The answer, it transpires, depends on who you are.
Saturday 24 March 2018
Irregular Quality Writing
The answer, it transpires, depends on who you are.
Monday 19 March 2018
Not-so-Great Yarmouth
Given USS Vanderbilt's remarkable ability to circumvent the British blockade while causing the ships of the Royal Navy to run aground, her blockade running career could theoretically have lasted forever. Though TFSmith decides to end this career prematurely, he does so at the cost of one of the Royal Navy's most powerful frigates - a typical instance of a concession to reality being used to spite the British.
Galveston Beached
Galveston Bay made the claim here that:
Furthermore, when I was temporarily and incorrectly banned from AH.com, Galveston Bay was perfectly prepared to explain to onlookers how I was 'sarcastic,' 'mean spirited,' showed no 'particular willingness to debate,' provided 'facts [which] have been rebutted or questioned frequently and routinely', and was 'hijacking the thread.' How exactly I was to make a 'response or defence' to these accusations, having been banned from the boards, is unclear.
Galveston Bay also points out that 'he [i.e, me] has been ignoring me for two years (EDIT: much of the last year)'. What he fails to recognise is that ignoring someone means you cannot see their posts, and therefore 'can make no response or defence' to them. Did that stop him from replying to my posts during that time? Of course not. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that having the right of response matters only in certain cases- namely, those people who agree with Galveston Bay.
With that first sentence settled, let's move on to the suggestion that we were afraid of the consequences of accusing TFSmith of plagiarism on AH.com. As it happens, I'm unaware of there actually being any consequences for false accusations on AH.com. For instance, here's TFSmith accusing Robcrauford of being a sockpuppet, an accusation on which he doubled down despite it being demonstrably untrue. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to have counted as one of the nine strikes he accrued in his time on the boards.
Of course, it wasn't the fear of consequences that prevented us from accusing TFSmith of plagiarism on AH.com. For one thing, Saphroneth and I didn't realise he'd plagiarised text until 22 February 2017, several months after TFSmith's June 2016 banning. Alert readers will note that the very reason we set up this blog (on 23 February 2017) was because you can't discuss the work of banned members on AH.com in the kind of detail we wanted to do. In fact, discussing his timeline on AH.com would actually have denied him the right of response- because, as we all know, a man who makes accusations of sockpuppetry against others would be far too upright to register a sockpuppet himself.
Despite the limitations on doing so, it's worth noting that Saphroneth actually has, in passing, accused TFSmith of plagiarism on AH.com. He received no punishment for doing so, because the accusation is true. In fact, TFSmith's reputation as a plagiarist was well-established on AH.com even before he got banned. For instance, here's Calbear warning him for plagiarism and TFSmith admitting it was for ripping off published sources. Galveston Bay may well have missed this, despite posting frequently in the dedicated BROS thread, so it's good to bring it to his attention.
In conclusion, then, all I can say is that if Galveston Bay really wants us to make these criticisms more accessible by posting them on a forum TFSmith will never again be able to contribute to, he should speak to the moderators on our behalf. It seems a little odd that he'd want us to bring our critique to a wider audience at the same time he's trying to have us shut down. Nevertheless, we stand by every criticism made so far: nobody has managed to disprove them, not even Galveston Bay himself.
You accuse him here, where he can make no response or defense. You did not dare do so in the forum, as after all on that website there are consequences for false accusations.Let's sort this out, shall we? TFSmith is perfectly welcome to come here and defend the complete rubbish he wrote. There is absolutely nothing preventing him from doing so. If, for whatever reason, he has retired from alternate history, that's no reason we can't discuss his work in his absence. People discuss the work of others in their absence all the time. For instance, on 26 August 2016 Robcrauford described his rifles thesis as his 'final foray into alternate history'. Despite this, on 15 October 2016 we find one Galveston Bay begging TFSmith to disprove the thesis- a futile plea, in light of the lamentable fishing expedition described here.
Furthermore, when I was temporarily and incorrectly banned from AH.com, Galveston Bay was perfectly prepared to explain to onlookers how I was 'sarcastic,' 'mean spirited,' showed no 'particular willingness to debate,' provided 'facts [which] have been rebutted or questioned frequently and routinely', and was 'hijacking the thread.' How exactly I was to make a 'response or defence' to these accusations, having been banned from the boards, is unclear.
Galveston Bay also points out that 'he [i.e, me] has been ignoring me for two years (EDIT: much of the last year)'. What he fails to recognise is that ignoring someone means you cannot see their posts, and therefore 'can make no response or defence' to them. Did that stop him from replying to my posts during that time? Of course not. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that having the right of response matters only in certain cases- namely, those people who agree with Galveston Bay.
With that first sentence settled, let's move on to the suggestion that we were afraid of the consequences of accusing TFSmith of plagiarism on AH.com. As it happens, I'm unaware of there actually being any consequences for false accusations on AH.com. For instance, here's TFSmith accusing Robcrauford of being a sockpuppet, an accusation on which he doubled down despite it being demonstrably untrue. Nevertheless, it doesn't seem to have counted as one of the nine strikes he accrued in his time on the boards.
Of course, it wasn't the fear of consequences that prevented us from accusing TFSmith of plagiarism on AH.com. For one thing, Saphroneth and I didn't realise he'd plagiarised text until 22 February 2017, several months after TFSmith's June 2016 banning. Alert readers will note that the very reason we set up this blog (on 23 February 2017) was because you can't discuss the work of banned members on AH.com in the kind of detail we wanted to do. In fact, discussing his timeline on AH.com would actually have denied him the right of response- because, as we all know, a man who makes accusations of sockpuppetry against others would be far too upright to register a sockpuppet himself.
Despite the limitations on doing so, it's worth noting that Saphroneth actually has, in passing, accused TFSmith of plagiarism on AH.com. He received no punishment for doing so, because the accusation is true. In fact, TFSmith's reputation as a plagiarist was well-established on AH.com even before he got banned. For instance, here's Calbear warning him for plagiarism and TFSmith admitting it was for ripping off published sources. Galveston Bay may well have missed this, despite posting frequently in the dedicated BROS thread, so it's good to bring it to his attention.
In conclusion, then, all I can say is that if Galveston Bay really wants us to make these criticisms more accessible by posting them on a forum TFSmith will never again be able to contribute to, he should speak to the moderators on our behalf. It seems a little odd that he'd want us to bring our critique to a wider audience at the same time he's trying to have us shut down. Nevertheless, we stand by every criticism made so far: nobody has managed to disprove them, not even Galveston Bay himself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)