[Vision2020] And the Hits Just keep On Coming . . .

[Jeff Harkins]

OK, let's take the next point.

Your contention is incorrect - except that it seems you are the one 
who presumed no one would check.

If indeed you verified the source material, please provide a link or 
reference.  If it exists, then you would appear to be off the hook 
for making false statements.

But I don't see how you can refute the plagiarism issue.  The details 
you cite would not be included in the Audited Financial Statements.


>No. It is, rather, my contention that he didn't, or did and then
>thought that no one would actually check. I'm not calling him
>incompetent; I'm calling him a liar. Again, for anyone that's
>interested, you can check the '98 cite on page 65. The contingency
>numbers correspond to the police chief's quotations from the
>Frontiersman article. As for anything further, I am not going to shout
>a full and unnecessary bibliography at Dr. Harkins' departing back.
>
> > Or, as is somewhat more likely given previous discussions I have had with
> > you on this forum, did you lift the whole thing in its entirety from the
> > huffington post and throw that bit about primary sources in an attempt to
> > lend a semblance of authenticity and credence to your argument?
>
>Gee, Gary. If you thought so, you'd think you'd've at least accused me
>of doing so before. We've had quite a bit of correspondence, ande
>you've actually never accused me of that, which is sort of amazing
>given the broad miscellany of personal accusations you've made against
>me over the years.
>
>Again, I'm telling you outright: no, I didn't read 300 pages of
>financial disclosures from beginning to end. Rather, I found someone
>else pointing at the cites, I looked them up, confirmed that they were
>accurate, and sent Jeff directly to the primary source, evading the
>inevitable argument about the reliability of a Washington Monthly
>comment thread and the 'those could've been cut-and-pasted from
>anywhere' argument regarding the snapshots from the PDF. Following
>bibliographic chains to primary sourcesis a time-honored research
>technique, and one that saves a tremendous amount of
>wheel-reinventing.
>
>I'm hadn't claimed at any point to have done original research, only
>that the primary sources supported my argument. Again, you aren't
>accusing me of lying. You aren't disputing the facts as they stand.
>You aren't accusing me of cutting-and-pasting language from the
>article. You're merely making an issue of how I happened to know why
>Dr. Harkins was wrong.
>
>-- ACS