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

[George H. Smith]

Rich,

In addition to post #865, I see that you also mention Jim's full name in #884. I would very much appreciate it if you would edit both posts asap, as indicated above.

I am very pleased with the outcome of this controversy, and I want to do as much as I can to wipe the slate clean, even though I am only responsible, per my agreement with Jim, for my own posts.

Thanks.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

He went down in the 90s in a deadly druggie hell,

His dealer, he was stalking and the in-laws were as well,

Too close to Point of No Return, he stowed his words away,

To use them if he lived another day.

There were just a few believed him when the fatal book appeared,

The wide world was indifferent and the narrow world just jeered,

But the blow he bore when on the ground, it caused him to proclaim

That a Moral Vindication rise again.

So he talked of her all decade, in person and in post.

He brought to light the darkest days and laid the mortal ghost.

From the Valley of the Shadow he has made the story plain,

that a Moral Vindication rise again.

He's documented all their deeds, refuted all their lies,

He's spurned with scorn the prince of porn who slandered in disguise,

Tomorrow and tomorrow he'll resume his own refrain,

And Moral Vindication - rise again!

-----------------------------------------

And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow,

With smiling bastards lying to you everywhere you go,

Turn to, and put forth all your strength of arm and heart and brain,

And like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again.

Rise again, rise again

Though your heart it be broken and your life about to end,

No matter what you've lost, be it a home, a love, a friend,

Like the Mary Ellen Carter, rise again!

--with apologies and hommage to the immortal Stan Rogers

I must confess that I was not familiar with "The Mary Ellen Carter," by Stan Rogers, so I listened to it on YouTube. You have done a wonderful version. Many thanks.

For those who share my ignorance, here is Stan Rogers singing his own composition. Carol's lyrics are better appreciated if you read them while listening to the original. (This clip opens with an account by a survivor of the the Mary Ellen Carter. The song begins at 1:35.)

Ghs

[caroljane]

George, so many thanks for finding that performance. I saw the original docu it and the clip were part of...it has made me cry. I so loved Stan Rogers, still do. The true story of the MEC, and yours, were too

janglingly cognate to pass up.

Slight correction, this sailor was a survivor of the Marine Electric, it was the song which helped him through his near-death experience. The good ship Mary Ellen Carter thankfully had no casualties, but sublime descendants.

[caroljane]

Addendumb all over the place today - notice I left out the most salient point of contact -

"That (her) name not be lost to the knowledge of men"

[George H. Smith]

George, so many thanks for finding that performance. I saw the original docu it and the clip were part of...it has made me cry. I so loved Stan Rogers, still do. The true story of the MEC, and yours, were too

janglingly cognate to pass up.

Slight correction, this sailor was a survivor of the Marine Electric, it was the song which helped him through his near-death experience. The good ship Mary Ellen Carter thankfully had no casualties, but sublime descendants.

Okay. I only watched the video once, and I do recall the sailor saying something about the song. But since I already had it in my head that he was a survivor of the Mary Ellen Carter, I thought he was uttering words that later inspired Rogers to write the song.

A convoluted explanation, I know, but that is how my brain works. My brain and Occam's Razor -- never the twain shall meet.

Thanks again for the poem/lyrics. They are truly excellent. They strike me as something that took a while for you to write. Correct?

Ghs

[algernonsidney]

My comment was directed to George Smith:

"If you have a case, go to court. If you don't want to go to court, then I don't care to hear about it."

[George H. Smith]

My comment was directed to George Smith:

"If you have a case, go to court. If you don't want to go to court, then I don't care to hear about it."

Okay, then here is my reply that I deleted earlier:

Thank you for your sage advice, but perhaps you should read some of the documentary evidence before giving any more. You will find links to such "overwhelming evidence" in the master post titled DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF WENDY McELROY'S PLAGIARISM. This post appears at the top of each page in this thread. The font is very large, so you shouldn't have too much trouble finding it.

As for your counsel about taking it to court, this option has been discussed extensively on this thread in dozens of posts. I hope it is not asking too much that you learn something about this issue before shooting your mouth off again. If you are not willing to do this, then I offer my own sage advice: Shut up.

One last thing, based on your most recent comment: If you don't care to hear about something, then don't read this thread. Doh!

Ghs

[caroljane]

George, so many thanks for finding that performance. I saw the original docu it and the clip were part of...it has made me cry. I so loved Stan Rogers, still do. The true story of the MEC, and yours, were too

janglingly cognate to pass up.

Slight correction, this sailor was a survivor of the Marine Electric, it was the song which helped him through his near-death experience. The good ship Mary Ellen Carter thankfully had no casualties, but sublime descendants.

