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

[Rich Engle]

Sorry, but there is no crying in baseball.

rde

Indeed. Well, my sport is hockey, which is pretty much a blabfest the whole season long. I wasn't talking about tears from the combatants however, but misogyny among the spectators/

I'm equal opportunity, as far as assholes go.

[Rich Engle]

I suspect there's one key element missing, the thing any lawyer would be looking for first: Deep pockets. Is there anyone involved in this dispute that GHS could collect from? And have something left over after legal fees? I don't know, but I'm doubting it.

According to one source, Prometheus Books has an estimated annual revenue of $10 to $20 million. George stated previously (#120868) that one of their attorneys acknowledged the apparent plagiarism years ago but they did nothing about it. If they have continued to publish subsequent editions since that time, the case would seem to be fairly strong.

Yeah, but revenue isn't the same thing as net income, you can easily have $10M in revenue, but still have negative capital and no assets.

I wonder what the statute of limitations is on GHS's case, should he have a change of heart following another of these apparent libels (now the wife beating one).

If I'm not mistaken, George has always said he wanted this tried in the court of public opinion. I understand that logic, because, for one thing, it flushes out the douche bags very quickly. And that is exactly what we're seeing. Douche bags. Weak, indignant, backsliding douche-bags. It would be nice if this could be about money, and someday it even might be, but that is not the point, if I understand GHS correctly.

rde

Run Their Asses Up The Flagpole

[George H. Smith]

I wonder what the statute of limitations is on GHS’s case, should he have a change of heart following another of these apparent libels (now the wife beating one).

I don't know what the statute of limitations is, but there is no way I will change my mind.

Although it is never pleasant to be the subject of baseless and vicious allegations, in this case I welcome them, since the allegations reveal a lot about the character of the person behind them, i.e., Wendy. Wendy started these rumors, and she has been stoking them behind the scenes during the latest phase of the plagiarism scandal. This stupid tactic will backfire in the long run.

I have provided abundant documentary evidence of Wendy's plagiarism, so I don't need help there. But over the years I have heard people question whether Wendy could be so vicious as to deliberately plagiarize seven years of my work. I could present textual evidence until I was blue in the face, but so long as this question of Wendy's character was left hanging in the air, it gave some observers reason to doubt. They would typically appeal to the "there are two sides to every story" cliché, because they had convinced themselves that Wendy was incapable of the degree of moral turpitude it would take to explain her massive plagiarism, if my account is accurate.

These fence-sitters need remain perplexed no longer. They can now see for themselves, through Wendy's allegations against me and their elaboration by her proxies, such as Richard Martin, that she can go well beyond the viciousness required for massive plagiarism.

It is one thing to be told about a vicious smear campaign, but it is quite another to witness that campaign in real time, as it unfolds. Potentially thousands of people are watching as Wendy goes about her latest work, so they will see for themselves what I have been talking about for 13 years. Wendy's "poor little me" routine, her posturing as an innocent victim in all this, is being shot to hell as we watch -- and very few people will buy into her lies after this.

Ghs

[caroljane]

I wonder what the statute of limitations is on GHS’s case, should he have a change of heart following another of these apparent libels (now the wife beating one).

I don't know what the statute of limitations is, but there is no way I will change my mind.

Although it is never pleasant to be the subject of baseless and vicious allegations, in this case I welcome them, since the allegations reveal a lot about the character of the person behind them, i.e., Wendy. Wendy started these rumors, and she has been stoking them behind the scenes during the latest phase of the plagiarism scandal. This stupid tactic will backfire in the long run.

I have provided abundant documentary evidence of Wendy's plagiarism, so I don't need help there. But over the years I have heard people question whether Wendy could be so vicious as to deliberately plagiarize seven years of my work. I could present textual evidence until I was blue in the face, but so long as this question of Wendy's character was left hanging in the air, it gave some observers reason to doubt. They would typically appeal to the "there are two sides to every story" cliché, because they had convinced themselves that Wendy was incapable of the degree of moral turpitude it would take to explain her massive plagiarism, if my account is accurate.

