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

[George H. Smith]

Remember: Wendy here plagiarized from articles I had PUBLISHED 12 years earlier. Those article are the ones available online to which I provided the link earlier.

Again, PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN MY NAME, AND IN MY NAME ONLY. No disputes about unpublished drafts and who really wrote what. This is classic plagiarism, so simple that even Ted might be able to understand.

Calm, down, housewife. I have not contested your underlying charges, about which I have not sufficient evidence to hold an opinion....

You are not even reading any of these parallel passages, are you? Line after line of material that Wendy plagiarized from my published articles, and you don't have "sufficient evidence to hold an opinion." But you seem have sufficient evidence for making comments about which you know zilch.

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.

Ghs

Out of curiosity, George--she's toast because of Ted? Or the deadline has expired? Emotionally it reads because of Ted.

--Brant

I'm just fed up. If Wendy cannot handle her guilt and problems with hubby because of her past life and lies she told him, that's her problem, not mine. This means that I now consider myself free to write articles on our swinging days, etc. See the stuff above. I'm not out to get Wendy on this stuff. It was all great, and she was wonderful. I admired her guts and attitude. But I will not permit myself to be the fall guy for her, because she cannot deal with hubby.

Ghs

[Mike Renzulli]

George I apologize if my comments got under your skin. However, until now, I had no idea about what happened to your wife. Since you put it that way it makes sense. Please understand that I do not paruse or read these boards often so I am coming at this blind. I made comments only based on what you had initially said in your earlier posts and have had little interaction with you on these boards and in real life.

For me personally, when chatting on boards or discussion groups like this I deal with people on them with a VERY long fuse since it is difficult at times to understand what a person's intent or context is. When I do so I try to include as much information as possible so questions are not raised about the reason for posting comments or if I do answer questions I try to elaborate and answer with as much detail as possible so to clarify my intent.

As for encouragement on my part: you have it. Like I said in my last post if she wronged you (it is looking very much like you were) Wendy McElroy should make amends by apologizing, compensating you or (better yet) both. I am also glad that your situation is improving and the issues with your wife have been resolved.

I would not make any demands of you with regards to the choices you make. My reasons for raising the time lapse was due to the lack of information I had since, ultimately, I wanted to better understand your intent. You did/do not come across either in person or on these boards as someone who would bitch, whine and moan or play a victim but, until you elaborated with regards to your personal situation, you were coming across that way.

My comments on legal action against Wendy were an opinion and nothing more. To be more precise I would not want you (or anyone else) to get screwed no matter what your principles are. While I think your pledge and unwillingness to resort to legal redress is, in my opinion, not realistic I also understand you are your own person and your life does not revolve around nor depend on the decisions or opinions of others. Including me.

As for Mike's comments about why I waited for so long, or whatever, these comments annoy me the most. You are talking about a period in which my wife suffered two debilitating strokes, a period in which much of my time was devoted to caring for her, a time in which I was under tremendous pressure to publish in order to make a living, and so on. To have immersed myself in the highly toxic atmosphere of another public debate with Wendy was therefore psychologically impossible. It could have easily led to a nervous breakdown.

So my short answer is: I am reopening this issue now because NOW IS THE RIGHT FUCKING TIME. The problems with my wife have been resolved, my latest project is finished, my income is secure for the next six months, and I am feeling a renewed energy that I haven't felt in years.

Got it, now, Mike? Are there are other details of my life you would you like to know about? Any other advice you would like to give about legal action, even though I made a public pledge at the very beginning not to resort to legal action?

Edited January 16, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[George H. Smith]

Pardon me for asking, but why do you think revelations like this one will be devastating to Wendy's reputation but harmless to yours?

Because I don't have a life partner that I lied to over the years about some of this stuff. Wendy told me many times after we separated that she was terrified that Brad would leave her if he learned the truth. I'm not at sure he would have, but Wendy made the serious error of lying through her teeth, and Brad, a very straight arrow guy, might have left her for that reason.

Here is an example that leaves out a lot of details. Wendy and I never had an "open relationship." We always did things together. Even when having sex with other people, we stayed close to one another; one of us never went into a room with a partner alone.

One day I learned, quite by accident, that Wendy was having an affair with Brad. This kind of secret affair was a serious violation of trust. When I discussed the matter with Wendy, I learned that she had told Brad that I knew about their affair, which of course I didn't. The reason she had lied to Brad was apparently because he had insisted that he would not get involved unless Wendy discussed it with me first. That makes Brad a real stand-up guy, in my book.

But Wendy had lied to Brad for months. Wendy still wanted to stay with me, so I specified two conditions. One was that she had to tell Brad the truth, i.e., that I didn't know about their affair. Wendy said she would, later said she had, but these were more lies.

Well, after Wendy and I decided to separate, this condition was academic. When Wendy insisted, in our last meeting before she moved to Canada, that if Brad ever found out that she had lied to him so persistently, he would leave her in a heartbeat. I therefore told Wendy that I would do what I could to help her, if rumors ever got back to him. In other words I would lie to protect her relationship with Brad.

I would say this also makes me a stand-up guy.

This is the first time I have ever revealed this information. Will it cause Brad to leave Wendy after all these years? I doubt it, and I sure hope not. Wendy was in a tough spot, and I tried to help. I am revealing this information now, because I will no longer take her shit, e.g., her calling me a "sex pervert" and that I had spread vile lies about her. Bullshit. I had no reason to lie about Wendy's past I was proud of it. She is the one who couldn't handle it.

You have to understand that there are many other details. This is one of the most complex and convoluted love stories you are likely ever to hear. I can explain more details as we go along, but please remember I am NOT try to smear or make Wendy look bad. This was not something we did occasionally. It was the main focus our lives together, and was far more important to us than our intellectual activities.

You should go back and reread my earlier posts on this thread in the light of this sex stuff. Reread my letter to Kephart. Even to a personal friend I never spilled the beans about Wendy. But, with this new knowledge, you can easily spot the references.

The stuff I am posting from earlier year has to be read carefully for nuances. I was attempting to walk a tightrope. Some of that stuff took me a couple full days to write, as I weighed the implications of every word. .