Okay. I only watched the video once, and I do recall the sailor saying something about the song. But since I already had it in my head that he was a survivor of the Mary Ellen Carter, I thought he was uttering words that later inspired Rogers to write the song.

A convoluted explanation, I know, but that is how my brain works. My brain and Occam's Razor -- never the twain shall meet.

Thanks again for the poem/lyrics. They are truly excellent. They strike me as something that took a while for you to write. Correct?

Ghs

No, actually, unless the time it took was subconscious. Having always loved that song, when the idea of your travails fit into it, I started humming on my way to the store this morning, and wrote it down

when I came home. I'd say about an hour of actual thinking. I was going to change the refrain to "Let the Moral Vindication" rather than "and.." but decided to let it alone. The longest time I spent thinking was, to try and think of a better term than "Moral Vindication" (the GHS Elation? The Hedon Reputation?_- the George and Wendy Barter?) - but no, this one was not for the cheap laugh.= I

went with what was there. You probably understand this.

[Selene]

My comment was directed to George Smith:

"If you have a case, go to court. If you don't want to go to court, then I don't care to hear about it."

Chris:

Then you essentially are quite the incompetent poster because you would have realized that there were solid philosophical reasons why GHS eschewed that option.

You might actually try reading the relevant sections of the thread relating to that and then you can knowledgeably admit to your error.

Adam

sorry about that George, but I did want to give him the benefit of the doubt

[George H. Smith]

My comment was directed to George Smith:

"If you have a case, go to court. If you don't want to go to court, then I don't care to hear about it."

Chris:

Then you essentially are quite the incompetent poster because you would have realized that there were solid philosophical reasons why GHS eschewed that option.

You might actually try reading the relevant sections of the thread relating to that and then you can knowledgeably admit to your error.

Adam

sorry about that George, but I did want to give him the benefit of the doubt

As noted before, I had the same doubts and deleted my original reply even before I had read your post. It was close, however: Just after I posted my altered reply, there was your post.

So this is not your fault. Many things doubtless are your fault, but this is not one of them.

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Your edit in #893 would have been my preferred method had I not reached an agreement with Jim. But please change it before, say, 4 p.m. today. Simply substitute J**** * O********* for instances where his full name appears. Thanks.

George,

All right, I'll do it.

But grumpily.

I didn't make the agreement.

You did.

And I'm not so sure this guy deserves the thing of trying to get others to adhere to your personal agreement with a third party. After all, asterisks-dude is a lawyer (which I inherently find suspect) and a back-pedaling one to boot. The only reason I believe he recanted was because of his reputation, not because of any great love of the truth or wishing to atone for any injustice he committed against you.

I certainly don't detect the same fervor in his recant statement as in his previous accusations.

In my opinion, he may deserve your adherence, but not mine. But you and I are friends, so I'll do it.

(I don't know this guy, but I'm keeping his name on file in case I have to restore this stuff later.)

Michael

EDIT: Done.

[caroljane]

Your edit in #893 would have been my preferred method had I not reached an agreement with Jim. But please change it before, say, 4 p.m. today. Simply substitute J**** * O********* for instances where his full name appears. Thanks.

George,

All right, I'll do it.

But grumpily.

I didn't make the agreement.

You did.

And I'm not so sure this guy deserves the thing of trying to get others to adhere to your personal agreement with a third party. After all, asterisks-dude is a lawyer (which I inherently find suspect) and a back-pedaling one to boot. The only reason I believe he recanted was because of his reputation, not because of any great love of the truth or wishing to atone for any injustice he committed against you.

I certainly don't detect the same fervor in his recant statement as in his previous accusations.

In my opinion, he may deserve your adherence, but not mine. But you and I are friends, so I'll do it.

(I don't know this guy, but I'm keeping his name on file in case I have to restore this stuff later.)

Michael

EDIT: Done.

Ahem, fine.

More tea, anyone ?

[George H. Smith]

Your edit in #893 would have been my preferred method had I not reached an agreement with Jim. But please change it before, say, 4 p.m. today. Simply substitute J**** * O********* for instances where his full name appears. Thanks.

George,

All right, I'll do it.

But grumpily.

I didn't make the agreement.

You did.

And I'm not so sure this guy deserves the thing of trying to get others to adhere to your personal agreement with a third party. After all, asterisks-dude is a lawyer (which I inherently find suspect) and a back-pedaling one to boot. The only reason I believe he recanted was because of his reputation, not because of any great love of the truth or wishing to atone for any injustice he committed against you.

I certainly don't detect the same fervor in his recant statement as in his previous accusations.

In my opinion, he may deserve your adherence, but not mine. But you and I are friends, so I'll do it.

