George H. Smith Posted January 15, 2011 Author Share Posted January 15, 2011 Remember: Wendy here plagiarized from articles I had PUBLISHED 12 years earlier. Those article are the ones available online to which I provided the link earlier.Again, PUBLISHED ARTICLES IN MY NAME, AND IN MY NAME ONLY. No disputes about unpublished drafts and who really wrote what. This is classic plagiarism, so simple that even Ted might be able to understand.Calm, down, housewife. I have not contested your underlying charges, about which I have not sufficient evidence to hold an opinion....You are not even reading any of these parallel passages, are you? Line after line of material that Wendy plagiarized from my published articles, and you don't have "sufficient evidence to hold an opinion." But you seem have sufficient evidence for making comments about which you know zilch.I'm not trying to cajole Wendy into anything. I wouldn't accept her apology now, even if she offered it. Nor will I accept any other kind of offer. Wendy McElroy is toast.GhsOut of curiosity, George--she's toast because of Ted? Or the deadline has expired? Emotionally it reads because of Ted.--BrantI'm just fed up. If Wendy cannot handle her guilt and problems with hubby because of her past life and lies she told him, that's her problem, not mine. This means that I now consider myself free to write articles on our swinging days, etc. See the stuff above. I'm not out to get Wendy on this stuff. It was all great, and she was wonderful. I admired her guts and attitude. But I will not permit myself to be the fall guy for her, because she cannot deal with hubby. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Renzulli Posted January 15, 2011 Share Posted January 15, 2011 (edited) George I apologize if my comments got under your skin. However, until now, I had no idea about what happened to your wife. Since you put it that way it makes sense. Please understand that I do not paruse or read these boards often so I am coming at this blind. I made comments only based on what you had initially said in your earlier posts and have had little interaction with you on these boards and in real life.For me personally, when chatting on boards or discussion groups like this I deal with people on them with a VERY long fuse since it is difficult at times to understand what a person's intent or context is. When I do so I try to include as much information as possible so questions are not raised about the reason for posting comments or if I do answer questions I try to elaborate and answer with as much detail as possible so to clarify my intent.As for encouragement on my part: you have it. Like I said in my last post if she wronged you (it is looking very much like you were) Wendy McElroy should make amends by apologizing, compensating you or (better yet) both. I am also glad that your situation is improving and the issues with your wife have been resolved. I would not make any demands of you with regards to the choices you make. My reasons for raising the time lapse was due to the lack of information I had since, ultimately, I wanted to better understand your intent. You did/do not come across either in person or on these boards as someone who would bitch, whine and moan or play a victim but, until you elaborated with regards to your personal situation, you were coming across that way.My comments on legal action against Wendy were an opinion and nothing more. To be more precise I would not want you (or anyone else) to get screwed no matter what your principles are. While I think your pledge and unwillingness to resort to legal redress is, in my opinion, not realistic I also understand you are your own person and your life does not revolve around nor depend on the decisions or opinions of others. Including me.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? Edited January 16, 2011 by Mike Renzulli Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 16, 2011 Author Share Posted January 16, 2011 Pardon me for asking, but why do you think revelations like this one will be devastating to Wendy's reputation but harmless to yours?Because I don't have a life partner that I lied to over the years about some of this stuff. Wendy told me many times after we separated that she was terrified that Brad would leave her if he learned the truth. I'm not at sure he would have, but Wendy made the serious error of lying through her teeth, and Brad, a very straight arrow guy, might have left her for that reason. Here is an example that leaves out a lot of details. Wendy and I never had an "open relationship." We always did things together. Even when having sex with other people, we stayed close to one another; one of us never went into a room with a partner alone. One day I learned, quite by accident, that Wendy was having an affair with Brad. This kind of secret affair was a serious violation of trust. When I discussed the matter with Wendy, I learned that she had told Brad that I knew about their affair, which of course I didn't. The reason she had lied to Brad was apparently because he had insisted that he would not get involved unless Wendy discussed it with me first. That makes Brad a real stand-up guy, in my book.But Wendy had lied to Brad for months. Wendy still wanted to stay with me, so I specified two conditions. One was that she had to tell Brad the truth, i.e., that I didn't know about their affair. Wendy said she would, later said she had, but these were more lies.Well, after Wendy and I decided to separate, this condition was academic. When Wendy insisted, in our last meeting before she moved to Canada, that if Brad ever found out that she had lied to him so persistently, he would leave her in a heartbeat. I therefore told Wendy that I would do what I could to help her, if rumors ever got back to him. In other words I would lie to protect her relationship with Brad.I would say this also makes me a stand-up guy. This is the first time I have ever revealed this information. Will it cause Brad to leave Wendy after all these years? I doubt it, and I sure hope not. Wendy was in a tough spot, and I tried to help. I am revealing this information now, because I will no longer take her shit, e.g., her calling me a "sex pervert" and that I had spread vile lies about her. Bullshit. I had no reason to lie about Wendy's past I was proud of it. She is the one who couldn't handle it.You have to understand that there are many other details. This is one of the most complex and convoluted love stories you are likely ever to hear. I can explain more details as we go along, but please remember I am NOT try to smear or make Wendy look bad. This was not something we did occasionally. It was the main focus our lives together, and was far more important to us than our intellectual activities. You should go back and reread my earlier posts on this thread in the light of this sex stuff. Reread my letter to Kephart. Even to a personal friend I never spilled the beans about Wendy. But, with this new knowledge, you can easily spot the references.The stuff I am posting from earlier year has to be read carefully for nuances. I was attempting to walk a tightrope. Some of that stuff took me a couple full days to write, as I weighed the implications of every word. . Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad R Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 For those who might be interested, Wendy's 1998 reply to Smith's allegations is still on-line at her web site:http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/libel.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 George is out to get Wendy. George is not out to get Wendy. George has left me dizzy and confused.This is enough for me. --Brantany surviving gay from that era would find this kind of story all very mild, but a true-blue Objectivist would be Shocked! Shocked! that ____________ was going on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) For those who might be interested, Wendy's 1998 reply to Smith's allegations is still on-line at her web site:http://www.wendymcel...eason/libel.htmFrom the above link, via http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/legal.htm, per N. Stephan Kinsella for DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER LLP :"Also, his actions may have consequences beyond mere liability for defamation. For example, his initial email messages threatening to damage your reputation unless he received $10,000 from you may involve state and/or federal criminal and/or civil liability for blackmail and extortion, as this is an attempt to obtain property by means of a threat to inflict injury to another's reputation.""In addition, under defamation law, not only is publication of certain false, reputation-harming statements to third parties considered to be defamatory, but each new act of re-publication is also a new act of defamation and thus gives rise to a new and separate cause of action." Edited January 16, 2011 by Ted Keer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) For those who might be interested, Wendy's 1998 reply to Smith's allegations is still on-line at her web site:http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/libel.htm<br><br><b>A Refutation of False Claims levelled by George H. Smith against WendyMcElroy</b><br><br><P><A HREF="http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/coauthor.htm">McElroy's defence</A> against the libelous claimthat she was a typist and not a co-author of the 1989 manuscript "Fundamentalsof Reasoning", and <A HREF="http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/contract.gif">the supporting contract</A>publicly acknowledged by Smith as valid. The <A HREF="http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/altered.htm">"altereddocument"</A>: Smith's admission, in an open letter to Prometheus,was omitted from later postings.</P><br><P>McElroy's defence against charges of <A HREF="http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/similar.htm">similar language</A>.</P><br><P><A HREF="http://www.wendymcelroy.com/reason/legal.htm">Attorney's statement on the libelous claims</A>of plagiarism. </P> Edited January 16, 2011 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Pardon me for asking, but why do you think revelations like this one will be devastating to Wendy's reputation but harmless to yours?Because I don't have a life partner that I lied to over the years about some of this stuff. Wendy told me many times after we separated that she was terrified that Brad would leave her if he learned the truth. I'm not at sure he would have, but Wendy made the serious error of lying through her teeth, and Brad, a very straight arrow guy, might have left her for that reason. Here is an example that leaves out a lot of details. Wendy and I never had an "open relationship." We always did things together. Even when having sex with other people, we stayed close to one another; one of us never went into a room with a partner alone. One day I learned, quite by accident, that Wendy was having an affair with Brad. This kind of secret affair was a serious violation of trust. When I discussed the matter with Wendy, I learned that she had told Brad that I knew about their affair, which of course I didn't. The reason she had lied to Brad was apparently because he had insisted that he would not get involved unless Wendy discussed it with me first. That makes Brad a real stand-up guy, in my book.But Wendy had lied to Brad for months. Wendy still wanted to stay with me, so I specified two conditions. One was that she had to tell Brad the truth, i.e., that I didn't know about their affair. Wendy said she would, later said she had, but these were more lies.Well, after Wendy and I decided to separate, this condition was academic. When Wendy insisted, in our last meeting before she moved to Canada, that if Brad ever found out that she had lied to him so persistently, he would leave her in a heartbeat. I therefore told Wendy that I would do what I could to help her, if rumors ever got back to him. In other words I would lie to protect her relationship with Brad.I would say this also makes me a stand-up guy. This is the first time I have ever revealed this information. Will it cause Brad to leave Wendy after all these years? I doubt it, and I sure hope not. Wendy was in a tough spot, and I tried to help. I am revealing this information now, because I will no longer take her shit, e.g., her calling me a "sex pervert" and that I had spread vile lies about her. Bullshit. I had no reason to lie about Wendy's past I was proud of it. She is the one who couldn't handle it.You have to understand that there are many other details. This is one of the most complex and convoluted love stories you are likely ever to hear. I can explain more details as we go along, but please remember I am NOT try to smear or make Wendy look bad. This was not something we did occasionally. It was the main focus our lives together, and was far more important to us than our intellectual activities. You should go back and reread my earlier posts on this thread in the light of this sex stuff. Reread my letter to Kephart. Even to a personal friend I never spilled the beans about Wendy. But, with this new knowledge, you can easily spot the references.The stuff I am posting from earlier year has to be read carefully for nuances. I was attempting to walk a tightrope. Some of that stuff took me a couple full days to write, as I weighed the implications of every word. . GhsI can't see the possibility of something good coming from this. I have read both of you over the years, I didn't know of your history together and it doesn't matter to me now. I hate seeing this happen, for either of you. I think you should have stuck with your "I'll keep my mouth shut" promise with regard to the lifestyle stuff. Bringing that in kills your chances for sympathy or a dime of compensation. My opinion, I'm not a lawyer. I have sat on a jury, a civil lawsuit, where stuff far worse than what you've described was dragged out for days on end. Graphic pictures and all. The person dragging it all out got zero sympathy. The deliberations lasted about 3 hours after a 2 month trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) Ted, we appreciate your advocacy, and are thrilled that you are taking the time from your many household duties to prosecute George pro bono in the court of public opinion, but perhaps you might consider not issuing a judgement until you actually accede to the bench. Edited January 16, 2011 