Replies

I enjoyed the deft and convincing manner in which he skewered Dershowitz's sloppy, egotistical academic work.

All he did was claim that he read it six times and accused Dershowitz of plagiarizing from Joan Peters. The plagiarism charge is bogus if he included footnotes giving Peters as the source.

He claimed that Peters' book was a lie, but did not provide any examples of any falsehoods it contained. He just dismissed it. How is that "deft and convincing"?

As far as plagiarism, you may have committed that on this thread by cutting and pasting an entire transcript from another source without obtaining permission or giving credit.

There is no jury in this country that would convict an airline of negligence for restraining a drunken passenger on a rampage.

If you read everything I posted, carefully, including the last discussion ( which occurred in the Harvard Crimson) then you'll see that according to generally accepted academic rules, the charge of plagiarism is indeed correct.

At my alma mater, under the honor code, that would mean immediate expulsion.

Dershowitz used Peters as his primary source, and hid the fact by citing HER primary sources as his sources -- which Finkelstein devastatingly proved.

He was able to prove it because Peters had also, in some cases, cited those sources incorrectly (or obliquely), and Dershowitz had the IDENTICAL "incorrections" in his work.

So it's obvious what Dershowitz did -- he tried to gin up the "original research" credibility of his tome, when in fact he did no original research, and just piggy-backed on her's, and in addition failed to give her research (including faulty research) due credit as the real source.

That is NOT permitted in academic work. The charge is therefore valid.

If you read everything I posted, carefully, including the last discussion ( which occurred in the Harvard Crimson) then you'll see that according to generally accepted academic rules, the charge of plagiarism is indeed correct.

At my alma mater, under the honor code, that would mean immediate expulsion.

Dershowitz used Peters as his primary source, and hid the fact by citing HER primary sources as his sources -- which Finkelstein devastatingly proved.

He was able to prove it because Peters had also, in some cases, cited those sources incorrectly (or obliquely), and Dershowitz had the IDENTICAL "incorrections" in his work.

So it's obvious what Dershowitz did -- he tried to gin up the "original research" credibility of his tome, when in fact he did no original research, and just piggy-backed on her's, and in addition failed to give her research (including faulty research) due credit as the real source.

That is NOT permitted in academic work. The charge is therefore valid.