23-02-2016, 10:34 PM
Yes, wow.
Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. But you ignored this post:
And I think, ten more requests. You accused someone of plagiarism. Then you ignored repeated requests for substantiation/clarification. You did that, it's here for all to see:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...szPeNzF8bg
It is what it is, but if you accuse someone of plagiarism, in my opinion when asked to show the "word for word" copying of your research, you should reply. The man you accused PULLED the information he had posted while waiting for your reply. To me that seemed like the proper thing to do. In the vacuum you provided afterward, I'm not sure what you expect.
As I said, no dog in this fight, other than objectivity.
Look, I don't have a dog in this fight. But you ignored this post:
Jim Hargrove Wrote:Tom Scully Wrote:Mr. Hargrove,
You have taken my unique research specifics, in some excerpts
almost word for word, not only without attribution, but deliberately
associated it with John Armstrong.
To Tom Scully,
I've checked your links and haven't found "almost word for word" copies of your research in John Armstrong's "Postal Money Orders" article that I hid for a week at your request.
Please copy and post in this thread Mr. Armstrong's words that you found so offensive. I plan to unhide Mr. Armstrong's article eventually if you don't respond ....
Jim
And I think, ten more requests. You accused someone of plagiarism. Then you ignored repeated requests for substantiation/clarification. You did that, it's here for all to see:
https://deeppoliticsforum.com/forums/sho...szPeNzF8bg
It is what it is, but if you accuse someone of plagiarism, in my opinion when asked to show the "word for word" copying of your research, you should reply. The man you accused PULLED the information he had posted while waiting for your reply. To me that seemed like the proper thing to do. In the vacuum you provided afterward, I'm not sure what you expect.
As I said, no dog in this fight, other than objectivity.