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

[anthony]

Picture a woman (or man) who turns on a 5000watt lamp just for you alone, 10 minutes of the day. And turns the screws on every imaginable part of your life, the rest of the time.

Who demands more attention and support than you can give.

Who hands out hurt like hors d'ouevres, til you grow addicted to it. Who flies into inappropriate rages, at the drop of a hat. Who has never been surpassed in your sexual experience, and is exciting enough to possibly overshadow any woman you meet after her.

That's just some of it.

If that fits the bill, then you are probably this woman's "narcissistic supply" - in psych-speak - and you likely have a narcissist on your hands.

If you value your self-esteem, sprint, don't just run, away.

Tony

[George H. Smith]

Picture a woman (or man) who turns on a 5000watt lamp just for you alone, 10 minutes of the day. And turns the screws on every imaginable part of your life, the rest of the time.

Who demands more attention and support than you can give.

Who hands out hurt like hors d'ouevres, til you grow addicted to it. Who flies into inappropriate rages, at the drop of a hat. Who has never been surpassed in your sexual experience, and is exciting enough to possibly overshadow any woman you meet after her.

That's just some of it.

If that fits the bill, then you are probably this woman's "narcissistic supply" - in psych-speak - and you likely have a narcissist on your hands.

If you value your self-esteem, sprint, don't just run, away.

Tony

I appreciate your point, but please bear with me. There is a lot to this story that I have not yet told. It is extraordinarily complex and cannot be explained in terms of Wendy's Hobby. On the contrary, that was irrelevant to why Wendy and I got in over our heads with our highly charged and highly dangerous "mind sex" sessions over a period of several years, after we stopped swinging.

I would never have mentioned the personal details about Wendy, but it was because she could not handle her own past that she went after me. I remained mute for years, even in 1998, because I did not want to ruin Wendy's marriage. If you don't believe me, ask Sharon Presley. I expressed my concerns to her repeatedly in 1998.

The problem was I could never explain the full context in which the plagiarism scandal erupted without these and other personal details, and over the years this ate away at me. It closed me down, because I felt I could not even write an account of my own experiences.

To suggest that I put up with all kinds of shit from Wendy because I like blowjobs is like suggesting that the major theme of Atlas Shrugged is how great train rides are. I'm not that superficial and neither is she -- far from it. In truth, we got into serious trouble by exploring regions and recesses of our minds and memories that were better left locked.

Wendy in particular had a tough time, because she had had a much tougher past, sexually speaking, than I had. After a year, what started out as light and exciting sessions that lasted 12 hours or more, turned into journeys into darkness, and things got really bad.

So why didn't we stop, you might ask? Because those sessions were addictive; they were exciting beyond belief, even when they weren't going well. To this day I have never experienced the levels of excitement, which could last for hours on end, that I experienced in those days. But there was a price to be paid, as the Devil got his due - and this is one of the main things I want to explore in my autobiography.

So please, everyone, give me a chance to explain some of the background before you judge anyone, especially Wendy. She basically freaked out and then ran to Brad for stability and peace of mind. I understand why she did, and I supported her efforts to maintain her stable life, even offering to lie to Brad for her. I think we would have made it, if Wendy had not decided to blame me when things went wrong. I got tired of being maligned by Wendy because she knew that I would not tell the truth about her.

Personal grudges aside, this really is a fascinating story. I have never heard of anything remotely like it.

Ghs

[Dennis Hardin]

I'm not familiar with the essential characteristics of a narcissistic personality, as that term is used in clinical psychology. If you or Robert would care to fill me in, I would be very interested.

Of course, I have no reason for asking this question. It is just a passing thought with no possible relevance to my life.

Ghs

A link to a brief discussion of Narcissistic Personality Disorder (and its similarity to Borderline PD) on another thread:

Borderline Personality Disorder for Beginners

[Robert Campbell]

Tony's description is a good deal more poetic than I can manage...

I understand narcissism as a disordered value structure that incorporates a pathological self-evaluation.

Narcissists believe they are superior to others and are "therefore" entitled to praise and favor from others. They may further believe themselves entitled to associate with nothing but elite or high-prestige people and institutions.

They give the impression of having high self-esteem (and want to believe that their self-esteem is high), but every once in a while their self-regard plummets. When this happens they think they are in a really bad mood--or that some dreadful person has done hurtful things to them.

