flamewar that we had on LL2, one that lasted the better part of a day. It began when Brad showed up on LL2 and posted my original 1998 email to Wendy -- the same one Brad had posted on OL earlier -- in which I say that I might take legal action against Wendy.

I responded by reposting my OL reply, in which I said I was extremely angry at the time and had followed up within a few days with a public pledge never to initiate legal action against Wendy. I also posted my pledge on LL2, which I had already posted on OL.

Jim, who knew zilch about this controversy, somehow got it into his head that I had previously lied on LL2 by supposedly claiming that I had never threatened legal action against Wendy. I never said this, of course, so I challenged Jim to quote the LL2 post where this passage supposedly occurs. Jim then beat all around the bush, telling me to reread the earlier posts, referring me to cascading posts that contained nothing about this matter, etc.

I kept pushing Jim to produce any evidence that I had lied, until he finally hit the breaking point and burst out with his accusation that I was a liar, a failure, and "a beater of women." The "beater of women" remark came of the blue, and this is what convinced me at the time that Jim had been communicating with Brad. This turned out to be a mistaken conclusion, as I have said before. My change of mind was heavily influenced by an offlist email that JR sent to me.

Jim later backtracked with qualifications, stating that he wouldn't be surprised to learn that I had physically abused Wendy, given what a liar and reprobate I obviously was, and that he believed I was a beater of women, even though he couldn't prove anythng. I had discussed Wendy's allegation a little earlier on LL2, and Jim -- who is known for flying off the handle with reckless accusations, though I didn't know this at the time -- simply picked up any garbage he could find and threw it at me.

You would think an attorney would show more good sense than this, but there you have it.

Ghs

Wow, I'm away from my computer for a while (on a business trip) and all hell breaks loose. Amazing what kind of pond scum can surface. This so-called lawyer slinging around the nasties WITH NO PROOF. Jeez, I'd hate to be his client. The other one sounds like a loser too. If they weren't shilling for Wendy, then they are even more pathetic. I can only speculate but it doesn't take a psychologist (which, as it happens, I am) to realize that these two guys must have some real psychological problems. Why are they viciously attacking someone in ranting terms with no recourse to actual evidence???? People who have evidence don't need to rant and call names. They can just quietly state their case. But these two sound like nut jobs (to use a nonclinical term ) The lawyer sounds like a pathetic wannabe who is envious of George's talent and esteem in the libertarian movement. Sorry, buddy, YOU are a loser. George is hot stuff, not you. As for the other guy, he sounds like a psycho to me. Like we should put any credibility in either of these two wackos? I don't think so. But I preach to the choir here.

I can only reiterate what I have said several times before. If I thought for a nanosecond that George would beat up a women, I would fling him to the wolves. Though, at this point, I'm thinking I'd like to punch someone out...But no, I won't--well, not physically anyway. On a more serious note, Wendy's accusation is surely a sign of her malice and desperation and anger (partly for other reasons not stated here). It is a despicable act that any libertarian should be ashamed of. Too bad she doesn't have the grace to be ashamed. As for Brad--what a dupe. He'll believe anything she tells him. Pathetic. And what a waste. As I have said before,. Wendy has made some important contributions to the libertarian cause. What a shame she had to stain it with her uncontrolled malice and ego. How will you be remembered in the future, Wendy ? Not quite the way you wanted to be remembered, huh? And you brought it all on yourself.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Sharon Presley

[Bosco]

I agree with Sharon 100%. Jim may think that his settlement with George will still leave unintended traces of his identity online (and he may be right), but unsupported allegations of physical abuse are not easy to shake off either. Paraphrasing Ayn Rand from a Ford Hall Forum Q&A, the person who repeats an accusation is the person who accuses you.

[caroljane]

This really is the thread that has everything - an Iliad of the Internet, where every wandering bard, heckler, ranter and raider has his words marked. The Siege of Smith has already lasted longer than the Trojan War, with no relief ships in sight - keep it coming!

[Rich Engle]

Sorry I didn't edit that post myself, boys. I was out of town for two days and I just walked into it.

rde

[Rich Engle]

This really is the thread that has everything - an Iliad of the Internet, where every wandering bard, heckler, ranter and raider has his words marked. The Siege of Smith has already lasted longer than the Trojan War, with no relief ships in sight - keep it coming!

Yes, yes. It has breadth and depth. It is robust! Replete it is, with the Winds of Shit circling around in the background, occasionally pushing a hot, sick breeze at us.

Truly, a work of Art<tm>.

In tribute to It (and screwball attorneys everywhere), I have changed my avatar to "Inherit the Wind." Get your suspenders, start snappin' 'em!

The Smith Monkey Trial.

rde

Heh.

Edited July 2, 2011 by Rich Engle

[Brant Gaede]

This really is the thread that has everything - an Iliad of the Internet, where every wandering bard, heckler, ranter and raider has his words marked. The Siege of Smith has already lasted longer than the Trojan War, with no relief ships in sight - keep it coming!

