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

[9thdoctor]

I'm not sure why all this is coming to a head right now. I'm going back to rereading this thread.

I suspect it's because GHS is putting together a collection of his unpublished work.

As to the original motivation for the plagiary, from this angle it looks like "Hell hath no fury..."

[George H. Smith]

No reply from Wendy yet. And knowing Wendy as I do, I am pretty sure that no reply by now means no reply at all.

I really don't want to fuck Wendy up, so, after giving it some thought, I am willing to drop one of my conditions. Wendy need not get TRW withdrawn or put in both our names. This would have been the most troublesome condition, because if she went to Prometheus demanding these conditions, they might sue her.

Plus, what's the point, really? It's more of a public flogging sort of thing, and her public apology should be enough.

Now these make things much, much easier for Wendy. All she need do is:

1) Arrive at some kind of dignified apology.

2 Fork over half the earnings that she made from TRW. She wouldn't even have to sign a contract, or change the royalty agreement with Prometheus. I will take her word for it, and if she can't pay all the money at once, we can easily work out an arrangement.

I really don't know what else I can do. I have tried my best to be reasonable and to provide Wendy with a quick and gracious way out of this mess.

Will someone trusted by Wendy talk to her and try to convince her that this is more than fair offer?

And what's BFD about writing a simple email to me?. Maybe Wendy has an alternate proposal that I will accept. Why no good faith negotiations at all? What is the point of all this? By this time tomorrow this 12 year fight could be over, and I will even help Wendy pick up the pieces, if she want me too.

Everybody fucks up from time to time. One achievement that Wendy and I share is we are both in the Major League Fuck-Ups Hall of Fame. In fact, I was inducted one year before Wendy was.

Ghs

Oh, one other thing. I would need some kind of assurance by Wendy and/or Prometheus that I would be free to use my own material. You canot believe how frusrating it has been to read 200 pages of my own material in my own words that I cannot even use or reprint without begin accused of plagiarism myself. It is an unbelievable feeling. This is stuff that I used in around 200 classes during a period of 7 years. I had most it memorized, and I recall much of it still.

It is very weird to be reading along in TRW, keeping a sentence or two ahead because you know exactly what should come next, and then getting a jolt and sensing that something is out of joint in the universe because a few word changes means that what should come next is not what comes next.

When you really know material as well as I know FOR, this experience can make you feel that the ground is swaying beneath your feet.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I'll be frank, George. If you sincerely want a public apology from Wendy you should give her a week to compose and adjust to your nuclear option. This--this thread, not the prior stuff--is too much too soon. Human beings need a chance to figure things out without quite the rush you are up and in.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

No reply from Wendy yet. And knowing Wendy as I do, I am pretty sure that no reply by now means no reply at all.

I really don't want to fuck Wendy up, so, after giving it some thought, I am willing to drop one of my conditions. Wendy need not get TRW withdrawn or put in both our names. This would have been the most troublesome condition, because if she went to Prometheus demanding these conditions, they might sue her.

Plus, what's the point, really? It's more of a public flogging sort of thing, and her public apology should be enough.

Now these make things much, much easier for Wendy. All she need do is:

1) Arrive at some kind of dignified apology.

2 Fork over half the earnings that she made from TRW. She wouldn't even have to sign a contract, or change the royalty agreement with Prometheus. I will take her word for it, and if she can't pay all the money at once, we can easily work out an arrangement.

I really don't know what else I can do. I have tried my best to be reasonable and to provide Wendy with a quick and gracious way out of this mess.

Will someone trusted by Wendy talk to her and try to convince her that this is more than fair offer?

And what's BFD about writing a simple email to me?. Maybe Wendy has an alternate proposal that I will accept. Why no good faith negotiations at all? What is the point of all this? By this time tomorrow this 12 year fight could be over, and I will even help Wendy pick up the pieces, if she want me too.

Everybody fucks up from time to time. One achievement that Wendy and I share is we are both in the Major League Fuck-Ups Hall of Fame. In fact, I was inducted one year before Wendy was.

Ghs

I can think of no more eloquent refutation of the anti-intellectual property and defamation law positions than this.

[syrakusos]

You mean you haven't been following this for the last twelve years?!?!

I truly let it escape me...

I told my wife about this and promised to get into the history for her.

Two Treatises of Government by George H. Smith and Wendy McElroy ...May 1, 2006 ... Two Treatises of Government by George H. Smith and Wendy McElroy, read by Craig Deitschman - Politics. Blackstone Audio, Inc.

www.blackstoneaudio.com/audiobook.cfm?id=3790&AFF=1046

Giants of political thought : boxed set [sound recording]

ISBN: 9780786158911

Notes: discs 1-2. Common sense / Thomas Paine ; The declaration of independence / Thomas Jefferson / edited by George H. Smith

... -- discs 15-17. The federalist papers / Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay / edited by George H. Smith and Wendy McElroy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wendy McElroy (born 1951) is a Canadian individualist anarchist and individualist feminist. She was a co-founder along with Carl Watner and George H. Smith of The Voluntaryist in 1982.

Neither Bullets Nor Ballots by Carl Watner, George H. Smith, and Wendy McElroy

Vindication of the Rights of Woman - Mary Wollstonecraft by Wendy McElroy, George H. Smith (Editor), Craig Deitschmann (Narrator)

Audio Cassette Published by Knowledge Products

Who knew?

When I saw Carl Watner, I remembered him (as well as George and Wendy) from The Libertarian Connection, back in the 1970s and early 80s. It was run by Durk and Sandy when they were known as Skye and Natalee. Murray Rothbard, Robert Poole, Jr., Harry Browne, Tibor Machan, it was one big happy family... well, except for the bickering over anarchism, but some things never change, eh?

No, can't I say I followed the interpersonal drama of life among the libertarians. I was sorry to see Bill Bradford die, though. He was my first coin dealer and you always remember your first one.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Michael E. Marotta

[Mike Renzulli]

My original post was (in my opinion) fairly even handed. I left open the possibility that Wendy McElroy may have plagiarized your work but also left open the possibility she may have not. I went based on the example you put up in this thread.

I also just looked at your review at Amazon and I assume because Amazon does not want to be seen as a place getting involved in this dispute which is why it looks like your review has been edited. I will look over your articles. However, I do lack a copy of the book in which to do a more detailed analysis.

None the less, I find it odd that it took you twelve years to attempt get this resolved. You have had plenty time to fix this on your own without having to involve people here in this matter. Admittedly Wendy did too but I think both of you are wrong for not having resolved this among yourselves over that period of time.

I do stand by my statement that you should pursue legal options and not cop out of not filing a copyright lawsuit because it may conflict with your principles. Consistency should not be considered an intrinsic value yet you are taking your consistency to illogical conclusions (i.e. you are using consistency as an intrinsic value). Libertarianism and anarchism, like Objectivism, are PHILOSOPHIES not religions.

The world will not come to an end because George H. Smith (who opposes the existence of copyright laws) decides to retain an attorney and file a lawsuit in a government court against Wendy McElroy because she may have plagiarized articles you wrote.

I think waiting for an apology is fair and I agree with Brant that you should give her a week. If she does not you should pursue legal redress. By not doing so, the reality is that you are denying yourself of having an injustice committed against you corrected.

However, based on the comparison with what George posted comparing his essay to Wendy's it looks more like she paraphrased his work.

No, most of what I posted so far is called plagiarism, not paraphrasing. You don't paraphrase by changing a few words. And you ain't seen nothing yet. Wendy's entire chapter on logic is copied, nearly word for word, from some articles that I published in 1986, twelve years before TRW. My articles are available here , so make the comparison for yourself, if you don't believe me. Oh, but Wendy did change he to she, him to her, and man to woman, so maybe she was paraphrasing.

If you guys want to give Wendy a fair chance to respond to my offer, then I suggest that you back off for 24 hours. You have only a small fraction of the evidence. I am ready to to cut Wendy off at the knees right now, if I need to. I will post example after example of Wendy's plagiarism -- at least 200 pages -- immediately, if I need to. I don't owe her anything.

I expected this kind of excuse making for Wendy, especially from men. It has happened before, and it drove Sharon Presley up the wall.

Gosh, George, don't be so quick to condemn. Maybe Wendy just paraphrased everything you have ever written on the subject of reasoning. Maybe Wendy is so innocent and naive that she didn't understand that her paraphrasing would be taken by you as plagiarism. Maybe you don't understand what plagiarism really is -- not every word in every sentence is exactly the same, after all -- so maybe Wendy is right and you are wrong. I've met Wendy. She is cute, and she is bright, and she is funny, and she has a nice laugh, and I love the way she tosses her hair back when she speaks --it reminds me of Rita Hayworth in Gilda -- and I don't believe that someone with all these lovely and charming qualities would ever plagiarize. Have you considered the possibility that your feelings got hurt, that you were angry and overwrought, and that you lost your sense of perspective? Maybe you should think about this for another 12 years before you act on a snap judgment.

Hey, Sharon. You were right once again about what would happen with some of the guys. Just wait till they hear Wendy's revolving door of excuses. I hope the "We had a contract" explanation will come up early -- you know, the one that, even if it were 100 percent correct, would mean that I wrote 50 percent of TRW? I love that argument.

Ghs

Edited January 15, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[George H. Smith]

I need to correct some errors in the following post, so I ask that people give me around 15minutes before commenting.

My original post was (in my opinion) fairly even handed. I left open the possibility that Wendy McElroy may have plagiarized your work but also left open the possibility she may have not. I went based on the example you put up in this thread.

I also just looked at your review at Amazon and I assume because Amazon does not want to be seen as a place getting involved in this dispute which is why it looks like your review has been edited. I will look over your articles. However, I do lack a copy of the book in which to do a more detailed analysis.

None the less, I find it odd that it took you twelve years to attempt get this resolved. You have had plenty time to fix this on your own without having to involve people here in this matter. Admittedly Wendy did too but I think both of you are wrong for not having resolved this among yourselves over that period of time.

I do stand by my statement that you should pursue legal options and not cop out of not filing a copyright lawsuit because it may conflict with your principles. Consistency should not be considered an intrinsic value yet you are taking your consistency to illogical conclusions (i.e. you are using consistency as an intrinsic value). Libertarianism and anarchism, like Objectivism, are PHILOSOPHIES not religions.

The world will not come to an end because George H. Smith (who opposes the existence of copyright laws) decides to retain an attorney and file a lawsuit in a government court against Wendy McElroy because she may have plagiarized articles you wrote.

I think waiting for an apology is fair and I agree with Brant that you should give her a week. If she does not you should pursue legal redress. By not doing so, the reality is that you are denying yourself of having an injustice committed against you corrected.

Mike,

The problem is that you don't have the facts about what happened in 1998.

I looked through my files last night to find Wendy's public responses to my 1998 charges. I haven't found them yet, and I may not even have them on my hard drive, because I wasn't working off my own computer at the time. I was going over to Laura's place because she was hooked up to the Internet and I wasn't.

There is an interesting sidebar here. In the legal threat, Kinsella said that he had taken action, or was going to take action (my memory is vague on details), against Laura's server if they didn't cut Laura off. Her "crime" was that she had permitted me to use her computer and Internet connecion to transmit my defamatory missives. I call these "missives" rather than "posts," because I only sent them to friends, encouraging them to forward my missives to others of their own choosing. (I know that Sharon posted some of the missives on a feminist elist.)

I am going to give you a summary from memory of the legal issues -- this came up a lot, because I did consult an attorney to find out my legal standing, and I was in touch with the in-house attorney of Prometheus Books.

The first several explanations given by Wendy were pathetic and were not even consistent with one another. Her final explanation sent me throught the roof in anger. Wendy claimed (and this is not an exaggeration; I have my responses to this somewhere in my files) that she had co-developed ALL of my FOR material, even though I was giving those classes a full year before I had even met Wendy -- and that she was in fact a co-teacher of my FOR seminars. Of course, Wendy never co-taught any of those classe. After taking the class herself, she would sometimes times sit in the living room to observe while I was giving a class, because we lived together, but that was it.

Wendy also claimed that she had co-authored my FOR manuscript, which is equally absurd. (This is also one of her later claims; she never even hinted at this in her earlier missives, such as in her "I have an excellent memory" argument).

These claims by Wendy is the reason I got signed statements by people who attended my FOR classes and others who were close to Wendy and at the time, such as Jeff Riggenbach. JR wrote an excellent missive on this in 1998. I may not still have it, but I hope he does. If so, and if he is reading this, I ask that he post in on this thread. I am feeling a bit overwhelmed by having to dig up all this detailed stuff from 12 years ago.)

Then came the legal problem. Long after the FOR manuscript (a rough draft) was complete, Wendy I and drew up a contract in which we agreed to co-author an unamed book on reasoning. She then cooked up an outright and outrageous lie, namely, that I had not lived up to my side of our contract, and that this gave her legal right to publish ALL of my FOR material in her name, and in her name only, without my knowledge or consent. Here is a summary from one of my 1998 missives:

Now, about the FOR mansucript, from which I quoted extensively in my original posting.

When McElroy and I separated in 1985, she suggested that I should rework my FOR material into a book. I was very busy writing tapes at the time, however, and didn’t see how I could get the time. She then volunteered -- and for this I give her credit – to transcribe dozens of tapes from years of classes, eliminate duplicated material, and divide everything into preliminary chapters. This sounded like a good idea, so I gave her the box of tapes to take with her when she moved to Canada, along with copies of the many notes that I had accumulated over the years.

Several years went by until, late in 1988, she sent me a disk containing what she had promised to do. (Again, I acknowledge the work she did here; indeed, I promised to give her credit in my FOR book.) This is the disk from which I quoted previously. The original floppy has a label attached with McElroy’s handwriting. It reads: “FOR Book, Oct.,2, 1988.” .

Note that this date is more than ONE YEAR before McElroy and I signed the contract on November 29, 1989. THE MATERIAL ON THIS DISK, FROM WHICH McELROY TOOK MUCH OF HER BOOK, IS ENTIRELY MY OWN. McElroy did nothing more that transcribe and arrange that material.

This rough draft of my FOR book sat untouched for some time, because I was still busy with other things. McElroy encouraged me to work on it during a number of our phone conversations (again, to her credit), stating that it had commercial potential.

Finally, around one year after she had sent me the disk, McElroy proposed the following: She would take responsibility for writing a polished draft and contribute two or three chapters of her own, if I would be willing to list her as the second author. This seemed reasonable to me at the time (and still does), since I seriously doubted whether I would be able to finish the FOR book on my own in the near future.

Shortly thereafter, Wendy presented me with the contract, which we both signed. She also said that she would be sending her chapters in the near future, and encouraged me to write a finished draft of the first three chapters, so we could submit a proposal to a publisher. I spent a couple of weeks doing so and wrote to Nathaniel Branden asking if he would write an advance letter to one of his publishers, asking them to consider it for publication. He did so. I submitted the first three chapters, but they were rejected.

Both Wendy and I were disappointed, of course, and after this we let the project slide. She never submitted her material to me, nor did I press her for it, and we both went on to other things, thinking (I suppose) that we would take it up at another time. A few years later, we ended our personal association, and that was that. There was no question that the material I had worked on over a seven-year period was mine, and whatever Wendy had written was hers.

Wendy, on the other hand, claims that she submitted a final draft of this manuscript to me at some point, which I then I had six weeks to review, according to the terms of the contract. She then claims that, since I did not do whatever I was supposed to do in six weeks, that all the rights to my material – meaning, the entire book as it existed up to that point – reverted to her, giving her the right to publish it under her own name.

On my word of honor, this claim is absolutely and unequivocally false. I never got anything from her beyond the original transcripts. Again, consider the coherence of McElroy’ claim.

(1) The contract says nothing whatever about her getting the rights to my material should I not review the final manuscript in six weeks. It doesn’t even specify what is meant by “review.” Presumably, had she submitted a “final manuscript” to me, I could simply have accepted it as is. If this manuscript exists, how does she know that I didn’t “review” it? I certainly would have read it and discussed it with her on the phone. Is she claiming that, upon receiving the final manuscript, I never said anything about it, even though we customarily talked by phone at least two times a week? What kind of sense does this make? If I had had a final manuscript in hand, based largely on seven years of my work, would I have just ignored it? And even if I had, by what tortured logic can she claim that all rights to my material reverted to her? The contract says nothing like this, nor is it implied. Who in their right mind would ever sign such a contract? Does McElroy seriously expect people to believe that I would be willing to surrender to her seven years of my work after a six-week deadline had elapsed? I hope that third parties will use some common sense here, since McElroy obviously isn’t.

(2) If McElroy insists that I defaulted on our contract, and that all rights to my writing somehow reverted to her, then third parties should demand some evidence to substantiate this claim. There surely must have been correspondence about this between the two of us.. She assumes the burden of proof in this matter, not me. Let her therefore produce even a scrap of evidence in support of this charge. Or has she conveniently destroyed this evidence along with most everything else, except her mysterious diary?

(3) If things happened as McElroy claims they did, then consider: When she signed her contract with Prometheus Books, why didn’t she notify Prometheus of the situation, stating that she had the right to publish a good deal of my writing? If she had, Prometheus would have (a) asked McElroy to provide documentation of her claim, and (B) contacted me prior to publishing the book.

(4) Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that McElroy is in the right about everything up to this point – that, owing to some legal technicality, she had acquired full rights to my material. My charge against her, however, is plagiarism, which means to represent what someone else has written as your own. Thus, if the preceding is McElroy’s argument, then she is a self-confessed plagiarist. She has in fact admitted that she published a good deal of my writing under her name, representing my work as her own. What else needs to be said about this matter?

I submit, therefore, that McElroy’s argument is absurd on its very face. Is she confessing to plagiarism or not, with the legal excuse that she had acquired all rights to my work? You can evaluate these and other claims by her for their internal coherence, using nothing more than your common sense.

I am going to stop here for now. But I want to say again that you should refrain offering unsolicited criticims at this stage, because, to be perfectly blunt, you dont have all the facts, and you don't know what the hell you are talking about. This is a lot more complicated that most people realize.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

The following is a letter that I wrote to the late Robert Kephart, who had concluded that all of my claims were right and that Wendy was an outright plagiarist. He told me that he had never been so disappointed with someone in his entire life.

I have never show this letter to anyone. OLers are the first to read it.

Note the reference to rumors about a drug relapse. This came from dear, sweet Wendy, who knew nothing about my life at the time but who would do anything she could to discredit me. The drug charge is completely false. I will be blunt: That bitch will do almost anything when her back is against the wall. For example, she sent a snail mail letter to my best friend in Long Beach, Richard Martin, saying that I was a "sex pervert" and that he should end all association with me.

Wendy didn't even know Richard; she had never even spoken to him. She knew about him only because I had mentioned him to her in some of our earlier phone conversations.

I vividly recall when Richard entered my Long Beach apartment with that letter in hand. He had a grin on his face, and he said, "George, I just got a letter from Wendy, but I think it was meant for you." By this Richard meant that it was a shot across the bow, a warning to me should I cause Wendy any trouble.

Dear Bob,

I apologize for this long letter, but, as Jefferson once said, I didn’t have the time to write a short one. I think, however, that you will find my observations, many of which I state here for the first time, to be of interest.

(1) I want first to comment on the drug rumor you mentioned, which is based on the supposedly erratic nature of the different styles that I have used in different postings.

If something as inconsequential as the fact that I chose to use different writing styles for different articles – always after discussing it at some length with Laura and, sometimes, with Sharon Presley – is enough to convict me of drug use, then so be it. People often believe what they want to believe, without much regard for the evidence – as this plagiarism controversy unfortunately illustrates. And the point of that rumor is quite obvious. If drugs have unhinged my mind, then perhaps this “explains” my unprovoked and malicious attack against Wendy. (Why do I sense Wendy’s presence at the end of this rumor chain?)

(2) In my sole email communication with Wendy before all this broke, written shortly after moving in with Vince Miller and co., I told Wendy, “As you probably have heard, I lost everything in storage…” I then told Wendy that, despite our personal feud, we had unfinished professional business, and it would serve both our interests to get it done. She responded, not to me, but to Vince. She told him that I had “ruined her life,” was harassing her through his email service, that I had sent her EIGHT personal email messages (that’s right, not one, but eight), and that he should prohibit me from contacting her through his Net account. Should he fail to do this, she would block all messages from his address, so that even he could no longer communicate with her.

Vince showed me her letter and told me he would support any decision I cared to make. I had no further reason to communicate with Wendy, I so let the matter drop.

The timing here is interesting. I was making an obvious reference to the unfinished book on reasoning. This was in 1996, the year Wendy claims to have started her pristine draft of TRW. Wendy’s response seemed highly irrational at the time, given the innocuous nature of my brief email. Yet, looking back, it makes sense to me now. I think you can easily fill in the gaps.

(3) Tim Starr told me that he couldn’t imagine why people would doubt my charges, since long sections of TRW were obviously written in my style. Frequent use of dashes (a mannerism I picked up from Rand long ago, and constantly have to be on guard against overdoing), complex sentence structures, many sentences with parallel constructions (something I picked up from the Victorian historian and essayist T.B. Macaulay, and which Jeff has often criticized me for), pithy little remarks that are deliberately ambiguous (e.g., “Subjectivists are made, not born” – a line that I had use many times before, including at HIS seminars, and which Wendy copied verbatim), etc.

It is for this reason that I have no doubt what the long-term verdict of history will be in this matter, after the moral cowardice of some contemporary libertarians has faded into an embarrassing memory. At some point, some enterprising libertarian, perhaps looking for an interesting subject for a master’s dissertation, will undertake a detailed stylistic analysis of TRW. There are already computer programs that will do this, and they have been used with considerable success on the works of Shakespeare. (I intend no comparison here.) It’s just a matter of time.

(4) Speaking of embarrassments, guess what I heard from one libertarian writer (a friend of Wendy’s) who had endorsed TRW? When I suggested that he may wish to reconsider his endorsement, do you know what he said? He told me, yes, there was an obvious problem, but he had endorsed the IDEAS in TRW, regardless of WHO wrote them, so he would let his endorsement stand.

I have never heard anything so pathetic in my life; I haven’t even responded, because I don’t see any need to humiliate this guy further. Yet other responses, though not quite this bad, are not much better. History, as Lord Acton said, is a hanging judge; and I fear that many libertarians are destined to undergo a literary lynching in the future histories of our movement.

(5) As Laura has repeatedly noted, the lame excuses for Wendy’s plagiarism come mostly from men. Libertarian women, especially professional intellectuals, are far too knowledgeable in the ways of the world to say such silly things. They aren’t fooled for a second by Wendy’s Shirley Temple act. (I used to kid her about this unmercifully, and tell her that it was inappropriate when working with professionals, since it would only reinforce the “helpless little me” image of women.)

Sharon has perceptively called attention to the “reverse sexism” that is rife in this controversy. A high percentage of those who have taken a public stand against Wendy have been women – Sharon, Barbara, Gail Lightfoot, Janice Allen, etc. The libertarian movement, which is top-heavy with geeky men in search of a Dagny Taggart, would not tolerate Wendy’s antics for a second, were she the typical libertarian male. Had our roles been reversed in this case, I would have been drawn-and-quartered long ago.

Oh well, as Murray used to say, this is the movement we have chosen. Even so, I am surprised to learn that the minority of females have the majority of balls. If this trend continues, gender-shame may cause me to get mine surgically removed.

(6) Another relevant story: If you look at the author’s attributions in the recent Laissez Faire Books Catalogue, you will notice that Wendy is listed as co-writer of the four tapes on Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations. As many people know, including Leonard Liggio, Walter Grinder, Randy Barnett, Mike Hassell, and Jack High, I wrote every word of those scripts, and there was no question by Crom or anyone else that I should be listed as the sole author.

What happened was this: The scripts were originally assigned to Jack High. His time was limited; he could produce only a very rough draft, so I said that Wendy and I would rewrite his material, and list the three of us as authors.. The blurbs for the tape boxes had to be finished months before tape production, often before the writing process had even begun. Thus the Adam Smith boxes appeared with all three names. But Jack’s scripts turned out to be atrocious, incapable of being rewritten. Thus I undertook the laborious task of writing entirely new scripts myself, which took nearly six months. . When they were produced, however, the box still listed three authors. Rather than undergo the expense of manufacturing new boxes, I let this stand, telling Crom that we could make corrections when the present stock was used up, and new boxes were needed. (I am mentioned as sole author at the conclusion of the taped narration.)

Okay, so I end up leaving Knowledge Products, and Wendy takes over my job. What does she do when KP started using the more durable plastic-boxes? She omits JACK’S name, but leaves her OWN, thereby taking credit as co-author of the Adam Smith tapes. My charges against Wendy regarding TRW are not without precedent.

(7) On the libel threats: I have never believed that Wendy intends to follow through on this. Recall the progression of events. She was killing herself with her unbelievable and inconsistent defenses. You called her on that 1994 fiction, and she knew that she had shot herself in the foot. If she had waited until hearing about the legalistic theory, according to which she may have had the right to publish my FOR material under her own name, you can bet she never would have invented the 1994 story. She would have avoided it entirely, and developed a stronger defense.

Thus, having run out of feet to shoot herself in, Wendy had to find some way to justify remaining silent. She found her excuse in some ambiguous expressions in my original letter to her (which is why she posted it). Though I did not intend to threaten legal action against Wendy (I was alluding to possible action by Prometheus), I must admit that some of my statements were ambiguous. I did clarify them, however, in my second private letter to Wendy.

Recall that Wendy’s original reason for remaining silent was owing to possible legal action by ME against HER. This rationale quickly dissolved, however, when I went public with a pledge not to initiate legal proceedings. So what could she do now? Well, now she has to stay mute because SHE is contemplating legal action against ME, and she must say nothing on the advice of her lawyer. I therefore believe that she will simply let the threat hang out there indefinitely, neither going ahead with it nor renouncing it, because her primary concern is to justify standing mute on this matter. Nor will she ever pursue a negotiated settlement in good faith, for the same reason.

(8) Now on to a very telling point. No one other than me seems to have understood the crucial significance of this issue, perhaps because, like most everything else, Wendy mentioned it almost in passing. Yet the absurdity of this one claim by itself proves beyond doubt that Wendy did not co-write the FOR manuscript.

To understand why Wendy felt compelled to make this claim (which I shall identify shortly), you must keep in mind the significance of my original private letter to her. She wanted to post this letter, because it would justify her decision to stand mute (for reasons I explained before). But my letter also contained some rather incriminating details that were not included in my public postings. For example, I asked her about that box of FOR tapes, from which she transcribed much of the FOR manuscript, stating that she should send them to Prometheus, so they could judge the matter for themselves. (Only my voice was on any of those tapes, except for participants, and many of my remarks were clearly extemporaneous or taken from notes.)

Thus, in her first defense, when presenting her disastrous 1994 story, Wendy briefly suggested that, in addition to erasing her hard drive, she had also returned all other materials to me. This was an allusion to the tapes, for those who cared to make the connection. (Of course, I never received anything from her.) But she was careful never to mention the tapes explicitly, nether here nor at any other time. Quite curious, don’t you think? If Wendy were innocent, wouldn’t she be eager to explain the role of those tapes in the FOR manuscript? Did she in fact transcribe ANY of them? Perhaps some of the FOR manuscript was transcribed, but not all. A number of such issues would be raised by an innocent person, but Wendy characteristically avoided them altogether.

Now to the key claim that destroys her entire case, and ranks second in absurdity to only her 1994 fiction. . Recall that Wendy’s first defense refers (again in passing) to the fact that the FOR manuscript makes extensive use of singular pronouns throughout (I, me). This is because they were largely transcriptions of my classroom conversations. Thus Wendy had to explain away this problem, because I had raised it in my original letter to her, and she wanted to post that letter. A transcriber would leave the style as it was originally spoken, but what would a co-writer do, fully aware that the final draft, having been written by two people, would need to use the plural pronouns “we” and “us”?

Note how Wendy gave a very brief explanation, and then let it drop. She said that, while writing the FOR manuscript, she used the singular pronouns for the sake of convenience? Convenience? Would it not have been equally convenient to

to use the plurals? Does it take that much additional time to type “we” and “us” instead of “I” and “me”?

More importantly, what writer in their right mind would use hundreds of improper pronouns knowing that they would all have to be changed for the final version? Wendy’s argument indicates that she chose the singular form after consciously deliberating the question of convenience. This was no oversight, therefore, but a reasoned decision on her part. Are we to believe, then, that it didn’t occur to her that she was creating a good deal of tedious and needless labor for herself in the near future, when hundreds of pronouns would needed to be changed, one by one, from singular to plural -- and that this would also change the sense of some passages, which would need to be rewritten as well?

I have my problems with Wendy, but I would never accuse her of such gross stupidity. Ask any professional writer – Barbara, Sharon, whomever – about the likelihood that another professional writer would ever do such a thing, and I guarantee you that all of them will classify the credibility of Wendy convenience story as on a par with the miraculous. One thing writers dread, and avoid at all costs, are those extensive and tedious corrections that, according to Wendy, she purposely inflicted upon herself for the sake of “convenience.”

It is clear that Wendy, in her haste to manufacture a reply to the remark in my initial letter, failed to consider the implications of her convenience story. She had many things on her mind – other stories to concoct – and so could not spend much time on any one of them. Thus, desperate to answer my previous argument about those singular pronouns, fully aware that this could destroy her entire case, she hastily came up with the convenience story, while failing to understand its fatal deficiencies.

My argument here, however trivial it may seem at first glance, totally undercuts Wendy’s claim to have co-written the FOR manuscript. It is an obvious lie. But why would this lie be necessary, if she was telling the truth about other things? It would serve no purpose. But, short on time, she didn’t bother to come up with a better explanation. She threw out her convenience story and hoped it would float. But it quickly sinks upon even a cursory examination, taking the rest of her story with it.

In short, if the convenience story is clearly absurd, then the rest of her story is clearly false. Period. There is no other explanation whatever. And when combined with her other obvious falsehoods, such as the 1994 story – which even those who grant some credence to Wendy do not dare defend – then the probability of any of her contested claims being true reduces to absolute zero. If a person is caught in several obvious and significant lies in a controversy like this, while her opponent has been accused of none, then the presumption of truth shifts entirely to the innocent party (i.e., me), and the liar assumes the burden to explain other inconsistent and improbable assertions.

This working presumption becomes even stronger when you consider that I have probably posted at least ten-times more on this affair than Wendy. Yet I defy anyone to identify even one inconsistent or improbable statement in any of my pieces. In Wendy’s two defenses, on the other hand, she has committed many such blunders.

(9) I eagerly await the day when prominent libertarians demand – in PUBLIC POSTINGS – that Wendy explain these and other serious problems in her story. And they should furthermore inform her that they will not accept her rationale for remaining mute, since I have pledged not to initiate legal action – which was her original excuse. Failure to give satisfactory explanations should be construed as evidence of guilt, as should unwillingness to settle this matter in good faith, either through personal negotiations or third party arbitration.

Such posting needn’t state that Wendy has already been judged. They need merely state that she has a good deal to explain, and that she will be judged, starting now, if she refuses to do so.

You can bet that, were this to occur, more would happen in a few days that would otherwise happen in many months. I have already done my worst, so Wendy has nothing further to fear from me, and no reason to settle. But she does have much more to lose from the negative opinion of third parties, especially if their opinions are stated publicly. Only if something like this happens can we expect Wendy to come out of her legal cocoon and agree to settle this matter. Without it, don’t expect any progress in this matter. Whether progress occurs or not is no longer in my hands, but in those of prominent third parties. (Hint, hint.)

Best,

George

[Mike Renzulli]

I was at a Freedom Summit in Phoenix when you were a guest speaker and remember you mentioning this in I think it was 2002 or 2003. Having remembered this and when you brought this up here I thought to myself oh God he still hasn't resolved this issue?.

I can only comment based on the information initally given on a thread like this and I appreciate the additional information you posted. I am sure you are aware and please understand that once someone divulges information or makes comments on boards like this ANYONE can make comments on them in reply.

My statement regarding legal action and my criticisms of your position stem from your statement when you said earlier in this thread:

If I don't believe in copyright laws, then I would hypocritical to pursue a course just because it is my ox that has been gored.

Making comments like this could be tantamount to inviting more incidents like what has happened with you and Wendy McElroy. In other words, it could lead others with ulterior motives to think you can be easily manipulated or taken advantage of (which I am sure is not the case).

If McElroy did committ this act against you that is clearly fraudulent and she should (at the very least) apologize. She is lucky not only to have had you help her with her writing career but that you are willing to accept an apology.

She should also, if possible, at very least compensate you by splitting royalties on this book's sales.

But, still, there is the amount of time that has gone by though.

None the less, I will watch how things pan out and refrain from anymore criticisms after this.

But I want to say again that you should refrain offering unsolicited criticims at this stage, because, to be perfectly blunt, you dont have all the facts, and you don't know what the hell you are talking about. This is a lot more complicated that most people realize.

Ghs

Edited January 15, 2011 by Mike Renzulli

[Brant Gaede]

It's strange how two people can become so tangled up in each other they can forget where one leaves off and the other begins. I don't know if that's the case in this case, but it makes the thought come to mind. The other thing is most people it seems when discovered to be wrong can't step back and start over but keep themselves wrapped up in the unreality of it all making it worse and worse.

--Brant

[Jonathan]

I do stand by my statement that you should pursue legal options and not cop out of not filing a copyright lawsuit because it may conflict with your principles. Consistency should not be considered an intrinsic value yet you are taking your consistency to illogical conclusions (i.e. you are using consistency as an intrinsic value). Libertarianism and anarchism, like Objectivism, are PHILOSOPHIES not religions.

The world will not come to an end because George H. Smith (who opposes the existence of copyright laws) decides to retain an attorney and file a lawsuit in a government court against Wendy McElroy because she may have plagiarized articles you wrote.

I think George's situation here might end up being a very interesting study in how effectively one can achieve justice while maintaining his principles of not running to government for assistance. I think there's a good chance that George might demonstrate just how powerful the court of public opinion can be: that presenting evidence and allowing people to decide for themselves can result in severe, though perfectly legal, consequences for those who behaved unjustly.

J

[kiaer.ts]

Once again we see the anarchist/pacifist delusion, that rights are not, in reality, protected by men using force according to principle, but by the magical ability of the anarchist's argument to morally oblige his enemies to do his will. The anarchist doesn't need a state for self-defense -- he has a syllogism.

And we see another common delusion of libertarians and Objectivists, the notion that ability in philosophizing trumps the law. Rand herself knew better than to act as her own lawyer. She hired professional advice when she needed it in that area. She limited herself to pontificating about psychology, biology, sexuality and anthropology, among other fields, as an expert based on her credentials as a philosophizer. But philosophizing no more makes a man an expert in the law -- Western Civilization's greatest cultural achievement -- than having the right premises makes one a medical professional. Regardless of the fact that there are confirmed cases of physicians giving themselves appendectomies, and an untrained Mexican mother performing a Ceasarean section on herself, the dictum "a fool for a client" remains in effect even if the injured party's advice to himself is not to sue on theological grounds.

God is a much easier opponent than a former bed or business partner.

For those who are interested in the legal facts, here is a site which gives the statute of limitations for fraud (usually six years or less) and defamation (usually one year) and other types of civil cases on a state-by-state basis: http://law.findlaw.com/state-laws/civil-statute-of-limitations/

[George H. Smith]

I am going to make some some general and polemical points because I am getting really pissed off.

If you compare the chapter on logic in TRW to my published articles, you will find paragraph after paragraph of copied passages, sometimes with no differences at all and sometimes with only minor alterations. Even the examples are the same, except Wendy used "woman" instead of "man."

So, listen up: This is not paraphrasing. It it flagrant plagiarism on a massive scale. Even the samples I have posted so far are outright plagiarism. Has Mike even bothered to read "The Lighter Side Plagiarism" that uses the "But!" example? Was this paraphrasing? I feel like I'm living a madhouse!

Wendy plagiarized seven years of my work, period. End of story. When is someone going to get the balls around here to say, "Yup, it sure looks like Wendy McElroy is a plagiarist, pure and simple."

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?

I swear, if you write another post to the effect, "Well, okay, but I still think...." we are going to have some major problems. Some moral support would be nice, you know.

Lastly: There is a vast dark hole in some of this because of complicated issues that go back many years. I have thus far been unwilling to go into details because it might very well ruin Wendy's marriage. Wendy is afraid that her husband will find out about things that she lied to him about ever since they started having an affair (behind my back) c. 1984. I had no desire to ruin Wendy's marriage, and even offered to corroborate some of her lies to help her out, but she has repeatedly made me the fall guy when details about this came out, even though I never said anything. (Lots of people in LA knew this stuff, which is why Wendy ran off to Canada.)

This is one reason why Wendy is standing mute. The personal stuff and her plagiarism ARE VERY CLOSELY LINKED, but even in 1998, I didn't reveal the personal stuff, even though it would have helped my case immensely. She is still counting on my not discussing any of this, even though it is required to explain why certain things happened as they did, and by not discussing them I might appear to be evasive or to be lying.

Okay, that's it. I'm sick of this shit. I'm sick of Wendy doing her little imperious act and people wondering why I did or didn't do certain things. I will blow the fucking lid off this seething cauldron of lust, if I have too. And I can back up all of this. Oh my, can I back it up.

This will make the Rand/Branden affair look like two high school sweethearts holding hands.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Okay, here we go. I will illustrate the sexually charged situation with the following example, which is not exaggerated. I am not saying this to ridicule Wendy, because I knew about all this and even approved of it.

Suppose that in 1985, the year in which Wendy and I separated, I had called a meeting of 100 libertarian and Objectivist men, including all my male friends and various other typical men who came to parties, supper clubs, etc. And suppose I said the following:

Okay, fellas, listen up. I want a show of hands. How many of you guys have NEVER gotten a ******* from Wendy?

The reponse? Maybe 10 or 20 of these guys would have raised their hands. The rest would have had big smiles on their faces.

Wendy's hubby, even if he knows about some of this, has no conception of the extent. And he doubtless believes that Wendy gave up her favorite hobby after they got together.

I know some you are now thinking, how could I be so insensitive as to reveal such personal information about my former girfriend? This is crude and boorish.

First of all, this is not personal information. Wendy and I talked about it with friends many times.

Second, if people knew the extent to which Wendy made me pay for her hobby, because I refused to say a word about any of this during the 1998 scandal, even though it would have filled in many of the blanks, they would be horrified -- and I mean absolutely horrified. I supported Wendy to the max on this. I reassured her, told her I was proud her, that I would lie for her, that I would defend her reputation, and on and on.

And you know what I got for all my trouble and concern? One day in Long Beach, early in the morning on January 1, I got a phone call from Wendy. She was speaking in a mechanical way, and she began by saying that she was severing all ties with me and ending our friendship.

Why? Because at a New's Year's Eve Party the night before, some woman had approached Wendy and called her a "slut." Brad (Wendy's clueless hubby) was apparently within earshot. So how could Wendy explain all this to Brad? Well, it must have been that "sex pervert," the infamous Ghs. The only explanation was that I had been spreading "vicious lies" about the Virgin Queen, Wendy McElroy, because I was "pining" for my lost love.

Are you beginning to get the big picture, folks? And this is only the beginning. It gets much worse

I apologize if I offended anyone with details of Wendy's hobby, but without understanding this, you cannot really understand the background to the Great Plagiarism Scandal. And I have paid dearly for holding my tongue for so long because I didn't want to jeopardize Wendy's marriage, even at the height of the 1998 scandal. (Brad is a very nice guy. I always liked him, and I think he is very good for Wendy.) I became Wendy's fall guy who looked guilty because I wouldn't reveal the embarrassing details of her hobby.

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

Have you considered writing for Damages?

I am sure it would pay better.

[Starbuckle]

FWIW, and without having seen anything firsthand of how Wendy McElroy would or did respond, it seems to me that George's case that she plagiarized is unassailable, all of it taken together.

I had heard nothing about the controversy before George mentioned it in the context of the PC contents he wants to sell. I Googled for more info about the controversy to the extent it was public circa 1998, but could find nothing (which doesn't mean that there aren't postings on elists on the net somewhere, just that, if so, they weren't easy for me to dig up). Much of the back and forth then was apparently in the form of private emails.

I find puzzling the complaints or wondering about why George would raise the issue again after so many years, as if it were some great mystery. If the facts adduced are correct, a pretty horrific injustice was done to him; words are all a professional writer has. Should there be some statute of limitations on wanting such an injustice to be rectified?

It looks like George could just go ahead and publish his own work based on his lectures, and let Wendy sue him on the basis of his plagiarizing of her. If she is mute because unable to make an intelligible case in light of all many contradictory previous statements on the matter, would she have any motive go to court over George's publishing of his own work? I'm just tossing this out there as a possibility, not saying that that this is what George should do.

[George H. Smith]

Have you considered writing for Damages?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_7ZckZ-8naz0/TSXdj-yj21I/AAAAAAAADvk/-

I am sure it would pay better.

Is this supposed to be funny, you witless wonder?.

If you don't like what I am discussing on this thread, which I started in my "corner" for the express pupose of airing the details of the Plagiarism scandal so I could figure our how to proceed, based on the feedback of some people whose judgments I trust, then get the fuck out of here. I am not writing this stuff for your amusement.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

When is someone going to get the balls around here to say, "Yup, it sure looks like Wendy McElroy is a plagiarist, pure and simple."

I chimed in to that effect here: http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9928&view=findpost&p=120883

I know some you are now thinking, how could I be so insensitive as to reveal such personal information about my former girfriend? This is crude and boorish.

Indeed, IMO, you’re crossing the line into TMI. Reference the noblesse oblige of the preux chevalier.

Does one bandy a woman's name?

Bertram Wilberforce Wooster, preux chevalier

[kiaer.ts]

Extortion

<table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="HeaderTable"><tbody><tr><td id="MainTitle" nowrap="" style="font-size: 10pt; ">

</td><td valign="top" width="100%" nowrap="" style="font-size: 10pt; padding-top: 6pt; ">

</td><td id="Timer" style="font-size: 10pt; text-align: right; width: 1px; padding-top: 6pt; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 6pt; vertical-align: top; ">

</td></tr></tbody></table><table width="100%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" id="ContentTable"><tbody><tr><td valign="top" width="100%" style="font-size: 10pt; ">The obtaining of property from another induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.

Elements of Offense

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. Extortion may be carried out by a threat to tell the victim's spouse that the victim is having an illicit sexual affair with another.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion

[George H. Smith]

[quote name='Ted Keer' timestamp='1295123316'

Elements of Offense

Virtually all extortion statutes require that a threat must be made to the person or property of the victim. Threats to harm the victim's friends or relatives may also be included. It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. Extortion may be carried out by a threat to tell the victim's spouse that the victim is having an illicit sexual affair with another.

</td></tr></tbody></table>

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/extortion

So what is this supposed to be about? Is there a point, or are you just pulling things out of your ass at random?

Ghs

[kiaer.ts]

I am not writing this stuff for your amusement.

Yes, I suspected this was inadvertent on your part.

Nevertheless, you, and not I, are the one who has chosen to open himself up to public ridicule and possible countersuit.

I happen to think my counsel, however contemptuous, has been of more value than all the sympathy here combined.

Get thee to a lawfirm.

[Robert Campbell]

George,

It's obvious, from the evidence you've provided, that The Reasonable Woman was substantially plagiarized from material that you presented in lectures or included in manuscripts published and unpublished.

Whether you brought it up on this forum in 1998 (oops, it didn't exist then) or 2002 (not around then, either) or 2006 or 2008 or 2011 is irrelevant. Plagiarism was, is, and will still be wrong.

When I go to amazon to look over the reviews of The Reasonable Woman, I get an automatic reminder that I bought the book from them in 2001. Little did I know....

Robert Campbell

[George H. Smith]

Michael,

Is there some way for me to keep Ted Keer from posting on this thread? I started this in my "corner" for a very serious purpose, and I don't want some giggling goon posting nonsense.

Thanks,

Gh

[Brant Gaede]

I think he's saying you are trying to extort property from Wendy. I must say that might be a bill collector trying to get a client's money back by threatening to report you to a credit agency. If Ted can hold on to this he might put all the collection agencies out of business.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

It is not necessary for a threat to involve physical injury. It may be sufficient to threaten to accuse another person of a crime or to expose a secret that would result in public embarrassment or ridicule. The threat does not have to relate to an unlawful act. Extortion may be carried out by a threat to tell the victim's spouse that the victim is having an illicit sexual affair with another.

So what is this supposed to be about? Is there a point, or are you just pulling things out of your ass at random?

I think you should be asking a lawyer, and not me, what your threat to go whupass on Wendy amounts to if she doesn't pony up the money you demand.

Edited January 15, 2011 by Ted Keer