Psychologists often say that narcissists lack empathy, but this isn't completely true. While callous or clueless in other ways, they can relate well enough to other people's feelings to be able to exploit certain of their their weaknesses and extract praise and admiration from them.

Narcissists are hard for most people to detect, let alone understand, because they give the impression of caring about things and people that they do not in fact care for.

Narcissists actually tend to have major gaps in their value structure. They show remarkable incuriosity about a great many things, and a complete lack of interest about matters that most others would be at least mildly interested in.

Even more difficult to grasp (for non-narcissists) is the fact that narcissists have scarcely any positive regard for other people, except as sources of "narcissistic supply." They are constantly trying to elicit admiration from those whom they despise.

Among the challenges in understanding narcissism is the fact that narcissists rarely identify themselves as such. No one says, "I'm here for counseling because I've realized I'm a narcissist." And characterizations of narcissism emphasize the successful employment of narcissistic strategies. Narcissists who keep failing to extract admiration are given some other label, such as "depressed."

Robert Campbell

[PDS]

Ghs wrote above, "o why didn't we stop, you might ask? Because those sessions were addictive; they were exciting beyond belief, even when they weren't going well. To this day I have never experienced the levels of excitement, which could last for hours on end, that I experienced in those days. But there was a price to be paid, as the Devil got his due - and this is one of the main things I want to explore in my autobiography."

This description evokes, almost to a tee--albeit in an admittedly much different context, Carl Jung's descriptions of his flights/journeys into his subconscious, especially as described Jung himself and van der Post in his biography of Jung. Very fascinating.

Just another reason to not lightly go around fucking with the subconscious...[and not unrelated to the thread about Neil's mind meld with God either...].

Edited January 19, 2011 by PDS

[Robert Campbell]

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

Brad,

Another item that is still on Wendy's website is

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/blog/00000469.html

Is it intended to be read as a charge that George Smith physically abused her, then physically abused two other women more recently?

If it is not so intended, why hasn't she corrected it so it cannot be read as directed at George Smith?

If it is so intended, and it is truthful, can she document the charges that she makes in it?

If it is so intended, and it is not truthful, why did she post it in the first place—and why has it been on her site since September 2004?

Robert Campbell

[anthony]

George,

It was not my intention to presume too much.

I saw a question about that 'N' word, and responded without sufficient thought.

Robert,

Your post on narcissism should be a text-book entry. I am not being poetic when I say that word for word, it describes someone I was involved with.

Thank you.

Tony

[Selene]

George:

This is a powerful line of thought and revealation which will offend some, titillate some, but will be important to many of us.

Good work. Difficult to open these doors.

Adam

[Brant Gaede]

"as she should be" should be "as he should be"? (4th para)

--Brant

[Selene]

George:

Precisely. Being aware of where the "Edge" may stem from gives you a rational chance to "filter" the experience and to understand or be present to it.

In certain communities the reference to "edge play" and the desire to push "limits" is no coincidence.

I hope that folks who read what you write will have the presence to "suspend" both disbelief and judgment while absorbing the entirety of your exposition.

If they are able to do that, both you and the reader will benefit.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

"as she should be" should be "as he should be"? (4th para)

--Brant

Thanks, but there will be tons of errors in these posts, far more than usual. This is because I must write in a white heat, without worrying about censoring anything, or they won't ever get written. These things are much harder to write properly than to read, beleive me. I have to stay in a stream of consciousness style and not worry about anything else.

[Robert Campbell]

Thanks, but there will be tons of errors in these posts, far more than usual. This is because I must write in a white heat, without worrying about censoring anything, or they won't ever get written.

George,

You can always correct the small errors later, after you've made the initial commitment and posted.

Robert Campbell

[Bosco]

I just added this to the Amazon.com review:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R23OEN6VENRS3D/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=8&cdPage=1&asin=1573922080&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx3UIRM0DAZ3WEK#Mx3UIRM0DAZ3WEK

George Smith has presented a great deal of evidence to back up the charge of plagiarism. Side by side comparisons of quotations taken from the book with his own published works as well as circumstantial evidence based on a chronology of his professional relationship with Ms McElroy have been met with a cursory reply and attempts to silence him and supporters through the threat of lawsuits. As someone who considers Ms. McElroy to have made many great contributions to feminism and libertarianism, I consider it unfortunate that she has declined to deal with these charges publicly and honestly. Until this happens, professional integrity and a respect for truth obliges any interested readers (Refer to the links provided by Starbuckle for more information) to come to terms with with an unpleasant fact about this otherwise very good book.

