You guys are getting me all riled up about this Michael Moore business.

[The Witch]

Just for a refresher:
(Mine is in the order I originally presented it; Moore's is taken from here and there in his piece.)

Moore: A Liberal's Pledge to Disheartened Conservatives
Me: Dear dismayed conservatives:

Moore: I, and my fellow signatories, hereby make these promises to you:
Me: I hereby make these promises to you.

Moore: Should a mass murderer ever kill 3,000 people on our soil, we will devote every single resource to tracking him down and bringing him to justice. Immediately. We will protect you.
Me: We will protect your lives and livelihoods.

Moore: We will always respect you for your conservative beliefs.
Me: We will listen to and respect your beliefs.

Moore: We will respect your religious beliefs, even when you don't put those beliefs into practice. // We will let you marry whomever you want, even when some of us consider your behavior to be "different" or "immoral."
Me: We will never try to force you to change your religion, sexual orientation, or first language.

Moore: We will never stick our nose in your bedroom or your womb. What you do there as consenting adults is your business. We will continue to count your age from the moment you were born, not the moment you were conceived.
Me: We will do our best to reduce the number of abortions in our country.

Moore: We will not tolerate politicians who are corrupt and who are bought and paid for by the rich.
Me: We will have no tolerance for corruption and cronyism, even in our own party.

Moore: And we promise you we will go after the corrupt politicians on our side FIRST.
Me: ESPECIALLY in our own party.

Moore:We will never, ever, call you "unpatriotic" simply because you disagree with us. In fact, we encourage you to dissent and disagree with us.
Me: We will never tell you that you are unpatriotic. We will never tell you that your opinion doesn't count.

Moore: When we soon bring our sons and daughters home from Iraq, we will bring your sons and daughters home, too. They deserve to live. We promise never to send your kids off to war based on either a mistake or a lie.
Me: We will never waste your lives for power.

Moore: We will go after any elected leader who puts him or herself ahead of the people.
Me: We will hold our leaders to a high ethical standard and when they succumb to lust for power, WE WILL HOLD THEM ACCOUNTABLE.

Moore: If we fail to do this, we need you to call us on it.
Me: If we forget this, please, please, please, remind us.

Moore: You are every bit as American as we are.
Me: We need you to do this. You are America as much as we are. Let's go.

--

I know that this will be buried in the archives in a few days but....

Michael Moore's homepage
My blog, with post

Just in case anyone wants to do any comparison. I am really torn as to what to do. Quite frankly, if he were to just say "I saw this list on the Web and thought I'd flesh it out a bit, thanks Witch," that'd finish the whole thing for me... but ... as it is, I'm just... nervous.

(No, I have no interest in trying to squeeze money from Moore.)
Advice?

[Hell Hath No Fury]

1. Make him give you credit...

that is the right and fair thing for him to do. He needs to know he can't keep doing that kind of shit.

Just MO.

Hell

[file83]

62. Has it occured to anyone that this might be news to Michael Moore? Maybe one of his

staffers plagiarized it and is trying to take credit. I'm sure Michael Moore has a few writers helping him with stuff. I bet if you showed this to Mike, he'd get pissed off real quick, find out who plagiarized it, and fire him.

On the other hand, if it is Michael himself that plagiarized it, then it might be time to call up Keith Olbermann...just a thought!

[helderheid]

69. excellent advice

[Mr_Spock]

70. Let's give him time to respond

He has been notified...

[helderheid]

97. has he been? GOOD!

[SouthernBelle82]

86. I agree

Plagiarisms is plagiarism which is illegal. Moore should come clean about this. What if it wasn't from someone else? :shrug: Nobody is above plagiarism.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

104. Dave Schankula...

is the Michael Moore employee who contacted me when "Stupid White Men" went into paperback. He spent 15 minutes kissing my ass and claimed it was he who had lifted my work from an email and gave it to Michael to put in his book, and that Michael had no idea that it had been my work. I thought he was full of shit and told him so.

At the end of the day, it is Michael's name that goes on these pieces -- if he chooses not to exercise the correct journalistic oversite he is damn STUPID.

Michael knows the work he put in SWM was lifted from someone else, whether he did it himself or it was done by an employee doesn't matter.

And as for firing a who was supposed to be a plagerist working for him, Schankula still works for Moore all these years later.

Just what just that tell you about Michael Moore?

[file83]

108. That's a good counter point. Ultimately, it's Moore who is responsible for

the people he hires. If he stamps his name on the work, then he his claiming it's his. It's his choice to hire other people - whatever they do is Moore's responsibility.

I have to agree.

[Dorian Gray]

80. Yes...

Reading the two side by side, I am struck by how similar they are. His HAD to be copied, to some extent, from yours.