Yes, yes. It has breadth and depth. It is robust! Replete it is, with the Winds of Shit circling around in the background, occasionally pushing a hot, sick breeze at us.

Truly, a work of Art<tm>.

In tribute to It (and screwball attorneys everywhere), I have changed my avatar to "Inherit the Wind." Get your suspenders, start snappin' 'em!

The Smith Monkey Trial.

rde

Heh.

"Be you one of them thar scientists? If so, you bes' git!"

--Brant

[Selene]

Hell, we alls no that evilution is impossible!

[slpresley]

Libel and lawsuits and Roman massages

Briefcase and blowjobs and self-righteous causes

Perverts in movies and contracts misread

These are some things that I found on this thread

Shotguns and scandals and Canucks and Bertie

Red headed dancers and tales oh so dirty

Books never written and Vaseline porn

These make me wish I had never been born

Hundreds of postings and no resolution

Motives and theories but no restitution

Endless disputes and betrayals of friends

Oh God please help us will this never end?

When the dog bites

When the bee stings

When you're feeling sad

Just say to yourself "I am not on that thread"

And then you won't feel so bad

(Repeat)

Ghs

I missed all this while I was gone. This is hilarious, George. Weird All, move over...

[slpresley]

Hell, we alls no that evilution is impossible!

New slogan for the rabid fundamentalists: Extremism in the pursuit of idiocy is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of stupidity is no virtue.

[Rich Engle]

Hell, we alls no that evilution is impossible!

New slogan for the rabid fundamentalists: Extremism in the pursuit of idiocy is no vice; moderation in the pursuit of stupidity is no virtue.

Ah haint know golldurn minkey.

rde

Coming soon, new fast food franchises for Emerging Urban Professionals!

GORILLA TWIST<TM>

&

MONKEY FREEZE<TM>

Yes, you can! You certainly can have a Steel Reserve and Pork Rind smoothie. We'll supersize it for you.

[slpresley]

I originally suspected that Jim was acting in collusion with Brendy because of the timing of his allegation, which came close on the heels of a similar allegation by "Mitchell" (i.e., Richard Martin). But when this topic came up on LL2, Jim lost his temper and repeated the allegation for polemical reasons.

What do you think drove Jim to attack you like that initially? What could have been his motive?

Here's my speculation (though George can guess better than I can): guilt and psychopathology. People who spew viciousness seemingly out of nowhere have issues, as they say. People with "issues" take them out on other people because they are unwilling to confront their own problems. So I see projection at the very least. If he feels guilty about stealing from George but is seriously messed up psychologically, he might very well turn on George like a rabid dog and accuse him of being the true bad person when in fact... I can also imagine several other Freudian scenarios if I am the least bit encouraged...

ADDED: Ah gee, got my names mixed up...duh...this speculation is about Richard, not Jim. For my mildly Freudian analysis of JIM, see later post in reply to Nine Doctors [who must be a Dr. Who fan???]

Edited July 2, 2011 by Sharon Presley

[Rich Engle]

I originally suspected that Jim was acting in collusion with Brendy because of the timing of his allegation, which came close on the heels of a similar allegation by "Mitchell" (i.e., Richard Martin). But when this topic came up on LL2, Jim lost his temper and repeated the allegation for polemical reasons.

What do you think drove Jim to attack you like that initially? What could have been his motive?

Here's my speculation (though George can guess better than I can): guilt and psychopathology. People who spew viciousness seemingly out of nowhere have issues, as they say. People with "issues" take them out on other people because they are unwilling to confront their own problems. So I see projection at the very least. If he feels guilty about stealing from George but is seriously messed up psychologically, he might very well turn on George like a rabid dog and accuse him of being the true bad person when in fact... I can also imagine several other Freudian scenarios if I am the least bit encouraged...

All roads lead to self-esteem.

rde

Punishing Bad Monkeys since sometime back in the late eighties.

[caroljane]

Dear Sharon Presley,

Thank you for your inadvertent (though you know your Freud, there are no slips!) priceless contribution to this thread and site.

OL and its members have been called many things by its non-admirers (those silly self-deprivers): "mad band of odd bods", "women-haters", etc. but as a compatriot of Weird Al Yankovic on this happy mutual national weekend, I salute you for giving OL its best designation ever.

We are now officially the Weird All.

Edited July 2, 2011 by daunce lynam

[9thdoctor]

If he feels guilty about stealing from George but is seriously messed up psychologically, he might very well turn on George like a rabid dog and accuse him of being the true bad person when in fact...

I thought JimO was a genuinely disinterested party. He profited from this imbroglio? Until now my theory has been this:

Except JimO messed up the anonymity part.

[slpresley]

Dear Sharon Presley,

Thank you for your inadvertent (though you know your Freud, there are no slips!) priceless contribution to this thread and site.

OL and its members have been called many things by its non-admirers (those silly self-deprivers): "mad band of odd bods", "women-haters", etc. but as a compatriot of Weird Al Yankovic on this happy mutual national weekend, I salute you for giving OL its best designation ever.

We are now officially the Weird All.

And here I thought it was just because I am a terrible typist...