[PDS]

I just added this to the Amazon.com review:

http://www.amazon.com/review/R23OEN6VENRS3D/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&cdMsgNo=8&cdPage=1&asin=1573922080&store=books&cdSort=oldest&cdMsgID=Mx3UIRM0DAZ3WEK#Mx3UIRM0DAZ3WEK

George Smith has presented a great deal of evidence to back up the charge of plagiarism. Side by side comparisons of quotations taken from the book with his own published works as well as circumstantial evidence based on a chronology of his professional relationship with Ms McElroy have been met with a cursory reply and attempts to silence him and supporters through the threat of lawsuits. As someone who considers Ms. McElroy to have made many great contributions to feminism and libertarianism, I consider it unfortunate that she has declined to deal with these charges publicly and honestly. Until this happens, professional integrity and a respect for truth obliges any interested readers (Refer to the links provided by Starbuckle for more information) to come to terms with with an unpleasant fact about this otherwise very good book.

Tim: very well said.

[George H. Smith]

I deleted my previous three previous posts last night -- you know, the weird ones. I did this primarily because they had served their purpose for me, and there was no reason to keep them up. More on this later.

I'm sure some people going through this thread have been scratching their heads wondering why so many things have been blended together. This is because blowing the lid off Wendy's plagiarism by explaining the broader context in which it emerged freed me up to begin work -- if only preliminary outline work; it will probably be another year before I actually begin writing it --on an autobiography titled Sex, Drugs, and Philosophy: In Pursuit of a Hedonistic Life (SDP), a project I have been thinking about for over 15 years.

The fact that these subjects came up together may have caused some confusion, so I want to be clear: There is no direct relationship between the plagiarism scandal and SDP. Although there will be some mention of the plagiarism in SDP, it will probably consist of nothing more than passing references, By the time my book is published, the documentation of my charges will have been widely distributed, and that will be that.

One reason I raised the plagiarism on OL is because I wanted a single location where documents can be accessed by anyone who would care to investigate the matter. It is with this purpose in mind that I will be copying all of the posted evidence to a separate thread where it can be viewed by itself, without all the comments and digressions. I will ask that people not post comments on that thread, and if they do, I will delete them. I want that to be a "read only" thread, in effect.

I will be posting other documents as well, either as I locate them or as additional parallel passages are developed. I plan to develop at least 100 pages of these for inclusion in my evidentiary E-Book. I prefer not to undertake this laborious task myself not because it is laborious but because it is so painful for me, so I am grateful that a couple friends have offered to do most of the work.

It is extremely difficult for me to convey what happens when I look at chapters in TRW that consist of my ideas expressed in my words. I once sat down to look at a chapter in TRW that was almost all my material. As I got into it, I temporarily forgot that this was "Wendy's" book, and for a few moments I was congratulating myself on a good insight or a well-turned phrase. Then reality set in, and I felt like I was in the Twilight Zone.

I have had a copy of TRW since it was published, but I have never been able to keep in on an open bookshelf along with my 5000 other books. It has remained in a closet all these years until recently. I don't think the day will ever come when I can look at TRW without getting agitated and extremely angry. It is as if someone had kidnapped my child and then paraded him around town for 12 years, smugly assuming that I was helpless to prove that the child was really mine.

One thing I have never mentioned is something that happened after the 1998 episode. I thought that Wendy would at least feel enough embarrassment to downplay TRW. But the reverse happened. Even brief bios of her mentioned that book, as if it was her crowning achievement. I knew that Wendy was thumbing her nose at me in public, in effect, since these stunts are never accidental for Wendy. But I also knew that a day would come when the facts would become a matter of public record. That day has come.

Okay, I feel that I have completed the first stage of Project Plagiarism. Sufficient evidence is now available to establish the truth of my allegations. (The Alice-in-Wonderland nature of Wendy's inconsistent and absurd 1998 claims alone is enough to convict her.] And I have written enough about my personal life with Wendy to indicate, even if not to explain fully, how bizarre and complicated our relationship was. I cannot do everything at once, and the toxic nature of this material means that I can immerse myself in it for limited periods before needing to breathe fresh air.