It's crossed my mind that some sort of intern may have found yours and they "changed" it to fit his needs. He may not KNOW about it. But, that would be careless and horribly idiotic on his part. It's just kind of crazy.

I have no idea what steps to take here, and I think it's really interesting to see this come up. I don't know what could be done in order to fix this, but it makes him look less... trustworthy?

[Mythsaje]

2. Huh....

I suppose it's inevitable, really. To tell you the truth, I'm surprised nothing I've written has found its way somewhere else to be claimed by someone else (that I KNOW of). Some of my rants HAVE been borrowed, but I've always gotten credit for them.

This would bug me too...but, then again, I'm an author, which means I'm a promo whore. Taking anything I write without crediting it is stealing potential book sales. A guaranteed way to PISS me off.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. You know, Witch, it never occurred to me

that he might have plagiarized it. If he did, I have lost respect for him.

Your post was, as my students say, "da bomb!"

[Hell Hath No Fury]

18. Get ready to lose respect for him...

He's not new to this -- The Witch has every right to ask for credit:

A San Francisco activist claims she's the originator of Michael Moore's unsourced list of dubious Bush achievements in his bestselling "Stupid White Men"
By Ben Fritz

A list of 48 dubious achievements of President Bush appears in Michael Moore's bestselling "Stupid White Men," without footnotes or citations of any kind. A reader might assume that they are accumulated nuggets from Moore's own research.

But a San Francisco activist says she came up with the list, and she's not too happy about the way Moore is using it.

Kirsten Selberg contacted Spinsanity following a piece detailing the numerous errors and factual distortions in "Stupid White Men" to say she compiled that list for a wall that was displayed at the "Voters March West" that took place nearly a year ago in San Francisco, on May 19.

Still posted on the Voters March Web site, Selberg's list contains 47 of the 48 facts about Bush mentioned in Moore's book -- in the exactly the same order and with very similar wording. The only difference is that, unlike Moore, Selberg provides sources for almost all of her facts.

Representatives for Moore did not respond to requests for comment

[TallahasseeGrannie]

87. Well, that's just low

and if he were in academia he'd be out on his ear.

Ya gotta do your own work!

[MrSlayer]

4. Looks like a case of great minds thinking alike.

As the saying goes.

[Bake]

5. Nobody thinks THAT MUCH alike.

Smells like plagiarism to me. And that's a shame.

Bake

[karlrschneider]

15. And the similarities in the points are beyond coincidental, too.

Very disturbing.
edit for typo

[dweller]

27. note the mention of guns

not in the original The Witch's post, but discussed in the ensuing thread here.

it's included in MM's post...

just sayin,
dp

[benEzra]

133. Only because Moore is obsessed with the gun issue

note the mention of guns not in the original The Witch's post, but discussed in the ensuing thread here.

it's included in MM's post...

just sayin,
dp

To play devil's advocate, this could be because Moore is obsessed with the gun issue, and did a whole movie about it (remember BfC?)

#9, perhaps not coincidentally, is about the ONLY non-conciliatory line in the whole piece. "We're gonna take away your handguns and nonhunting-style rifles, just like you were afraid of, you gun-owning weenies."

The rest of it--the kind part--is close to Witch's. Can't say for sure it was plagiarism only because we don't know if Moore saw Witch's post. But if he DID see it, his piece was plagiarized.

[wicket]

89. It certainly is

n/t

[Kelly Rupert]

6. No way. That's line-for-line identical.

Moore's a hack.

[mondo joe]

7. Looks way too alike to me. n/t

[bear425]

8. As soon as I read his email, I immediately thought of your

wonderful post.

Moore should give you credit, or at least put you on his payroll. ;)

[Pacifist Patriot]

96. Same here. I was surprised to see it with no attribution.

I thought it was the Witch's.

[uppityperson]

9. email these to him, ask for credit. Perhaps he got permission from someone else

Perhaps someone copied your writing, sent it to him, and he expounded on it. He might have gotten permission from whomever sent it to him and doesn't know the source.

Email him, sending him this info and your blog link and ask for credit from him. He has always been straightforward in crediting stuff written by people I know.

[Laelth]

110. I suspect that ...

... everything posted on DU is the property of DU. You might want to ask the admins. whether they gave permission for Moore to take and use postings on DU. Makes me wonder if DU might not be getting paid for this service. If DU is getting paid, I think the honorable thing to do would be to allow the copying only on the condition that the material be sourced to DU and the poster's DU handle.

... just my two cents ...

-Laelth

[Kelly Rupert]

10. Recommended.

This needs attention. Corruption is corruption, Republican or Democrat, Senator or filmmaker.

