Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
No. We are talking about plagiarism. It is well defined and was clearly evident in this case. There is no other conclusion.
If you can't understand that, you are either not understanding (slow) or simply unwilling to accept the facts.
|
No. We are talking about what an author did - you call it plagiarism, I (for the moment, until I know more about it), don't. There is no fact of the matter about it - there is your opinion and there is my opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyc
The fact that the publisher is re-publishing with appropriate credit to the original writers is clearly supportive of the fact that it was plagiarism.
|
Maybe the fact that the publisher is republishing with references to original sources says more about the hysterical knee-jerk reaction from people who cannot see beyond the end of their nose to to the other side of their small-mindedness. Amongst which reactions I include yours.