These fence-sitters need remain perplexed no longer. They can now see for themselves, through Wendy's allegations against me and their elaboration by her proxies, such as Richard Martin, that she can go well beyond the viciousness required for massive plagiarism.

It is one thing to be told about a vicious smear campaign, but it is quite another to witness that campaign in real time, as it unfolds. Potentially thousands of people are watching as Wendy goes about her latest work, so they will see for themselves what I have been talking about for 13 years. Wendy's "poor little me" routine, her posturing as an innocent victim in all this, is being shot to hell as we watch -- and very few people will buy into her lies after this.

Ghs

It is also noteworthy that this time around, nobody except her husband has come to her defence - not just nobody reputable, but nobody at all who was willing to identify himself.

Not one person.

[George H. Smith]

I wonder what the statute of limitations is on GHS’s case, should he have a change of heart following another of these apparent libels (now the wife beating one).

I don't know what the statute of limitations is, but there is no way I will change my mind.

Although it is never pleasant to be the subject of baseless and vicious allegations, in this case I welcome them, since the allegations reveal a lot about the character of the person behind them, i.e., Wendy. Wendy started these rumors, and she has been stoking them behind the scenes during the latest phase of the plagiarism scandal. This stupid tactic will backfire in the long run.

I have provided abundant documentary evidence of Wendy's plagiarism, so I don't need help there. But over the years I have heard people question whether Wendy could be so vicious as to deliberately plagiarize seven years of my work. I could present textual evidence until I was blue in the face, but so long as this question of Wendy's character was left hanging in the air, it gave some observers reason to doubt. They would typically appeal to the "there are two sides to every story" cliché, because they had convinced themselves that Wendy was incapable of the degree of moral turpitude it would take to explain her massive plagiarism, if my account is accurate.

These fence-sitters need remain perplexed no longer. They can now see for themselves, through Wendy's allegations against me and their elaboration by her proxies, such as Richard Martin, that she can go well beyond the viciousness required for massive plagiarism.

It is one thing to be told about a vicious smear campaign, but it is quite another to witness that campaign in real time, as it unfolds. Potentially thousands of people are watching as Wendy goes about her latest work, so they will see for themselves what I have been talking about for 13 years. Wendy's "poor little me" routine, her posturing as an innocent victim in all this, is being shot to hell as we watch -- and very few people will buy into her lies after this.

Ghs

It is also noteworthy that this time around, nobody except her husband has come to her defence - not just nobody reputable, but nobody at all who was willing to identify himself.

Not one person.

Excellent point. Anonymous defenders are always highly suspect in a controversy like this.

This probably goes without saying, but I have a request: Should any OLer ever defend my plagiarism charge on another Internet forum, please, please use your real name.

The issue of Wendy's silence is very perplexing for those who believe in her innocence. If I were the victim of a false allegation of plagiarism, as Wendy's claims to be, I would be on the barricades fighting to the death.

If Wendy is truly innocent, then I am a vicious liar of almost unimaginable dimensions; and if Wendy truly believes in her innocence, then she should be out there answering me, line for line, and pounding me into the ground with counter-arguments, rather than cowering in Canada while sending out flunkies to conduct panty raids.

From a purely tactical perspective, Wendy's defense and her latest counter-attack have been an unqualifed disaster. I sometimes feel the urge to email Wendy and say: Look, Wendy, you are fucking this up. When you said X, you surely must have known that I would respond Y, and you would be trapped. Think ahead, woman, think ahead! If you are going to fight my charge, at least give me a decent fight."

Ghs

[caroljane]

Wendy's silence is not perplexing at all to any outside observer. She has nothing to say, no defence at all, and for her the chapter is closed. She "wrote" her book and made her money. She knows there won't be any legal repercussions. Maybe she has unspecificied health problems which she is bearing bravely, but which your persecution is exacerbating, you beast.