[seabeyond]

12. moore isnt a democrat.... republican or democratic or green

he voted democratic this year and the last... but he will take down a dem as fast if not faster as any republican

[Kelly Rupert]

13. Oh, I know.

Bastard voted for Nader in 2000. But getting bogged down in labels doesn't get anyone anywhere ;)

[seabeyond]

21. thank you for the simple fact you know

respectfully

[seabeyond]

11. yours is better. i remember yours. i saved it for my boys to read

shame on moore. and then some. he should really be ashamed

[uppityperson]

14. Maybe he didn't know. Email him and ask.

I won't jump on MM's case yet, but email and ask because he could've gotten witch's blog copied and sent to him and permission given to use by whomever sent it. Witholding judgement until it is made more clear. Email him Witch, please.

[karlrschneider]

16. That's a possibility I rather want to believe.

Hope you're right.

[tavalon]

17. I wrote something that was influenced by your above writing

and even I put a credit to you on the bottom and it was only a lowly livejournal posting. I would send him a copy of your work and ask him if that was where he got his inspiration. Maybe he'll fess up.

[The Witch]

56. Remind me to find you on livejournal, then.

tiptoe39 is mine ;-D

[Gelliebeans]

19. I sent an email off to him

asking about it...

[Mr_Spock]

72. x2

Let's wait and see....

[Keseys Ghost]

20. We got to know that organization well after Katrina

It's unlikely that Moore himself would take your stuff. However, he has many employees with little oversight. Some are good. Some not so much.

[uppityperson]

22. hiya and agree. Need to email and ask him.

to 1 of my favorite lawyers, and hi to another also. :toast:

[jilln]

23. That email of Moore's is NOT the first time he's said that kind of stuff!!

Do some more research and you will find it. I've heard that from him more than once.

[seabeyond]

24. too close. he can address us.... n/t

[Bjorn Against]

49. But I have video of Moore saying VERY similar things over TWO YEARS AGO

You rent the documentary "This Divided State" on Netflix, and see this is not the first time he said these things.

[KittyWampus]

91. Indeed, furthermore both Moore AND Witch might have been influenced by others

because I've seen pieces written in a simliar fashion before.

It's called a Manifesto.

Though the timing seems odd. Witch writes her piece then Moore's is put out.

[jilln]

98. So you're saying he copied her years before and it was too close to hers...

therefore he must defend himself?

WTF??

[Beaverhausen]

25. I think about 200 people here could have written the same thing

all the points you both brought up are the points that are important to all of us. You are reaching a bit if you ask me.

[readmoreoften]

29. There is a difference between writing on the same subjects

and plagiarizing the entire structure of a publication. If a student did this in one of my classes, it would be brought before the university administration.

It's probably not worth pursuing, but lame, nonetheless, that Michael Moore is that lazy.

[KittyWampus]

92. The strutcture is not at ALL unique to Witch. Though her original work is great

it may well have been influenced by a third party.

IMO, the timing seems odd. As in, Witch wrote her piece and then Moore's went out.

BTW, this would be a Manifesto or Statement of Intent.

Remember that scene in Citizen Kane when he first buys the newspaper?

[SnowGoose]

26. When I read Moore's piece, I thought it was your post

I thought "I remember reading this, I didn't realize Michael Moore wrote it."

Only now, browsing the "greatest" threads, do I come to see that his wasn't the post I remember reading. That right there tells me something.

I think MM has done good - and important - work. I'm not slamming him when I say he clearly owes you an apology and an acknowledgment.

BTW, I really liked your original post. Nice job.

[AJ9000]

28. If you did not copyright it, is it not fair game?

Ideally you'd get credit for what you wrote, but lets say his letter WAS inspired by what you wrote. So what? The important thing is for good ideas to reach a wide audience.

I've worked hard on some articles before myself and did not copyright them. I think I've had something like this happen to me once too. The thing is, if something you say inspires someone else who can reach a wider audience, I say let them do it. The goal is for the best ideas to reach the greatest audience possible. Your writings have a better chance of changing things this way.

[seabeyond]

30. but it is chicken shit

[readmoreoften]

32. The writer of a work automatically has a copyright.

It's just easier in court if you hold an actual legal filing for copyright.

What Moore did is wrong and tacky but it would be a difficult case to try in a court of law. In the court of opinion it is extremely bad taste.

[suziedemocrat]

33. I think anything original is automatically copyrighted.

You file with the government to make it easier to prove you case. At least I'm pretty sure that's how it works, musician in the family and we looked into this a few years ago.

[Sydnie]

34. By the mere fact that she "published" this on the web

she is then protected by copyright laws. Look it up. You will see that I am correct. I have been involved in many copyright/fair use issues for years when I created web pages and later when I was an admin at a rather large one too. But, add that DU also holds a copyright, by the mere fact that she published said article on their pages, which clearly do display a copyright claim at the bottom of each page, should Moore be proved to have copied any portion of her article, he would have to make amends to not only The Witch, but also to DU administrators. Once you publish it on a server maintained by someone other than the original writer/artist, it can fall under the copyright of the owners of the site which allowed the publication.