Ghs

[Brad R]

For those who might be interested, Wendy's 1998 reply to Smith's allegations is still on-line at her web site:

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/libel.htm

[Brant Gaede]

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

any surviving gay from that era would find this kind of story all very mild, but a true-blue Objectivist would be Shocked! Shocked! that ____________ was going on

[kiaer.ts]

For those who might be interested, Wendy's 1998 reply to Smith's allegations is still on-line at her web site:

http://www.wendymcel...eason/libel.htm

From the above link, via http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/legal.htm, per N. Stephan Kinsella for DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER LLP :

"Also, his actions may have consequences beyond mere liability for defamation. For example, his initial email messages threatening to damage your reputation unless he received $10,000 from you may involve state and/or federal criminal and/or civil liability for blackmail and extortion, as this is an attempt to obtain property by means of a threat to inflict injury to another's reputation."

"In addition, under defamation law, not only is publication of certain false, reputation-harming statements to third parties considered to be defamatory, but each new act of re-publication is also a new act of defamation and thus gives rise to a new and separate cause of action."

Edited January 16, 2011 by Ted Keer

[william.scherk]

For those who might be interested, Wendy's 1998 reply to Smith's allegations is still on-line at her web site:

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/libel.htm

<br><br>

<b>A Refutation of False Claims levelled by George H. Smith against Wendy

McElroy</b><br><br>

<P><A HREF="http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/coauthor.htm">McElroy's defence</A> against the libelous claim

that she was a typist and not a co-author of the 1989 manuscript "Fundamentals

of Reasoning", and <A HREF="http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/contract.gif">the supporting contract</A>

publicly acknowledged by Smith as valid. The <A HREF="http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/altered.htm">"altered

document"</A>: Smith's admission, in an open letter to Prometheus,

was omitted from later postings.</P><br>

<P>McElroy's defence against charges of <A HREF="http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/similar.htm">similar language</A>.

</P><br>

<P><A HREF="http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/legal.htm">Attorney's statement on the libelous claims</A>

of plagiarism. </P>

Edited January 16, 2011 by william.scherk

[Mikee]

Pardon me for asking, but why do you think revelations like this one will be devastating to Wendy's reputation but harmless to yours?

Because I don't have a life partner that I lied to over the years about some of this stuff. Wendy told me many times after we separated that she was terrified that Brad would leave her if he learned the truth. I'm not at sure he would have, but Wendy made the serious error of lying through her teeth, and Brad, a very straight arrow guy, might have left her for that reason.

Here is an example that leaves out a lot of details. Wendy and I never had an "open relationship." We always did things together. Even when having sex with other people, we stayed close to one another; one of us never went into a room with a partner alone.

One day I learned, quite by accident, that Wendy was having an affair with Brad. This kind of secret affair was a serious violation of trust. When I discussed the matter with Wendy, I learned that she had told Brad that I knew about their affair, which of course I didn't. The reason she had lied to Brad was apparently because he had insisted that he would not get involved unless Wendy discussed it with me first. That makes Brad a real stand-up guy, in my book.

But Wendy had lied to Brad for months. Wendy still wanted to stay with me, so I specified two conditions. One was that she had to tell Brad the truth, i.e., that I didn't know about their affair. Wendy said she would, later said she had, but these were more lies.

Well, after Wendy and I decided to separate, this condition was academic. When Wendy insisted, in our last meeting before she moved to Canada, that if Brad ever found out that she had lied to him so persistently, he would leave her in a heartbeat. I therefore told Wendy that I would do what I could to help her, if rumors ever got back to him. In other words I would lie to protect her relationship with Brad.

I would say this also makes me a stand-up guy.

This is the first time I have ever revealed this information. Will it cause Brad to leave Wendy after all these years? I doubt it, and I sure hope not. Wendy was in a tough spot, and I tried to help. I am revealing this information now, because I will no longer take her shit, e.g., her calling me a "sex pervert" and that I had spread vile lies about her. Bullshit. I had no reason to lie about Wendy's past I was proud of it. She is the one who couldn't handle it.

You have to understand that there are many other details. This is one of the most complex and convoluted love stories you are likely ever to hear. I can explain more details as we go along, but please remember I am NOT try to smear or make Wendy look bad. This was not something we did occasionally. It was the main focus our lives together, and was far more important to us than our intellectual activities.

You should go back and reread my earlier posts on this thread in the light of this sex stuff. Reread my letter to Kephart. Even to a personal friend I never spilled the beans about Wendy. But, with this new knowledge, you can easily spot the references.

The stuff I am posting from earlier year has to be read carefully for nuances. I was attempting to walk a tightrope. Some of that stuff took me a couple full days to write, as I weighed the implications of every word. .

Ghs

I can't see the possibility of something good coming from this. I have read both of you over the years, I didn't know of your history together and it doesn't matter to me now. I hate seeing this happen, for either of you. I think you should have stuck with your "I'll keep my mouth shut" promise with regard to the lifestyle stuff. Bringing that in kills your chances for sympathy or a dime of compensation. My opinion, I'm not a lawyer. I have sat on a jury, a civil lawsuit, where stuff far worse than what you've described was dragged out for days on end. Graphic pictures and all. The person dragging it all out got zero sympathy. The deliberations lasted about 3 hours after a 2 month trial.

[william.scherk]

Ted, we appreciate your advocacy, and are thrilled that you are taking the time from your many household duties to prosecute George pro bono in the court of public opinion, but perhaps you might consider not issuing a judgement until you actually accede to the bench.

Edited January 16, 2011 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

From Wendy McElroy's internet page Co-author.