(I don't know this guy, but I'm keeping his name on file in case I have to restore this stuff later.)

Michael

EDIT: Done.

I understand, Michael. It was never part of my agreement with Jim to ask others to make revisions, but I wanted a showcase, in effect, for how resolutions can be reached in matters like this.

The statement Jim signed will work fine for my purposes. The part about "no credible evidence" is the key. I wrote the statement, and Jim wanted two changes: the substitution of "withdraw" for "retract," and the inclusion of "one time."

I am really quite pleased with the outcome, especially since I was dealing with a volatile attorney.

Thanks for making the changes. I very much appreciate it.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Your edit in #893 would have been my preferred method had I not reached an agreement with Jim. But please change it before, say, 4 p.m. today. Simply substitute J**** * O********* for instances where his full name appears. Thanks.

George,

All right, I'll do it.

But grumpily.

I didn't make the agreement.

You did.

And I'm not so sure this guy deserves the thing of trying to get others to adhere to your personal agreement with a third party. After all, asterisks-dude is a lawyer (which I inherently find suspect) and a back-pedaling one to boot. The only reason I believe he recanted was because of his reputation, not because of any great love of the truth or wishing to atone for any injustice he committed against you.

I certainly don't detect the same fervor in his recant statement as in his previous accusations.

In my opinion, he may deserve your adherence, but not mine. But you and I are friends, so I'll do it.

(I don't know this guy, but I'm keeping his name on file in case I have to restore this stuff later.)

Michael

EDIT: Done.

Ahem, fine.

More tea, anyone ?

Earlier today I had a minor run-in with Jim on A2. He suggested that I would not have honored my agreement unless every mention of his name was revised. I then reposted my original pledge, which clearly stated that I would revise my posts. I then said that I had asked others to revise their posts as well, but this was in the nature of a favor, because I wanted to show good faith.

Jim said okay, but claimed that I had instructed other OLers to use his complete name. I replied that I did not instruct anyone to do anything. Jim then conceded that he didn't quite understand how OL posts work, so I explained the quote function to him, and that was that.

I got a kick out of the "instructed" comment. Yeah, like anyone could instruct anyone to do anything in this anarchic wilderness of spontaneous order. If there is a sure way to get OLers not to do something, it is to instruct them to do it. :lol:

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George, so many thanks for finding that performance. I saw the original docu it and the clip were part of...it has made me cry. I so loved Stan Rogers, still do. The true story of the MEC, and yours, were too

janglingly cognate to pass up.

Slight correction, this sailor was a survivor of the Marine Electric, it was the song which helped him through his near-death experience. The good ship Mary Ellen Carter thankfully had no casualties, but sublime descendants.

Okay. I only watched the video once, and I do recall the sailor saying something about the song. But since I already had it in my head that he was a survivor of the Mary Ellen Carter, I thought he was uttering words that later inspired Rogers to write the song.

A convoluted explanation, I know, but that is how my brain works. My brain and Occam's Razor -- never the twain shall meet.

Thanks again for the poem/lyrics. They are truly excellent. They strike me as something that took a while for you to write. Correct?

Ghs

No, actually, unless the time it took was subconscious. Having always loved that song, when the idea of your travails fit into it, I started humming on my way to the store this morning, and wrote it down

when I came home. I'd say about an hour of actual thinking. I was going to change the refrain to "Let the Moral Vindication" rather than "and.." but decided to let it alone. The longest time I spent thinking was, to try and think of a better term than "Moral Vindication" (the GHS Elation? The Hedon Reputation?_- the George and Wendy Barter?) - but no, this one was not for the cheap laugh.= I

went with what was there. You probably understand this.

This doesn't surprise me, since you obviously have a natural talent for writing.

One thing that I really like about OL are the number of excellent writers, and you easily make my short list of the more creative writers. I know you must remember how hostile I initially was to you, owing to your self-proclaimed socialism, but your style won me over.

George Orwell also called himself a "socialist," but he is still my favorite essayist of the 20th century.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Your edit in #893 would have been my preferred method had I not reached an agreement with Jim. But please change it before, say, 4 p.m. today. Simply substitute J**** * O********* for instances where his full name appears. Thanks.

George,

All right, I'll do it.

But grumpily.

I didn't make the agreement.

You did.

And I'm not so sure this guy deserves the thing of trying to get others to adhere to your personal agreement with a third party. After all, asterisks-dude is a lawyer (which I inherently find suspect) and a back-pedaling one to boot. The only reason I believe he recanted was because of his reputation, not because of any great love of the truth or wishing to atone for any injustice he committed against you.

I certainly don't detect the same fervor in his recant statement as in his previous accusations.