No matter how you slice it, the post made by The Witch is her intellectual property and is protected by copyright laws.

[AJ9000]

40. Can you provide a reference on that? I'd like to look at it. nm

[Sydnie]

42. I'll see what I can dig up for you n/t

[Sydnie]

44. This is pretty simplistic, but it seems correct to me anyway.

http://www.walthowe.com/pubweb/copyright.html

[AJ9000]

52. Thanks I'll read it. nm

[gkhouston]

103. Here it is -- circular R1, copyright basics.

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html

[boolean]

46. It IS copyrighted

ANYTHING anyone writes that is original is automatically copyrighted. Including this post. There are no hoops to jump through when it comes to copyrights.

[Pacifist Patriot]

107. U.S. copyright law is strange. We are party to the Berne Convention.

Registration of copyright refers registering the work with the US Copyright Office. As we are signatories to the Berne Convention, registration is no longer necessary for copyright protection. BUT, registration is still required to obtain statutory damages in case of infringement. There's a hair splitter for you.

As far as I can tell we're the only party to the BC that has copyright registration. Gotta keep the lawyers busy. ;)

Internet postings are a very gray area and controversial right now.

[Ioo]

31. I posted yours on my blog, thought you were perfect. MM stole from you.

http://speciousreasoning.com/node/1574

in fact now that I know you have a blog, I am going to add that as well.

[Buzz Clik]

94. "MM stole from you." Wow! That's one hell of an accusation.

You, my friend, rocketed across the line that one else dared to cross. On this thread, there's been lots of hand wringing wondering about the similarities between the two letters. But you took it a step further and openly accused Moore of stealing her work.

Ballsy. Very Ballsy. Particularly when you consider that another poster on this very thread has commented that Moore expressed the very same sentiments that he gave in his letter in Moore's 2005 documentary, Divided State.

Care to comment?

[ComerPerro]

35. You have a compelling case. But I don't agree with you or Moore

I say fuck the conservatives. They want to torture dissenters? Well, guess what? We are in charge now, they are dissenters.

[Crunchy Frog]

36. I was struck by the same thing as soon as I read it.

I really don't know what you should do.

[Sapphocrat]

37. Yo, Witch!

I STILL won't "respect" their beliefs! ;)

But the obvious "borrowing" pisses me off. If I'm one of the ones who got you riled up, then GOOD. No one should be allowed to get away with that, including Moore.

[jgraz]

38. I'm just pissed he didn't steal my version

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2670409&mesg_id=2671123

ETA: He clearly stole yours. You don't get two articles this close by random chance.

[d_b]

39. ok.

Assuming it was plagiarized:

More than likely (99.9%) it was some web staffer who saw it, took the idea as his/her own, presented it to Mike, who thought it was a great idea. I seriously doubt Mike Moore is trolling DU's 'greatest' page.

At Best it's a startling coincidence; At Worst it's some dipshit webmaster.



send emails, see what you get back.

[Pithlet]

41. I'll be honest.

I think your post was excellent. I remember reading it when you first posted it and thinking, "right on!" I enjoy reading your posts. I think Michael Moore probably had a similar idea. It's easily conceivable that two talented people would come up with the same good idea. I think it was a good idea executed well by both of you. I honestly don't think it looks like he ripped you off. I guess it is possible he saw your post and took inspiration from that. But, I don't see it as a total rip off. But, like I said in the other thread about this, I don't think that takes away from your post at all. You were spot on.

[Tace]

43. In Journalism, There's A Reason They Call It "Copy"

There's an old saying that, "You can accomplish a lot in this world if you don't have to take credit for everything."

Another old saying: "Immitation is the sincerest form of flattery."

Personally, this wouldn't faze me. But, you're certainly within your rights to follow up. Your time and attention would be probably better spent, however, writing the next piece for people to plagiarize.

[The Witch]

57. And I, by profession, am a copy editor.

So hahah. :)

No, it's not fazing me so much... I'm just... oh, I don't know... kind of stunned that someone that famous would let this get done under his name...

and kinda flattered that it was my work that got stolen, quite frankly.

[Dorian Gray]

81. Have you contacted him?

I'm curious what he or his "people" have to say about this incident.

[boolean]

45. I'd say he's caught

Fess up, Moore! :rofl:

No, seriously. He totally stole it. No WAY anything would be THAT coincidental. Personally, I'd be flattered....But that's just me.

[Bjorn Against]

47. PLEASE READ, THIS IS NOT PLAGIARISM

Watch the documentary "This Divided State", and you will see Michael Moore give a speech near the end of the film in which he states many of the exact same things he wrote in this letter. That was filmed over two years ago.