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 From Wendy McElroy's internet page Co-author.First, I would ask every reader of this email to proceed to <http://www.zetetics.com/mac/reason/contract.gif> to access the contract between Smith and McElroy covering the *co-authored* work that George H. Smith claims is his sole property. Note that, by its terms and by my efforts, I supplied to him a finished manuscript on reasoning for his review, which manuscript now is under question as the source of plagiarism for The Reasonable Woman. I have a full 50% ownership claim and right to the work that he is using to support the accusation of plagiarism. This means that -- according to my lawyer, Prometheus' lawyer, and my moral conscience -- I have the right to quote the book in its entirety, should I wish to do so. As it is, The Reasonable Woman was written independently and it 'parallels' the earlier book only in snippets that arose largely from memory as I sat before my PC. I wrote The Reasonable Woman from scratch, clearing my hard disk of all previous material. If it uses wordage or concepts from the previously co-authored work, it is not only my right to do so, it is accidental...I wanted The Reasonable Woman to be an entirely separate work. However, I am the author both of the manuscript used as evidence of plagiarism and the manuscript accused of plagiarism. I have been accused of plagiarizing myself.The following provides some history which might be useful....On November 29, 1989, four years after our separation and in the presence of a mutual friend, both George and I signed a contract concerning the book he is claiming as his sole authorship. The opening statement reads: "George H. Smith and Wendy McElroy, having co-authored a book on reasoning (hereinafter the "book"), which they now wish to market and publish, do declare the following to be their understanding of the agreement:"The agreement documented our 50/50 contribution to the co-authored book that arose as a result of the ten years we lived and worked together as a team. George has claimed I never contributed to the book's evolution or execution except as a typist/transcriber. Just as I was a full co-owner of our enterprise Lysander's Books, a co-signatory on the lease for the office of Forum for Philosophical Studies, I was also his intellectual partner in developing material on reasoning that he constantly interwove throughout the classes and that I converted into the co-authored book, written in an "I" format to make it less clumsy and more personal. The 'co-authorship' contract is an undeniable expression of that full partnership.Our book was reviewed and rejected in 1991 by Prometheus Books. [The same man at the same press reviewed and accepted my book The Reasonable Woman in 1997.] After our relationship became untenable, I returned to George all material except for redundant copies, which I discarded. I also wiped the material from my hard disk. In late 1994, my agent Simon Green urged me to write a book on reasoning for women. I began from scratch to write up preliminary chapters containing contributions original to me, my personal experiences, any contributions not original to George (e.g. material that had been gleaned from other sources such as Brand Blanshard -- being careful to provide citations), and anything specifically related to women and reasoning. After two rewrites, the book was rejected, and shelved. In 1997, I took another pass at it and the manuscript was accepted on the condition I do a rewrite. If some passages from the manuscript George references parallel passages within The Reasonable Woman it is because both came from the same hand. Mine.Wendy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 The 1989 Contract cited by McElroy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) Deleted by author. Edited January 16, 2011 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 16, 2011 Author Share Posted January 16, 2011 The 1989 Contract cited by McElroy.Thanks for posting this. It shows that I wrote at least least half of TRW. MOre later.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 McElroy's web page referenced as a refutation to charges of similar language.<br><br><H3>A Refutation of 'Similar Language' Charges</H3><br><P>Because of legal implications and Smith's threats, I will not commentin a public forum beyond this posting, nor will I respond to personal inquiries-- though I thank everyone sincerely for their notes of support. My attorneywill be writing a statement on the absolute legal validity of my authorshipclaim to The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival, showingthat plagiarism accusations are libelous. He is also preparing a legalanalysis of the false and libelous claim that I was merely a typist onthe co-authored book (The Fundamentals of Reasoning). A copy of the co-authorshipagreement will be attached thereto (currently available at http://www.zetetics.com/reason/contract.gif).The contract has been acknowledged publicly as valid by George H. Smith(see http://www.zetetics.com/reason/libel.htm).</P><br><P>A refutation of the accusations of immorality (plagiarism) that arebased on the 'similarity of language' issue follows. I have delayed respondingin order to attach the above-mentioned legal analysis, but it is time tospeak. The legal analysis will be posted at http://www.zetetics.com/reason/libel.htm.Meanwhile, I ask people to read The Reasonable Woman to understand whata personal book it is and how meticulously I credit my sources. Pleasenote my very prominent acknowledgement of Smith in two places, includingthe first page of the book 'The Acknowledgements'. </P><br><P><B>*A Refutation of charges of immorality based on the 'similar language'issue.*</B></P><br><P>The following analysis is based on the only information I have receivedfrom George H. Smith on the 'similar language' issue: three emails of accusationreceived respectively on May 17, May 19, and May 20. (As only one was sentdirectly to me -- the other two being forwarded -- I do not know when otherpeople received the messages.) The Reasonable Woman [TRW] is 305 pageslong. The email claim of plagiarism rests upon passages quoted from 17pages, with at least one quotation being no more than five words in lengthand many of them including ellipses meant to heighten parallels. Thereare 116 sentences under question. </P><br><P>85 sentences come from private unpublished material -- the "hundredsand hundreds of pages of documents" (see the aforementioned web page)-- that Smith seems unwilling to produce for examination. This leaves 31sentences in a 305 page book for which any evidence of impropriety hasbeen provided. Ordinarily, I would not respond to unsupported accusationsfrom an ex-lover, but I feel obliged to answer the reasonable questionsof people who are confused by this personal dispute that Smith is conductingin the public realm. </P><br><P>The accusations fall into three broad categories...</P><br><P>1. 85 sentences absolutely unsupported by repeatedly requested evidence;<BR>2. 21 sentences from what Smith calls "a 1974 course handout";and, <BR>3. 10 sentences from Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies. </P><br><P><B>#1. 