First, I would ask every reader of this email to proceed to <http://www.zetetics.com/mac/reason/contract.gif> to access the contract between Smith and McElroy covering the *co-authored* work that George H. Smith claims is his sole property. Note that, by its terms and by my efforts, I supplied to him a finished manuscript on reasoning for his review, which manuscript now is under question as the source of plagiarism for The Reasonable Woman. I have a full 50% ownership claim and right to the work that he is using to support the accusation of plagiarism. This means that -- according to my lawyer, Prometheus' lawyer, and my moral conscience -- I have the right to quote the book in its entirety, should I wish to do so. As it is, The Reasonable Woman was written independently and it 'parallels' the earlier book only in snippets that arose largely from memory as I sat before my PC. I wrote The Reasonable Woman from scratch, clearing my hard disk of all previous material. If it uses wordage or concepts from the previously co-authored work, it is not only my right to do so, it is accidental...I wanted The Reasonable Woman to be an entirely separate work. However, I am the author both of the manuscript used as evidence of plagiarism and the manuscript accused of plagiarism. I have been accused of plagiarizing myself.

The following provides some history which might be useful....

On November 29, 1989, four years after our separation and in the presence of a mutual friend, both George and I signed a contract concerning the book he is claiming as his sole authorship. The opening statement reads: "George H. Smith and Wendy McElroy, having co-authored a book on reasoning (hereinafter the "book"), which they now wish to market and publish, do declare the following to be their understanding of the agreement:"

The agreement documented our 50/50 contribution to the co-authored book that arose as a result of the ten years we lived and worked together as a team. George has claimed I never contributed to the book's evolution or execution except as a typist/transcriber. Just as I was a full co-owner of our enterprise Lysander's Books, a co-signatory on the lease for the office of Forum for Philosophical Studies, I was also his intellectual partner in developing material on reasoning that he constantly interwove throughout the classes and that I converted into the co-authored book, written in an "I" format to make it less clumsy and more personal. The 'co-authorship' contract is an undeniable expression of that full partnership.

Our book was reviewed and rejected in 1991 by Prometheus Books. [The same man at the same press reviewed and accepted my book The Reasonable Woman in 1997.] After our relationship became untenable, I returned to George all material except for redundant copies, which I discarded. I also wiped the material from my hard disk. In late 1994, my agent Simon Green urged me to write a book on reasoning for women. I began from scratch to write up preliminary chapters containing contributions original to me, my personal experiences, any contributions not original to George (e.g. material that had been gleaned from other sources such as Brand Blanshard -- being careful to provide citations), and anything specifically related to women and reasoning. After two rewrites, the book was rejected, and shelved. In 1997, I took another pass at it and the manuscript was accepted on the condition I do a rewrite. If some passages from the manuscript George references parallel passages within The Reasonable Woman it is because both came from the same hand. Mine.

Wendy

[william.scherk]

The 1989 Contract cited by McElroy.

[william.scherk]

Deleted by author.

Edited January 16, 2011 by william.scherk

[George H. Smith]

The 1989 Contract cited by McElroy.

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

Ghs

[william.scherk]

McElroy's web page referenced as a refutation to charges of similar language.<br><br>

<H3>A Refutation of 'Similar Language' Charges</H3><br>

<P>Because of legal implications and Smith's threats, I will not comment

in a public forum beyond this posting, nor will I respond to personal inquiries

-- though I thank everyone sincerely for their notes of support. My attorney

will be writing a statement on the absolute legal validity of my authorship

claim to The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival, showing

that plagiarism accusations are libelous. He is also preparing a legal

analysis of the false and libelous claim that I was merely a typist on

the co-authored book (The Fundamentals of Reasoning). A copy of the co-authorship

agreement will be attached thereto (currently available at http://www.zetetics.com/reason/contract.gif).

The contract has been acknowledged publicly as valid by George H. Smith

(see http://www.zetetics.com/reason/libel.htm).</P><br>

<P>A refutation of the accusations of immorality (plagiarism) that are

based on the 'similarity of language' issue follows. I have delayed responding

in order to attach the above-mentioned legal analysis, but it is time to

speak. The legal analysis will be posted at http://www.zetetics.com/reason/libel.htm.

Meanwhile, I ask people to read The Reasonable Woman to understand what

a personal book it is and how meticulously I credit my sources. Please

note my very prominent acknowledgement of Smith in two places, including

the first page of the book 'The Acknowledgements'. </P><br>

<P><B>*A Refutation of charges of immorality based on the 'similar language'

issue.*</B></P><br>

<P>The following analysis is based on the only information I have received

from George H. Smith on the 'similar language' issue: three emails of accusation

received respectively on May 17, May 19, and May 20. (As only one was sent

directly to me -- the other two being forwarded -- I do not know when other

people received the messages.) The Reasonable Woman [TRW] is 305 pages

long. The email claim of plagiarism rests upon passages quoted from 17

pages, with at least one quotation being no more than five words in length

and many of them including ellipses meant to heighten parallels. There

are 116 sentences under question. </P><br>

<P>85 sentences come from private unpublished material -- the "hundreds

and hundreds of pages of documents" (see the aforementioned web page)

-- that Smith seems unwilling to produce for examination. This leaves 31

sentences in a 305 page book for which any evidence of impropriety has

been provided. Ordinarily, I would not respond to unsupported accusations

from an ex-lover, but I feel obliged to answer the reasonable questions

of people who are confused by this personal dispute that Smith is conducting

in the public realm. </P><br>

<P>The accusations fall into three broad categories...</P><br>

<P>1. 85 sentences absolutely unsupported by repeatedly requested evidence;

<BR>

2. 21 sentences from what Smith calls "a 1974 course handout";

and, <BR>

3. 10 sentences from Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. </P><br>

<P><B>#1. 85 sentences that are absolutely unsupported by requested evidence;</B></P><br>