Please do not drag Michael Moore's name through the mud, this is a big coincidence no doubt but it is not plagiarism.

[stepnw1f]

55. interesting

[The Witch]

58. I think he's a great filmmaker.

But right and wrong is right and wrong. If I posted something and realized it looked verrrry similar to something someone else had done two weeks ago, I'd point it out at least.

You've hit a sore spot with me, though, because years ago I spent a year writing a fan fiction piece that was promptly stolen by another author, who kept insisting that it was all just one big coincidence. It was very painful, as unlike with this little throwaway thing, I had spent a year agonizing over it, and the little, erm, witch :eyes: would not even fess up.

Oh, the drama :eyes:

[Bjorn Against]

60. If I had just saw your post and nothing else I would say plagiarism, but...

I really think you should watch "This Divided State" to see the promises he makes to conservatives in his speech, and you will probably be relieved to see that he most likely did not rip you off.

I admit there are some very striking similarities and if Moore did not have a prior record of saying such things I would definately suspect plagiarism, and I can certainly understand why people who do not have knowledge of his past statements are jumping on him.

I am just suggesting people get all the facts before they drag Michael Moore through the mud, because these are very serious charges and while the evidence you post certainly looks damning a look at prior history could clear things up.

[seabeyond]

63. and you are right. would be a huge coincidence, and i dont often do

coincidences, but.... i am not going ot jump anyones ass if there is info to clear moore on this. that too would be wrong. so will wait in judgment. but wow to the similarities

[nashville_brook]

61. wow

i say drop it. does no one any good. chalk it up to "morphic resonance."

[Buzz Clik]

90. Great post.

As discussed in yet another thread on this same subject, the analysis is given that shows that Moore's and Witch's letters share very little in common. Over half of Witch's concepts are not addressed by Moore at all, and Moore's letter is six times longer than Witch's.

In both letters, the language being used is hardly unique to either writer. The common themes of freedom of choice (religion, sexual orientation, etc), patriotism, "we're all Americans", the war in Iraq, and Congressional ethics are not exactly rare in today's climate.

If I were in The Witch's place, I would drop the growing outrage over this, and adopt a much healthier philosophy: "It is so cool that Michael Moore had a similar idea. Great minds think alike!"

[malaise]

95. Truthfully I think many Progressives

could have written this the same way. It is exactly what most of us are thinking. I see them as two similar great pieces but to suggest plagiarism is a stretch.

[Pithlet]

99. I agree. On election night I can remember

thinking that if right wingers knew better, they wouldn't be so upset because Democratic policies will benefit them, too. I bet a lot of us were thinking that on election night. I can easily see two talented writers taking that notion further and coming up with the idea to address a letter to conservatives, and that both letters would contain some similar points, since they're both talking about the same sort of principles. I think it's worth it for Witch to look into, because if MM did indeed read her post and expand on it, she deserves credit. But, until he responds, to assume that it is plagiarism and start pointing figures is jumping to conclusions.

[bling bling]

48. I doubt Michael Moore would just let people steal his work & take credit for it.

You put time and effort into your piece and unless you're on MM's payroll he shouldn't plagerize your work without your permission or at the very least without crediting you.

[mmonk]

50. Well fly on over there

and straighten him out.

[yellowdogmi]

51. I think that it is very big of you to

say that an acknowledgement is enough to finish it for you. I also think that it is shortsited. If he profits from this you should too. I am also idealistic and think that if my words move someone that is in position to make a difference then my work here is done. Please just know that I have more respect for you than for him. Good luck.

[StrictlyRockers]

53. I read yours...then I read his...I came to the same conclusion.

I posted your list on another, multi-party, discussion forum.

It looks, at the very least, as if your list inspired Mr. Moore to write his. The right thing to do would be to provide attribution to the source of the inspiration.

[David Zephyr]

54. I just read you post and I must say that...

this is why the internet is so amazing. Here's hoping that Michael sees your post here.

[dweller]

59. just more evidence

that DU'ers are riding the crest of the future, for what passes through here becomes fleshed out in the tubes of the internets.

I read your original post here on the Greatest page, and this morning when i rec'd the MM email, thought to myself 'so, MM is prolly a member' and b/c i couldn't remember your nick here, couldn't search the now archived post: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2633923
to satisfy in my mind the match. Another DU'er found it and posted it.

then others like myself saw there was a redflag, something enough to make one go hmmmmm... when reading your OP, note the additions from MM mentioned in the DU discussion.

I feel confident that you have no ill intention towards MM but some recognition from him would be nice at least for inspiration's sake. I, for one, come here primarily knowing that i will learn something new everyday and pass along every nugget i find. Recommend the site to those i get into discussions with, knowing full well many will never find the initiative to follow up and visit. But i try. I am of the school of thought that information should be free, but cites, accreditation are de rigeuer.