85 sentences that are absolutely unsupported by requested evidence;</B></P><br><P>(Many of the paralleled sentences have virtually no connection to eachother besides similarity of ideas, but I will answer this aspect of thesituation in point #3.)</P><br><P>I will assume for the moment that the unproduced material a) existsand B) is the co-authored manuscript in question ("Fundamentals ofReasoning"). I explain the similar language issue in three ways. </P><br><P><B><FONT SIZE=+1>a.</FONT></B> For those who have a copy of TRW, leaserefer to pages 147-150 in TRW where I describe the Intellectual Diary thatwas *required* to be kept by everyone who attended the 8-week long classes,which George and I developed and refined together over our ten years ofco-habitation -- classes from which both of us have continued to use materialin our independent work since our separation in 1985. For those withouta copy of TRW, let me summarize what the intellectual diary was: a keyaspect of the classes was for each member to keep a personal record ofthe intellectual processes and ideas sparked by the course, which attemptedsomething akin to intellectual therapy. Diary entries consumed at leastfifteen minutes every day and it was the sole product and property of themember who wrote it, just as an ordinary diary would be. Each class beganwith members reporting on their diaries and publicly explaining why theyhad missed making an entry, if such was the case. Missing a day literallymeant paying a fee, which was the penalty. (This process is described inChapter 8 of TRW.) </P><br><P>As mentioned in TRW, I attended five eight-week courses, which meansI maintained the required diary for about ten months in all, although thetiming was not consecutive and I quite often missed a day or two. Sincethe purpose in attending was to assist in producing the course by providingfeedback and ideas, my diary focused on the content in the classes thatI wanted to explore (e.g. asking 'what is a better analogy to illustratethis point in a future class'?) and other thoughts provoked. When I wipedmy hard drive clean of the co-authored Fundamentals of Reasoning and returnedall co-authored material to Smith (please see http://www.zetetics.com/reason/libel.htmfor history of this event), I did not send my private diaries which wereand are my personal property. I used them as source material in writingsections of both the Fundamentals of Reasoning and TRW, and I felt perfectlyfree to quote myself in both. </P><br><P>For example, the sentences on Freudianism and Popper account for 41of the 85 quoted sentences. On page 40 of TRW, I explain how I was oncea committed Freudian who discarded that system of thought solely becauseof Popper's influence. Indeed, Popper's arguments caused me to abandona keen interest in psychology itself and to become, instead, a cynic onthe subject. Those sections are directly gleaned from my diary. </P><br><P><B><FONT SIZE=+1>b.</FONT></B> Smith and I lived and worked togetherintimately for ten years, constantly discussing both the classes and otherintellectual partnerships, such as the audio tapes we co-authored for KnowledgeProducts (as credited on those tapes' boxes). We went over each other'smaterial constantly, providing feedback and editing. Under the circumstances,it would be amazing if there were not occasional and marked similaritiesin how we each present material from that period in our lives. </P><br><P><B><FONT SIZE=+1>c.</FONT></B> During those years, we read many of thesame books, and much of the similar language comes directly from secondarysources. For example, when Smith points out a similarity between his words"Write it down" (in Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies) andmy words "Put it in writing" in TRW, he neglects to mention thatI footnote Alan Lakein's book "How to Get Control of Your Time andYour Life" which has a section called Put It In Writing. When Smithpoints out that both he and I use the words "Precisely what do wenot have?", he neglects to point out that this exact phrase comesfrom "Thinking Straight" by Antony Flew, whom I recommend inaccompanying text in TRW. Much of the wording and ideas used throughoutthe class, in its handouts, and in the co-authored manuscript were directlyderived from the language and ideas of thinkers such as Brand Blanshard,Mortimer Adler, and especially Henry Hazlitt. The intellectual therapytechniques derive directly from Nathaniel Branden and Albert Ellis. TRWcarefully and extensively acknowledges all these contributions. </P><br><P><B>#2. 21 sentences from what George calls "a 1974 Course Handout"</B></P><P>It is Prometheus' attorney's opinion that, as a legal matter, this 5-page1974 hand-out -- the only evidence Smith has produced of plagiarism tomy publisher (and not to me) -- was knowingly placed into the public domainby him by virtue of being widely distributed without a copyright noticeor registration. As a moral matter, I know Smith wanted the material tobe used as widely as possible to promote the course: that is why he handedit out over freely for years and years. Since he had given permission forthe man-in-the-street to use the handout, I do not see where a moral problemexists. Especially since I prominently acknowledge him in TRW. </P><br><P>Nevertheless, just as I assume for the sake of argument that the unproducedmanuscript exists, let me forget for the moment the public domain matter.I have not seen the document in question, but Smith and I definitely didhave hand-outs, some predating our relationship, some co-authored. I wasresponsible for typing, re-typing and proofing this material for all theclasses we held. Smith also incorporated much of the hand-out languageverbatim into classes, which I heard repeatedly. Moreover, I edited theco-authored manuscript, as noted in the co-authorship contract (http://www.zetetics.com/contract.gif),so I went over these lines again and again with care. Smith quotes 13 ofthe 21 sentences that are extremely close to his wording: the remainderare similar ideas (we discussed and developed together) expressed in differentterms. I may have inadvertently used 13 similar sentences that were recordedin my intellectual diary or indelibly imprinted in my mind.</P><br><P><B>#3. 10 sentences from Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies [AAR&OH]</B></P><br><P>I have not read this book. If it is, as I understand, largely drawnfrom essays previously published, I may well have read sections of AAR&OH.Indeed, some of the essays may have been written during the ten-year cohabitation.From the extremely brief passages quoted, it seems clear to me that Smithhas drawn upon the co-created material and, perhaps, upon the co-authoredmanuscript itself -- both of which predate AAR&OH. Indeed, he continuesto use the co-authored ideas from Fundamentals of Reasoning by giving classeswithout acknowledging my contribution or paying me a part of the tuitionfee. It is his legal right to do so and I have never raised an objection.</P><br><P>Moreover, the snippets he offers from AAR&OH represent standardpsychotherapy advice that is expressed in dozens of self-help books, oftenin an *extremely* similar manner. How many ways can you say, 'write itdown'? </P><br><P>For those interested in the 'altered document' -- An Open Letter toPrometheus in which Smith publicly admitted to having purposefully liedabout my being only a typist on a book I co-authored, a document whichwas altered in later postings to omit this clearly libelous admission,it too can be found at the aforementioned web page.