<P>(Many of the paralleled sentences have virtually no connection to each

other besides similarity of ideas, but I will answer this aspect of the

situation in point #3.)</P><br>

<P>I will assume for the moment that the unproduced material a) exists

and B) is the co-authored manuscript in question ("Fundamentals of

Reasoning"). I explain the similar language issue in three ways. </P><br>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=+1>a.</FONT></B> For those who have a copy of TRW, lease

refer to pages 147-150 in TRW where I describe the Intellectual Diary that

was *required* to be kept by everyone who attended the 8-week long classes,

which George and I developed and refined together over our ten years of

co-habitation -- classes from which both of us have continued to use material

in our independent work since our separation in 1985. For those without

a copy of TRW, let me summarize what the intellectual diary was: a key

aspect of the classes was for each member to keep a personal record of

the intellectual processes and ideas sparked by the course, which attempted

something akin to intellectual therapy. Diary entries consumed at least

fifteen minutes every day and it was the sole product and property of the

member who wrote it, just as an ordinary diary would be. Each class began

with members reporting on their diaries and publicly explaining why they

had missed making an entry, if such was the case. Missing a day literally

meant paying a fee, which was the penalty. (This process is described in

Chapter 8 of TRW.) </P><br>

<P>As mentioned in TRW, I attended five eight-week courses, which means

I maintained the required diary for about ten months in all, although the

timing was not consecutive and I quite often missed a day or two. Since

the purpose in attending was to assist in producing the course by providing

feedback and ideas, my diary focused on the content in the classes that

I wanted to explore (e.g. asking 'what is a better analogy to illustrate

this point in a future class'?) and other thoughts provoked. When I wiped

my hard drive clean of the co-authored Fundamentals of Reasoning and returned

all co-authored material to Smith (please see http://www.zetetics.com/reason/libel.htm

for history of this event), I did not send my private diaries which were

and are my personal property. I used them as source material in writing

sections of both the Fundamentals of Reasoning and TRW, and I felt perfectly

free to quote myself in both. </P><br>

<P>For example, the sentences on Freudianism and Popper account for 41

of the 85 quoted sentences. On page 40 of TRW, I explain how I was once

a committed Freudian who discarded that system of thought solely because

of Popper's influence. Indeed, Popper's arguments caused me to abandon

a keen interest in psychology itself and to become, instead, a cynic on

the subject. Those sections are directly gleaned from my diary. </P><br>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=+1>b.</FONT></B> Smith and I lived and worked together

intimately for ten years, constantly discussing both the classes and other

intellectual partnerships, such as the audio tapes we co-authored for Knowledge

Products (as credited on those tapes' boxes). We went over each other's

material constantly, providing feedback and editing. Under the circumstances,

it would be amazing if there were not occasional and marked similarities

in how we each present material from that period in our lives. </P><br>

<P><B><FONT SIZE=+1>c.</FONT></B> During those years, we read many of the

same books, and much of the similar language comes directly from secondary

sources. For example, when Smith points out a similarity between his words

"Write it down" (in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies) and

my words "Put it in writing" in TRW, he neglects to mention that

I footnote Alan Lakein's book "How to Get Control of Your Time and

Your Life" which has a section called Put It In Writing. When Smith

points out that both he and I use the words "Precisely what do we

not have?", he neglects to point out that this exact phrase comes

from "Thinking Straight" by Antony Flew, whom I recommend in

accompanying text in TRW. Much of the wording and ideas used throughout

the class, in its handouts, and in the co-authored manuscript were directly

derived from the language and ideas of thinkers such as Brand Blanshard,

Mortimer Adler, and especially Henry Hazlitt. The intellectual therapy

techniques derive directly from Nathaniel Branden and Albert Ellis. TRW

carefully and extensively acknowledges all these contributions. </P><br>

<P><B>#2. 21 sentences from what George calls "a 1974 Course Handout"</B></P>

<P>It is Prometheus' attorney's opinion that, as a legal matter, this 5-page

1974 hand-out -- the only evidence Smith has produced of plagiarism to

my publisher (and not to me) -- was knowingly placed into the public domain

by him by virtue of being widely distributed without a copyright notice

or registration. As a moral matter, I know Smith wanted the material to

be used as widely as possible to promote the course: that is why he handed

it out over freely for years and years. Since he had given permission for

the man-in-the-street to use the handout, I do not see where a moral problem

exists. Especially since I prominently acknowledge him in TRW. </P><br>

<P>Nevertheless, just as I assume for the sake of argument that the unproduced

manuscript exists, let me forget for the moment the public domain matter.

I have not seen the document in question, but Smith and I definitely did

have hand-outs, some predating our relationship, some co-authored. I was

responsible for typing, re-typing and proofing this material for all the

classes we held. Smith also incorporated much of the hand-out language

verbatim into classes, which I heard repeatedly. Moreover, I edited the

co-authored manuscript, as noted in the co-authorship contract (http://www.zetetics.com/contract.gif),

so I went over these lines again and again with care. Smith quotes 13 of

the 21 sentences that are extremely close to his wording: the remainder

are similar ideas (we discussed and developed together) expressed in different

terms. I may have inadvertently used 13 similar sentences that were recorded

in my intellectual diary or indelibly imprinted in my mind.</P><br>

<P><B>#3. 10 sentences from Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies [AAR&OH]</B></P><br>

<P>I have not read this book. If it is, as I understand, largely drawn

from essays previously published, I may well have read sections of AAR&OH.

Indeed, some of the essays may have been written during the ten-year cohabitation.

From the extremely brief passages quoted, it seems clear to me that Smith

has drawn upon the co-created material and, perhaps, upon the co-authored

manuscript itself -- both of which predate AAR&OH. Indeed, he continues

to use the co-authored ideas from Fundamentals of Reasoning by giving classes

without acknowledging my contribution or paying me a part of the tuition

fee. It is his legal right to do so and I have never raised an objection.</P><br>

<P>Moreover, the snippets he offers from AAR&OH represent standard

psychotherapy advice that is expressed in dozens of self-help books, often

in an *extremely* similar manner. How many ways can you say, 'write it

down'? </P><br>

<P>For those interested in the 'altered document' -- An Open Letter to

Prometheus in which Smith publicly admitted to having purposefully lied

about my being only a typist on a book I co-authored, a document which

was altered in later postings to omit this clearly libelous admission,

it too can be found at the aforementioned web page.</P><br><br>

<P>For those interested in the legal analysis, it is yet to be completed

and posted. Please be patient. I am posting before I had intended because

too many people consider silence to an admission of guilt.</P><br>

[william.scherk]

Stephan Kinsella's legal analysis.<br><BR>

<b><p>Legal analysis by N. Stephan Kinsella, Esq.</p></b><br>

<P>June 3, 1998</p><br>

<P>Re: Defamation and Libel by George H. Smith</p><br>

<P>Dear Wendy:</p><br>

<P>You have asked for our analysis regarding the recent dispute between

you and Mr. George H. Smith. The following sets forth our analysis of your

rights and remedies in this regard, based on information you have supplied

to us.</p><br>

<P>Earlier this year, your book, <I>The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual

Survival </I>(Prometheus Books, 1998) ("TRW"), was published.

