slpresley

Thanks, Sharon. I very much appreciate your support. You know, of course, that you have just committed libel and defamation of character against Wendy the Pure, and so may be subject to an attack by Wendy's vicious but not very bright lapdog, Stephen Kinsella. Consider this comment my official endorsement of the position that Sharon Presley is a great lady. Ghs Thanks, George. You know I support you 100% and I'm not afraid of Kinsella. They can't prove libel because everything you say is true. Defamation? Hard to prove and frankly, Wendy will come out looking so much worse than you once the controversy makes the rounds. She would be the loser. Would they dare risk that? Some things are worth repeating. --Brant Thanks, George. And thanks, Brant. Yes it is worth repeating. I would not risk my (considerable) reputation as a libertarian activist, feminist, author, and co-founder of Laissez Faire Books if I were not 101% convinced that George is right 100% and Wendy is wrong 100%. This is not one of those cases where the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's such a terrible state of affairs. Wendy has contributed a great deal to the libertarian movement. But she has shot herself in both feet with this one. As George has suggested, she will likely be remembered as much (if not more) for the plagiarism than for her more constructive efforts. We have so few women writers in the movement and she has to muck up her reputation like this. What a waste!

I should say. Wendy may be manipulative but she is anything but helpless. There's a whole book there. If I (or George) were a fiction writer, the story I (he) could write would be a scorcher indeed, with events that would top any soap opera.

Yes, that's right, Brad. You really don't want to go there if you are trying to protect Wendy. The consequences of that info being revealed will hurt Wendy and it will hurt you. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face. The results will be bloody.

Yesterday I revealed that, since 2004, Wendy has been claiming that I am a violent predator towards women, indeed, that I punched her so hard in the face one time that she permanently lost sight in one eye. This vicious lie was concocted to cover Wendy's plagiarism tracks. Sorry, people, but all this seems a tad more significant than whether Wendy was a qualified Reichian therapist. Who gives a fuck? Ghs A good point! The claims about violence are the ones that needs to be aired and dealt with. I have commented elsewhere in this thread on the absurdity of her claims.

Faults? Moi? Thanks again, Sharon. Ghs Anyone who claims they have no faults is either a liar, psychopath, or narcissistic personality (that's an official diagnosis in the DSM). You are none of these. I know people who are and avoid them at all costs.

George, Wendy was practicing "Reichian therapy"? Did she have any training in this area? I know of one branch of therapy that was largely based on some of Reich's work on emotions and their relationship to the body. It is called Radix. As I recall, Nathaniel Branden was himself an advocate of Radix therapy and had at least a casual friendship with Charles Kelley. Many years ago, I actually took a couple of Radix workshops and was very impressed with what I saw and experienced. The Radix Institute offers training programs for Radix teachers. I think these are two year training programs. After watching the work of an experienced Radix therapist, I do not think that this kind of work could be competently performed by someone who had not had at least a year or two of training. On the other hand, your description of "pinching and punching nude bodies" does not sound very much like what an experienced Radix therapist would do. Where did Wendy get the idea that she was qualified to perform this kind of work? Martin I'm sure George can provide a more thorough answer than I can. However I am not aware that Wendy had or has any formal training in psychology or psychotherapy of any kind. Since I actually am a psychologist (with a Ph.D. and many years of college teaching), I understandably look askance at such behavior. As for how she got the idea that she was qualified, George will have to answer that. I can only tell you what people I knew were saying about her in the early 80s--that when she was dating a psychologist, she fancied herself a psychologist; when she was dating a poet, she imagined herself to be a poet; when she was dating a historian (George), she decided she was a historian. She has, to my knowledge, no formal training in any of these areas. Sharon, As a professional psychologist, have you studied Reichian types of therapy involving body work? If so, what is your opinion of this type of therapy? Do you think that it is a valid type of therapy that has at least the potential to produce good results? Or do you think that it is basically worthless? Martin Martin: I am not a clinical psychologist, my field is social psychology. So my response, while informed, is not expert. I have not studied Reichian therapy, but here's my general take on therapy. There is no magic cure-all panacea one-size-fits-all therapy. Some types work for some people and not others. The idea that many people in some sense store up their problems in a physical way is not especially controversial. Stress and other psychological issues may manifest themselves in tight muscles, ulcers, IBS, headaches and many other ways, even conversion reactions (unconsciously converting a hidden psychological problem into a physical symptom). Thus a physical therapy may be beneficial to some people, along with more conventional talk therapy. I can't speak for Reichian therapy per se but the idea is not worthless on the face of it. However, I will also state that many profs of clinical psychology would take the stand that any therapy should only be done by people well-trained. Hypnosis, for example, can have value, but untrained people can do considerable damage if issues they are not expecting or trained to deal with surface. Whether this is a potential problem with Reichian therapy I can't say for certain, but I am highly skeptical of amateur psychologists, to say the least. Just because someone has a psyche doesn't make them a psychologist. We didn't go to years of graduate school to learn what everybody else already knows. I'm not saying that one must have a Ph.D. or even an MA to do good therapy but one has to have some kind of rigorous training. IMO that requires systematic training though credible institutions, not merely reading a book on it!

