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

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

I have done the reasonable thing I can think of to do right now.

I bought Wendy McElroy's book and I downloaded and printed out George's articles from the link he provided above and I provide once again here.

As far as I can ascertain (but I admit I did not read everything on this thread correctly--I skimmed a lot of it), these two sources are the only ones I can corroborate independently by holding one text up against the other. The rest (as far as I can tell) depends mostly on information from George and Wendy published on the Internet by themselves.

George's essays are in a collection called "Liberalism, Values and Lincoln-Douglas Debate," published by The Free Enterprise Institute in September, 1992 and converted to PDF in February 2002 (according to what is presented in the document). There are other authors in that compilation. His essays are as follows:

"Applying Logic to LD"

"How to define your terms"

"Types of definition"

"From abuse to deadly force"

"Culture, ideas & values...Frantz Fanon & John Locke at Stanford"

"Notes on the American Flag"

"Loose cannons in the national interest"

Wendy McElroy's book, called The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival, was published in April, 1998 by Prometheus Books (Amazon link here, and this is not an affiliate link). Here is the Table of Contents:

Acknowledgments

Preface

1. What Is a Reasonable Woman?

2. Barriers to Being Reasonable

3. Overcoming Bad habits

4. Taking Yourself Seriously

5. Forming New Habits

6. Books and Other Good Friends

7. Intellectual Therapy

8. Forming an Intellectual Therapy Group

9. The Tools of Reasoning

10. The Power of Definitions

11. Applying Reason to Theory

12. Applying Reason to Statistics

13. The Psychology of Arguing

14. Arguing in an Atmosphere of Good Will

15. Arguing in the Absence of Good Will

16. Addressing Philosophical Assaults

Afterword

Recommended Readings

Index

I will write up what I find on comparing them in a later post.

Michael

[Robert Campbell]

Brant,

The reason plaintiff's lawyers are unlikely to take defamation cases on a contingency fee basis is the obvious one: the probability of a major payoff is too small.

When you see advertisements from law firms on cable TV (and it seems like there are tons of them these days) what are the lawyers claiming they can help prospective clients with?

Robert

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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..

George,

I see no reason to delete this thread. On OL, every poster speaks for himself or herself without any implied endorsement from OL. This is a formally stated policy and it is widely understood as such.

Also, people are free to join and they can rebut you the moment you post if they so wish. I am not mentioning this in a Perigonian sense of hoping this happens because of a spike in audience a train wreck generates, but merely to emphasize that in this case (and in almost all cases) the forum is merely a support for each person to express his/her own views. I don't know how legal of a distinction this is, but it seems sound enough to me for the time being.

I don't want to discuss legalities at this time, though. Objectivists and Objectivism-friendly people usually make a holy mess out of them.

I will state this. I have no wish to goad anyone, but I am not afraid of anyone either. My attitude is to play it by ear and hope everything works out well in the end for everyone.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Deleted by author.

Edited January 16, 2011 by william.scherk

[George H. Smith]

I think I have the names of many students of the early FOR courses in an old address book, but it is probably buried in a box somewhere, so it may take a while to find.

Meanwhile, I was hoping OL members could help with with two names.

One was a very sharp LA attorney who took a number of my courses before I met Wendy. (I was giving an FOR II course, and one other (I can't recall the name offhand) before Wendy entered the scene. This attorney's first name was Linda, but I cannot recall her last name. I know she inherited a substantial sum of money from her mom, after which she quit the legal field. The last I heard, Linda was doing a kind of road show, traveling around and doing public readings of poetry.

Linda was very well known in libertarian circles, so I was hoping someone knows her, or at least knows her last name.

There was a also a delightful libertarian couple who attended a number of my classes in the first year. (I think I first met them in Tucson. I don't recall his first name, but I believe her name was Pat Toomey (sp?), or something like that. Ring any bells.

Also, I think Terry Diamond -- then known as Terry Thibideaux; I'm guessing on the spelling)may have attended the early classes, along with his girlfriend Melinda Hanson (or Hansen). Anyone know where they are?

Other names will occur to me over the next few days.

How many witnesses do you suppose it will take before Wendy takes down those ridiculous claims about being a co-developer of FOR? Will six do the trick? 10? 25? In theory and over time, I should be able to locate at least 40.

Now, here is a important point: If Wendy's claim is an outright, boldfaced lie, then what happens next? Will some of you say, Well, maybe she lied about that, but this doesn't mean that she lied about anything else. Am I going to have to demolish every single lie she has told, or will some of you get the drift after the first major fabrication is exposed?

Yes, Virginia, pathological liars do exist.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Thanks, Michael, for digging up the online material at http://www.economict...ralvaluesld.pdf

Full exchanges of the original, public Usenet discussion thread "The Plagiarism of Wendy McElroy" are archived here, at the newsgroup talk.politics.libertarian.

I urge the varied justices, questors, advocates and hangmen to read all the material contained therein, thirteen long posts -- as well as the materials signaled by Mr Rodriguez and reposted above. There may be other public material, but I haven't found it yet.

I would advise George and Michael to remove extraneous materials that bitch out George and/or Wendy, expose personal conduct unbecoming (Wendy's Hobby), or that further muddy the waters (including my paraphrases of Kinsella, Ted's dyspeptic rants, Brant's excursions, Renzulli's woozy impressions, etcetera) and to moderate any further posts to this thread. When the uninformed get going, the result is a hideous sludge of hyperbole and irrelevant invective.

George, Michael, please take control of this thread, remove the unnecessary materials, and do a lockdown.

Why's that? WITFDYTYA?

--Brant

Edited January 16, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

Thanks, Michael, for digging up the online material at http://www.economicthinking.org/liberalvaluesld.pdf

Full exchanges of the original, public Usenet discussion thread "The Plagiarism of Wendy McElroy" are archived here, at the newsgroup talk.politics.libertarian.

I urge the varied justices, questors, advocates and hangmen to read all the material contained therein, thirteen long posts -- as well as the materials signaled by Mr Rodriguez and reposted above. There may be other public material, but I haven't found it yet.

I would advise George and Michael to remove extraneous materials that bitch out George and/or Wendy, expose personal conduct unbecoming (Wendy's Hobby), or that further muddy the waters (including my paraphrases of Kinsella, Ted's dyspeptic rants, Brant's excursions, Renzulli's woozy impressions, etcetera) and to moderate any further posts to this thread. When the uninformed get going, the result is a hideous sludge of hyperbole and irrelevant invective.