Revel in the thought that you have inspired and for now let it be. What returns will be yours well deserved, what more could one ask for? You can always sleep well at nite with a clear conscience.

just my 2 pence, hoping to not receive the 'WilliamPitt Most-Incoherent-Post-O-The-Day Award' heh.

peace Witch,
dp

[Hissyspit]

64. My advice? Let it go. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

For the most part, we're all on the same side.

I've found ideas from old columns of mine recycled by other columnists occassionally. I always just figured it was affirmation of how good I was.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stepnw1f]

68. That's What I Noticed as Well

"say that you list your points in order, then jump all over his post to find the corresponding point."

I have to agree... there are similarities but to claim plagiarism....? I don't think so.

[WildEyedLiberal]

71. Is the nastiness really necessary?

Why are people here so offended on Michael Moore's behalf? It's pretty obvious to anyone willing to look at this objectively that his "letter" is VERY similar to The Witch's. At the very least, he or one of his staffers saw it and used it as inspiration. At worst, they cribbed it entirely and changed some words around to make it look different.

Regardless of whether you believe this was just a merry coincidence - which, again, is pretty naive - or not, there is no excuse for this nasty tone in response to a DUer. She hardly calls Michael Moore any names or says anything nasty about him, so what's the reason for your hostility? And frankly, even if she had, who cares? Michael Moore is not above criticism, nor is he incapable of wrongdoing.

[The Witch]

66. I decided I'm too good a person to be bothered all that much by this.

I have a tendency to grab at attention and I think I've succumbed to that tonight. I'm going to leave it at this. Mods, feel free to lock.

[WildEyedLiberal]

73. It's up to you...

... but don't be discouraged at the nasty replies you've gotten on DU. Some people don't take kindly to any implication that one of their heroes is maybe a little less golden than they thought. Frankly, it's awfully damn obvious to me that Moore cribbed his letter from you, and I'm not all that surprised - I never thought he was a very trustworthy person. He's always struck me as the sort who is not above lifting and distorting pieces of information to fit into his preconceived frame.

I mean, I wouldn't sue him or anything, but I don't think you're remiss in calling this out publicly. Plagarism is beyond shady, and I don't care if Michael Moore is a DU saint - why should he be above reproach?

[evolved Anarchopunk]

67. I read that on his site today and thought the same thing.

I went there knowing it was going to "sound" like something that was on DU for the past few days, but when I got there... :( x( it was clearly an act of plagiarism. I just thought you had borrowed it from somewhere else too, Witch, that's what I thought afterwards. I didn't think that you were the great mind behind those words that you are... and I apologize, b/c the only thing that made me think that was M. Moore's homepage with (basically) your post up. No joke, I'm not joking or changing the order of events. My opinion at the moment (although inflamed by the very idea perhaps) is that you are not getting intellectual credit were it is CLEARLY due.

[lectrobyte]

74. Please get a camera and track him down. It'd make a

hilarious meta-movie.

[The Witch]

76. I will if you give me a grant to make it.

I have a wedding to worry about, after all..

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[lectrobyte]

78. Grant? That would mean checking the couch cushions, since the

credit card is empty, or full, depending on which side of the interest payments you are on... ;)

Congratulations on your upcoming wedding!

[mirandapriestly]

75. It's no accident, IMO

there are just too many similiarities. Each statement has it's "twin". It looks like he took the basic idea and embellished it.

[Buzz Clik]

77. Ok, you might have a bit of a case....

But your letter is 150 words, compared to 900 for Moore's. The points you compared from Moore's letter to yours often have quite different context than your letter. Moore's letter was far more developed than yours and covered many more points.

It is possible that Moore may have taken inspiration from your idea, but maybe not. Many, many Democrats have been pushing for bipartisanship with great sincerity while, at the same, indicating that we're not forgetting the GOP's failings.

Send Moore and email, and see what he says.

[Canuckistanian]

79. "With thanks to The Witch", will do nicely

And a link to the blog wouldn't hurt, either.

[omega minimo]

82. You have that all wrong

Yours came first :hi:

[kdpeters]

83. Hard to believe that much resemblance is uncanny coincidence.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but it would certainly be a case of GMTA -- very, very much alike. You at least deserve recognition for your solidarity to his stated goals if not for being the first to state them.

If you do pursue, find a way to get your message over the piles of madness he must receive daily. Otherwise, assume it was just lost, not ignored. There are already more than 12,000 signatures. I signed it with the URL to your blog and it's already pushed off the newest page. Good luck, but know that you've already made a big impact in word and deed right here.

