Quote:
Originally Posted by Aoife
ok.
So then what I'm asking is… Is Dan's material such that they both could have drawn from it separately and gotten the same shit out of it.
As in, does it seem like it could well be that instead of Alwyn/Mike copying Lyle, that everyone just copied poor Dan, with the non-crunchy bits.
(Since I don't know Dan's piece, I have no idea if it's presented as stale dry crap, or if there's more to it, the way both UD2 and WSFL seem to be from the examples presented.)
If there's nothing in Dan's work that allows for people to paraphrase it in similar ways, then your case is stronger.
|
Emphatically no. The bits that came from Dan were the nuts-and-bolts of the diet and training from "Bodyopus" and the original "Ultimate Diet", not the scientific backing. That's always been Lyle's domain, as he puts it he was the "detail guy" for Dan.
This is all in UD2's intro, as well.
Quote:
|
If there is stuff in there (non-crunchy more-talky bits) then I could see a case for both Lyle and A/M copying the same thing, not one the other, and therefore it's just unfortunate that Alywn/Mike didn't think to make sure they didn't get too close to UD2. kwim?
|
No. The research is new stuff; much of it wasn't even done when Duchaine died (2000).
Quote:
Then it would be a matter of whether Alwyn/Mike did it on purpose, assuming they had read UD2 (which one can likely assume).
OR if they did it accidentally/unconsciously pulled from what they remember reading in it.
This still wouldn't free them of responsibility/fault, it would just make them a little less dicky.
|
Considering it's identical almost to the sentence, and some cases the sentences are literally identical, this would be highly unlikely.
Hence why I see it as grasping at straws.
Quote:
This is partly where I have trouble. It's not word for word. It's paraphrasing. The words that are identical are words you can't say a different way (the sciency bits).
Yes, paraphrasing is still plagiarism, but not quite as cut and dried here, because of the possibility of a different source.
Hence why I wondered about the rest of the text, or other texts, which would help decide a case in better context.
|
See, this is what I don't get. It's not like there's a third book out there that says all this stuff; it's compiled from the references Lyle amassed for this project and "The Ketogenic Diet" (which has several hundred references, and was written even earlier).
Then WSFL comes out, and makes an identical breakdown; yes, we can nitpick over the fact that it's not literally identical, but that's playing semantics games.