George, Michael, please take control of this thread, remove the unnecessary materials, and do a lockdown.

From your link. I live this shit:

It is Prometheus' attorney's opinion that, as a legal matter, this

5-page

1974 hand-out -- the only evidence Smith has produced of plagiarism to

my

publisher (and not to me) -- was knowingly placed into the public domain

by

him by virtue of being widely distributed without a copyright notice or

registration.

First, that document was the very first one I sent out. Prometheus later got the full 200 page FOR manuscript.

Second, the above argument is fine with me. If my 5 page, single spaced handout was technically in the public domain, great -- but is Wendy admitting that she did in fact copy it from me?. I don't care if this meets the legal standard or not, owing to copyright issues. My argument all along has been that that Wendy took my material, copied it, and claimed it as her own work. Is this okay wth everyone, so long as the stuff is not copyrighted?

Lastly, I still have one of the original printouts. Wendy copied virtually every line, word for word, and gave no indication that I wrote it. Btw, this was the very first version I used, which means it was first distributed early in 1975, long before I knew Wendy.

There is absolutely no reason why the personal background that I have discussed should be deleted from this thread. I will be outraged if that happens. My explanation of what happened makes little sense without it. I am not mounting a legal case against Wendy. I am mounting a moral case (not about sex, of course), and I have a perfect right to explain why Wendy got so damned vicious towards me. If I get censored for presenting crucial information, then I'm off of OL for good.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

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

I have done the reasonable thing I can think of to do right now.

I bought Wendy McElroy's book and I downloaded and printed out George's articles from the link he provided above and I provide once again here.

As far as I can ascertain (but I admit I did not read everything on this thread correctly--I skimmed a lot of it), these two sources are the only ones I can corroborate independently by holding one text up against the other. The rest (as far as I can tell) depends mostly on information from George and Wendy published on the Internet by themselves.

George's essays are in a collection called "Liberalism, Values and Lincoln-Douglas Debate," published by The Free Enterprise Institute in September, 1992 and converted to PDF in February 2002 (according to what is presented in the document). There are other authors in that compilation. His essays are as follows:

"Applying Logic to LD"

"How to define your terms"

"Types of definition"

"From abuse to deadly force"

"Culture, ideas & values...Frantz Fanon & John Locke at Stanford"

"Notes on the American Flag"

"Loose cannons in the national interest"

Wendy McElroy's book, called The Reasonable Woman: A Guide to Intellectual Survival, was published in April, 1998 by Prometheus Books (Amazon link here, and this is not an affiliate link). Here is the Table of Contents:

Acknowledgments

Preface

1. What Is a Reasonable Woman?

2. Barriers to Being Reasonable

3. Overcoming Bad habits

4. Taking Yourself Seriously

5. Forming New Habits

6. Books and Other Good Friends

7. Intellectual Therapy

8. Forming an Intellectual Therapy Group

9. The Tools of Reasoning

10. The Power of Definitions

11. Applying Reason to Theory

12. Applying Reason to Statistics

13. The Psychology of Arguing

14. Arguing in an Atmosphere of Good Will

15. Arguing in the Absence of Good Will

16. Addressing Philosophical Assaults

Afterword

Recommended Readings

Index

I will write up what I find on comparing them in a later post.

Michael

The titles mean nothing. I was publishing in a high-school debate newsletter.

The most relevant articles, i.e., the one from which Wendy copied most flagrantly, are "How to define your terms" and "Types of definition." Compare these to TRW, "The Power of Definitons." (I'm pretty sure that's the right chapter in TRW. I haven't looked at this stuff in years. If it isn't correct, I will dig out my copy of TRW and find it. I have a lot of trouble with TRW, even now. A knot forms in my stomach, and sometime I feel as if I am going to throw up."

Let us know what you find.

Ghs

I recall that there is also some material in "Applying Logic to LD"

Thanks, Michael.

[Brant Gaede]

Wrong forum, George (re your #107). Michael doesn't do that. I don't see any reason for individual post deletion on this thread based on the several years I've been here. WSS floats in and out. He likes a good fight; he likes to help it along. Nathaniel Branden and I once got into a little tiff on his defunct Yahoo Group over "censored." He claimed if the government doesn't do it it's not censorship. Wrong!

--Brant

Edited January 16, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[Roger Bissell]

I think I have the names of many students of the early FOR courses in an old address book, but it is probably buried in a box somewhere, so it may take a while to find.

Meanwhile, I was hoping OL members could help with with two names.

One was a very sharp LA attorney who took a number of my courses before I met Wendy. (I was giving an FOR II course, and one other (I can't recall the name offhand) before Wendy entered the scene. This attorney's first name was Linda, but I cannot recall her last name. I know she inherited a substantial sum of money from her mom, after which she quit the legal field. The last I heard, Linda was doing a kind of road show, traveling around and doing public readings of poetry.

Linda was very well known in libertarian circles, so I was hoping someone knows her, or at least knows her last name.

George, I believe the person you are thinking of is Linda Tania Abrams. I've seen her at several Objectivist gatherings in the L.A. area during the past 10 years, including meetings at Nathaniel Branden's home and the 2006 Summer Seminar of The Objectivist Center/Atlas Society. Here is an interesting, relevant link:

Past Times with Good Company

Hope this helps!

REB

[Brant Gaede]

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.

--Brant

I've never seen OL treated like a dump before

Thanks 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

Actually, George, I wasn't thinking about the plagiarism, sorry I didn't make that clear. I was thinking about the sexcapades. And I've never seen the like: coming on like this full bore on a forum your ex isn't posting on giving her 24 hours or her ass is grass and you're the lawnmower. You said she was toast then you post the sex stuff telling us how you weren't trying to do a number on her. Is this supposed to be coherent or an expression of temporary insanity? You don't need a morale boost, you need a bucket of cold water.

--Brant

Edited January 16, 2011 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

I 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.

I feel better now than I have in years, now that I am beginning to tell the whole story. I don't care what you think, Mikee. To this point, if you read each one of my posts, you have perhaps around 20 percent of the relevant information. You have no idea how deep this runs.

So can the advice about dragging this or that out. I am now determined to write a book that I have mentioned before, an autobiography titled Sex, Drugs, and Philosophy: In Pursuit of a Hedonistic Life. I stalled for over 15 years in writing this book, which will be amazing, because I thought the sex stuff might hurt Wendy's marriage. I even tried to contact her about this one time to see if there was some delicate way around this problem. But of course she had no interest in talking to a "sex pervert."