Karl

[Stephanie]

84. first of all I would not assume he drafted it himself

I assume he has help keeping his blog up. Someone on his staff might have done the first draft. MM might never have seen your post, even if someone on his staff did. MM probably does not have time to cruise the blogs.

[NMDemDist2]

85. that was my first thought when I read the MM piece

"I've read this on DU a few days ago"

did you send it to him?

[Thegonagle]

88. Same here.

I saw Moore's letter, and thought, I read that here already, and it wasn't written by Moore, but by a DU'er.

I hope everything works out well.

[KittyWampus]

93. Dear Witch, your original post was great. The form was like a Manifesto

or Statement of Intent.

Though the timing seems to imply that Moore's piece was influenced by your work... it might be you both were influenced by another (consciously or not).

And please don't think I am belittling your work in any way. I've bookmarked your website :)

I do like what you wrote and think it'd be interesting to get some feedback from Moore.

Good Luck and keep blogging!

[DIKB]

100. A million. . .

monkeys on a million typewriters will eventually compose the full works of William Shakespeare.

Of course this is given on an infinite timeline, and not accounting for reasonable facsimiles. Regardless, the key points you present are not wholly unique. Both works by Moore and yourself turned a negative (done to us by conservatives) into a positive. Seeing that you pulled from the same pool (republican thuggery) your attempts to turn it on them would be similar as well.

Given that, I can't say for sure that Moore did rip off your work.

I suggest reveling in the fact that you beat him to the punch, and your work is more positive, and more likely to be well-received.

Kudos on the good work, I saved it to pass along to friends ^^

[jilln]

101. Wow, who needs conservatives

with all the "guilty until proven innocent" people in this forum?

[Zavulon]

102. If Moore knowingly ripped this off from you,

I will never see a movie of his or buy one of his books again, regardless of how much they might appeal to me.

Please don't let it be true.

[Plaid Adder]

105. Not that anyone needs my $0.02, but...

I think it looks like Moore's pledge was heavily "inspired" by The Witch's post, but I think it would be hard to prove plagiarism.

Basically what the two documents have in common is the premise, the structure, and several of the ideas. The writing is very different; Moore's pledge is much more elaborate and incorporates a lot of stuff that's not in The Witch's post. The Witch's side-by-side comparison above emphasizes the similarities (of which there are plenty) by pulling out the sentences that are closest to the ones she originally posted; Moore's pledge also includes a lot of material that has to have been generated by someone else.

The similarity in terms of the points made could be a result of GMTA (after all, we all know exactly what the Republicans have done to us, and any pledge not to do the same things to them would have to include a number of the points that come up in both documents no matter who wrote it). It's the similarity in terms of premise and structure that worries me. It seems plausible to me that Moore or someone on his staff saw The Witch's post, thought a liberal pledge to conservatives was a great idea, and then came up with "their own version" of it for Moore's website.

If that's what happened, then The Witch should certainly have been credited. "Borrowing" ideas without crediting the source is plagiarism, even when there is no word-for-word copying. The fact that The Witch's post originally appeared on the Web on a public forum means nothing. If any of you have been plagiarizing stuff you see on the Web because you're under the impression that it's not protected or that stealing it isn't wrong, I advise you to stop. It is protected, and stealing it is wrong. The correct way to disseminate an idea or a post you see on the web is to credit and if possible link to the original source when you distribute or comment on it.

If this were just a GD post I would be willing to say it is an uncanny example of the collective consiousness at work and leave it at that. However, since it was featured on the DU front page right after the election, that increases the chances that someone on Moore's team spotted it and appropriated the idea.

I think it would make sense for The Witch or one of the DU admins to bring the similarities to the attention of someone at Moore's site and ask for an explanation. But I would not expect to be able to "prove" that this is plagiarism no matter what they tell you; the two documents are different enough to provide plenty of deniability. If this really IS plagiarism, that makes it in my mind especially sleazy. Without knowing what happened, though, I'm not prepared to say it is.

C ya,

The Plaid Adder

[Buzz Clik]

106. Great summary.

Can we be done with this until, as Plaid Adder suggests, we know more?

[Laelth]

109. My Advice: Consult an attorney.

Figure out what your options are before you do anything. That's what attorneys are for.

-Laelth

[Maddy McCall]

111. Sorry. I don't see it.

In my department, I catch more students for plagiarism than any other instructor.

I don't think that I'd term that plagiarism.

:shrug:

[leopardtweezer]

112. 2004, BITCHES

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/ontheroad/UTAH_WeAreTheMajority.mov

[Cha]

113. Hmmmmmmmmmmm? 2004?

Good for Michael!