[Selene]

Wendy's silence is not perplexing at all to any outside observer. She has nothing to say, no defence at all, and for her the chapter is closed. She "wrote" her book and made her money. She knows there won't be any legal repercussions. Maybe she has unspecificied health problems which she is bearing bravely, but which your persecution is exacerbating, you beast.

"Off with his head!"

King Richard III (III, iv, 76)

Richard Wendy shouts these words in the Tower of London Prometheus Boardroom, where she has accused Lord Hastings humble philosopher George Smith [of the non-Shayne qualified tribe] of plotting to destroy her. Smith, who thought himself safe in his friendship with Wendy Richard, began a meeting of the Council wishing to set a date for the coronation of Prince Edward Wendy as the new queen. Wendy Richard arrives late for the meeting, and realizes Hastings Smith must be removed from her path to the crown. Killing two birds with one stone, he discredits the followers of the humble philosopher Queen (who are another obstacle) by suggesting they participated in witchcraft to cause her mental deformity, baring her irrational brain scans to drive home the point. She tricks Smith Hastings into saying that anyone who practices witchcraft must be executed. At this point Richard jumps up, points to Smith Hastings, and accuses him of "devilish plots" and "damned witch craft," calling him traitor and ordering him immediately beheaded.

So they killed the beast and originality died in the kingdom of the rational mind.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Selene

[Rich Engle]

Excellent point. Anonymous defenders are always highly suspect in a controversy like this.

This probably goes without saying, but I have a request: Should any OLer ever defend my plagiarism charge on another Internet forum, please, please use your real name.

The issue of Wendy's silence is very perplexing for those who believe in her innocence. If I were the victim of a false allegation of plagiarism, as Wendy's claims to be, I would be on the barricades fighting to the death.

If Wendy is truly innocent, then I am a vicious liar of almost unimaginable dimensions; and if Wendy truly believes in her innocence, then she should be out there answering me, line for line, and pounding me into the ground with counter-arguments, rather than cowering in Canada while sending out flunkies to conduct panty raids.

From a purely tactical perspective, Wendy's defense and her latest counter-attack have been an unqualifed disaster. I sometimes feel the urge to email Wendy and say: Look, Wendy, you are fucking this up. When you said X, you surely must have known that I would respond Y, and you would be trapped. Think ahead, woman, think ahead! If you are going to fight my charge, at least give me a decent fight."

Ghs

One way or another, these anonymous lunkheads do their retarded doings. What drives them, a man might ask? Misplaced loyalty? Pussy (ack) ?

The point is, something, someone, is driving them. Him. What the fucq ever.

I think it is pretty sad when you are so pushed into defending someone's honour<tm> that you are willing to display Anonymous Multiple Personality Web Disorder (AMPWD) during your struggle.

The Mitchell blast was so savage, but at the same time, so weak. It reeks of erectile dysfunction. See, if you are a Man, you have it Going On. If you have it Going On, then you are too busy for these limp-dick sorts of gestures. This is the type of person that, instead of buying halfway-decent fireworks for July 4th, runs around with sparklers. "Ooooh! Look at me! I'm a tornado!"

rde

Edited June 27, 2011 by Rich Engle

[George H. Smith]

Wendy's silence is not perplexing at all to any outside observer. She has nothing to say, no defence at all, and for her the chapter is closed. She "wrote" her book and made her money. She knows there won't be any legal repercussions. Maybe she has unspecificied health problems which she is bearing bravely, but which your persecution is exacerbating, you beast.

I doubt if Wendy wrote TRW for money. She wrote it to boost her reputation, at my expense. In going after the latter instead of the former, I am depriving Wendy of something far more important to her than money.

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

Wendy's silence is not perplexing at all to any outside observer. She has nothing to say, no defence at all, and for her the chapter is closed. She "wrote" her book and made her money. She knows there won't be any legal repercussions. Maybe she has unspecificied health problems which she is bearing bravely, but which your persecution is exacerbating, you beast.