Lastly, some words about the mind-sex stuff. I believe there are some legitimate insights here, but they are so intertwined with such highly charged personal memories that I don't have nearly enough distance to separate the theoretical wheat from the personal chaff. I may never be able to achieve the needed objectivity.

I posted some unusual things on Mind Sex because I have been deliberating for some time how much of this I should include in SDP. For various reasons I won't mention now, posting some samples on OL resolved in a fews hours a problem I had not been able to resolve in a few years. The postings demanded that I deal with the problem once and for all; and after nervously pacing back and forth for hours, the solution occured to me in a flash. How much should I deal with Mind Sex in SDP? Very little or not at all -- that's how much. I will need to approach things in an entirely different way, and I think I know what that way is.

Keep in mind that by Mind Sex I don't mean the general subject but the raw and edgy presentation of it. This was essentially a stylistic problem for me. I concluded that the complex ideas involved in Mind Sex would be more accessible and comprehensible to readers if I discussed them from a more abstract, indeed philosophical, perspective. This relates to something I noted earlier, namely, my inability at this stage to sort out from Mind Sex the insights that might actually have value from my personal quirks and sexual proclivities.

Those postings thus proved immensely successful for me. They enabled me to clear an important technical hurdle, and they reminded me of an important principle for writers, namely, not to get so attached to an appoach that you are unable or unwilling to scrap it altogether when it isn't working.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

"Wendy, I understand what you're saying, but there is more to the story."

"You were there. You heard what she said."

"Yes, she said those things, but you said a lot of things as well."

"What did I say?"

George,

This exchange reminds me of Wendy McElroy's rationale, in September 2007, for (1) posting a book review by Jim Valliant on ifeminists and (2) yanking a critique of Jim Valliant's book by Neil Parille from ifeminists after three days.

Whether she received a complaint from Jim Valliant I don't know. But Neil made an off-hand remark to her about how his piece would be controversial, which she cited as grounds for pulling his article.

I asked why she would run Valliant's review but drop Neil Parille's critique of Valliant.

Her answer was, in essence, that Neil was involved in online divisiveness and acrimony and she didn't want to bring any of that into the Rand section of ifeminists.

Whoa, I responded... wouldn't that be a reason for never running two words by Jim Valliant, on any subject? After all, he had been in the thick of online divisiveness and acrimony close to 24/7 since his book was published in 2005.

Well, no. From her point of view, only persons critical of Jim Valliant ever played any role in online divisiveness and acrimony. All by themselves.

It was though he'd never said any of the things that he was saying.

Or as though she could hear the sound of one party dialoguing.

When I suggested that she take a look at a thread or two on SOLO or OL, she declared that she never read these boards and refused to read them in the future, on account of ... their acrimony and divisiveness.

I mentioned Jim Valliant's participation in the public trashing of Chris Sciabarra, who I knew she considered a friend. No response.

I didn't cut off communication with Ms. McElroy over the incident, but after seeing her make such a blatantly biased decision I left the ifeminists forum and have rarely visited the site since then.

Robert Campbell

[Robert Campbell]

Although she didn't mention it, I'm sure another reason for Ms. McElroy not to post at OL, perhaps not even to visit, was George's membership here. I didn't think much of it at the time because George would go for months without posting here.

Robert Campbell

[George H. Smith]

Ghs wrote above, "o why didn't we stop, you might ask? Because those sessions were addictive; they were exciting beyond belief, even when they weren't going well. To this day I have never experienced the levels of excitement, which could last for hours on end, that I experienced in those days. But there was a price to be paid, as the Devil got his due - and this is one of the main things I want to explore in my autobiography."

This description evokes, almost to a tee--albeit in an admittedly much different context, Carl Jung's descriptions of his flights/journeys into his subconscious, especially as described Jung himself and van der Post in his biography of Jung. Very fascinating.

Just another reason to not lightly go around fucking with the subconscious...[and not unrelated to the thread about Neil's mind meld with God either...].

Very interesting comments. I have read some Jung, but I don't believe I have read the material you mention.

Your comment about fucking around with the subconscious is right on the mark. I realized early on that what I was doing was essentially reprogramming some of my sexual reponses, but what I didn't appreciate until later was how deep and disturbing some of these changes would turn out to be --especially in Wendy, whose Id always reminded me of the movie "Forbidden Planet." I recall laughing at the notion that "repression" is always a bad thing. Some things are better left in a bottle with a cork on, locked in a safe, and buried 50 feet underground.

