It is worth noting that Sam's article was published in Nov. 06. The data loss that occurred affected only the year 2007. All of the posts and threads prior to Sam publishing his article are still in existence. Threads including posts up to Jan 06 are available at www.casebook.org/archive. Posts that are in the bulk of 2006 are available on the CDrom.
I would suggest that your idea of what the "real world"accepts as proof of plagiarism is not quite in line with what I've seen in the real world, but in the end it doesn't matter for the purposes of this board, because you can set any standards you want. I acknowledge that and accept that, because all of us here only use this site thanks to Stephen and Ally's dedication in keeping it running over the years.
I am therefore withdrawing my statement that the article is plagiarism and am now stating instead that it shows an dramatic lack of knowledge on the topic coupled with extremely incompetent research by both the author and editor before publishing the piece. Considering that this was debated by multiple people over the years and included diagrams of the proposed knife action to cause those shapes, it's odd that someone setting out to write an article on the very topic could have both missed it somehow and not discussed the issue with anyone who hadn't already had knowledge of it before assembling an article.
And when I have more time I'll go through the records looking for the threads in question (my Casebook DVD first crashed Windows Vista and then only was giving me up through 2004 before I had to give up for the night -- we have a late party tonight I have to get ready for) to look for the evidence to prove my original statement to the standards set by the Casebook admin account instead of what was used in every academic and professional environment I'm familiar with.
Wasn't it Jon Smyth's position in his work/article/dissertation that the " ^ "' under each eye in the orbitalrim area was caused by the attempt to remove her nose? Therefore,Jon's idea was that they were "collateral damage" wounds with the activity & intent of removing her nose the vehicle which caused the marks.....
I believe Sam steered clear of that concept in reading through his dissertation on these boards. Unless I am mistaken, Sam The Man posited the idea that these marks were unintentionally committed in the general violation of her face prior to the mutilation of her corpse, but excluded the mention or promotion of the concept of an attempt to remove her nose which Jon Smyth did state as being the reason for those two marks.
Thank you, Howard. I'd like to say right now that I'd not heard of Smyth's ideas, nor even of John Smyth until you mentioned him!
My article makes no statement that the marks were inflicted simultaneously, only that they were produced by a horizontal motion of the knife into the flesh of both cheeks. I didn't even allude to the possibility that they were caused collaterally by an effort to remove the nose. The main thrust of my argument was to scotch the idea that the "V" shapes weren't purposely "drawn" into the skin as "pointers" to Eddowes' eyes - which the opening sentence of the paragraph in question makes clear at the outset.
Furthermore, the proposed mechanism by which I believed the "V" shapes were produced is detailed in only one or two sentences in a much larger body of text, which makes it all the more regrettable that this small section of the article is being singled out as an ostensible attack on my integrity.
If you do not have access to the 2006 files, I will be happy to search through them as I have a copy and frankly I do not think it is fitting either of you to just have this hanging out there. It needs to be decided. If you trust of course that if I find anything I will post it.
However, it must be said that I have to call the MAJOR BULLSH*T flag on the following statement:
to look for the evidence to prove my original statement to the standards set by the Casebook admin account instead of what was used in every academic and professional environment I'm familiar with.
Because, being that I am happy to learn I have taken courses past my degree, taking classes that interest me wherever they are being offered, I can say that I have been a student of no less than ten colleges and universities and I have taught at several institutions of academia including colleges. At no academic or professional institution that I know of can you walk into the Deans office and say, "Bob plagiarized his paper." and when asked for the evidence the accuser is allowed to say "well it happened, we all know it happened, I read something really similar several years ago and I know he did too but I can't tell you what it is or where to find it" and it's just accepted.
The idea that accusations of plagiarism are just automatically accepted as true without any proof is absolutely NOT what occurs in any academic institution. No ones word is just good enough for an accusation of that nature to just be accepted.
I am not entirely sure why you seem to feel that providing evidence for a direct and blatant accusation of plagiarism is an unreasonable and highly unusual request?
Let all Oz be agreed;
I'm Wicked through and through.
frankly I do not think it is fitting either of you to just have this hanging out there. It needs to be decided.
Thank you, Ally, but it is decided from my point of view. I did not plagiarise anyone's ideas, period - and as I pointed out in my post this morning, the article didn't even state that which I'm apparently accused of plagiarising!
The really rotten thing about this whole incident is that you have been smeared by someone who made a reckless and personally motivated charge of plagiarism without the least understanding of what constitutes plagiarism. Nor is this the first time that petty poseur has done this--make unwarranted accusations about the honesty and integrity of posters and then scuttled back to his lair when asked to produce any proof.
Like Ally, I am familiar with academic standards of plagiarism, having twice served on faculty committees that investigated such charges. In this instance, I assure you, the only response of the academic standards committee would have been to suggest the person making those charges get counselling.
This sort of sick, twisted behavior cannot be tolerated. It is akin to sending out poison pen letters and this time you are the victim. I just hope no one puts any credence in this hit-and-run assault on your integrity.
"To expose [the Senator] is rather like performing acts of charity among the deserving poor; it needs to be done and it makes one feel good, but it does nothing to end the problem."