Correction to Article on Plagiarism

(Click here for the initial discussions that took place between White, Pierce, Brown and Windsor hours after Scott's article was placed).

Before I begin, I must say this current article would have been completely unnecessary and would not have been researched and posted had James White accepted my offer to end this discussion in a charitable and fair manner. I offered that if he removed the comments which appear on the "Romangrams" section of A&O (this link is to the original article, which has been changed significantly) and apologized to Dave Brown (for the fact that his website had at least three articles that were written by Dave Brown, but now had "By James White" on the articles themselves) I would then offer my condolences and humbly withdraw my accusation. However, James refused - continued to insult me personally and told me to do as I please. Let me just assert, though I accepted James' and Rich's explanation of a volunteer putting James' name on the index and the articles, there is still such a thing as unintentional plagiarism. See research from the Internet from several academic sites. Not everything cited in that research applies to unintentional plagiarism. The purpose of presenting that research is to show unintentional plagiarism exists, and White (as a college professor himself) should already be aware of this. I am sure White will still use the argument that he didn't put the information there and therefore he is not responsible and owes no apology to Dave Brown. However, he cannot avoid the fact that he is the Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and the website is dedicated to The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White. In light of these facts, White must assume at least some responsibility (if not all) for the material presented on his website, and especially for material that bears his own name! This is all I seek from White.

Since White refuses to accept any responsibility in this matter, and since he refuses to remove the section in the "Romangrams" page on his site, even though he has updated the "Romangrams" since it first came out, there are still some things in it that must be addressed. I again remind the reader, I would have been quite content to merely offer condolences for my original article if James had accepted my offer. If he had accepted that offer, I would not now be exposing the falsehoods he has in the "Romangrams" section.

I'll renew my offer - THIS response will be pulled from the web if James will pull that section of the "Romangrams" and offer Dave Brown an apology for the injustice done him. Even if unintentional, the fact remains that "By James White" appeared in articles written "By Dave Brown" and existed on the website dedicated to "The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White" since sometime in November of 2001 through February 18, 2002. If he continues to accept no responsibility for this, well, I'll let the reader make the character judgments. The ball is back in White's court - his response, or lack thereof, will dictate how long this response appears on the web.

To respond directly to the current "Romangrams" section (as of 2/24/02), I will insert my responses as text in white boxes inside White's article:

Update as of 2/17/02:

OK, minor point here, but representative of the lack of detail White puts into his pages (perhaps explaining the existence of the falsely attributed articles?). He lists the date as February 17, 2002 - well, that's quite impossible since my original article did not appear till 1am MST on February 18, 2002!

     It seems Rome's apologists are intent upon continuing to provide more and more evidence of their utter desperation as well as their complete willingness to attack the person rather than the issue. 

Desperation? No James, we just like the TRUTH, and the TRUTH was that you had articles written BY Dave Brown on YOUR website with YOUR name on them. Regardless if YOU put them there or not - you cannot avoid the FACT that they were there, and you've even admitted that much. This was not an act of desperation, it was a plea for fairness. Perhaps I was wrong in accusing you of intentional plagiarism, and I've accepted your story in good faith (that a volunteer posted those articles) which is why my original article was pulled. No, the "desperation" seems to be on your end to "cover your tracks."

This morning Scott Windsor posted an accusation of plagiarism against me on his website.  He noted that in the apologetics index on our website my name was listed as the author of three articles by Dave Brown, a former volunteer who had been involved with Alpha and Omega Ministries a number of years ago. 

Well, again, it wasn't that morning, rather the next, but my contention wasn't that White's name appeared in the index, but also on the articles themselves.

As a result Mr. Windsor impugned  and libeled my character and accused me of actually claiming these articles as my own!

By all appearances, that's exactly what it looked like. Again I reiterate, James White is the Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries and the website is dedicated to The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White so what's the reader to think? I acknowledge that I could have gone to James and/or Rich about this first - but that doesn't change the fact that those articles were there and had By James White on them.

     The only element of truth in the accusation is that my name is listed on the apologetics index that was added to our site late last year. 

Well, no James, that's not quite true now is it? Here are several other elements of truth from my original article:
  1. I did not claim it was merely in the apologetics index that White's name appeared, but also in the actual articles themselves.
  2. I stated Dave Brown was on the Board of Directors for Alpha and Omega Ministries.
  3. I stated Dave Brown worked for Alpha and Omega Ministries (I did not say he was paid for that work).
  4. I quoted Dave Brown saying, "He did not write one word of those articles. Every word in those articles is mine.
  5. I stated James ultimately is responsible for what appears on the website that is subtitled, "The Christian Apologetics Ministry of James R. White."
  6. I stated that several other authors were listed in the index, but for some reason Dave Brown was not.
So, for James White to say that was the "only element of truth" is simply untrue, for he has already admitted to several of the above points! Those he has not admitted to are undeniable.