Some of my experiences made me much more sympathetic to Freud than I had been previously. Not that I agreed literally with his theories, but I think he was onto something when he talked about the Id, sublimation, etc. The problem is that these notions are difficult to conceputalize and express in language. Our language is woefully deficient when it comes to describing the nuances and complexities of the subconscious.

If someone should ask "But where is the Id? Where can I find it?" I would answer, tongue-in-cheek, "Don't even ask. You don't want to go there."

My experiences also made me more interested in literary journeys into the dark recesses of the mind, such as Conrad's Heart of Darkness.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

"Wendy, I understand what you're saying, but there is more to the story."

"You were there. You heard what she said."

"Yes, she said those things, but you said a lot of things as well."

"What did I say?"

George,

This exchange reminds me of Wendy McElroy's rationale, in September 2007, for (1) posting a book review by Jim Valliant on ifeminists and (2) yanking a critique of Jim Valliant's book by Neil Parille from ifeminists after three days.

Whether she received a complaint from Jim Valliant I don't know. But Neil made an off-hand remark to her about how his piece would be controversial, which she cited as grounds for pulling his article.

I asked why she would run Valliant's review but drop Neil Parille's critique of Valliant.

Her answer was, in essence, that Neil was involved in online divisiveness and acrimony and she didn't want to bring any of that into the Rand section of ifeminists.

Whoa, I responded... wouldn't that be a reason for never running two words by Jim Valliant, on any subject? After all, he had been in thick of online divisiveness and acrimony close to 24/7 since his book was published in 2005.

Well, no. From her point of view, only persons critical of Jim Valliant ever played any role in online divisiveness and acrimony. All by themselves.

It was though he'd never said any of the things that he was saying.

Or as though she could hear the sound of one party dialoguing.

When I suggested that she take a look at a thread or two on SOLO or OL, she declared that she never read these boards and refused to read them in the future, on account of ... their acrimony and divisiveness.

I mentioned Jim Valliant's participation in the public trashing of Chris Sciabarra, who I knew she considered a friend. No response.

I didn't cut off communication with Ms. McElroy over the incident, but after seeing her make such a blatanly biased decision I left the ifeminists forum and have rarely visited the site since then.

Robert Campbell

I learned how to deal with this stuff, more or less, when I was living with Wendy. I would be very firm and insist that she think about what she was saying. Did it even make sense on its own terms?

I mentored Wendy for several years, reading and editing everything she published, until she finally published an article in Free Texas on her own that I thought was truly excellent. I saw a copy of Free Texas while we had a book table set up at an LP Convention. After reading the article, I said to Wendy, "This is good, really good. You don't need me any more." Wendy seemed very touched, as she thanked me sincerely for all the help I had given her. It was one of those Kodak Moments that I often recalled with great fondness.

Of course, this was before I learned that Wendy had co-developed all of my FOR material.

[Selene]

Excellent observations gentlemen.

Heart of Darkness is a great book and it will certainly make some deep intrusions into your mind.

Adam

[George H. Smith]

Robert,

Here are two stories that may interest you. Understand that I am not claiming credit for Wendy's work or anything like that.

When Wendy decided that she wanted to become a serious libertarian intellectual, she asked me for my help. I was reluctant because I had learned from my first marriage that to combine the equal relationship of lovers with the teacher/student relationship of mentoring entailed walking a tightrope. So I said to Wendy straight-out, if you want me to be your teacher, fine, I will do it. But I will treat you like a student. If I don't like something you write and tell you to go fix it, I don't want an argument. I don't want you to tell me why it doesn't need fixing. I want you to fix it, period. And if you get angry and decide to punish me in some way in our personal relationship, then that's it. No more mentoring; you can find another teacher.

Wendy, to her credit, eventually came around, but two incidents occurred in regard to the anthology Freedom, Feminism, and the State -- Wendy's first book.

This was a Cato project, and Wendy was under deadline pressure. She wrote her introduction quickly and then asked if I would go through it for minor corrections. After reading it at my desk with her standing next to me, anxious to get it in the mail, I said, "This is no good. You will need to rewrite it from scratch." Then came the defensive Why? What's wrong with it? Etc.

I said, "It's garbled. It has has no coherence or structure. It just rambles all over the place. It can't be rewritten or fixed. Throw it away and start over. You need to figure out a basic theme or two and then develop those themes."