So fuck Wendy. I have a right to write an account of my own life. I even gave a public lecture about all this once during our Swing Days. Moreover, both Wendy and I often discussed this stuff with friends, and we sometimes invited friends to come along, which many did.

Why do you think Wendy published that XXX book on porn as a positive good? That notion of "pornography as a positive good" developed from discussions we had relating to swing parties. I was the one who actually suggested that Wendy should write a book or article on the subject of "pornography as a positive good."

Btw, as for influence, have you ever seen early editions of Wendy's Freedom, Feminism,and the State" or her massive index of Tucker's Liberty? Both were initially dedicated to me. This was changed in later printings to Brad, who wasn't even in the picture when those books were published. Wendy dedicated those books to me because of all the time I spent with trying to help. (She did the work on her own, however. I have always been meitulous about giving her proper credit.) I encouraged Wendy in every way I could. I even suggested the Index and provided a complete run of Liberty.

I mention these things, because I worked for years as Wendy's mentor. I educated her, so far as philosophy and history are concerned, and she often expressed her gratitude, often calling herself "Little George." Then she comes along and claims half-credit for seven years of my work that she had nothing to do with, and during the same period when I was spending so much time attempting to educate her and groom her to be a professional writer.

Can you imagine -- do you any conception -- of how deeply painful and upsetting this is? It is a kind spiritual betrayal that makes me feel that I can never trust anyone again. I have never worked so hard and so long to help someone, only to be stabbed in the heart -- not just once, but over and over and over again.

I went from being Wendy's mentor and intellectual hero to being a sex pervert, some maniac who maliciously and falsely launched an unprovoked crusade against her, a liar, and so on. And why the sudden change? Simply and solely because Wendy could not deal with the guilt of her sexual past, and because she did't want Brad to discover the lies that she had been feeding him for years. And I'm not supposed to get too personal. Bullshit.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

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.

--Brant

I've never seen OL treated like a dump before

Thanks 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

Actually, George, I wasn't thinking about the plagiarism, sorry I didn't make that clear. I was thinking about the sexcapades. And I've never seen the like: coming on like this full bore on a forum your ex isn't posting on giving her 24 hours or her ass is grass and you're the lawnmower. You said she was toast then you post the sex stuff telling us how you weren't trying to do a number on her. Is this supposed to be coherent or an expression of temporary insanity? You don't need a morale boost, you need a bucket of cold water.

--Brant

Fuck you, Brant. You have idea of what you are talking about. I owed Wendy nothing. I said she is toast because I am going to compile all of my material, including the FOR ms, around 150 pages of parallel passages, my published articles that she plagiarized, signed and notarized accounts from witnesses, etc., and, after formatting these in an e-book, I am going to send copies to every major university, every major publisher and every publisher Wendy has ever dealt with, every major book outlet, such as Amazon, every relevant internet outlet that deals with feminism, freethought, and libertarianim. I will also send copies to every libertarian, feminist and freethought foundation, every planned libertarian conference or convention, every major news outlet, such as Fox News, ever major left-leaning political blog (who will have a field day eviscerating one of the best known libertarian feminists -- and this will just be the beginning.

I will offer the "evidentiary ebook" on my forthcoming website for a reasonable price, so everyone can have access to it, and I'm thinking of given the first 5000 copies away for free.

As I said, Wendy is toast.

One other thing. One thing I have feared are some nude pics that Wendy still has of me. They are taped into something she calls her "Unicorn Diaries." The are joke Polaroids that she took one day. They consist of my standing around in nothing but a shirt, and I have erections that are obviously embarrasing me in a funny kind of way.

I won't go into details, but the embarrassment of releasing these has been a factor in this that has made me hesitate about discussing the Swing material.. Well, enough of that. If Wendy wants to distribute copies or post those pictures on her website, I am hereby giving her my permission. She can even enlarge them into wall posters, if she wants, or post them on OL. They are her property, and she can do with them what she likes. And who knows, they might improve my sex life.

[George H. Smith]

I think I have the names of many students of the early FOR courses in an old address book, but it is probably buried in a box somewhere, so it may take a while to find.

Meanwhile, I was hoping OL members could help with with two names.

One was a very sharp LA attorney who took a number of my courses before I met Wendy. (I was giving an FOR II course, and one other (I can't recall the name offhand) before Wendy entered the scene. This attorney's first name was Linda, but I cannot recall her last name. I know she inherited a substantial sum of money from her mom, after which she quit the legal field. The last I heard, Linda was doing a kind of road show, traveling around and doing public readings of poetry.

Linda was very well known in libertarian circles, so I was hoping someone knows her, or at least knows her last name.

George, I believe the person you are thinking of is Linda Tania Abrams. I've seen her at several Objectivist gatherings in the L.A. area during the past 10 years, including meetings at Nathaniel Branden's home and the 2006 Summer Seminar of The Objectivist Center/Atlas Society. Here is an interesting, relevant link:

Past Times with Good Company

Hope this helps!

REB

That's her! Thanks, Roger.

I saw Linda at a conference around 5 years, and I mentioned the plagiarism issue. Linda was outraged, because, in addition to attending early classes, she was around Diane and I a lot while we were working to expand the Forum For Philosophical Studies. So was Caroline Roper-Dayo, who helped with a number of administrative tasks.

Linda's testimony will be great, because she told me that she still has all the handouts and her notes from those classes. She said that her handwritten notes are dated, extensive, and very detailed, and that I was welcome to use whatever I wanted to expose Wendy as a total liar. The detailed notes are good because they will show that my earliest material, which presented before I met Wendy, corresponds with the material that Wendy claims to have co-developed.

You know, earlier today, after getting that Swing stuff off my chest, I was feeling relaxed and optimistic. Now I felt free, after over 15 years, to write my detailed and very frank autobiography. I even thought about ending, or at least cutting back, on my plagiarism crusade. So long as I was free to tell the truth, and so long as my missives were publicly available on a website (which they were not in 1998) to interested parties, then the truth was accessible to anyone who cared to read it.