</P><br><br><P>For those interested in the legal analysis, it is yet to be completedand posted. Please be patient. I am posting before I had intended becausetoo many people consider silence to an admission of guilt.</P><br> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) Stephan Kinsella's legal analysis.<br><BR><b><p>Legal analysis by N. Stephan Kinsella, Esq.</p></b><br><P>June 3, 1998</p><br><P>Re: Defamation and Libel by George H. Smith</p><br><P>Dear Wendy:</p><br><P>You have asked for our analysis regarding the recent dispute betweenyou and Mr. George H. Smith. The following sets forth our analysis of yourrights and remedies in this regard, based on information you have suppliedto us.</p><br><P>Earlier this year, your book, <I>The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to IntellectualSurvival </I>(Prometheus Books, 1998) ("TRW"), was published.Part of TRW was based on ideas you had developed in a previous collaborationwith Mr. Smith, which collaboration itself had resulted in a 1989 unpublishedmanuscript, "Fundamentals of Reasoning" ("FOR"), co-authoredby you and Mr. Smith.</p><br><P>On May 17, 1998, you received an email message from Mr. Smith (via theemail account of Ms. Laura Kroutil, <vamp97@sj.bigger.net>). Youreceived a second email message from Mr. Smith on May 18, 1998, and a thirdon May 19, 1998 (copies of these three email messages are attached). Inthese email messages, Mr. Smith accused you of "plagiarism,"on the asserted grounds that portions of TRW were copied from "his"FOR manuscript.</p><br><P>In Mr. Smith's May 17, 1998 email message, he accused you "of extensiveand deliberate plagiarism." He also falsely stated that you were nota co-author of FOR, and were instead a mere typist or transcriber. Hischarges of plagiarism were based on this false claim. In addition, Mr.Smith explicitly threatened to take various actions, including transmittingsimilar accusations of plagiarism to your publisher, Prometheus Books ("Prometheus"),and instituting a lawsuit against you and/or Prometheus, unless you sentMr. Smith a certified check for US$10,000 no later than May 26, 1998.</p><br><P>Beginning on May 19, 1998, and continuing virtually until the present,Mr. Smith transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, email messages containingsimilar allegations and accusations to a large number of third parties.For example, on May 19, 1998, Mr. Smith faxed and emailed to various thirdparties, including Prometheus, a message entitled "On the Plagiarismof Wendy McElroy," in which he again accused you of plagiarism (copiesof exemplary email messages attached hereto). All of Mr. Smith's transmittedor posted email messages regarding this matter, of which you are aware,have been transmitted by Mr. Smith, directly or indirectly, from the sameemail account <vamp97@sj.bigger.net>.</p><br><P>Some of these email messages were posted by Mr. Smith, or caused tobe posted by him with his permission, to various listservs and newsgroups,such as the randian-feminism list and the newsgroups alt.politics.libertarianand talk.politics.libertarian. For example, Ms. Sharon Presley, of Resourcesfor Independent Thinking, posted on the randian-feminism list email messagestransmitted to her by Mr. Smith; and Tim Starr posted on his anarchismlistserv email messages transmitted to him by Mr. Smith. Therefore, itis clear that Mr. Smith published and disseminated his accusations of plagiarismand other statements to a large number of third parties.</p><br><P>Mr. Smith's actions and allegations in this regard are completely outrageous,inexcusable, and wholly groundless, for the following reasons. You andMr. Smith worked and lived together for an approximately ten-year period,from 1975 to 1985. During this period, you and Mr. Smith were intellectualpartners in developing materials on "reasoning," the subjectof which were presented in several eight-week courses, entitled "Fundamentalsof Reasoning." The courses were given in Los Angeles from approximately1975 to 1987, and you participated with Mr. Smith in developing the coursesand related course materials from 1975 to 1984.</p><br><P>You two then converted materials and ideas developed jointly by bothof you related to the courses, into a co-authored manuscript on "reasoning,"to-wit, the FOR manuscript. FOR is therefore a joint work which you andMr. Smith co-authored. This is evidenced by the "Contract on ReasoningBook/Untitled" executed by both you and Mr. Smith on November 29,1989 (the "1989 Contract"; attached hereto; also available at<http://www.zetetics.com/reason/contract.gif>'>http://www.zetetics.com/reason/contract.gif>). This contract, executedfour years after your separation, explicitly provides that you and Mr.Smith had "co-authored a book on reasoning." Despite Mr. Smith'sfalse assertions to the contrary, therefore, you were a full co-authorof FOR, and not a mere typist or transcriber of notes or tapes.</p><br><P>As you explicitly acknowledged in TRW's text, TRW was based, in part,on ideas developed by you in collaboration with Mr. Smith, which ideaswere also the subject of FOR. (For example, in the "Acknowledgments"section on page 9 of TRW, you explicitly state: "The philosopher GeorgeSmith created the intellectual therapy groups discussed in TRW and, overthe ten years of our close association, we discussed many of the ideasexpanded upon within." And on page 142 of TRW, you state: "Thenext two chapters are devoted to examining a unique intellectual therapygroup created by the philosopher George Smith, in which I was fortunateenough to participate.") Thus, selected portions of TRW of coursemay bear a similarity to some ideas expressed in FOR (it is difficult toverify this since Mr. Smith has refused to produce the original FOR manuscript,which you have not had in your possession since 1991). Indeed, becauseof the copyright doctrine of merger of ideas and expression, it is onlynatural that the expression of ideas in TRW similar to those in FOR wouldfind similar expression (as you noted, how many ways are there to say "Putit in Writing" (TRW, p. 93)?).</p><br><P>However, despite this historical connection between the origin of someof the ideas expresed in TRW and in FOR, you did not copy any portion ofFOR in the preparation of TRW and, indeed, had disposed of all of yourcopies of FOR, in 1991, three years before beginning writing TRW in 1994(even though you would have had a right to directly copy portions of FORin preparing TRW, as discussed below, had you wanted to). As you know,there are various perfectly legitimate reasons why there may be similarityin wording between the two works, given your co-authorship of FOR and yourintimate familiarity with the course material, having participated in thecourse five times to help improve and develop the course material, andhaving drawn in TRW from some of the same primary sources as used in preparingmaterial for FOR and for the associated courses (e.g. <I>Thinking As AScience</I>, by Henry Hazlitt) (this is explained in further detail byyou at <http://www.zetetics.com/reason/similar.htm>;'>http://www.zetetics.com/reason/similar.htm>; and <http://www.zetetics.com/reason/libel.htm>'>http://www.zetetics.com/reason/libel.htm>).