After more static from Wendy, I said, "I'm sorry. You're right. This is brilliant. It will go down it history as one of the great classics of libertarian thought. Nothing like it has ever been seen before. It's a work of genius. I wouldn't change a word of it."

Without saying a word, Wendy went into her office and started from scratch. Her final draft was excellent.

I will relate the second incident later.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

George, if it were 1998 again but you know what you do now, would you have approached this issue differently out of the legal context of copyrights? It simply seems to me that you had every moral right to have protected yourself back then through the extant laws from the outright theft you have described.

--Brant

[PDS]

Robert,

Here are two stories that may interest you. Understand that I am not claiming credit for Wendy's work or anything like that.

When Wendy decided that she wanted to become a serious libertarian intellectual, she asked me for my help. I was reluctant because I had learned from my first marriage that to combine the equal relationship of lovers with the teacher/student relationship of mentoring entailed walking a tightrope. So I said to Wendy straight-out, if you want me to be your teacher, fine, I will do it. But I will treat you like a student. If I don't like something you write and tell you to go fix it, I don't want an argument. I don't want you to tell me why it doesn't need fixing. I want you to fix it, period. And if you get angry and decide to punish me in some way in our personal relationship, then that's it. No more mentoring; you can find another teacher.

Wendy, to her credit, eventually came around, but two incidents occurred in regard to the anthology Freedom, Feminism, and the State -- Wendy's first book.

This was a Cato project, and Wendy was under deadline pressure. She wrote her introduction quickly and then asked if I would go through it for minor corrections. After reading it at my desk with her standing next to me, anxious to get it in the mail, I said, "This is no good. You will need to rewrite it from scratch." Then came the defensive Why? What's wrong with it? Etc.

I said, "It's garbled. It has has no coherence or structure. It just rambles all over the place. It can't be rewritten or fixed. Throw it away and start over. You need to figure out a basic theme or two and then develop those themes."

After more static from Wendy, I said, "I'm sorry. You're right. This is brilliant. It will go down it history as one of the great classics of libertarian thought. Nothing like it has ever been seen before. It's a work of genius. I wouldn't change a word of it."

Without saying a word, Wendy went into her office and started from scratch. Her final draft was excellent.

I will relate the second incident later.

Ghs

This reminds me very much of the 2 long years of editing my wife's Phd dissertation. Of course, I was much more kind and understanding than Ghs seems to have been...

Many rocks and icebergs in those deep waters [oft-times leading to the captain being denied entry into port as well, I might add].

[George H. Smith]

George, if it were 1998 again but you know what you do now, would you have approached this issue differently out of the legal context of copyrights? It simply seems to me that you had every moral right to have protected yourself back then through the extant laws from the outright theft you have described.

--Brant

Nope, wouldn't change a thing. Copyright would have been irrelevant anyway. FOR was a rough draft, and Wendy was a trusted friend.

But I got screwed, you might say. Yup, I got screwed big time. So what? Lots of people get screwed big time. Life isn't fair, and friends turn on you. Using legal coercion that I don't think is right can't change any of that. All that would happen is that I would also lose the one thing that no one can take from me unless I give it to them, my intellectual integrity.

I have made many mistakes in my life and messed up many things, but intellectual integrity is the one thing I have maintained in pristine condition.

All I really wanted from this plagiarism scandal is for enough people to consider the evidence objectively and not be fooled by the Little Innocent Me routine of Wendy McEloy, and then back me up in public forums. This has already started to happen on Amazon, and with each new bit of support I feel that my efforts have paid off. .

The thing that has infuriated me the most in the past is this kind of moral cowardice:

Well, maybe George has a point, but they were lovers, and this is probably one of those personal quarrels where outsiders will never know the whole truth.... I just can't believe that Wendy could be as bad as George says, so he is obviously exaggerating to some degree ..There must be more to the story than we will ever hear...And he will eventually get over it, so there is no need for me to say anything.....

ARRRGH!!!!

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

I don't know what in recent posts made me think of this, but I suddenly remembered an electric typewriter that I used to own -- a German-built Adler that was reliable and heavier than a Buick.

The interesting thing about that Adler is that I purchased it from Nathaniel Branden for $150 in order to write ATCAG. Nathan told me that he had used it write his articles for The Objectivist Newsletter. I then used it to write all of ATCAG.

I wish I had been able to hold on to that Adler over the years, because it was a unique historical curiosity. Oh, well...

Ghs