It’s not plagiarism, the words were attributed to the correct site, that being Encyclo Myth.

What it is is what happens when bloggers go to extreme lengths for attention and hits, that they start searching out everyone that they can track back that had used anything on their site.

I don’t know how Truth knew Bookworm had visited his site. But if he did and knew that she found the reference on his site, then he should have just posted a comment describing why his blog should be mentioned.

I just did some correlation analysis, and something doesn’t make sense. The link Bookworm used and the specific description she used, was not part of the material on Truth’s site. So where doth cometh the charge of plagiarism and Bookworm imitating Truth?

To my mind, yours was the most lucid and best written. As you can see I did attribute it, so it’s certainly not plagarism. I’d be happy to remove your material and link to something else if you prefer. Just let me know.

I’m not dense, but this doesn’t make a lot of sense. Why would Bookworm defend herself by saying she found his material to be the best, when if you check Truth’s hydra site, the hydra post has no relation to the link bookworm mentioned here.

The norm here is that, by putting your words in a block quote, I’m signaling that they’re not mine. And by having a hyperlink immediately preceding or following that block quote (akin to a footnote), interested readers can trace the source back to your material.

Look, Bookworm quoted the words of a Encyclo Myth site about the hydra. It says authored by Ron Leadbetter , and Truth’s blog mentions no link or reference or group of consistent text that would link it to Encyclo Myth. Truth doesn’t seem like he is Ron Leadbetter.

So what is going up here, Bookworm? At first I thought you two knew each other by some means, and he tracked you back here when you, book, linked to his site. But then I realized that you didn’t link to his site, so how could he have tracked you back here? When Truth mentioned your page, he just said he came across it, he did not describe how. Yet you speak as if you linked to him, bookworm, but you didn’t.

If I’m not mistaken, it seems there is an illusion weave going on here, perhaps double stranded.

You remarked that “Bookworm’s intent to credit me seems honorable,” which I appreciate.” Let me address your sense that my reference to your article is missing.

The reference is the hyperlink. In blogger world, a link to the original source is the functional equivalent of a footnote — a mode of reference that works poorly on blog posts. Indeed, the signal that the link sent out is probably how you found out in the first place that I was quoting from your article.

The norm here is that, by putting your words in a block quote, I’m signaling that they’re not mine. And by having a hyperlink immediately preceding or following that block quote (akin to a footnote), interested readers can trace the source back to your material.

I have re-read Bookworm’s post here, and … I don’t see the reference to my original article. But Bookworm’s intent to credit me seems honorable. So, with this comment, let’s call the issue closed.

And how about Germany?

If the people who want to be violent are killed off, then those who are susceptible to violence (if they see that it works) are warned off, and may very well sublimate their tendency to violence into something more socially acceptable.

I think that BW has elucidated clearly how a one-sided stopping of violence only stimulates certain types to more and more of it….because they think it is a winning strategy.

If Hezbollah really believed what you say, they would stop firing rockets immediately and start negotiating. But, they believe they can get what they want through violence — a Middle East that is totally judenrein.

Don’t ask any honorable person to sign on to that program, please.