</p><br><P>In sum, you authored a new work, TRW, based in limited part on previousideas co-developed by you and Mr. Smith and which were also the subjectof your very own co-authored work, FOR. You clearly did not plagiarizeMr. Smith's work--i.e., you did not publish "his" writings asif they were your own. Therefore, Mr. Smith's accusations of plagiarismare completely groundless and libelous.</p><br><P>Moreover, even if you <I>had</I> copied portions of FOR in writing TRW,Mr. Smith's claims would be equally groundless and libelous. As noted,the 1989 Contract provides solid proof that you were a co-author of FOR.You were and are thus also a co-owner of the copyright thereto, and aretherefore entitled to use this material in any way you see fit, withoutMr. Smith's permission or approval. Similarly, Mr. Smith has used theseco-authored materials, without your permission (or objection). For example,some of these materials were apparently used by Mr. Smith in his book <I>Atheism,Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies</I> (Prometheus, 1991), and apparently continueto be used in courses conducted by him and held under the auspices of Resourcesfor Independent Thinking in Oakland, California.</p><br><P>Furthermore, if the co-authored, joint work FOR drew on or incorporatedsome previous work solely authored by Mr. Smith (such as his 1974 handout),then, since the entire, joint manuscript FOR was co-authored and co-ownedby you and Mr. Smith, it would be irrelevant if portions of TRW expressideas similar to those found in Mr. Smith's previous work, since you andMr. Smith were co-authors and joint co-owners of everything in FOR, includingparticular portions drawing on either of your previous works. Thus, evenif Mr. Smith could somehow show that you copied portions of FOR verbatimin TRW which portions were contributed by Mr. Smith based on his previouswork, his claims would still be groundless, since you and he were co-authorsof the entire FOR manuscript.</p><br><P>Similarly, if some of Mr. Smith's subsequent works express ideas similarto those in FOR because he drew on FOR in creating the subsequent work,it would be irrelevant that these subsequent works also express ideas similarto those expressed in portions of TRW. All this would mean is that bothyou and Mr. Smith each drew on your previous, co-authored work FOR in authoringnew works. Thus, Mr. Smith's comparison of TRW to either his pre-FOR orpost-FOR writings is irrelevant. The only relevant comparison would bebetween TRW and an independent work of Mr. Smith's that did not itselfhave any similarity to FOR. Of course, Mr. Smith can make no such comparison,because you did not even copy from FOR, much less from solely-authoredworks of Mr. Smith. It is also unclear how he would prove that his independentwork did not draw from FOR, since the authenticity of any purported "FOR"manuscript produced by Mr. Smith will be in doubt, as discussed below.</p><br><P>Therefore, even assuming <I>arguendo</I> that you had directly incorporatedportions of FOR into TRW (which you did not), you were entitled to do this;you were entitled to create a new, derivative work, using your own co-authoredwork FOR.</p><br><P>Mr. Smith's voluminous "parallel passages" between TRW andFOR or works of Mr. Smith are thus completely irrelevant, for several reasons.First, even if Mr. Smith is able to provide a manuscript entitled "Fundamentalsof Reasoning," there will be no way to know that this is the original1989 FOR manuscript co-authored by you and Mr. Smith, since Mr. Smith apparentlyclaims only to have a disk copy of FOR which can easily be altered andthus difficult to verify. Thus, even if Mr. Smith is able to provide amanuscript identical to portions of TRW, it is possible for this to havebeen reverse-engineered or, at the very least, to have been altered since1989.</p><br><P>Second, even if he is able to provide the original 1989 FOR manuscriptand to prove its authenticity, parallel passages are irrelevant since youdid not copy from FOR; rather, such similar passages are due to the copyrightdoctrine of merger of idea and expression and your mutual collaborationon developing ideas which were the subject of the FOR-related courses.Third, even if you had directly copied passages from FOR and used themin portions of TRW, you were both morally and legally entitled to do this,as the co-author and joint copyright owner of FOR. There can simply beno doubt that, under applicable principles of copyright law, as you werea co-author of FOR, you are therefore the sole author of any new, derivativework authored by you incorporating portions of your own previously co-authoredwork. Any claims that your are not the sole author of TRW or that you werenot a co-author of FOR are, for these reasons, completely false and inaccurate.(Finally, for context, I note that the extent even of the copying allegedby Mr. Smith (passages from 17 pages of a 305-page book) is relativelytrivial and does not support his hyperpolic accusations and claims thathe is a co-author or author of half or more of TRW. Mr. Smith's very ownaccusations are thus self-contradictory.)</p><br><P>You are a respected and prolific full-time author and independent scholar.(Mr. Smith has even acknowledged that you have "done excellent workin the past.") Your works include the aforementioned TRW, as wellas: <I>XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography</I> (St. Martin's Press, 1995);<I>Sexual Correctness</I> (McFarland, 1996); <I>19th Century IndividualistFeminists: The Forgotten Roots of American Feminism</I> (McFarland, forthcoming);and <I>Freedom, Feminism and the State</I> (editor) (1st ed., Cato, 1983;2nd ed., Holmes & Meier, 1991; 3rd ed., Independent Institute, forthcoming).Your have also written on women's and other issues for <I>National Review</I>,<I>Free Inquiry</I>, <I>Penthouse</I>, <I>Liberty</I>, <I>Reason</I>, andother fora, and you were a 1997 nominee for the Mencken Award. (Informationon these and other writings appears at your web site at <http://www.zetetics.com/mac>.) You have also worked as a scholar for a number of think tanks,including the Cato Institute. Through your dozens of articles and bookspublished over more than sixteen years, you have developed a valuable andwell-deserved reputation as a serious, provocative, and thoughtful writer.Like other writers and scholars, therefore, your career and livelihoodrest on your most precious assets: your scholarly and writing abilitiesand your reputation for integrity and honesty.</p><br><P>In view of the foregoing, it is clear that Mr. Smith's statements inemail messages published to third parties in which he falsely accused youof plagiarism are injurious to your reputation, and are thus defamatory.In particular, since these statements were in written form, they are libelous;and any oral statements by Mr. Smith to third parties accusing you of plagiarismare slanderous.