What Mr. Windsor did not mention (because, of course, he posted his attack without even contacting us) is as follows:  1) The articles were recent additions, scanned and proofed off of old masters of "information sheets" that we made up back in the 1980s.  2)  They were scanned by a volunteer who has only known about our ministry for about two years, and hence had never heard of Dave Brown.  3)  If the volunteer did not see any other name listed, he assumed James White had written it, and listed it as such.  4)  Rich Pierce, who oversaw this volunteer's work, was unaware that any of the articles he chose to be scanned and added to the site were written by anyone other than James White.  5)  I was not asked about any of this, and since I have never liked the index itself (and have asked that it be changed or eliminated), I was unaware of even the addition of the new articles, let alone any authorship listing issues.

The above points are irrelevant to the fact that those articles existed for approximately three months on White's website with White's name on them. Regardless if it was intentional on White's part or not, "ignorance is no excuse." White can pass the responsibility on to a volunteer for putting them there, and to Rich for his role in overseeing that volunteer - but he cannot remove himself from the responsibility that it's HIS website with HIS name all over it.

     As any semi-unbiased person can quickly see, to impugn a man's entire character

Come on now, "entire character?" Any semi-unbiased person can quickly see that White has some responsibility here and is attempting to pass it off on others and make this whole incident someone else's fault. Had he been more aware of the content on his own website, none of this would have happened.

when you did not have the honesty and temerity to even inquire about the situation  is utterly reprehensible.

Well, excuse me, but it wasn't "dishonesty" and I concurred already that I could have inquired first, but the fact that I didn't wasn't "dishonest." I here and now apologize for not going to White or Pierce first, but again that doesn't change the facts that led to the accusation.

As a result of this simple mistake, and the desperation to find anything to use as a weapon shown by Mr. Windsor,

Yes, a "simple mistake" - White admits to that, but he does not admit to any role of responsibility for the existence of those articles on his own website in the first place, or the fact that they existed for several months on the same.

we have removed all articles on the Watchtower from the website that bear Mr. Brown's name. 

Oh? The "policy" to not have any articles by Dave Brown on your website is now MY doing? Has this not been a policy of Alpha and Omega Ministries ever since Dave Brown became a Catholic? Dave has stated that he has no problem with A&O using those articles so long as they are properly attributed - but rather than have another tool to aid in the "ministry" to Jehovah's Witnesses, the anger held against Dave Brown overrules any possible good those articles may do? What's the "semi-unbiased" reader thinking now?

I am surely learning more and more about the meaning of Matthew 5:11-12!

So am I, so am I.

     We should add that Mr. Windsor, upon being faced with some of this information, pulled the article from the "featured" article position, and Mr. Brown has apologized for assuming I was personally claiming authorship of his material. 

And aside from me apologizing for not going to you first (which I have already done) and pulling the article immediately upon hearing your explanation (which I did) what more do you want from me?

Unfortunately, Mr. Windsor has demanded that I apologize for the incident (despite the fact that he knows I had nothing to do with it in the first place).

That's not quite true either. I offered that if James pulled the comments from the "Romangrams" and apologized to Dave Brown - I, in turn, would offer my own condolences for the appearance of my article. It was an "offer" not a demand! The other part of the "offer" was that if he did NOT accept the offer - then I would respond accordingly to the article impugning me on his website. Obviously he chose to leave the "dirt" out there, so now you're reading this article/response.

Sadly, the article did appear, if even for a short period,

Yes, approximately nine hours did my article appear, compared to three months the falsely attributed articles on your website. Who was done the greater injustice? The "semi-unbiased" reader can easily tell.

and one thing I learned long ago: once someone makes this kind of accusation, it does not matter if it is retracted or corrected. Those who are desperate for some kind of response (outside of actually dealing with the truth) will repeat it ad nauseum.  est autem Deus verax.

Well, if you're going to tell the truth - let's tell the WHOLE truth, which I believe I have just done.

I reiterate my apology for not confronting White in private first. There was a fear that if I had, he would have just pulled the articles (as per their "policy" not to have any of Dave Brown's material anymore) and the truth may not have come out. At least one thing has been "good" from this exchange - White has admitted the articles were written by Dave Brown and published in print by Alpha and Omega back in the 1980's.

Updated 3/8/02:
White responded to this article, but has (again) overlooked some details. Note the date of this "update" and note the "semi-unbiased person" that hasn't been following this will assume my initial article was posted on March 1, 2002. This then retains a falsehood, since my original article was posted on February 18, 2002. Still just a minor point but James is the one continuing to libel my character (questioning my honesty and temerity) so for as long as he continues to have lies about me on his site, we will set the record straight on my site.
Update as of 3/01/02:
It seems Rome's apologists are intent upon continuing to provide more and more evidence of their utter desperation as well as their complete willingness to attack the person rather than the issue. This morning Scott Windsor posted an accusation of plagiarism against me on his website.
White's only response to the article above is one sentence that was added to his initial response:
Sadly, Mr. Windsor has chosen to post another article that, while carefully worded, continues this utterly amazing demonstration.
I again assert, there is no desperation on my part. I did not "demand" he retract his article, I offered that if he did, I would not have even posted this one. The fact remains that his website carried at least three articles written enitrely by Dave Brown, but for approximately three months stated "By James White" on them. While White admits this was a mistake, he accepts no responsibility and he offers no apology to Dave Brown but continues to perpetuate a lie about me on his site. The "semi-unbiased person" can surely see who's acting more "desperate" here.

Number of visitors to this page since February 28, 2002:

Return to ACTS Homepage