I doubt if Wendy wrote TRW for money. She wrote it to boost her reputation, at my expense. In going after the latter instead of the former, I am depriving Wendy of something far more important to her than money.

Ghs

And that's what I like, because it is just.

How fucked up is it to peel someone else's work for the purpose of bolstering how you feel about yourself? Head=bad wiring.

And then to send in unqualified, minor demons for doing the triage. This is the kind of girl you run from. I dated a chick like that once, and before you knew it I was living in a very sleazy, dangerous motel room and most of my shit was gone. Good times! Great fodder for writing projects! Yes!

Unsuspected health problems? If she didn't, she will start now. The way this is going, she'll go for her morning tea and realize one of her ears fell off in the sink.

The winds of shit, Wendy. The winds of shit.

rde

Ding, dong, the witch is dead (?)

rde

Edited June 27, 2011 by Rich Engle

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

To be fair, the fact, in itself, that serious people have not shown up to defend Wendy, other than her husband, does not mean much in my standard of judgment. I can think of several reasons a person would not want to join this discussion that do not include an implicit admission of wrongdoing.

It is a tactical mistake, though. Like it or not, a story is unfolding in public here. Those who are silent allow the story to be told by those who are not.

I'm talking about public perception, not merit.

As it is a... er... colorful story , the public is interested in it. In my experience, the public generally does not use my standard in evaluating things. It usually perceives silence before accusation as shame and hiding.

That often can be worse than objective fact.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

To be fair, the fact, in itself, that serious people have not shown up to defend Wendy, other than her husband, does not mean much in my standard of judgment. I can think of several reasons a person would not want to join this discussion that do not include an implicit admission of wrongdoing.

It is a tactical mistake, though. Like it or not, a story is unfolding in public here. Those who are silent allow the story to be told by those who are not.

I'm talking about public perception, not merit.

As it is a... er... colorful story , the public is interested in it. In my experience, the public generally does not use my standard in evaluating things. It usually perceives silence before accusation as shame and hiding.

That often can be worse than objective fact.

Michael

Your points are well taken, but keep in mind that Wendy boxed herself in during in her 1998 missives, so for her to participate in a public discussion would be disastrous. I know I have discussed these points many times before, but here, in summary, is what I mean.

In 1998, after I had circulated only a few parallel passages -- i.e., those between TRW and my 1974 FOR handout -- Wendy, not understanding that I had a lot more evidence, came up with her Immaculate Conception story. She claimed that she had erased all of my FOR material in 1994 and that she wrote TRW "from scratch," without access to any of my FOR transcript. She attributed the parallels to her "excellent memory" and never hinted that she had supposedly co-authored FOR.

Then I posted eight additional pages of parallels, including the notorious But! passage. At that point Wendy knew that her "excellent memory" excuse would no longer fly, and that's when she concocted her "co-development" and "co-author" story.

Wendy was stuck was her Immaculate Conception story, however, according to which her secondary excuse (that she co-authored FOR) was irrelevant. If in fact Wendy never even used FOR while writing TRW, then what was the point?

The bottom line is this: It is obvious, given all the parallels between TRW and FOR, that Wendy's Immaculate Conception story was an outright lie. It cannot be defended, so Wendy would be crucified on her own lie in a public discussion.

In addition, Wendy's claim that she "co-developed" FOR, even though I was teaching those classes for a year before we met, depended solely on her testimony. She did did not provide a scrap of evidence to support this outrageous claim, so people could judge her claim only by evaluating her credibility. But Wendy had already shot her credibility to hell with the earlier Immaculate Conception howler.

In short, Wendy panicked in 1998 and fabricated two inconsistent stories. Wendy is not a stupid person. She knows that for her to participate in a public discussion would require that she explain those (and other) inconsistencies from 1998. There is no way she could come out ahead in any public discussion. As bad as things are for her now, she would only make things worse.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

If you were to adapt this story so it'd fit into The Fountainhead you'd end up with a cheap version of Peter Keating--a Peter Keating who goes to Roark not for help, but to steal his drawings.