</p><br><P>Moreover, in addition to Mr. Smith's libelous accusations of plagiarism,his various email messages published to third parties contain further libelousaccusations. For example, he accused you of "stealing seven yearsof [smith's] professional labor"; and of intentionally deceiving Prometheusand violating a contract with Prometheus. He also denied your co-authorshipof FOR, instead falsely relegating you to the status of a mere typist;and thereby impugned your honesty, integrity, and professional abilities.</p><br><P>In addition, because his statements directly impugn your honesty andintegrity, and detrimentally affect your professional reputation, theyare libelous <I>per se</I>. In a lawsuit for libel <I>per se</I>, no actualdamages need be proven by the plaintiff; instead, damages are presumed.</p><br><P>Further, because Mr. Smith has taken these libelous actions <I>withmalice</I> (as a review of his email messages transmitted May 17, 1998<I>et seq.</I> clearly indicate), punitive damages may be available overand above any actual or presumed damages. Given the foregoing context andthe fact that his email messages drip with vitriol, insult, sarcasm, profanity,and cruelty, the malicious nature of his email messages, and his intentionto inflict emotional distress, are apparent to any reader.</p><br><P>Mr. Smith's deliberate and malicious acts of libel are therefore inexcusable,impermissible, and intolerable, and have very serious consequences. Also,his actions may have consequences beyond mere liability for defamation.For example, his initial email messages threatening to damage your reputationunless he received $10,000 from you may involve state and/or federal criminaland/or civil liability for blackmail and extortion, as this is an attemptto obtain property by means of a threat to inflict injury to another'sreputation.</p><br><P>In addition to his own liability in this regard, Mr. Smith's actionsmay have unwittingly caused liability to be imposed on others. For example,his use of Ms. Kroutil's email account in taking the foregoing actionsmay implicate her with responsibility for some or all of the above-referencedliabilities. At the very least, his actions may cause Ms. Kroutil's ISP,@bigger.net, to cancel her email account, as they are in direct violationof the terms of @bigger.net's "Acceptable Usage Policy" (see<http://www.bigger.net/policy.html>). In particular, Section VI ofthe Acceptable Usage Policy provides that the subscriber agrees to complywith all applicable laws. Section VI.C specifically provides that the subscriberagrees not to transmit any material that is libelous or threatening. SectionVIII.E also prohibits continued harassment of other individuals after beingasked to stop doing so by those individuals and by @bigger.net. We havedemanded that Mr. Smith stop harassing you, pursuant to this Section VIII.E,and we also requested @bigger.net to also ask Mr. Smith (via Ms. Kroutil,the subscriber) to stop doing so.</p><br><P>Note also that Section VI.E of the Acceptable Usage Policy providesthat the subscriber will indemnify @bigger.net for expenses, such as liabilitiesand attorneys' fees, incurred by @bigger.net as a result of the actionsof a subscriber in violation of the Acceptable Usage Policies. Thus, if@bigger.net were to become liable or a party to a lawsuit related to Mr.Smith's above-described libelous and other actions, either Mr. Smith and/orMs. Kroutil could be liable for various of @bigger.net's costs, expenses,and attorneys' fees. (However, we have notified @bigger.net as well asother third parties that you do not intend to institute litigation against@bigger.net or such third parties for any past actions of Mr. Smith.)</p><br><P>In addition, under defamation law, not only is publication of certainfalse, reputation-harming statements to third parties considered to bedefamatory, but each new act of re-publication is also a new act of defamationand thus gives rise to a new and separate cause of action. Thus, for example,Mr. Tim Starr, Ms. Sharon Presley, and others, in re-publishing Mr. Smith'slibelous comments, may also be implicated with liability for defamationand libel. We therefore requested that Mr. Starr, Ms. Presley, and anyother third parties give careful consideration to this matter before participatingin any further re-publication of Mr. Smith's defamatory and libelous statements.</p><br><P>In sum, Mr. Smith transmitted email messages to you in which he knowinglyand falsely accused you of plagiarism and of not being a co-author of FOR,despite his explicit acknowledgment of your co-authorship thereof in the1989 Contract. He also threatened to damage your reputation unless youpaid him a sum of cash. He then repeatedly libeled you, by publishing toa large number of third parties similar accusations, in a deliberate andmalicious attempt to harm your professional reputation, and he continuesto do so as of recent date.</p><br><P>Accordingly, we demanded that Mr. Smith immediately cease transmittingany further email messages or making any other communication, in writingor orally, to any third party alleging or even suggesting that you haveplagiarized FOR or any work of Mr. Smith's. We further demanded that Mr.Smith immediately cease transmitting any further email messages or makingany other communication to any third party alleging or even suggestingthat you did not co-author FOR, or that you have lied, breached contracts,stolen others' work, or engaged in any other unlawful or unethical activitythat would adversely affect your career as a writer and professional reputationrelated thereto. In short, we demanded that Mr. Smith immediately ceaseengaging in any acts defaming you and injuring your professional reputation.</p><br><P>We further demanded that Mr. Smith immediately cease and desist fromdirectly contacting you in any form whatsoever, and that he also immediatelycease threatening, extorting, blackmailing, or harassing you. We insistedthat any communication by him should be directed to and conducted throughme.</p><br><P>If there is any further action by Mr. Smith in contravention of ourdemands, it will be apparent that Mr. Smith intends to continue violatingyour rights, and you may consider instituting litigation to preserve yourrights.</p><br><P>The advice set forth in this letter is rendered solely and exclusivelyfor your benefit, and is not to be relied upon by any other party, withoutthe prior written consent of this firm.</p><br><P>Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions and,as we discussed, please contact me at once if you become aware of any furtherlibelous or threatening statements.</p><br><P>Very truly yours,</p><br><br><P>/s</p><br><br><P>N. Stephan Kinsella <BR>for DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER LLP <BR>NSK:amh <BR>Encl. as stated (with hard copy only) </p><br><br> Edited January 16, 2011 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) ...Incredible. You criticize me for quoting two sentences from this letter, then post it in its entirety, and every other incriminating document you can find. You are slipping. Edited January 16, 2011 by Ted Keer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) Deleted by author. Edited January 16, 2011 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
