Abstract Is For Art; Concrete Paves My Plagiarism Case
After several pages of incorrectly accusing my filings of being nothing but "abstractions," the April 22, 2005 Random House filing says about me, "He never takes on concrete plot and character comparisons .... "
They repeat this numerous times such as on page 8 where they write, "...abstract concepts cannot substitute for an analysis of the actual work."
I couldn't agree more. I suppose they need their memories refreshed concerning the 33 pages of specific and oh-so-concrete plot and character similarities analyzed starting on page 14 of my Complaint and Counterclaim of January 6, 2005.
I suppose it would also have been also convenient for Random House to forget about the plot similarities as analyzed in John Olsson's declaration and expanded upon in these charts.
Look for yourself and decide whether or not Random House has reflected reality in their statements.
I've pointed out some of their tactics before in this filing where they have seized on something that is NOT true and then repeat it over and over and over like propagandists who believe that if you repeat a lie enough times, people will begin to believe it.
Again this begs two important questions:
(1) If their case is so good, why can't they stick with the facts and the truth?
(2) If we can so clearly verify their falsehoods in all these matters, how trustworthy is ANYTHING they say?
They repeat this numerous times such as on page 8 where they write, "...abstract concepts cannot substitute for an analysis of the actual work."
I couldn't agree more. I suppose they need their memories refreshed concerning the 33 pages of specific and oh-so-concrete plot and character similarities analyzed starting on page 14 of my Complaint and Counterclaim of January 6, 2005.
I suppose it would also have been also convenient for Random House to forget about the plot similarities as analyzed in John Olsson's declaration and expanded upon in these charts.
Look for yourself and decide whether or not Random House has reflected reality in their statements.
I've pointed out some of their tactics before in this filing where they have seized on something that is NOT true and then repeat it over and over and over like propagandists who believe that if you repeat a lie enough times, people will begin to believe it.
Again this begs two important questions:
(1) If their case is so good, why can't they stick with the facts and the truth?
(2) If we can so clearly verify their falsehoods in all these matters, how trustworthy is ANYTHING they say?
posted by Lewis Perdue at 8:31 AM
2 Comments:
It works for FOX NEWS.
Ooooooooooooh!
Post a Comment
<< Home