Then I learned that Wendy still has those bullshit lies on her website. I figured she would have removed them after all these years, since I wasn't doing anything, and especially they are so easily rebutted, because they are internally contradictory. (I will give examples later.) Then I felt that rage all over again. To plagiarize from my FOR ms is one thing, and possibly forgivable, but to claim that she not only coauthored that manuscript but also co-developed all that material and, moreover, that I actually plagiarized from her -- can you believe the nerve of that woman? -- that I plagiarized from my own work of 7 years? -- well, lets just say that my earlier feeling that there was no point in completely demolishing Wendy quickly left.

To show that I am not bullshitting here, consider something I wrote yesterday in a private message to an OLer:

Thanks.

God, but I wish Wendy would email me. We could get this over in an hour or two.. I don't want to destroy her career. She has many things to offer, and it would kill her to be ridiculed. I know Wendy; that is what she fears most. She would wither and die intellectually and emotionally -- it could even drive her to suicide , and I don't know if I could bear to see that.

Please don't tell anyone, but even if Wendy doesn't email me, I may just drop the matter. Enough people know the truth. I don't know if I would have the heart to finish her off. We were so close for so many years, that to destroy her would be to destroy part of myself.

Ghs

[william.scherk]

Here's the full text of the Kinsella letter to George Smith. This is from the same thread as cited above, and is contained in cc: to George's friend Tim Starr. I have removed inessential headers; the entire original can be found archived here.

It looks like the charges of plagiarism were not repeated in public until yesterday.

One thing to consider is that Kinsella and Rodriguez are actively monitoring this thread, and may be preparing to pursue the action contained in the ultimate paragraph:

Please note that it is Ms. McElroy's intention to defend her

reputation and to defend herself against any continuing threats or

harassment, and to avail herself of all rights and remedies available under

state and/or federal law. If there is any further action by you whatsoever

in contravention of our demands set forth above, we will assume that you

intend to continue violating Ms. McElroy's rights, and we will advise our

client that it will be necessary to institute litigation to preserve her

rights.

FROM: N. Stephan Kinsella

TO: George H. Smith

June 1, 1998

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

VIA FEDEX VIA FEDEX

Mr. George H. Smith c/o Sharon Presley

c/o Ms. Laura Kroutil Resources for Independent

Thinking

555 41st Avenue 484 Lake Park Avenue, #24

San Francisco, California 94121 Oakland, California

94610-2730

*VIA EMAIL* c/o Ms. Laura Kroutil

<vam...@sj.bigger.net>

Re: Defamation and Libel of Wendy McElroy

Dear Mr. Smith:

We represent Ms. Wendy McElroy, whom you know. You have recently

transmitted via the Internet several email messages to Ms. McElroy and to

various third parties. In these email messages, you have leveled serious

accusations against Ms. McElroy. Copies of various of these email messages

are attached hereto.

Earlier this year, Ms. McElroy's book, *The Reasonable Woman: A

Guide to Intellectual Survival* (Prometheus Books, 1998) ("TRW"), was

published. Part of TRW was based on ideas Ms. McElroy had developed in a

previous collaboration with you, which collaboration itself had resulted in

a 1989 unpublished manuscript, "Fundamentals of Reasoning" ("FOR"),

co-authored by you and Ms. McElroy. On May 17, 1998, you sent an email

message to Ms. McElroy from the email account of Ms. Laura Kroutil,

<vam...@sj.bigger.net>. You transmitted a second email message to Ms.

McElroy on May 18, 1998, and a third on May 19, 1998 (copies of these three

email messages are attached). In these email messages, you accused Ms.

McElroy of "plagiarism," on the asserted grounds that portions of TRW were

copied from "your" FOR manuscript.

In your May 17, 1998 email message, you accused Ms. McElroy "of

extensive and deliberate plagiarism." You also falsely stated that Ms.

McElroy was not a co-author of FOR, and was instead a mere typist or

transcriber, and based your charges of plagiarism on this false claim. In

addition, you explicitly threatened to take various actions, including

faxing a copy of your email message alleging plagiarism to Ms. McElroy's

publisher, Prometheus Books ("Prometheus"), and instituting a lawsuit

against Ms. McElroy and/or Prometheus, unless Ms. McElroy sent you a

certified check for US$10,000 no later than May 26, 1998.

Beginning on May 19, 1998, and continuing virtually until the

present, you transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, email messages

containing similar allegations and accusations to a large number of third

parties. For example, on May 19, 1998, you faxed and emailed to various

third parties, including Prometheus, a message entitled "On the Plagiarism

of Wendy McElroy," in which you again accused Ms. McElroy of plagiarism

(copies of exemplary email messages attached hereto). All of your

transmitted or posted email messages regarding this matter, of which we are

aware, have been transmitted by you, directly or indirectly, from the same

email account <vamp97@ sj.bigger.net>.

Some of these email messages were posted by you, or caused to be

posted by you with your permission, to various listservs and newsgroups,

such as the randian-feminism list and the newsgroups

alt.politics.libertarian and talk.politics.libertarian. For example, Ms.

Sharon Presley, of Resources for Independent Thinking, posted on the

randian-feminism list email messages transmitted to her by you; and Tim

Starr posted on his anarchism listserv email messages transmitted to him by

you. Therefore, it is clear that you published and disseminated your

accusations of plagiarism and other statements to a large number of third

parties.

Your actions and allegations in this regard are completely

outrageous, inexcusable, and wholly groundless, for the following reasons.

You and Ms. McElroy worked and lived together for an approximately ten-year

period, from 1975 to 1985. During this period, you and Ms. McElroy were

intellectual partners in developing material on "reasoning" that were

presented in several eight-week courses, entitled "Fundamentals of

Reasoning." The courses were given in Los Angeles from approximately 1975

to 1987, and Ms. McElroy participated with you in developing the courses

and related course materials from 1975 to 1984.

You and Ms. McElroy were thus co-authors of various course-related

materials, which were developed for these classes. You two then converted

materials and ideas developed by both of 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 and Ms. McElroy co-authored.

Incontrovertible proof of this conclusion is shown by the "Contract on

Reasoning Book/Untitled" executed by both you and Ms. McElroy 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, executed

four years after your separation, explicitly provides that you and Ms.

McElroy had "co-authored a book on reasoning." Despite your false

assertions to the contrary, therefore, Ms. McElroy was a full co-author of

FOR, and not a "mere typist" or transcriber.

