A reviewer of a book I wrote claimed an idea presented therein could be found elsewhere. Nine years later, no one could say where, but no one would correct the erroneous claim, so what began as an effort to obtain a redress of a legitimate grievance slowly degenerated into a tour deface of a surreal ethics warp in our intellectual community. The citations submitted to document the claim failed to do so, and the file on the dispute maintained by the American Psychological Association (APA) really is not about my case at all. The University of Connecticut (UConn) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) failed to hold anyone accountable. There was a basic conflict between the conduct of officials of all these organizations and their ethical codes. In a culture of intellectual corruption, behavior consisted of a pervasive and extended cover-up characterized by sophistry, secrecy, fantasy, irrelevance, rationalization, misattribution, misrepresentation, fabrication, falsification, failure to communicate and an adamant refusal to deal logically and fairly with the facts of the case. This demonstrated a complete lack of cognitive integrity and constituted a total betrayal of the academic/scientific commitment to truth.As-sociation. Although all reviews are subjective, and reviewers have a right to be critical, this was very harsh and, in some ways, unprofessional. I availed myself of the opportunity to respond in the "Point/Counterpoint" format graciously provided to aggrieved authors by the journal. This consisted of a four-part exchange of statements between me and Dr. Blank and appeared in the May 1994 issue. In his last comment, to which I had no opportunity to reply in print, he alleged my challenge to Darwinian psychology that "Normal human behavior is not necessarily adaptive"[1] could be found somewhere other than in my book. The intellectual importance of the idea that "Normal is not necessarily adaptive" is difficult to overstate because all the life sciences are based on the Darwinian concept that normal is adaptive. That is, any species-specific characteristic be it anatomical, physiological, behavioral, or whatever is automatically assumed to be adaptive.Occasionally, an abnormality may also be adaptive, in that a new development can be even better suited to the environment than the norm, but the converse, that the norm may be maladaptive, would commonly be regarded as heresy by any-one nurtured on Darwin.Although evolutionary psychologists Cosmides & Tooby (1987) have explained how genetically influenced human behavioral mechanisms shaped by natural selection for past environmental conditions may produce maladaptation in our contemporary, rapidly changing surroundings, their work merely suggests the possibility that normal human behavior may not be adaptive: They do not break with Darwin and explicitly make this point. In my book, I show that self-reinforcing, maladaptive cultural norms characterize human conduct, and if someone else has made this point in print, as Dr. Blank all...