Part of TRW was based on ideas you had developed in a previous collaboration

with Mr. Smith, which collaboration itself had resulted in a 1989 unpublished

manuscript, "Fundamentals of Reasoning" ("FOR"), co-authored

by you and Mr. Smith.</p><br>

<P>On May 17, 1998, you received an email message from Mr. Smith (via the

email account of Ms. Laura Kroutil, <vamp97@sj.bigger.net>). You

received a second email message from Mr. Smith on May 18, 1998, and a third

on May 19, 1998 (copies of these three email messages are attached). In

these email messages, Mr. Smith accused you of "plagiarism,"

on the asserted grounds that portions of TRW were copied from "his"

FOR manuscript.</p><br>

<P>In Mr. Smith's May 17, 1998 email message, he accused you "of extensive

and deliberate plagiarism." He also falsely stated that you were not

a co-author of FOR, and were instead a mere typist or transcriber. His

charges of plagiarism were based on this false claim. In addition, Mr.

Smith explicitly threatened to take various actions, including transmitting

similar accusations of plagiarism to your publisher, Prometheus Books ("Prometheus"),

and instituting a lawsuit against you and/or Prometheus, unless you sent

Mr. Smith a certified check for US$10,000 no later than May 26, 1998.</p><br>

<P>Beginning on May 19, 1998, and continuing virtually until the present,

Mr. Smith transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, email messages containing

similar allegations and accusations to a large number of third parties.

For example, on May 19, 1998, Mr. Smith faxed and emailed to various third

parties, including Prometheus, a message entitled "On the Plagiarism

of Wendy McElroy," in which he again accused you of plagiarism (copies

of exemplary email messages attached hereto). All of Mr. Smith's transmitted

or posted email messages regarding this matter, of which you are aware,

have been transmitted by Mr. Smith, directly or indirectly, from the same

email account <vamp97@sj.bigger.net>.</p><br>

<P>Some of these email messages were posted by Mr. Smith, or caused to

be posted by him with his permission, to various listservs and newsgroups,

such as the randian-feminism list and the newsgroups alt.politics.libertarian

and talk.politics.libertarian. For example, Ms. Sharon Presley, of Resources

for Independent Thinking, posted on the randian-feminism list email messages

transmitted to her by Mr. Smith; and Tim Starr posted on his anarchism

listserv email messages transmitted to him by Mr. Smith. Therefore, it

is clear that Mr. Smith published and disseminated his accusations of plagiarism

and other statements to a large number of third parties.</p><br>

<P>Mr. Smith's actions and allegations in this regard are completely outrageous,

inexcusable, and wholly groundless, for the following reasons. You and

Mr. Smith worked and lived together for an approximately ten-year period,

from 1975 to 1985. During this period, you and Mr. Smith were intellectual

partners in developing materials on "reasoning," the subject

of which were presented in several eight-week courses, entitled "Fundamentals

of Reasoning." The courses were given in Los Angeles from approximately

1975 to 1987, and you participated with Mr. Smith in developing the courses

and related course materials from 1975 to 1984.</p><br>

<P>You two then converted materials and ideas developed jointly by both

of you related to the courses, into a co-authored manuscript on "reasoning,"

to-wit, the FOR manuscript. FOR is therefore a joint work which you and

Mr. Smith co-authored. This is evidenced by the "Contract on Reasoning

Book/Untitled" executed by both you and Mr. Smith on November 29,

1989 (the "1989 Contract"; attached hereto; also available at

<http://www.zetetics.com/reason/contract.gif>'>http://www.zetetics.com/reason/contract.gif>). This contract, executed

four years after your separation, explicitly provides that you and Mr.

Smith had "co-authored a book on reasoning." Despite Mr. Smith's

false assertions to the contrary, therefore, you were a full co-author

of FOR, and not a mere typist or transcriber of notes or tapes.</p><br>

<P>As you explicitly acknowledged in TRW's text, TRW was based, in part,

on ideas developed by you in collaboration with Mr. Smith, which ideas

were also the subject of FOR. (For example, in the "Acknowledgments"

section on page 9 of TRW, you explicitly state: "The philosopher George

Smith created the intellectual therapy groups discussed in TRW and, over

the ten years of our close association, we discussed many of the ideas

expanded upon within." And on page 142 of TRW, you state: "The

next two chapters are devoted to examining a unique intellectual therapy

group created by the philosopher George Smith, in which I was fortunate

enough to participate.") Thus, selected portions of TRW of course

may bear a similarity to some ideas expressed in FOR (it is difficult to

verify this since Mr. Smith has refused to produce the original FOR manuscript,

which you have not had in your possession since 1991). Indeed, because

of the copyright doctrine of merger of ideas and expression, it is only

natural that the expression of ideas in TRW similar to those in FOR would

find similar expression (as you noted, how many ways are there to say "Put

it in Writing" (TRW, p. 93)?).</p><br>

<P>However, despite this historical connection between the origin of some

of the ideas expresed in TRW and in FOR, you did not copy any portion of

FOR in the preparation of TRW and, indeed, had disposed of all of your

copies of FOR, in 1991, three years before beginning writing TRW in 1994

(even though you would have had a right to directly copy portions of FOR

in preparing TRW, as discussed below, had you wanted to). As you know,

there are various perfectly legitimate reasons why there may be similarity

in wording between the two works, given your co-authorship of FOR and your

intimate familiarity with the course material, having participated in the

course five times to help improve and develop the course material, and

having drawn in TRW from some of the same primary sources as used in preparing

material for FOR and for the associated courses (e.g. <I>Thinking As A

Science</I>, by Henry Hazlitt) (this is explained in further detail by

you at <http://www.zetetics.com/reason/similar.htm>;'>http://www.zetetics.com/reason/similar.htm>; and <http://www.zetetics.com/reason/libel.htm>'>http://www.zetetics.com/reason/libel.htm>).</p><br>

<P>In sum, you authored a new work, TRW, based in limited part on previous

ideas co-developed by you and Mr. Smith and which were also the subject

of your very own co-authored work, FOR. You clearly did not plagiarize

Mr. Smith's work--i.e., you did not publish "his" writings as

if they were your own. Therefore, Mr. Smith's accusations of plagiarism

are completely groundless and libelous.</p><br>

<P>Moreover, even if you <I>had</I> copied portions of FOR in writing TRW,

Mr. Smith's claims would be equally groundless and libelous. As noted,

the 1989 Contract provides solid proof that you were a co-author of FOR.