william.scherk Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) Deleted by author. Edited January 16, 2011 by william.scherk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiaer.ts Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 You criticize me for quoting two sentences from this letter, then post it in its entirety, and every other incriminating document you can find.Ted, I don't criticize you for posting an excerpt, but for your bias and your implacable hostility and righteousness. Your bile ducts are overactive these past months it seems; I think you should retitle your moribund blog as Radicals For Crabbiness. I like the reasonable Ted and appreciate your erudition, but I have to put you on the ignore list now. You no longer have anything positive to contribute to discussions. I wish you well, and hope the personal demons can be slayed . . .Thanks, Lucy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 (edited) I really don't think this thread is OL material. It strikes me as ex-spousal warfare by one and not the other. But knowing George he has documentation to back up his plagiarism charges. I've never seen anyone best George factually for if he doesn't have the facts he doesn't proceed. When he has the facts he's got a lot of them and his mind is like a machinegun firing them off.Wendy can sue George and OL regardless. This means legal fees. I'm sure George can provide all the facts needed for the defense although I'm not legally sure about the so-called extortion--wouldn't that be a criminal manner? But what if two years into the litigation George croaks? With the primary target gone could not Wendy continue to proceed against the secondary, OL? I'm no lawyer but I'd bet an unconnected real one could give us an earful. Michael and Kat, if they own any real estate, should look into a home ownership rider policy for another hundred or two that provides extended liability coverage for unexpected things unrelated to the home as such. It would not be applicable to this situation, however, I'm pretty sure, because it's already happened.--BrantI've never seen OL treated like a dump before Edited January 16, 2011 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert Campbell Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Brant,As a rule, lawyers don't take defamation cases on a contingency fee basis.Robert Campbell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 16, 2011 Author Share Posted January 16, 2011 I was delighted to learn that Wendy still has her bullshit stories up. It will be fun shredding them yet another time.Here I want to comment briefly on one outrageous claim that I found in two of her missives, namely, that she co-developed and worked with me on my Fundamentals of Reasoning Course from its inception and for 10 years thereafter (1975-1985). This is an incredible howler. I had almost forgotten what a lying sack of shit Wendy is. I will have more to say on this later, but this will do for now:I developed the course in Tucson n 1974, around a year and a half before I met Wendy. It was designed as the flagship course for my Forum for Philosophical Studies, which I also established in Tucson. I gave the first FOR courses shortly after moving to Hollywood in early 1975. This was an 8-week course, and, owing to high demand, I gave two courses per week for at least the first year. By the time I had met Wendy, I had given the course at least 8 times, maybe more. I think I fiddled around with the material in two sessions during the first few months, but after that the course never changed at all.Dozens of Objectivists and libertarians went through FOR in that first year . Dennis Hardin took FOR, and though I'm not sure when he took it, it might have been one of the early ones, while I was living with Diane, my first wife who actually did help me develop the course.I should be able to track down a number of these people without much trouble. One is Caroline Roper-Deyo, wife of the California attorney Richard Deyo. Caroline was very supportive and took the early course several times. But that was with Diane, my first wife. Wendy was nowhere to be seen. I should also be able to find Diane, my first wife, who was with me while I was developing the ideas in Tucson, and who sat in on virtually all the FOR classes the first year. Diane always hated frauds, so her testimony will cut Wendy's account to ribbons. JR used to have Diane's email address, so maybe he can send it to me.There were many, many others as well, and I will contact as many as I can find. I think Tom Palmer (Cato) was a very early participant. I can contact him easily and ask for a statement.Wendy should have planned out her liar's strategy much better. She is going to get bulldozed by witnesses.More on this later....Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 16, 2011 Share Posted January 16, 2011 Brant,As a rule, lawyers don't take defamation cases on a contingency fee basis.Robert CampbellThat's good to hear.--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 16, 2011 Author Share Posted January 16, 2011 I really don't think this thread is OL material. It strikes me as ex-spousal warfare by one and not the other. But knowing George he has documentation to back up his plagiarism charges. I've never seen anyone best George factually for if he doesn't have the facts he doesn't proceed. When he has the facts he's got a lot of them and his mind is like a machinegun firing them off.Wendy can sue George and OL regardless. This means legal fees. I'm sure George can provide all the facts needed for the defense although I'm not legally sure about the so-called extortion--wouldn't that be a criminal manner? But what if two years into the litigation George croaks? With the primary target gone could not Wendy continue to proceed against the secondary, OL? I'm no lawyer but I'd bet an unconnected real one could give us an earful. Michael and Kat, if they own any real estate, should look into a home ownership rider policy for another hundred or two that provides extended liability coverage for unexpected things unrelated to the home as such. It would not be applicable to this situation, however, I'm pretty sure, because it's already happened.--BrantI've never seen OL treated like a dump beforeThanks for the morale booster, you prick. I placed this thread in my "corner," because it is hugely relevant to me. Wendy is claiming far more than having written TRW. She is publicly claiming that she co-developed everything I have ever taught or written on the subjects covered in FOR, which includes an enormous amount of material. So I suppose I should just let this slide, eh? One of the biggest plagiarisms scandals ever is just a "dump" to you, eh. If Michael is concerned about a lawsuit, he can delete this thread, but I would appreciate a little warning so I and others can copy the relevant information.As for me, I dearly wish Wendy would go after me. But she never will, nor will she ever threaten legal action against OL.. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted January 16, 2011 Author Share Posted January 16, 2011 Btw, if Wendy actually files a lawsuit aginst me, then all bets are off. I will file a plagiarism lawsuit aganst her for big bucks, and I will win. If she decides to initiate force against me, then I will use the same instrument of force to defend myself.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now