As explicitly acknowledged in TRW's text, TRW was based, in part,

on ideas developed by Ms. McElroy in collaboration with you, which ideas

were also the subject of FOR. (For example, in the "Acknowledgments"

section on page 9 of TRW, Ms. McElroy explicitly states: "The philosopher

George Smith created the intellectual therapy groups discussed in TRW and,

over the ten years of our close association, we discussed many of the ideas

expanded upon within." And on page 142 of TRW, Ms. McElroy states: "The

next two chapters are devoted to examining a unique intellectual therapy

group created by the philosopher George Smith, in which I was fortunate

enough to participate.") Thus, selected portions of TRW of course may bear

a similarity to some ideas expressed in FOR (it is difficult to verify this

since you have refused to produce the original FOR manuscript, which Ms.

McElroy no longer has in her possession). Indeed, because of the copyright

doctrine of merger of ideas and expression, it is only natural that the

expression of ideas in TRW similar to those in FOR would find similar

expression (as Ms. McElroy has noted, how many ways are there to say "Put

it in Writing" (TRW, p. 93)?); and neither you nor Ms. McElroy has a right

to ideas per se.

Nevertheless, Ms. McElroy *did not* copy any portion of FOR in the

preparation of TRW and, indeed, had disposed of all of her copies of FOR

before beginning writing TRW in 1994. Any similarity in wording is easily

explicable, given Ms. McElroy's co-authorship of FOR and her intimate

familiarity with the course material, having participated in the course

five times to help improve and develop the course material, and having

drawn in TRW from some of the same primary sources as used in preparing

material for FOR and for the associated courses (e.g. *Thinking As A

Science*, by Henry Hazlitt) (this is explained in detail by Ms. McElroy

at <http://www.zetetics.com/ reason/similar.htm>). Ms. McElroy did not

plagiarize your work--i.e., she did not publish "your" writings as if they

were her own. The simple fact of the matter is that Ms. McElroy authored a

new work, TRW, based in limited part on previous ideas co-developed by you

and her and which were also the subject of her very own co-authored work,

FOR. Therefore, your accusations of plagiarism are completely groundless

and libelous.

Moreover, even if Ms. McElroy *had* copied portions of FOR in

writing TRW, your claims would be equally groundless and libelous. As

noted, the 1989 Contract provides unassailable proof that Ms. McElroy was a

co-author of FOR. She was thus also a co-owner of the copyright thereto,

and is therefore entitled to use this material in any way she sees fit,

without your permission or approval. Similarly, you yourself have used

these co-authored materials without Ms. McElroy's permission (or

objection). For example, some of these materials were apparently used by

you in your book *Atheism, Ayn Rand, and Other Heresies* (Prometheus,

1991), and continue to be used in courses conducted by you and held under

the auspices of Resources for Independent Thinking in Oakland, California.

Just as it is your right to use your own co-authored material as you see

fit, so with Ms. McElroy.

Furthermore, if the co-authored, joint work FOR drew on or

incorporated some previous work solely authored by you (such as your 1974

handout), then, since the entire, joint manuscript FOR was co-authored and

co-owned by you and Ms. McElroy, it would be irrelevant if portions of TRW

express ideas similar to those found in your previous work, since you and

Ms. McElroy were co-authors and joint co-owners of everything in FOR,

including particular portions drawing on either of your previous works.

Similarly, if some of your subsequent works express ideas similar to those

in FOR because you drew on FOR in creating the subsequent work, it would of

course be irrelevant that these subsequent works express ideas similar to

those expressed in portions of TRW.

Therefore, even assuming *arguendo* that Ms. McElroy had directly

incorporated portions of FOR into TRW, she was entitled to do this; she was

entitled to create a new, derivative work, using her own co-authored work

FOR. Thus, even if you are able to provide a manuscript entitled

"Fundamentals of Reasoning" and to somehow prove that this is the same 1989

FOR manuscript co-authored by you and Ms. McElroy (which proof will be

difficult as you apparently claim only to have a disk copy of FOR which can

easily be altered and thus difficult to verify), and even if you can locate

similar passages therebetween, your claims are still completely groundless

and libelous, as this would show only that an author created a new work

drawing on her own previous work. There can simply be no doubt that, under

applicable principles of copyright law, Ms. McElroy was a co-author of FOR

and that she is therefore the sole author of any new, derivative work

authored by her incorporating portions of her previously co-authored work.

Any claims that Ms. McElroy is not the sole author of TRW or that she was

not a co-author of FOR are completely false.

As you know, Ms. McElroy is a respected and prolific full-time

author and independent scholar. Her works include the aforementioned TRW,

as well as: *XXX: A Woman's Right to Pornography* (St. Martin's Press,

1995); *Sexual Correctness* (McFarland, 1996); *19th Century Individualist

Feminists: the Forgotten Roots of American Feminism* (McFarland,

forthcoming); and *Freedom, Feminism and the State* (editor) (1st ed.,

Cato, 1983; 2nd ed., Holmes & Meier, 1991; 3rd ed., Independent Institute,

forthcoming). Ms. McElroy has also written on women's and other issues for

*National Review*, *Free Inquiry*, *Penthouse*, *Liberty*, *Reason*, and

other fora, and was a 1997 nominee for the Mencken Award. (Information on

these and other writings appears at her web site at

<http://www.zetetics.com/mac>.) She has also worked as a scholar for a

number of think tanks, including the Cato Institute. Through her dozens of

articles and books published over more than sixteen years, Ms. McElroy has

developed a valuable and well-deserved reputation as a serious,

provocative, and thoughtful writer. Like other writers and scholars,

therefore, Ms. McElroy's career and livelihood rest on her most precious

assets: her scholarly and writing abilities and her reputation for

integrity and honesty.

In view of the foregoing, it is clear that your statements in email

messages published to third parties in which you falsely accuse Ms. McElroy

of plagiarism are injurious to Ms. McElroy's reputation, and are thus

defamatory. In particular, since these statements were in written form,

they are libelous; and any oral statements by you to third parties accusing

Ms. McElroy of plagiarism are slanderous.

Moreover, in addition to your libelous accusations of plagiarism,

your various email messages published to third parties contain further

libelous accusations. For example, you accused Ms. McElroy of "stealing

seven years of [smith's] professional labor"; and of intentionally

deceiving Prometheus and violating a contract with Prometheus. You also

denied Ms. McElroy's co-authorship of FOR, instead falsely relegating her

to the status of a mere typist; and thereby impugned her honesty,

integrity, and professional abilities.

In addition, because your statements directly impugn Ms. McElroy's

honesty and integrity, and detrimentally affect her professional

reputation, they are libelous *per se*. In a lawsuit for libel *per se*,

no actual damages need be proven by the plaintiff; instead, damages are

presumed.