You were and are thus also a co-owner of the copyright thereto, and are

therefore entitled to use this material in any way you see fit, without

Mr. Smith's permission or approval. Similarly, Mr. Smith has used these

co-authored materials, without your permission (or objection). For example,

some of these materials were apparently used by Mr. Smith in his book <I>Atheism,

Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies</I> (Prometheus, 1991), and apparently continue

to be used in courses conducted by him and held under the auspices of Resources

for Independent Thinking in Oakland, California.</p><br>

<P>Furthermore, if the co-authored, joint work FOR drew on or incorporated

some previous work solely authored by Mr. Smith (such as his 1974 handout),

then, since the entire, joint manuscript FOR was co-authored and co-owned

by you and Mr. Smith, it would be irrelevant if portions of TRW express

ideas similar to those found in Mr. Smith's previous work, since you and

Mr. Smith were co-authors and joint co-owners of everything in FOR, including

particular portions drawing on either of your previous works. Thus, even

if Mr. Smith could somehow show that you copied portions of FOR verbatim

in TRW which portions were contributed by Mr. Smith based on his previous

work, his claims would still be groundless, since you and he were co-authors

of the entire FOR manuscript.</p><br>

<P>Similarly, if some of Mr. Smith's subsequent works express ideas similar

to those in FOR because he drew on FOR in creating the subsequent work,

it would be irrelevant that these subsequent works also express ideas similar

to those expressed in portions of TRW. All this would mean is that both

you and Mr. Smith each drew on your previous, co-authored work FOR in authoring

new works. Thus, Mr. Smith's comparison of TRW to either his pre-FOR or

post-FOR writings is irrelevant. The only relevant comparison would be

between TRW and an independent work of Mr. Smith's that did not itself

have any similarity to FOR. Of course, Mr. Smith can make no such comparison,

because you did not even copy from FOR, much less from solely-authored

works of Mr. Smith. It is also unclear how he would prove that his independent

work did not draw from FOR, since the authenticity of any purported "FOR"

manuscript produced by Mr. Smith will be in doubt, as discussed below.</p><br>

<P>Therefore, even assuming <I>arguendo</I> that you had directly incorporated

portions of FOR into TRW (which you did not), you were entitled to do this;

you were entitled to create a new, derivative work, using your own co-authored

work FOR.</p><br>

<P>Mr. Smith's voluminous "parallel passages" between TRW and

FOR or works of Mr. Smith are thus completely irrelevant, for several reasons.

First, even if Mr. Smith is able to provide a manuscript entitled "Fundamentals

of Reasoning," there will be no way to know that this is the original

1989 FOR manuscript co-authored by you and Mr. Smith, since Mr. Smith apparently

claims only to have a disk copy of FOR which can easily be altered and

thus difficult to verify. Thus, even if Mr. Smith is able to provide a

manuscript identical to portions of TRW, it is possible for this to have

been reverse-engineered or, at the very least, to have been altered since

1989.</p><br>

<P>Second, even if he is able to provide the original 1989 FOR manuscript

and to prove its authenticity, parallel passages are irrelevant since you

did not copy from FOR; rather, such similar passages are due to the copyright

doctrine of merger of idea and expression and your mutual collaboration

on developing ideas which were the subject of the FOR-related courses.

Third, even if you had directly copied passages from FOR and used them

in portions of TRW, you were both morally and legally entitled to do this,

as the co-author and joint copyright owner of FOR. There can simply be

no doubt that, under applicable principles of copyright law, as you were

a co-author of FOR, you are therefore the sole author of any new, derivative

work authored by you incorporating portions of your own previously co-authored

work. Any claims that your are not the sole author of TRW or that you were

not a co-author of FOR are, for these reasons, completely false and inaccurate.

(Finally, for context, I note that the extent even of the copying alleged

by Mr. Smith (passages from 17 pages of a 305-page book) is relatively

trivial and does not support his hyperpolic accusations and claims that

he is a co-author or author of half or more of TRW. Mr. Smith's very own

accusations are thus self-contradictory.)</p><br>

<P>You are a respected and prolific full-time author and independent scholar.

(Mr. Smith has even acknowledged that you have "done excellent work

in the past.") Your works include the aforementioned TRW, as well

as: <I>XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography</I> (St. Martin's Press, 1995);

<I>Sexual Correctness</I> (McFarland, 1996); <I>19th Century Individualist

Feminists: The Forgotten Roots of American Feminism</I> (McFarland, forthcoming);

and <I>Freedom, Feminism and the State</I> (editor) (1st ed., Cato, 1983;

2nd ed., Holmes & Meier, 1991; 3rd ed., Independent Institute, forthcoming).

Your have also written on women's and other issues for <I>National Review</I>,

<I>Free Inquiry</I>, <I>Penthouse</I>, <I>Liberty</I>, <I>Reason</I>, and

other fora, and you were a 1997 nominee for the Mencken Award. (Information

on these and other writings appears at your web site at <http://www.zetetics.

com/mac>.) You have also worked as a scholar for a number of think tanks,

including the Cato Institute. Through your dozens of articles and books

published over more than sixteen years, you have developed a valuable and

well-deserved reputation as a serious, provocative, and thoughtful writer.

