|
Discussion |
||
|
LTS: A Close Read |
||
|
|
|
|
Roberts claims "LTS: A Close Read" is "a personal vendetta".
|
[prev] |
Roberts, 11/29/2009 |
Jim West, 12/4/2009 |
|
|
From: janine roberts
[mailto:jan@janineroberts.plus.com] Sent: Sunday, November 29, 2009 12:32 PM To: jw [and email list] Subject: Re: The Letter To Science: Close Read This is I am afraid a personal vendetta by Jim west. It unfortunately dates back years and West had previously to delete personal attacks on myself that were very distressing. . Please note all signatories to the letter - of which I am not one - made up their own minds based on the evidence sent to them - the full documentation on which the letter was based. My role was helping to draft it along with david Crowe and Christine. It was also supported by the RA Board. In my view the points made by West are simply inaccurate. There was no charge of Plagiarism against Gallo made in the letter - and the ORI did criticize Gallo in the words used - they were in the Offers of Proof which all signatories saw. JANINE
On 29 Nov 2009, at 15:48, jw wrote:
|
Janine,
You impose distrust of your words
with "The
Letter". Even your message
here requires decoding to determine if
this is slop -- or a
pretense of slop.
Please rewrite and resend.
Provide our reading public with what you claim the signatories
were sent, i.e., "the full documentation on which the letter was
based."
Provide us with, "Offers of Proof which all signatories saw."
Or were those merely a footnote?
Show us how you know they "saw"
those "Offers".
Show
us that The Letter was
"supported by the RA Board."
Define your use of the word
"Plagiarism".
Jim West
http://plag.tk/jr/lts081201.htm
(Review of "The Letter To Science") |
||
|
[No Response] |
|||
| Footnotes | |
| 1. | The Letter To Science; http://rethinkingaids.com/Home/tabid/146/Default.aspx; accessed 10/30/2009 10:59am |