[caroljane]

Sharon, dear sister!

There are no terrible typists, only terrifying truth-tellers.

Welcome to the fold.

[slpresley]

If he feels guilty about stealing from George but is seriously messed up psychologically, he might very well turn on George like a rabid dog and accuse him of being the true bad person when in fact...

I thought JimO was a genuinely disinterested party. He profited from this imbroglio? Until now my theory has been this:

Except JimO messed up the anonymity part.

A good theory but unlikely. People are not hateful like that for no reason at all. However I should note that all these posts are confusing to a novice like me and I got the names mixed up. Richard is the one I was referring to with the comment about stealing. Jim [the lawyer? Have I got it right this time????] --I think he is just envious of George. Some losers really hate those who are well-thought-of. For that matter, he may envy George's sexual past---let me not get too Freudian here--though there are times when Freud gets it right. Whatever may be the reason, he was NOT disinterested, not with that rant.

Alas, I can't conjure up such a delightful drawing and can only do it in pitiful words but I see it as more like this:

Messed up, weak ego plus a dash of sexual frustration plus envied target = venomous spewing with a dash of reaction formation. Oh dear, here I go with that Freudian stuff again...

[Brant Gaede]

If he feels guilty about stealing from George but is seriously messed up psychologically, he might very well turn on George like a rabid dog and accuse him of being the true bad person when in fact...

I thought JimO was a genuinely disinterested party. He profited from this imbroglio? Until now my theory has been this:

Except JimO messed up the anonymity part.

A good theory but unlikely. People are not hateful like that for no reason at all. However I should note that all these posts are confusing to a novice like me and I got the names mixed up. Richard is the one I was referring to with the comment about stealing. Jim [the lawyer? Have I got it right this time????] --I think he is just envious of George. Some losers really hate those who are well-thought-of. For that matter, he may envy George's sexual past---let me not get too Freudian here--though there are times when Freud gets it right. Whatever may be the reason, he was NOT disinterested, not with that rant.

Alas, I can't conjure up such a delightful drawing and can only do it in pitiful words but I see it as more like this:

Messed up, weak ego plus a dash of sexual frustration plus envied target = venomous spewing with a dash of reaction formation. Oh dear, here I go with that Freudian stuff again...

It seems Jim didn't know who George was until the fire died down and realized he had one of his atheism books. I didn't get any envy hint. I did get a sense of someone with bottled up anger issues who feels free to let it go in seemingly safe contexts, only Internet-land is less safe than it might seem.

--Brant

Edited July 2, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[slpresley]

Well, if that's true, Brant, so much for my theory. Never trust the experts. Maybe he has a thing for Wendy? Or maybe he's just a hateful person who needs to spew against someone. One thing is for sure though. Anyone who spews like that against someone he doesn't even know reveals more about himself (or herself in the case of the W) than it does about the person to whom the hate is directed.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sharon,

I think it's a bit of both--unresolved identity issues and frustrations + anonymity and audience.

Forum behavior often reminds me of road rage.

The common points seem to be to (1) acute feeling of competition with whoever is near, (2) if the near person is not obedient or easily trounced, unconditionally blaming that person for just about everything, and (3) lashing out in hatred at the engaged near person.

Audience is one difference between forum behavior and road rage. With road rage, it is not really an important factor. But on forums, the audience both sweetens the deal (as this poor soul bears his chest, thumps on it and lets out a Tarzan yell) and intimidates him with unbearable shame. He already can't stand to be wrong. But it can get worse. He perceives being wrong in front of others as the ultimate in being a loser. It is a raging blaze hell on earth. So he has to lash out.

Now imagine if you feel lousy that way, but you can do dirty rotten stuff to others and remain totally anonymous. Voila. Instant riskless machismo that isn't confined to the inside of this poor sucker's head. You have to really know who you are to resist that sweet poison. But if you are weak in the character department, like our poor loser, it is pure balsaminaceous nirvana. A short-lived one, granted, but nirvana nevertheless.

I'm not in anybody's head, of course, but I have detected lots of signs that point to this conclusion from oodles of experience posting on forums and running this one.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That "Weird All" thing has a ring to it...

Something I can't put my finger on...

Hmmmmm....

But I like it...

Michael

[George H. Smith]

It seems Jim didn't know who George was until the fire died down and realized he had one of his atheism books....

Correct. Jim said later that he didn't realize I wrote ATCAG until after he made his "beater of women" remark. And, as I have noted before, I am absolutely certain that he doesn't know Wendy or Brad.

On A2, before he signed the retraction, Jim asked if I would sign his copy of ATCAG if he traveled to meet me. This was a conciliatory gesture, obviously, but I guess I was not in a conciliatory mood. I replied that I would sign his copy of ATCAG only if Jim cut his own throat so I could use his blood as ink.

Jim misread my remark, as is his wont, and then complained that I had threatened to slit his throat.

For this and other reasons, I think Jim shoots off replies very quickly, frequently without giving his posts much thought, and without reading the post to which he is responding very carefully.

Ghs