Additionally, because you have taken these libelous actions *with

malice* (as a review of your email messages transmitted May 17, 1998 *et

seq.* clearly indicate), punitive damages may be available over and above

any actual or presumed damages. Given the foregoing context and the fact

that your emails drip with vitriol, insult, sarcasm, profanity, and

cruelty, the malicious nature of your email messages, and your intention to

inflict emotional distress, are apparent to any reader.

Your deliberate and malicious acts of libel are therefore

inexcusable, impermissible, and intolerable, and have very serious

consequences. Please also note that your actions may have consequences

beyond mere liability for defamation. For example, your initial email

messages threatening to damage her reputation unless you received $10,000

from Ms. McElroy 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.

If you doubt this, by all means please feel welcome to show a copy of your

initial email messages to Ms. McElroy to your local district attorney and

solicit his opinion.

In addition to your own liability in this regard, your actions may

have unwittingly caused liability to be imposed on others. For example,

your use of Ms. Kroutil's email account in taking the foregoing actions may

implicate her with responsibility for some or all of the above-referenced

liabilities. At the very least, your actions may cause Ms. Kroutil's ISP,

@bigger.net, to cancel her email account, as they are in direct violation

of the terms of @bigger.net's "Acceptable Usage Policy" (see

<http://www.bigger.net/policy.html>). In particular, Section VI of the

Acceptable Usage Policy provides that the subscriber agrees to comply with

all applicable laws. Section VI.C specifically provides that the

subscriber agrees not to transmit any material that is libelous or

threatening. Section VIII.E also prohibits continued harassment of other

individuals after being asked to stop doing so by those individuals and by

@bigger.net. We hereby demand that you stop harassing Ms. McElroy,

pursuant to this Section VIII.E, and hereby request @bigger.net via copy

hereto, to also ask you to stop doing so, and to copy me on this request or

otherwise confirm that such request has been or will be made.

Note also that Section VI.E of the Acceptable Usage Policy provides

that the subscriber will indemnify @bigger.net for expenses, such as

liabilities and attorneys' fees, incurred by @bigger.net as a result of the

actions of 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 your above-described libelous and other actions, either you and/or Ms.

Kroutil could be liable for various of @bigger.net's costs, expenses, and

attorneys' fees. (@bigger.net is hereby notified, however, that Ms.

McElroy is *not* hereby threatening to institute litigation against

@bigger.net for any past actions of Mr. Smith and/or Ms. Kroutil.)

In addition, please note that 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. Thus, for example, Mr. Tim Starr, Ms. Sharon Presley, and

others, in re-publishing your libelous comments, may also be implicated

with liability for defamation and libel. We request that Mr. Starr and Ms.

Presley, copied hereto, give careful consideration to this matter before

participating in any further re-publication of your defamatory and libelous

statements. (Mr. Starr, Ms. Presley, Ms. Kroutil, and other third parties

are hereby notified, however, that Ms. McElroy is *not* hereby threatening

to institute litigation against any such third parties for any past actions

of Mr. Smith.)

In sum, you transmitted email messages to Ms. McElroy in which you

knowingly and falsely accused her of plagiarism and of not being a

co-author of FOR, despite your explicit acknowledgment of her co-authorship

thereof in the 1989 Contract. You also threatened to damage Ms. McElroy's

reputation unless you received a cash payment. You then repeatedly libeled

Ms. McElroy, by publishing to a large number of third parties similar

accusations, in a deliberate and malicious attempt to harm Ms. McElroy's

professional reputation, and you continue to do so.

Accordingly, we demand that you immediately cease transmitting any

further email messages or making any other communication, in writing or

orally, to any third party alleging or even suggesting that Ms. McElroy has

plagiarized FOR or any work of yours. We further demand that you

immediately cease transmitting any further email messages or making any

other communication to any third party alleging or even suggesting that Ms.

McElroy did not co-author FOR, or that she has lied, breached contracts,

stolen others' work, or engaged in any other unlawful or unethical activity

that would adversely affect her career as a writer and professional

reputation related thereto. In short, we demand that you immediately cease

engaging in any acts defaming Ms. McElroy and injuring her professional

reputation.

We further demand that you immediately cease and desist from

directly contacting Ms. McElroy in any form whatsoever, and that you also

immediately cease threatening, extorting, blackmailing, or harassing Ms.

McElroy. If you desire to communicate with Ms. McElroy, any such

communication should be directed to and conducted through me.

Please note that it is Ms. McElroy's intention to defend her

reputation and to defend herself against any continuing threats or

harassment, and to avail herself of all rights and remedies available under

state and/or federal law. If there is any further action by you whatsoever

in contravention of our demands set forth above, we will assume that you

intend to continue violating Ms. McElroy's rights, and we will advise our

client that it will be necessary to institute litigation to preserve her

rights.

Very truly yours,

/s

N. Stephan Kinsella

for DUANE, MORRIS & HECKSCHER LLP

NSK:amh

Encl. as stated (with hard copy only)

cc: Ms. Laura Kroutil (via FEDEX; and text via email

<vam...@sj.bigger.net>)

Steven L. Mitchel, Prometheus Books (via FEDEX)

@bigger.net (via FEDEX; and text via email <ab...@bigger.net>)

Ms. Sharon Presley, Resources for Independent Thinking (via FEDEX)

Mr. Tim Starr (via FEDEX)

N. Stephan Kinsella

Duane, Morris & Heckscher LLP

600 Travis, Suite 6500

Houston, TX 77002

713-225-1633 (work)

713-225-1627 (fax)

nskinse...@compuserve.com or

nskinse...@duanemorris.com

[George H. Smith]

This is great, really:

(For example, in the "Acknowledgments"

section on page 9 of TRW, Ms. McElroy explicitly states: "The philosopher

George Smith created the intellectual therapy groups discussed in TRW and,

over the ten years of our close association, we discussed many of the ideas

expanded upon within." And on page 142 of TRW, Ms. McElroy states: "The

next two chapters are devoted to examining a unique intellectual therapy

group created by the philosopher George Smith, in which I was fortunate

enough to participate.")

Thus according to Wendy herself in TRW, and as quoted and reaffirmed by her incompetent attorney, "Smith created the intellectual therapy groups discussed in TRW." And again, FOR was a unique intellectual therapy group created by the philosopher George Smith, in which I [WM] was fortunate enough to participate."

So what happened to that later bullshit, which Wendy concocted out of thin when she got backed into a corner and needed a new story, about Wendy having been an equal co-developer of FOR?

This is the kind of thing I meant when I said that Wendy's various stories are inconsistent. She didn't even have the sense to iron out those inconsistencies and present one smooth narration.

This is almost too easy.

[George H. Smith]

We further demand that you immediately cease transmitting any further email messages or making any other communication to any third party alleging or even suggesting that Ms.McElroy did not co-author FOR,

Can you believe this arrogance!

Ah, but here's the rub. In one of the missives on Wendy's own Website, she claims that she deleted all the FOR material from her hard drive and started TRW from scratch in 1994. (I dubbed this first excuse Wendy's "immaculate conception" argument.) This claim was made early on, before Wendy realized the extent of the parallel passages that I would be releasing. At that point I had only sent out the 5 pages of parallel passages from my handout.

But after I sent out 8 pages of parallel passages between TRW and the FOR manuscript, which Wendy had already said she had deleted from her hard drive and did not access at all during the writing of TRW, she was in a serious bind. How was it possible, even with her "excellent memory," to have duplicated, or even paraphrased, a 200 page manuscript that, according to Wendy,she no longer had? And why would she have deleted it in the first place, if she was going to use all the material anyway -- material that she later claimed to have co-developed and co-authored and therefore had a perfect right to use?

Indeed, according her later legalistic argument, she had acquired complete rights over ALL that FOR material. So why would she have destroyed her OWN material and started from scratch, merely to replicate that material all over again?

This is why you don't really need to do anything but read Wendy's own bullshit accounts to understand what a liar she is. Her various explanations are absurdly inconsistent. Since when do authors destroy their own work and then rewrite it from scratch in almost exactly the same way? This is why I was delighted to learn that her inconsistent explanations were still on her website. I didn't have copies, and I feared I would not be able to substantiate some of the claims in my 1998 missives about how absurd her explanations were.

Thank you, thank you, Wendy, for being so careless. You have made my job so much easier now. If you had removed those bullshit posts, I might have been challenged, when reposting my 1998 missives, many of which dealt with your bullshit arguments, in proving that you actually said such stupid things. If someone had challenged me, claiming that I never actually quoted you and therefore may have misrepresented your early arguments, I would have been hard-pressed to defend myself, since I didn't have copies of your bullshit arguments and didn't know where I could find them.

In 1998, Wendy didn't know what I would be sending out, so she had to improvise her excuses as she went along. Then, as things go really bad for her, she came up with her "co-developer" argument. The problem with her posted missives is that they have been heavily edited and redacted; even so, in combining pieces here and bits there, she didn't realize that she was presenting different and inconsistent explanations.

This is why I said earlier that I was surprised that she left those missives online. That that was a really boneheaded move is obvious when you compare her arguments there with arguments she made elsewhere.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

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.

--Brant

I've never seen OL treated like a dump before

Thanks 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

Actually, George, I wasn't thinking about the plagiarism, sorry I didn't make that clear. I was thinking about the sexcapades. And I've never seen the like: coming on like this full bore on a forum your ex isn't posting on giving her 24 hours or her ass is grass and you're the lawnmower. You said she was toast then you post the sex stuff telling us how you weren't trying to do a number on her. Is this supposed to be coherent or an expression of temporary insanity? You don't need a morale boost, you need a bucket of cold water.

--Brant

Fuck you, Brant. You have idea of what you are talking about. I owed Wendy nothing. I said she is toast because I am going to compile all of my material, including the FOR ms, around 150 pages of parallel passages, my published articles that she plagiarized, signed and notarized accounts from witnesses, etc., and, after formatting these in an e-book, I am going to send copies to every major university, every major publisher and every publisher Wendy has ever dealt with, every major book outlet, such as Amazon, every relevant internet outlet that deals with feminism, freethought, and libertarianim. I will also send copies to every libertarian, feminist and freethought foundation, every planned libertarian conference or convention, every major news outlet, such as Fox News, ever major left-leaning political blog (who will have a field day eviscerating one of the best known libertarian feminists -- and this will just be the beginning.

I will offer the "evidentiary ebook" on my forthcoming website for a reasonable price, so everyone can have access to it, and I'm thinking of given the first 5000 copies away for free.

As I said, Wendy is toast.

One other thing. One thing I have feared are some nude pics that Wendy still has of me. They are taped into something she calls her "Unicorn Diaries." The are joke Polaroids that she took one day. They consist of my standing around in nothing but a shirt, and I have erections that are obviously embarrasing me in a funny kind of way.

I won't go into details, but the embarrassment of releasing these has been a factor in this that has made me hesitate about discussing the Swing material.. Well, enough of that. If Wendy wants to distribute copies or post those pictures on her website, I am hereby giving her my permission. She can even enlarge them into wall posters, if she wants, or post them on OL. They are her property, and she can do with them what she likes. And who knows, they might improve my sex life.

Fuck you too, George, and your Internet bullying. I know you're a pussy and I know you're a coward. Why? Because that SOB who kidnapped you is still alive. Anybody that does that to me is dead, dead, dead; in horrible ways. I've read you on the Internet for years and saw you even grind Jeff Riggenbach intro the ground. Yeah, that's right. On ArlantisII several years ago. You're a bully and you're a Son-of-a Bitch and I'm not smiling! Let's get something straight, I will not tolerate one piece of crap from you just as I don't tolerate it from anybody. I could care less if you're a genius and even less for your great knowledge and productivity. I made more than a few posts on this thread trying to help you out which you ignored, but finally I crossed your bow and you called me a "prick" and now "fuck you." Well, fuck you twice, you bastard!

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

After getting some sleep, I deleted that rambling post about Wendy's childhood. I meant well, but it was inappropriate.

I have been in a great deal of turmoil over the past two days, as a lot of feelings came bubbling up. After I mentioned Wendy's Unicorn diaries (in five or six volumes, I think), I recalled what a valuable source of information they would be for my autobiography, since they contain a lot of information about what happened during the period I will be writing about. So I proposed this in a private email to Wendy:

If she would loan me the Unicorn diaries long enough for me to extract the information I need for my book (we are not talking about anything especially personal so far as sex goes), then I would drop everything. No apology would be required by her, nothing at all. I would consider this an exchange, since I have forgotten so much. Moreover, what notes I did take at the time were inserted by Wendy into her Unicorn Diaries, so as to keep all the info in one place for future reference. I promised not to quote anything directly from the Diaries, and to return them to her after I no longer need them for research. This was my sole condition. Then I will cancel those plans I stated earlier, and leave her alone forevermore. But, to be honest, I don't think she will reply to my email. She will stay in her regal "I am above all this" mode.

Okay, if Wendy does not respond, then what the hell am I supposed to do?. I mean, is asking to borrow her diaries (which are really a chronicle of our activities) for a few months such a big deal, given that I have already read several them several times years ago and written some things myself?

I asked Wendy to let me know right away that she received my email. That was around six hours ago. I have heard absolutely nothing back. Perhaps she was sleeping so I will go back to bed and take this up when I awake.

In effect, I am asking Wendy for a small favor that will help me a lot with my autobiography, and that is all I am asking. Then she can go her her merry way. I said she could keep those replies on her website and say or write anything about this scandal that she wants. No apologies, no restrictions, again, nothing but a loan of documents. If Wendy agrees, I will drop this whole mess.

I hope someone gives Wendy sound advice on this offer.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Fuck you too, George, and your Internet bullying. I know you're a pussy and I know you're a coward. Why? Because that SOB who kidnapped you is still alive. Anybody that does that to me is dead, dead, dead; in horrible ways. I've read you on the Internet for years and saw you even grind Jeff Riggenbach intro the ground. Yeah, that's right. On ArlantisII several years ago. You're a bully and you're a Son-of-a Bitch and I'm not smiling! Let's get something straight, I will not tolerate one piece of crap from you just as I don't tolerate it from anybody. I could care less if you're a genius and even less for your great knowledge and productivity. I made more than a few posts on this thread trying to help you out which you ignored, but finally I crossed your bow and you called me a "prick" and now "fuck you." Well, fuck you twice, you bastard!

--Brant

Avoid commenting on the sex stuff and you will have no problem with me.

In addition to earlier incidents, here is how the "Indian Therapy" ended. At sunrise I was still tied to a tree, my hands bound behind my back, dressed only in underwear with that tarp thrown over me because of the cold. Robert, who had built a fire and kept drinking from a flask all night, got up, walked over to his pickup, took a revolver out of the glove comparment, got some ammunition, and loaded the revolver as he walked over to me. Then he stood to my left, pointed the gun at my left temple from about two inches away, cocked the hammer, waited aound a minute without saying anything, and then said, "You're not even worth the price of a bullet. But if you ever see Annie again, I will track you down and put a bullet through your head."

As for Robert Murphy, you had better believe that I gave a lot of thought to revenge, from hiring someone to doing the job myself. I decided that, in the final analysis and when the time was right, exposing Robert for the sadistic pig that he is would be the best course of action.

I doubt if Robert and Agnes would deny that this happened, because a lot of people knew about it. Their argument seems to be that Robert never actually threatened to kill me and never used all that much violence. Agnes, in justifying this incident, said to me, "Desperate times call for desperate measures."

I replied, "Robert kidnaps me for 8 hours, beats me up, and threatens to kill me, and you can't come up with anything better than a tired cliche.

Ghs

[Neil Parille]

Ted,

In 100 Voices, one of Rand's lawyers is quoted advising her not to sue over a certain alleged infringment. (I don't recall the circumstances.) Rand got another lawyer and won at trial but lost on appeal. So apparently she didn't always follow her lawyers' advice.

-Neil Parille

[9thdoctor]

I know you mean well, but most of the people on OL have NO conception of what Wendy and I were involved during our ten years together. From 1975 to 1981, we were major figures in the Hollywood "swinging" community. We went to only the best swing parties, specifically, The Gabor Mansion (aka "Tommy's) in Beverly Hills, which was called by Playboy, the classiest swing house in the U.S., and the A-Frame in the Hollywood Hills, which was in the same class.

This sure isn’t the thread for P.G. Wodehouse references! Sounds more like Eyes Wide Shut. The password: Fidelio. I take it nowadays it’s more like what you see in Borat. In South Florida we have a club called Plato’s, and there’s a least one other. Can’t say I’ve ever been.

Earlier you were talking about your new project Seriously Suicidal (the title made me worried that there was an embedded cry for help), so now you’re switching to a memoir? Or doing both? BTW, these Camille St. George pieces you wrote, are they available anywhere?

[PDS]

Ted,

In 100 Voices, one of Rand's lawyers is quoted advising her not to sue over a certain alleged infringment. (I don't recall the circumstances.) Rand got another lawyer and won at trial but lost on appeal. So apparently she didn't always follow her lawyers' advice.

-Neil Parille

Neil: thanks for the singularly irrelevant aside. You sure don't miss an opportunity to take a poke at Rand, do you?

[PDS]

Assuming, hypothetically, I were a lawyer with a client in a position roughly similar to George's position, I likely would advise that client to wait to hear a response from his adversary before changing any other terms or conditions for resolution of the problem. Right now, assuming this thread is being monitored by other than the usual OL types, Ghs's terms and conditions are something of a moving target, and there is no current incentive for anybody with interests adverse to Ghs to make a stab at resolving the problem.

I would advise a hypothetical client in George's shoes to let this situation cool down a bit, and to stop bidding against himself.

Just "thinking out loud" here, so to speak.

[George H. Smith]

Assuming, hypothetically, I were a lawyer with a client in a position roughly similar to George's position, I likely would advise that client to wait to hear a response from his adversary before changing any other terms or conditions for resolution of the problem. Right now, assuming this thread is being monitored by other than the usual OL types, Ghs's terms and conditions are something of a moving target, and there is no current incentive for anybody with interests adverse to Ghs to make a stab at resolving the problem.

I would advise a hypothetical client in George's shoes to let this situation cool down a bit, and to stop bidding against himself.

Just "thinking out loud" here, so to speak.

Thank you. I understand your position, but I know very well how Wendy deals with these things from 1998. She keeps her mouth shut because if she opens it another lie might fall out.

I really don't care if Wendy wants to negotiate or not, but it is clear by now that she is not going to. I was trying to give Wendy a dignified way out of this mess. I could have used the info in the Unicorn Diaries, and I cannot for the life of me understand why she would refuse to loan them to me, but if that's the way she wants it, that's okay. I can reconstruct the information without too much trouble.

I hear that Clueless Brad is reading my posts. Hey, Brad, coming up next is a very special post that I wrote just for you....

Ghs