[wicket]

115. 2006 is the year of the donkey kicking out the elephant

DEMOCRATIC LANDSLIDE!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[InvisibleTouch]

114. A perspective from 2004...

...for what it's worth: a few days before the '04 election, I went to a talk by Michael Moore. Among other things, he said "When we win this election and clean up the air and water, we'll let the Republicans breathe clean air and drink clean water too," "When we implement healthcare, we'll let the Republicans access it too," "When we raise the minimum wage, we'll let Republicans earn at the new rate too," etc. Very similar to what he posted on his site now, and yes, very similar to the Witch's post.

Truthfully, I read the Witch's post first, then saw Moore's, and the similarity jumped out at me immediately. At first I thought, okay, someone copied from someone here, I don't know who. Now I see, the Witch posted her list first, which certainly makes Moore's very similar version suspicious at first sight. But it should be remembered that he's been saying these things, in this format, for at least two years. It's very possible in this case that two great minds simply put down their thoughts in much the same way.

I somehow have a hard time believing that someone as public as Michael Moore would knowingly and deliberately plagerize a post on a well-known Democratic discussion board. He may not be worried about being condemned and ostracized by "the establishemnt" - which has always been something I admired about him, btw - but I can't imagine he'd want to damage his credibility among liberals and progressives. If anyone should know how quickly word spreads on the net, it should be him. Not saying plagerism isn't possible, mind you - just saying I'd be surprised, all things considered.

If it were my post, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt - but I would still e-mail him and ask about it.

[Dr Fate]

116. He copped it. Imitation is the highest form of flattery. I wouldnt worry about it much.

I've seen things I've said repeated, and I have repeated what others have said.

Pretty common in music, art and politics- I wouldnt sweat it.

I do agree that he should acknowledge that it is not 100% original material- but shouldnt we all be happy that he is taking your inclusive message to a wider audience?

[Cha]

121. Maybe you should look at this

video from 2004 before you say Michael "copped it".

http://www.michaelmoore.com/_media/ontheroad/UTAH_WeAreTheMajority.mov

[Dr Fate]

122. Fine with me. I dont think "copping" in politics, music or art is a bad thing.

If things were only done ONCE and never added to, altered & repeated- we would not have any sort of culture or progress to speak of.

Dont read my post as being anti- Moore- read it as a shrug.

Political talking points are ALWAYS borrowed & then repeated. I dont hear Rush Limbaugh complaining about Freepers repeating his talkingpoints or vice versa.

For all I know, as you suggest, Witch subconsciously borrowed the idea from Mike. I could care less- so long as the spreading of good messages into the echo chamber continues.

[Cha]

123. No, I didn't "suggest" any such thing.

"For all I know, as you suggest, Witch subconsciously borrowed the idea from Mike. I could care less- so long as the spreading of good messages into the echo chamber continues."

I'm saying that Michael didn't copy anyone..he was talkin' about this in 2004. That's all I'm sayin'.

[Dr Fate]

127. All arguing aside- we both agree that the message is good.

I could care less with who came up with it first.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

117. As an old hack, who got published & wrote extensively for radio, TV and newspaper...

I'd say take it as a compliment: Realize that the Butterfly Effect is very real, especially in media: Keep flapping even harder and move on to finer spells, Witch. I'll be watching for your future OPs. Congratulations, it looks like you succeeded in actually doing some good in the world. Few can honestly claim that honor.

[Dr Fate]

118. That is my take as well. We should all be glad this great message is being repeated. n/t

n/t

[Cracker_Sensei]

119. hmmm,

This is me being surprised by MM's lack of conscience -> :boring:

[Dr Fate]

120. I know- what a bastard he is for borrowing and then posting positive talking points.

EVERYONE knows that talking points are supposed to used ONCE and never repeated again- that way they are more like mysterious, obscure poetry as opposed to mass message.

And he sure did show a lack of conscience when he made that movie where he lied about Bush lying about WMDs & Saudi coonections.

Just kidding. You are fooling no one.

[Make7]

124. kick

[Zhade]

125. Someone thinks mighty highly of themselves.

Let's face it, Moore's probably never even HEARD of you.

[greyl]

126. Moore's "version" was first - 2004

Besides, the two versions aren't peculiarly similar.

[QuestionAll...]

132. has The Witch seen the 2004 Moore version?

has that one been answered?
Probably a case of innocent sublimal influence.

but to just out and accuse Moore of plagerizing on a public board like this... without knowing that he did a rewrite on something 2 years old?

erm, that's a bit odd, to say the least.

[frovic]

128. It disappeared

The entry in question seems to have disappeared from your blog.....

[Aexia]

129. So...

are you going to apologize to Moore for plagiarizing his work?

[Make7]

130. At your current posting rate, you should reach 1,000 posts in about 400 years.

Try to let some of the rest of us get a word in once in a while, will ya? :)

- Make7

[Bluebear]

134. ...

:spray:

[AZBlue]

131. Welcome to DU!

:hi: