- ... The problem, of course, is that if plagiarized, it adds no new thought to what has been originally written - whether available to us in written form orMessage 1 of 14 , May 5, 2004View Source--- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "R.W. \(Bob\) Taubman"
> You are quite welcome. I enjoy the exercise. Being a retired policeThe problem, of course, is that if plagiarized, it adds no new
> officer/systems analyst, I enjoy the online "sleuthing".
> I think we agree that had the proper citations and and credits been
> given, there wouldn't have been a problem with the book. I have it
> on my shelf and it shall remain there with the proper cautions. It
> is unfortunate that a book that may be historically correct is now
> of questionable value due to the plagiarism issue.
thought to what has been originally written - whether available to us
in written form or not.
McMurry was historically correct; the McDonough book added nothing
(at least insofar as the plagiarized parts go).
Villa Hills, KY
- ... I owned his Shiloh book long before the Atlanta one came out. The Atlanta book has a 1991 publication date (I *think*) and Amazon indicates the ShilohMessage 2 of 14 , May 5, 2004View SourceIn a message dated 5/5/2004 1:01:44 PM Eastern Daylight Time, dmsmith001@... writes:
> The McDonough Atlanta book was, to the best of myI owned his Shiloh book long before the Atlanta one
> knowledge, McDonough's first.
came out. The Atlanta book has a 1991 publication
date (I *think*) and Amazon indicates the Shiloh book
was published in 1983.
I think his work is very superficial. Most of us could
do as well.
I do recall, before I learned of the plagerism issue,
seeing folks refer to Castel's book as the *first*
book-length treatment of the campaign, and wondering
why the McDonough-Jones book was being ignored.