defending our good name
Posted by stevemosby on February 11th, 2013
Not that this blog has much of one, of course – but still.
The Left Room was (briefly) used as a reference on Julian Ruck’s wikipedia page, which (again, briefly) mentioned his admitted plagiarism. It doesn’t presently, due to the attentions of an editor called Bagehot1, who has been carefully curating that page (and only that page). What interests me is a comment left by Bagehot1 in defence of one of the edits made:
“This ‘controvesy’ insert is both mailicious and libellous and is not credibly sourced. The blogger John Abell is presently under police investiagtion along with the left room blogger” (17.26, 10 February 2013)
The “police investiagtion” (sic) presumably refers to this, in which Julian Ruck, a man otherwise much concerned with taxpayers’ money being wasted on behalf of authors, has lodged a claim of harrassment against a clearly satirical website that jokingly threatened to have monkeys throw dog shit and his own books at his house. As absurd as that is, I don’t have any responsibility for that website, so can only assume I’m under investigation for the mentions I’ve given Mr Ruck here at The Left Room – which amount to two.
The first is of no consequence. The second is here. That’s the one where I accuse Julian Ruck not only of writing a pathetically sexist column – as such an accusation would be tautologous – but also blatantly plagiarising Christopher Hitchens. He is a plagiarist, I say. Julian Ruck is a plagiarist. “Step forward if you’re not a plagiarist – where do you think you’re going, Julian?” And so on. And shame on the Llanelli Star, which is still, as of today, hosting stolen content and continuing to publish his column. The only reasonable assumption is that Ruck has particularly embarrassing photographs of someone in charge there, assuming anyone is.
Anyway – if Dyfed-Powys police really are investigating my blog, the relevant links they’ll be interested in are above. Always happy to co-operate.
February 14th, 2013 at 12:17 pm
I very much doubt you’ll need any defence, Steve, but you’ll certainly get some from me if it’s necessary.
February 14th, 2013 at 2:02 pm
Let me not be so timid. You were right to say what you said. It was and is true.
February 14th, 2013 at 7:14 pm
Yeah, there can’t be any defence really – that piece is a blatant piece of plagiarism, and any attempt to deny it is doomed to failure. Perhaps because I find writing so hard, and value it so much, plagiarism pushes my buttons. You do it once, that’s what you are.
At the same time, I don’t want to bully the guy. He’s an increasingly pitiful character. But if he’s going to bring the police into it, we are where we are.
February 14th, 2013 at 7:39 pm
Oh, god – http://julianruck.wordpress.com/2013/02/14/to-steve-mosby/
February 14th, 2013 at 8:14 pm
“Julian –
I have no idea what your post is supposed to mean. I have little opinion either way on your arguments about taxpayer funding, but I dislike sexists and plagiarists, and have written all of three posts about you on that basis, as you are both. Yes, I do read your site – you have insulted me here, after all, and you seem to continue to believe that mentioning me will help you in some way. And, yes, I took vague but amused interest in the edits to your wiki page, which suggest I am under police investigation for some of the above. Beyond that – trust me – you enter my thoughts very little. To correct a point in your post, we have certainly exchanged correspondence; I can publish it on my site if you disagree.
Anyway – I’m sure you won’t publish this comment. But I’ll cross-post it on my site for reference.”
February 14th, 2013 at 8:52 pm
“Julian –
As I said, I have no interest in you personally, beyond the fact that you’re a plagiarist and an unpleasant character. Thank you for your permission to publish prior correspondence, but given your tacit admission that the claim in your post – “or indeed ever communicated with on any meaningful level” – was totally wrong, it won’t be required. Thank you for your interest in my tattoos, and congratulations on those genuinely astonishing page views.”
(It’s not that interesting to add these, I know, but he’ll probably delete them before too long).
February 14th, 2013 at 9:34 pm
“”As I say, feel free to publish any previous correspondence and allow readers to see my restrained responses to your intemperate and vicious commentaries on both the Kidwell-eFestival and me personally – which you published way before your silly notions of sexism and palgiarism on my part.”
Sorry – what did I publish, and where? Please try to keep track of your own argument.
Also, the accusations of plagiarism are “silly”? You deny you blatantly and stupidly plagiarised Christopher Hitchens? Yes or no.”
February 14th, 2013 at 10:13 pm
“Julian –
I haven’t answered your questions because you added them into your comment after posting it. I don’t have a very popular blog, but I average about 600 unique visitors a day. In January, I got 90,000 page views. It varies, depending on what I write about – and I have no idea why you think it matters anyway. I don’t write for a newspaper. I don’t have a wiki page. I don’t really care. It’s possible you think I’m a nobody. Again, I don’t care.