Like other writers and scholars, therefore, your career and livelihood

rest on your most precious assets: your scholarly and writing abilities

and your reputation for integrity and honesty.</p><br>

<P>In view of the foregoing, it is clear that Mr. Smith's statements in

email messages published to third parties in which he falsely accused you

of plagiarism are injurious to your reputation, and are thus defamatory.

In particular, since these statements were in written form, they are libelous;

and any oral statements by Mr. Smith to third parties accusing you of plagiarism

are slanderous.</p><br>

<P>Moreover, in addition to Mr. Smith's libelous accusations of plagiarism,

his various email messages published to third parties contain further libelous

accusations. For example, he accused you of "stealing seven years

of [smith's] professional labor"; and of intentionally deceiving Prometheus

and violating a contract with Prometheus. He also denied your co-authorship

of FOR, instead falsely relegating you to the status of a mere typist;

and thereby impugned your honesty, integrity, and professional abilities.</p><br>

<P>In addition, because his statements directly impugn your honesty and

integrity, and detrimentally affect your professional reputation, they

are libelous <I>per se</I>. In a lawsuit for libel <I>per se</I>, no actual

damages need be proven by the plaintiff; instead, damages are presumed.</p><br>

<P>Further, because Mr. Smith has taken these libelous actions <I>with

malice</I> (as a review of his email messages transmitted May 17, 1998

<I>et seq.</I> clearly indicate), punitive damages may be available over

and above any actual or presumed damages. Given the foregoing context and

the fact that his email messages drip with vitriol, insult, sarcasm, profanity,

and cruelty, the malicious nature of his email messages, and his intention

to inflict emotional distress, are apparent to any reader.</p><br>

<P>Mr. Smith's deliberate and malicious acts of libel are therefore inexcusable,

impermissible, and intolerable, and have very serious consequences. Also,

his actions may have consequences beyond mere liability for defamation.

For example, his initial email messages threatening to damage your reputation

unless he received $10,000 from you may involve state and/or federal criminal

and/or civil liability for blackmail and extortion, as this is an attempt

to obtain property by means of a threat to inflict injury to another's

reputation.</p><br>

<P>In addition to his own liability in this regard, Mr. Smith's actions

may have unwittingly caused liability to be imposed on others. For example,

his use of Ms. Kroutil's email account in taking the foregoing actions

may implicate her with responsibility for some or all of the above-referenced

liabilities. At the very least, his actions may cause Ms. Kroutil's ISP,

@bigger.net, to cancel her email account, as they are in direct violation

of the terms of @bigger.net's "Acceptable Usage Policy" (see

<http://www.bigger.net/policy.html>). In particular, Section VI of

the Acceptable Usage Policy provides that the subscriber agrees to comply

with all applicable laws. Section VI.C specifically provides that the subscriber

agrees not to transmit any material that is libelous or threatening. Section

VIII.E also prohibits continued harassment of other individuals after being

asked to stop doing so by those individuals and by @bigger.net. We have

demanded that Mr. Smith stop harassing you, pursuant to this Section VIII.E,

and we also requested @bigger.net to also ask Mr. Smith (via Ms. Kroutil,

the subscriber) to stop doing so.</p><br>

<P>Note also that Section VI.E of the Acceptable Usage Policy provides

that the subscriber will indemnify @bigger.net for expenses, such as liabilities

and attorneys' fees, incurred by @bigger.net as a result of the actions

of a subscriber in violation of the Acceptable Usage Policies. Thus, if

@bigger.net were to become liable or a party to a lawsuit related to Mr.

Smith's above-described libelous and other actions, either Mr. Smith and/or

Ms. Kroutil could be liable for various of @bigger.net's costs, expenses,

and attorneys' fees. (However, we have notified @bigger.net as well as

other third parties that you do not intend to institute litigation against

@bigger.net or such third parties for any past actions of Mr. Smith.)</p><br>

<P>In addition, under defamation law, not only is publication of certain

false, reputation-harming statements to third parties considered to be

defamatory, but each new act of re-publication is also a new act of defamation

and thus gives rise to a new and separate cause of action. Thus, for example,

Mr. Tim Starr, Ms. Sharon Presley, and others, in re-publishing Mr. Smith's

libelous comments, may also be implicated with liability for defamation

and libel. We therefore requested that Mr. Starr, Ms. Presley, and any

other third parties give careful consideration to this matter before participating

in any further re-publication of Mr. Smith's defamatory and libelous statements.

</p><br>

<P>In sum, Mr. Smith transmitted email messages to you in which he knowingly

and falsely accused you of plagiarism and of not being a co-author of FOR,

despite his explicit acknowledgment of your co-authorship thereof in the

1989 Contract. He also threatened to damage your reputation unless you

paid him a sum of cash. He then repeatedly libeled you, by publishing to

a large number of third parties similar accusations, in a deliberate and

malicious attempt to harm your professional reputation, and he continues

to do so as of recent date.</p><br>

<P>Accordingly, we demanded that Mr. Smith immediately cease transmitting

any further email messages or making any other communication, in writing

or orally, to any third party alleging or even suggesting that you have

plagiarized FOR or any work of Mr. Smith's. We further demanded that Mr.

Smith immediately cease transmitting any further email messages or making

any other communication to any third party alleging or even suggesting

that you did not co-author FOR, or that you have lied, breached contracts,

stolen others' work, or engaged in any other unlawful or unethical activity

that would adversely affect your career as a writer and professional reputation

related thereto. In short, we demanded that Mr. Smith immediately cease

engaging in any acts defaming you and injuring your professional reputation.</p><br>

<P>We further demanded that Mr. Smith immediately cease and desist from

directly contacting you in any form whatsoever, and that he also immediately

cease threatening, extorting, blackmailing, or harassing you. We insisted

that any communication by him should be directed to and conducted through

me.</p><br>

<P>If there is any further action by Mr. Smith in contravention of our

demands, it will be apparent that Mr. Smith intends to continue violating

your rights, and you may consider instituting litigation to preserve your

rights.</p><br>

<P>The advice set forth in this letter is rendered solely and exclusively

for your benefit, and is not to be relied upon by any other party, without

the prior written consent of this firm.</p><br>

<P>Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions and,

as we discussed, please contact me at once if you become aware of any further

libelous or threatening statements.</p><br>

<P>Very truly yours,</p><br><br>

<P>/s</p><br><br>

<P>N. Stephan Kinsella <BR>

for DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER LLP <BR>

NSK:amh <BR>

Encl. as stated (with hard copy only) </p><br><br>

Edited January 16, 2011 by william.scherk

[kiaer.ts]

...