Why indeed would Wendy make up such a lie? Actually, many potential reasons. She plagiarized his book, he rejected her, he is not willing to play her games. Psychologically IMO that is more than adequate motivation for a person who clearly has personal demons. In the first instance, a red herring to distract from the plagiarism claim; in the second two, petty revenge. I have known George since the early 80s. As I stated before, I knew him when he was with Wendy, I knew him when he was with Laura. I was at George and Laura's place many times. Not only did I NEVER see any indications or signs of domestic violence, the idea is absurd on the face of it. Speaking not only as a friend of George's but as a psychologist and feminist who is very concerned with issues of domestic violence and who takes that issue quite seriously, I categorically state that IMO these claims of Wendy's are simply vicious lies. Like all human beings, George has faults. Bing violent toward anyone, let alone women, is not one of them. I will stake my (considerable) reputation on it. If I were not completely certain of George's innocence in all these matters, I would not go public and risk the possibility of a law suit nor damage to my reputation.

Let's take a look at my record of stalking, shall we? 1. In 1994, shortly after I had gotten out of rehab, I sent Wendy a brief email stating that we still had an unfinished book project (FOR) that we had never completed and that I needed to get underway, because I was broke and needed a project. In my 1994 email, I also noted that I had "lost everything in storage" and that I would need access to my FOR material that she had taken with her to Canada. This included not only the tapes but several thick folders containing typed and handwritten notes as well. Wendy responded not to me but to Vince Miller, whose computer I had used, stating that if he ever let me use his computer to send emails to her again, she would block all emails from Vince. 1994 was also the year that Wendy, by her own account, began working on TRW. Interesting coincidence, eh? 2. I had no more contact with Wendy of any kind until 1998, when the Plagiarism scandal erupted. 3. Between 1999 and 2011, I sent Wendy exactly one email around six years go. I asked if she would be interested in resolving our dispute and that if I didn't hear back from her, I wouldn't send any more emails. No more emails were sent. Someone stop that stalker before he hurts Wendy the Pure!!! The idea that George is or ever has been a stalker is absurd to the max. I've known George since he was with Wendy, knew him when he was with Laura. I never knew him to act inappropriately toward either of them. As someone who has taught forensic psychology, I know what the actual characteristics of a stalker are and George does not fit the profile in any conceivable way.

George, Wendy was practicing "Reichian therapy"? Did she have any training in this area? I know of one branch of therapy that was largely based on some of Reich's work on emotions and their relationship to the body. It is called Radix. As I recall, Nathaniel Branden was himself an advocate of Radix therapy and had at least a casual friendship with Charles Kelley. Many years ago, I actually took a couple of Radix workshops and was very impressed with what I saw and experienced. The Radix Institute offers training programs for Radix teachers. I think these are two year training programs. After watching the work of an experienced Radix therapist, I do not think that this kind of work could be competently performed by someone who had not had at least a year or two of training. On the other hand, your description of "pinching and punching nude bodies" does not sound very much like what an experienced Radix therapist would do. Where did Wendy get the idea that she was qualified to perform this kind of work? Martin I'm sure George can provide a more thorough answer than I can. However I am not aware that Wendy had or has any formal training in psychology or psychotherapy of any kind. Since I actually am a psychologist (with a Ph.D. and many years of college teaching), I understandably look askance at such behavior. As for how she got the idea that she was qualified, George will have to answer that. I can only tell you what people I knew were saying about her in the early 80s--that when she was dating a psychologist, she fancied herself a psychologist; when she was dating a poet, she imagined herself to be a poet; when she was dating a historian (George), she decided she was a historian. She has, to my knowledge, no formal training in any of these areas.

Thanks, Sharon. I very much appreciate your support. You know, of course, that you have just committed libel and defamation of character against Wendy the Pure, and so may be subject to an attack by Wendy's vicious but not very bright lapdog, Stephen Kinsella. Consider this comment my official endorsement of the position that Sharon Presley is a great lady. Ghs Thanks, George. You know I support you 100% and I'm not afraid of Kinsella. They can't prove libel because everything you say is true. Defamation? Hard to prove and frankly, Wendy will come out looking so much worse than you once the controversy makes the rounds. She would be the loser. Would they dare risk that?

And hey, forgive me for not actually knowing how to use this forum and the Reply feature. I'll figure it out.

Ms. Presley, Welcome to OL. I have read about you for several years and I am duly awed. Thank you very much for your post. I am sure George knows what he is doing, but it is good to see he has backup willing to speak out in public.. Michael Thanks ,Michael. I was very upset about the whole incident when it happened. So awful, so unnecessary, so ridiculous. I hated to see something like this happen to George, who I consider one of the best thinkers in the libertarian moment. What a terrible thing to do to him. What a waste of Wendy's abilities. Anyone who knows me knows that I am not afraid to speak my mind. I'm not afraid of Kinsella or Wendy. If they wre to have the temerity to sue, then the TRUTH would come out and Wendy would be the one to suffer, not us. EDIT: My post crossed with George's.

Consider this comment my "official" endorsement of everything George Smith has said about Wendy McElroy and the book The Reasonable Women. I have indeed seen the evidence of the plagiarism and am satisfied that George's allegations are true. If I were not totally convinced of this, I would not risk my reputation this way. It's a sorry state of affairs, very sad to see, but there it is.