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

[Andreas Schou]

> 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.

The firing of the police chief, the year in which the police chief was
fired, and the policies the subsequent police chief adopted after
being hired? Wasilla being the only town in Alaska with that policy?
The threat to Alaska's VAWA funding? Yes, Dr. Harkins, those obviously
aren't in the Audited Financial Statements. I didn't represent that
they were. Nor was I the first person to put together the connection
between the firing of the old police chief and the adoption of the a
la carte rape investigation policy. All of these facts come from
McClatchey; none are from the articles you accuse me of plagiarizing.

I was referred to the primary source, as you were, by a secondary
source; as Gary is finding out, this particular story is in more than
one place on the Web. I followed the citation I was given to the city
budget, jumped straight to the page number I was provided, and found
out that I wasn't being bullshitted. This sort of color-by-numbers
research is not rocket science, though certainly better than giving
the Viz's readers dueling blowhards shouting 'Is not!' and "Is too!'

Academic research (though, interestingly, not legal citation
standards) would require that I provide a cite for the intervening
secondary source. But neither you nor I have ever seen a bibliography
page for an email. The extent of your accusation appears to be not
that I've cut and pasted anything, or relied solely on a single
source, but that I'm making the same argument, using the same sources,
as a number of liberal blogs. Well, yes. I am.

You've backed off of some threats that were relatively convincing,
given your and my relative positions. While I appreciate that you were
apparently angry, I'd appreciate even more if you could have civil
disagreements over issues and facts without threatening your
correspondents' careers.

-- ACS

* Incidentally, in the interest of full disclosure, my original post
didn't say anything about FY '98-99. Why am I now trying to use it to
defend myself? And why was it open on my desktop? Um, that's a good
question. It contains facts I didn't actually use.

In any case, you too can check the other cite that that I did.
FY-'94-'95, pg 52, bottom half of the page, 'contingencies.'