In my opinion, he may deserve your adherence, but not mine. But you and I are friends, so I'll do it.

(I don't know this guy, but I'm keeping his name on file in case I have to restore this stuff later.)

Michael

EDIT: Done.

I understand, Michael. It was never part of my agreement with Jim to ask others to make revisions, but I wanted a showcase, in effect, for how resolutions can be reached in matters like this.

The statement Jim signed will work fine for my purposes. The part about "no credible evidence" is the key. I wrote the statement, and Jim wanted two changes: the substitution of "withdraw" for "retract," and the inclusion of "one time."

I am really quite pleased with the outcome, especially since I was dealing with a volatile attorney.

Thanks for making the changes. I very much appreciate it.

Ghs

And thank you from me too, Michael. He didn't deserve it, true, but sometimes something goes a bit too far. It could have professionally damaged him to have that sort of thing come up on a GOOGLE search. I went over there because of the crap he was saying about OL and OLers in order to spike it. Now I'm all done with it, so thank you twice. (Loved the way you bolded his name up.)

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Okay, now that this matter has been resolved, let's celebrate by turning to an entirely different topic.

Does anyone know any good lawyer jokes?

Ghs

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Does anyone know any good lawyer jokes?

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a blood-sucking leech?

A: The leech stops sucking blood and drops off after the host dies.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Okay, now that this matter has been resolved, let's celebrate by turning to an entirely different topic.

Does anyone know any good lawyer jokes?

Ghs

What is the difference between a snail and a lawyer?

One is a slime sucking bottom feeder and the other is an aquatic life form.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[George H. Smith]

Does anyone know any good lawyer jokes?

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a blood-sucking leech?

A: The leech stops sucking blood and drops off after the host dies.

Michael

This is one of my favorites:

Q: How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: How many can you afford?

Ghs

[Selene]

How can you tell whether a lawyer is well hung?

When you can't get your finger between the noose and his neck!

n you can't get your finger between the noose and his neck. can you tell when a lawyer is well hung?

When you can't get your finger between the noose and his neck.

[George H. Smith]

I have never had much luck with jokes. Consider the following YouTube video that has gotten only 309 hits in nearly 3 years. I thought it was pretty funny at the time, but I had been drinking Bushmill's for a few hours, and that makes almost everything seem funny to me. Maybe it wasn't such a good idea to insult YouTube viewers at the beginning.

Anyway, here is the video, Bad Jokes and Good Jazz.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-7IVXG9dKw

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Does anyone know any good lawyer jokes?

Q: What's the difference between a lawyer and a blood-sucking leech?

A: The leech stops sucking blood and drops off after the host dies.

Michael

This is one of my favorites:

Q: How many lawyers does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: How many can you afford?

Ghs

Q. How many lawyers does it take to screw you?

A. How many can you afford?

--Brant

[Rich Engle]

Jokes are all about the delivery.

So, one good way to start is to imagine yourself to be a ventriloquist dummy. If you think on it, these ventriloquist dummies are the ones that work harder than anyone in show business.

Well, then there are lawyers. Oh, sure, I could do Lawyer Jokes. But the thing is, they are so (morbidly, or perhaps as sociopaths) funny by themselves, at least generally. All you have to do is watch them operate in the wild.

Sure, most myths are based in fact. Lawyers, overall, on the other hand, tend to display some kind of near propetual motion that defies physics. Well, maybe not that but it is fairly clear that the breed mainly defies physics. There are exceptions. Sometimes they give you good advice. When we work with lawyers in Our Firm, they certainly aren't like the Dickweed In Question.

rde

On travel, but still right in there. Let's boogie, you filthy mouthpiece. Why? Because you are In Bat Co\untry, fucq-stick.

PS I'd do a face-to-face with him. But he'd have to come down here. I have just the place. I'm not going Up North, Hell no. I could teach him Chinese Boxing, or something. Dot his eyes. <---NOTE Most sleazy attorneys would try to press assault on a line like that, and that is why they are so weak, those ones. I simply asked if he would like to travel down here for a sparring match. Just to qualify. I am getting up there a bit in age, but I am definitely up for street action, and that includes red faced, angry Irish lawers. You have to start somewhere, so I guess you could benefit from starting up with the important ones first, in terms of asshole-ness. And that is the Irish. The niggers of the white world, no? There's one for you, and I'm a Unitarian Universalist, a condition that does not preclude, er, "engagements."

If need be.

Edited July 1, 2011 by Rich Engle

[Rich Engle]

Hey, I noticed a recent absence of these weenie bitches.

Do y'all think they will invoke, further?

I'm figurin' they got at least one or two more in 'em.

rde

workin' on his ciphers, and figurin'.