Incredible. You criticize me for quoting two sentences from this letter, then post it in its entirety, and every other incriminating document you can find. You are slipping.

Edited January 16, 2011 by Ted Keer

[william.scherk]

Deleted by author.

Edited January 16, 2011 by william.scherk

[william.scherk]

Deleted by author.

Edited January 16, 2011 by william.scherk

[kiaer.ts]

You criticize me for quoting two sentences from this letter, then post it in its entirety, and every other incriminating document you can find.

Ted, I don't criticize you for posting an excerpt, but for your bias and your implacable hostility and righteousness. Your bile ducts are overactive these past months it seems; I think you should retitle your moribund blog as Radicals For Crabbiness.

I like the reasonable Ted and appreciate your erudition, but I have to put you on the ignore list now. You no longer have anything positive to contribute to discussions. I wish you well, and hope the personal demons can be slayed . . .

Thanks, Lucy

[Brant Gaede]

I really don't think this thread is OL material. It strikes me as ex-spousal warfare by one and not the other. But knowing George he has documentation to back up his plagiarism charges. I've never seen anyone best George factually for if he doesn't have the facts he doesn't proceed. When he has the facts he's got a lot of them and his mind is like a machinegun firing them off.

Wendy can sue George and OL regardless. This means legal fees. I'm sure George can provide all the facts needed for the defense although I'm not legally sure about the so-called extortion--wouldn't that be a criminal manner? But what if two years into the litigation George croaks? With the primary target gone could not Wendy continue to proceed against the secondary, OL? I'm no lawyer but I'd bet an unconnected real one could give us an earful.

Michael and Kat, if they own any real estate, should look into a home ownership rider policy for another hundred or two that provides extended liability coverage for unexpected things unrelated to the home as such. It would not be applicable to this situation, however, I'm pretty sure, because it's already happened.

--Brant

I've never seen OL treated like a dump before

Edited January 16, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

As a rule, lawyers don't take defamation cases on a contingency fee basis.

Robert Campbell

[George H. Smith]

I was delighted to learn that Wendy still has her bullshit stories up. It will be fun shredding them yet another time.

Here I want to comment briefly on one outrageous claim that I found in two of her missives, namely, that she co-developed and worked with me on my Fundamentals of Reasoning Course from its inception and for 10 years thereafter (1975-1985).

This is an incredible howler. I had almost forgotten what a lying sack of shit Wendy is. I will have more to say on this later, but this will do for now:

I developed the course in Tucson n 1974, around a year and a half before I met Wendy. It was designed as the flagship course for my Forum for Philosophical Studies, which I also established in Tucson.

I gave the first FOR courses shortly after moving to Hollywood in early 1975. This was an 8-week course, and, owing to high demand, I gave two courses per week for at least the first year. By the time I had met Wendy, I had given the course at least 8 times, maybe more. I think I fiddled around with the material in two sessions during the first few months, but after that the course never changed at all.

Dozens of Objectivists and libertarians went through FOR in that first year . Dennis Hardin took FOR, and though I'm not sure when he took it, it might have been one of the early ones, while I was living with Diane, my first wife who actually did help me develop the course.

I should be able to track down a number of these people without much trouble. One is Caroline Roper-Deyo, wife of the California attorney Richard Deyo. Caroline was very supportive and took the early course several times. But that was with Diane, my first wife. Wendy was nowhere to be seen. I should also be able to find Diane, my first wife, who was with me while I was developing the ideas in Tucson, and who sat in on virtually all the FOR classes the first year. Diane always hated frauds, so her testimony will cut Wendy's account to ribbons. JR used to have Diane's email address, so maybe he can send it to me.

There were many, many others as well, and I will contact as many as I can find. I think Tom Palmer (Cato) was a very early participant. I can contact him easily and ask for a statement.

Wendy should have planned out her liar's strategy much better. She is going to get bulldozed by witnesses.

More on this later....

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

As a rule, lawyers don't take defamation cases on a contingency fee basis.

Robert Campbell

That's good to hear.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

I really don't think this thread is OL material. It strikes me as ex-spousal warfare by one and not the other. But knowing George he has documentation to back up his plagiarism charges. I've never seen anyone best George factually for if he doesn't have the facts he doesn't proceed. When he has the facts he's got a lot of them and his mind is like a machinegun firing them off.

Wendy can sue George and OL regardless. This means legal fees. I'm sure George can provide all the facts needed for the defense although I'm not legally sure about the so-called extortion--wouldn't that be a criminal manner? But what if two years into the litigation George croaks? With the primary target gone could not Wendy continue to proceed against the secondary, OL? I'm no lawyer but I'd bet an unconnected real one could give us an earful.

Michael and Kat, if they own any real estate, should look into a home ownership rider policy for another hundred or two that provides extended liability coverage for unexpected things unrelated to the home as such. It would not be applicable to this situation, however, I'm pretty sure, because it's already happened.

--Brant

I've never seen OL treated like a dump before

Thanks for the morale booster, you prick. I placed this thread in my "corner," because it is hugely relevant to me. Wendy is claiming far more than having written TRW. She is publicly claiming that she co-developed everything I have ever taught or written on the subjects covered in FOR, which includes an enormous amount of material. So I suppose I should just let this slide, eh? One of the biggest plagiarisms scandals ever is just a "dump" to you, eh.

If Michael is concerned about a lawsuit, he can delete this thread, but I would appreciate a little warning so I and others can copy the relevant information.

As for me, I dearly wish Wendy would go after me. But she never will, nor will she ever threaten legal action against OL..

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

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. If she decides to initiate force against me, then I will use the same instrument of force to defend myself.

Ghs