Academia.edu is telling me that R*ssi is now in the .1% of most downloaded scholars on the site. See her latest at academia.edu/94617951/IN_RE…
Doubling down on doubling down. #receptiogate.
Doubling down on doubling down. #receptiogate.
It's an astounding document, for what it does and does not say.
23 pages, entitled "In response to the false allegations..."
pages 1-13 not at all relevant.
Tone changes abruptly at p. 14.
2/x
23 pages, entitled "In response to the false allegations..."
pages 1-13 not at all relevant.
Tone changes abruptly at p. 14.
2/x
Pages 14-18 are a masterclass in professional disrespect. It actively misrepresents the series of exchanges since Christmas, makes selective claims and uses, let us say, prejudicial language, while claiming to prefer "civilised conforntation" (14).
3/x
3/x
The emphasis on what holds up "from a strictly legal point of view" (14) is telling, since it sidesteps the primary claim of academic dishonesty (which is not a criminal offense).
4/x
4/x
Intellectual opponents are "some lecturers from across the pond" (14), "foolish people" (15) ,"cronies" (15), a "gang of criminals" (17), and "uninformed people" (18).
So readers are enjoined to "stick to the facts" (18).
5/x
So readers are enjoined to "stick to the facts" (18).
5/x
Pages 18-21 present a legal argument. I am not a lawyer, so can't comment on that aspect. It appears, though, to make the following claims:
* taking images or text verbatim from a blog is not plagiarism
* the author did not know of the blog's existence until Aug 2022.
6/x
* taking images or text verbatim from a blog is not plagiarism
* the author did not know of the blog's existence until Aug 2022.
6/x
So: I didn't take it from the blog, but if I did it would not be a criminal offense.
It then claims suggesting that it is plagiarism leaves one liable to prosecution. No mention of the verbatim copying form the blog, or the changed photographic images on the published text
7/x
It then claims suggesting that it is plagiarism leaves one liable to prosecution. No mention of the verbatim copying form the blog, or the changed photographic images on the published text
7/x
No mention of the editing of photographs in published materials, or falsifiable claims about colourization, or the omission of acknowledgements to other sources.
These would all seem to disprove the claim about not having known about the work.
8/x
These would all seem to disprove the claim about not having known about the work.
8/x
Also, significantly, no mention of the (patented?) Wayback research method.
Pages 21-23 talk about the RECEPTIO institute. Again, the omissions are striking. No mention or answer to the claims that staff members were represented with stock photographs.
9/x
Pages 21-23 talk about the RECEPTIO institute. Again, the omissions are striking. No mention or answer to the claims that staff members were represented with stock photographs.
9/x
Believing that the stock photo of bookshelves is a stock photo is "just the expression of the sick minds of people who have too much time to waste on the web" (21).
10/x
10/x
In the end this document does not persuade the reader of anything concerning the supposedly "false accusations of plagiarism".
11/11.
11/11.
*confrontation (spelling error mine).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
