The 2 upside down v's

[Jeff Leahy]

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.

I see his apologies aren't getting any better Its actually quite simple Dan. You just say 'I apologize unreservedly'

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.

While your searching through the records Dan, could you keep an eye out for the names of the supposed experts who have 'Ridiculed' Peter Bower?

We'd love you to share those with us also

You remember Peter Bower dont you Dan? the man who supposedly took money to produce the results Patricia Cornwall wanted?

You could kill two mysteries in one go in that way

Keep searching

Pirate

PS If anyone hasn't read Sam's article then pleased do so. Its excellently researched and written. Certainly one of the best on Casebook

[Ally]

My argument was, is and is only about the fact that from the time the initial post was published to the time the Admin stepped in, 36 hour hours had elapsed and no one hit the report post button to bring it to moderator attention. Nowhere in my post did I suggest that anyone needed to get in the middle of it. There is a difference between getting in the middle of the argument which I did not suggest anyone do and hitting the Report Post button to alert the mods to a possible problem on the boards, which I do recommend.

[Moriarty]

So..I am just going to say something and it is not directed at any one person in particular, but at everyone, myself included and is a follow up to an earlier thought I had posted on the boards. But I was curious about something and so I looked into it which has left me with the following thoughts.

A poster makes a post that is a pretty clear accusation of plagiarism against another poster. There is grumbling and outrage, and etc. Why hasn't he been banned long ago, this kind of behavior can't continue, etc.

The initial post was up there for over 36 hours. Want to know how many people actually hit the report post button and reported it to the moderator? Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not one.

There are lots of reasons why people don't report posts. Maybe you think it should all be dependent on the administration to read every single one of the hundreds of posts generated on the site for content and vet them. If that's your thinking, then fine. Sit in frustrated anger. Maybe you don't want to get involved and think that it makes you look weak, or whatever.

But there's a bottom line: If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

There is a report post button people. Start using it. I am not saying the administration has to delete every post that someone reports because some people can report some silly things, but the button is there for a reason. And god knows I'd be tempted to report some people just for being kaks which is clearly not what it should be used for.

If someone libels you, harasses you, or says something blatantly offensive and you don't care enough about it to report it, why should anyone else care about it? And then you later fume that nothing was done. Well, even the best administrators and moderators in the world aren't psychic and unless a word stands out like plagiarism, or a cuss word, or a slang term for something, they are liable to miss it when skimming posts.

So why aren't we using the Report Post button? You who participate in the dialogue are much more likely to catch violations than someone skimming the posts for overt wrongdoing. Again, not talking about reporting the normal wrangling matches that people get into on here, and god knows, we've got some desperately fragile egos in these parts liable to shatter if you say boo, but this was an accusation of plagiarism without documentation two days after there was a major announcement about rules put up, a clear violation of a "major rule" and NOT ONE single person reported it.

Think about it.

Some forums have threads specifically designed for the reporting of threads; moderator adjudication etc. Often they are accompanied by a caveat that once an issue is entered into moderation posters not included in the dispute should not involve themselves.

I'm not sure that this forum has any similar policing protocol. I read the dispute; I read the intervention of the Admin moderator; I read your intervention. I assumed that any intervention from anybody else was unhelpful.

Maybe other users felt the same?

[Sam Flynn]

Thanks, Ally - I didn't actually know there was a "report post" button, but your point is well made.

Let's not lose sight of the fact that the far greater wrong was the original slander itself. If that's done in public view, then the perpetrator should expect at least some public criticism for doing so, and I'm glad to see that Admin, and others, were good enough to do that.

There are mechanisms to handle such circumstances, as you point out - and I will, in future, try to stick by the rules. Let's hope the protagonist does so too, by respecting other people's feelings, and by refraining from initiating such attacks in the first place.

[Ally]

So..I am just going to say something and it is not directed at any one person in particular, but at everyone, myself included and is a follow up to an earlier thought I had posted on the boards. But I was curious about something and so I looked into it which has left me with the following thoughts.

A poster makes a post that is a pretty clear accusation of plagiarism against another poster. There is grumbling and outrage, and etc. Why hasn't he been banned long ago, this kind of behavior can't continue, etc.

The initial post was up there for over 36 hours. Want to know how many people actually hit the report post button and reported it to the moderator? Zero. Zilch. Nada. Not one.

There are lots of reasons why people don't report posts. Maybe you think it should all be dependent on the administration to read every single one of the hundreds of posts generated on the site for content and vet them. If that's your thinking, then fine. Sit in frustrated anger. Maybe you don't want to get involved and think that it makes you look weak, or whatever.

But there's a bottom line: If you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

There is a report post button people. Start using it. I am not saying the administration has to delete every post that someone reports because some people can report some silly things, but the button is there for a reason. And god knows I'd be tempted to report some people just for being kaks which is clearly not what it should be used for.

If someone libels you, harasses you, or says something blatantly offensive and you don't care enough about it to report it, why should anyone else care about it? And then you later fume that nothing was done. Well, even the best administrators and moderators in the world aren't psychic and unless a word stands out like plagiarism, or a cuss word, or a slang term for something, they are liable to miss it when skimming posts.

So why aren't we using the Report Post button? You who participate in the dialogue are much more likely to catch violations than someone skimming the posts for overt wrongdoing. Again, not talking about reporting the normal wrangling matches that people get into on here, and god knows, we've got some desperately fragile egos in these parts liable to shatter if you say boo, but this was an accusation of plagiarism without documentation two days after there was a major announcement about rules put up, a clear violation of a "major rule" and NOT ONE single person reported it.

Think about it.

[Suzi]

Ditto Ditto Ditto as to the aforesaid- as an aside I still can't dismiss the potato peeler Sam!!! (sorry)

[Glenn Lauritz Andersson]

Let me also add myself to those who support and agrees with Don's post above.

All the best

[Sam Flynn]

Thank you once again, Don. Your words of support (and wisdom) are appreciated.

[Supe]

Sam,

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.

Don.

[Sam Flynn]

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!

[Ally]

Dan,

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?

[Sam Flynn]

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.

[Howard Brown]

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.

[Dan Norder]

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.

[Admin]

Additionally:

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.