Did Wendy ever read any Rand novels?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Did Wendy ever read any Rand novels?

Brant,

Of course she did.

She also read PARC.

And she liked it.

Valliant, with all his warped scholarship and reasoning, merits her praise.

Michael

[George H. Smith]

Did Wendy ever read any Rand novels?

Brant,

Of course she did.

She also read PARC.

And she liked it.

Valliant, with all his warped scholarship and reasoning, merits her praise.

Michael

BB supported me during the 1998 phase of the plagiarism scandal. That's why Wendy turned on her by praising PARC.

Ghs

[Selene]

[The winds of shit, Wendy. The winds of shit.

rde

Proverbs 11:29

He that troubleth his own house shall inherit the wind: and the fool [shall be] servant to the wise of heart.

[Rich Engle]

Did Wendy ever read any Rand novels?

Brant,

Of course she did.

She also read PARC.

And she liked it.

Valliant, with all his warped scholarship and reasoning, merits her praise.

Michael

True. Ain't that something?

[Xray]

We have a dog (6-year-old Golden Retriever), and I have become a dog lover since we have her. I originally was a "no dog in my home" person, and finally only gave in because our daughter had kept begging us for years to get one; end of story is that the dog has quickly become the beloved 'queen' in our home.

Snap again, Angela. My eldest granddog is also a golden Lab, stoical companion and guardian of my 2-year-old grandson.

You have nowshown unmistakable Iglovian tendencies and are hereby inducted into the Ladies' Auxiliary of the Fraternal Order. Don't worry, you don't have to marry any of the Brothers (your husband might not like that, let alone their wives), just take a few pemmican-scraping lessons. We look forward to seeing you at the next PolarCon. You can hook up with either the Lapps or the Finns for transport, and don't forget to bring your own lunch.

Sororally,

Carol

I feel very honored to be inducted into this order, oh Sister.

And what will my colleagues say! They often poke fun at me because I'm not exactly an outdoors type and also get cold fast, but I'll show them!!

Sororally,

Angela

P.S: Brant has a Lab too, a chocolate Lab named Saga.

Ninth,

Bertie seems to have vanished somewhere over the Baltic Sea, does this mean the tea party is off? If he does take up the invite, please assure him that he need not fear any impropriety , I would be there as chaperone to make sure nothing fallacious occurred.

Carol Stuart Lynam (Mrs)

all frumped up and nowhere to go

He never returned his RSVP. And I was going to have the really good cucumber sandwiches and the freshest oolong.

Cucumber sandwiches and oolong!!! Aaah - we must tell it to Tony aka WhyNot, he loves that! Let's have the tea party anyway since the tea party we wanted to throw at Riggenbach's somehow fell flat. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10509&st=60&p=133649entry133649

Edited June 27, 2011 by Xray

[Rich Engle]

Ninth,

Bertie seems to have vanished somewhere over the Baltic Sea, does this mean the tea party is off? If he does take up the invite, please assure him that he need not fear any impropriety , I would be there as chaperone to make sure nothing fallacious occurred.

Carol Stuart Lynam (Mrs)

all frumped up and nowhere to go

He never returned his RSVP. And I was going to have the really good cucumber sandwiches and the freshest oolong.

Cucumber sandwiches and oolong!!! Aaah - we must tell it to Tony aka WhyNot, he loves that! Let's have the tea party anyway since the tea party we wanted to throw at Riggenbach's somehow fell flat. http://www.objectivi...49

Swing party at Wendy's house.

rde

Dousing self with Hai Karate in hopes of some Wild Action<tm>

[Xray]

Contrary to Wendy's descriptions in TRW, FOR was never an "intellectual therapy" group;

One could call this an attempt on Wendy's part to "dissociate" herself from the source (FOR) where she took the material from.

Not exactly.

Wendy never mentions FOR by name, which I think was her effort to dissociate herself from FOR.

Yes, that woud be a classic case of dissociation.

In short, I won't sue Wendy for plagiarism because I cannot justify the idea of intellectual property, not because I think libertarians, including anarchists, should never use the governmental legal system. I'm a clever guy, so I could probably figure out some way around this theoretical problem, but that would be way too convenient. I don't like people who defend a principle and then violate it as soon as it is their ox being gored.

The thing which puzzled me most about the whole Wendy business was that she, for some reason, must have felt very safe in copying your material. And I asked myself "How on earth can she fel that safe in patently copying all these passages? Surely she realized George was going to read his own words verbatim in her book!"

So quite obviously Wendy was a person inclined to take high risks, but that alone did not suffice. There was a crucial element missing to complete the puzzle, and I think you have provided this element in your above post.

As always, please correct me if I'm wrong, but I suppose Wendy knew about your position regarding the idea of intellectual property.

Her calculation was that you would not go against your own principles, and that was what made her feel so safe in brazenly copying from your work.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

The thing which puzzled me most about the whole Wendy business issue was that she, for some reason, must have felt very safe in copying your material. And I asked myself "How on earth can she fel that safe in patently copying all these passages? Surely she realized George was going to read his own words verbatim in her book!"

I didn't get into this before because my thoughts are speculative and, to some extent, personal, but here is a summary:

1994, the year that Wendy began writing TRW, was the worst year of my life. I had hit the proverbial bottom of the barrel because of my drug use. Even though I was making $5000 per month from writing, I was evicted from my home in Long Beach because nearly everything I made went to heroin and cocaine for my girlfriend and me.

From there we moved to a motel room. It was decent, but after living there for several months we got kicked out for failure to pay. From there we moved a couple more times into places that got progressively worse, until we ended up sleeping on the floor of a ratty dive, living with a hard-core junkie and ex-convict. (This guy had six bullet wounds from a shoot-out with the cops many years earlier.)

Fortunately, I took my last paycheck for $5000 and used it to get my girlfriend and I in the door of the Alliance rehab clinic in Albuquerque. (We chose Alliance because it was highly rated, but much of that reputation was undeserved. But that is another story.)

Anyway, that was that. I never touched junk again and neither, I presume, did my girlfriend.

Although Wendy and I were not speaking at this time, I knew from third parties that she was keeping track of my misfortunes. So my theory is this: I think Wendy was not concerned about her plagiarism because she figured I would be in no shape to challenge anything. There is more involved obviously, but that is the basic theme.

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

Although Wendy and I were not speaking at this time, I knew from third parties that she was keeping track of my misfortunes. So my theory is this: I think Wendy was not concerned about her plagiarism because she figured I would be in no shape to challenge anything. There is more involved obviously, but that is the basic theme.

Ghs

This makes perfect sense to me.

[9thdoctor]

Bye Bye Birdie

Gotcha. For some reason I was trying to fit the words to the tune of Elton John’s Goodbye Norma Jean, and it wasn’t working. Once I was stuck on that I couldn’t think of any other tune.

[Selene]

Bye Bye Birdie

Gotcha. For some reason I was trying to fit the words to the tune of Elton John's Goodbye Norma Jean, and it wasn't working. Once I was stuck on that I couldn't think of any other tune.

ND:

Oh how I know that feeling!

I also assumed that folks would automatically know Bye Bye Birdie because I had it in my mind!

Never assume.

Always learning on OL!

Thanks for the reminder lesson.

Adam

[Rich Engle]

It's not in the precise context, but I figure its intermission time and this is close enough to convey the feeling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfmB-8onoMo

Then I was thinking (which is almost always a bad thing) about George's tale of motel woe, and for that matter, my own. In my case, the girl in question happens to be the sister of one of the guys that wrote and sang on this oldie but goodie. Detect the slight irony, and mild spelling difference. Hey, I can't always hit bulls-eyes but I always get in the circle:

rde

We need a popcorn machine.