“The wrong draft of the column went off to my editor ie the one without the 50 odd word Hitchins attribution.”
I suggest there is no possible attribution, beyond quote marks round the whole thing, and I challenge you to present the ‘correct’ draft of the column – the one that was written and which you meant to send – right here and right now.”
February 14th, 2013 at 10:56 pm
“”The attribution and paraphrasing of Hitchins was made clear in the apology published in the Star – check it out, it’s all in the public domain.”
I’ve read it. It’s inadequate.
“I PARAPHRASED (you would say copy, each to their own) 50 ODD WORDS FROM AN ESSAY TITLED ‘WHY WOMEN AREN’T FUNNY’ WRITTEN BY CHRISTOPHER HITCHINS FOR VANITY FAIR IN 2007 FOR A COLUMN I WRITE FOR THE LLANELLI STAR.
Happy now, dear boy?”
You took Hitchens’s piece and reproduced substantial portions of it, changing his word order slightly, to give the illusion to readers that you had written it yourself. You are a plagiarist, and you’ve been caught red-handed. I repeat – copy-paste the ‘correct’ article, with attribution, that you had prepared. It should be simple, but you can’t do it, can you? “
February 15th, 2013 at 11:24 am
Clearly satirical?! Oh, thanks a lot – you’ve just blown our chances of getting accepted into the Welsh Taliban.
February 16th, 2013 at 12:40 pm
That Bagehot1 from Wikipedia is an interesting character. If you ask me, he has a touch of the “David r from Meth Productions” about him.
The fact that he knows ‘the left room blogger is under police investigation’ seems significant to me, as he seems privy to information that a member of the public couldn’t know. Everyone leaves an internet footprint behind, but his is minimal and seems to revolve around Ruck. He has also reviewed Ragged Cliffs (and ONLY Ragged Cliffs) on Amazon as James Bagehot. Note the use of ‘quotation marks’ around the word ‘reads’ – there’s only one other person I can think of who does this… Guess who?
“Ragged Cliffs is one of the best ‘reads’I have enjoyed for a long time and I recommend it to anyone. It should satisfy all tastes. Great.”
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1N5LMNHW6WN83/ref=cm_cr_pr_auth_rev?ie=UTF8&sort_by=MostRecentReview
I guess a police officer might be spending a fun afternoon checking everything on the internet about Ruck some time soon (as soon as he can be arsed) to check for libel, harassment, etc. – if so, Officer, note that I am questioning James Bagehot as a person and doing nothing else, and I haven’t even linked ‘him’ to anyone – so no need to put me under investigation too!
February 16th, 2013 at 10:54 pm
I assume Mr Bagehot signifies A Jab Gets Home.
February 18th, 2013 at 12:47 am
Dear Steve,
You may well feel obliged to continue with your right to freedom of expresion, and this is only to be commended, albeit that I may sometimes disagree with some of your ‘expressions’.
Having said this, restraint does occasionally have a place, even in this world of internet mortal combat.
By all means feel free to mock me and my work, I am in the public domain and therefore fair sport. But I will not treat like with like, neither will I exercise the fickleness of a newspaper or the media generally, to be the bow for some petulent arrows.
I genuinely wish you every success with your books, and hope that one day we may actually meet up and enjoy a drink together.
Life really is too short, quick and nasty (sorry a hint of Hobbes there!), to wallow in unpleasant brick-a-brack commentary.
All the very best,
Julian
February 18th, 2013 at 12:54 pm
Julian –
The idea I am using my freedom of expression to mock and attack you without provocation is certainly an interesting act of historical revisionism. At the present time, I find it astonishing that the Llanelli Star continues to employ you after you were exposed as a shameless plagiarist, but – as I said – you don’t enter my thoughts much beyond that.
The above post was motivated by the reference to my site that kept appearing and disappearing from your Wiki page, and the subsequent comment by Bagehot1 that I was under police investigation. That aside, if you don’t wish these exchanges to continue, I suggest you refrain from writing blogposts titled “To Steve Mosby”. When you do that, people are going to respond to you. If you don’t want a conversation or an argument, then don’t start one.
Do you know Bagehot1, by the way? I note he was up late last night, editing your Wiki page about half an hour before you posted here. You should thank him for his tireless efforts on your behalf at such a late hour.