Attributes "assert" they had right to use plagiarised material

 

The publisher of the book said that after investigation, they discovered that out of the 350 articles in the book, there were about 10 articles which contained similarities with other authors. However, the publisher asserted that KH had used their materials with the permission of the original authors, and therefore it is not a case of plagiarism. He also said that their oversight is in not clearly letting readers know which articles were written by other authors and reproduced with their permission.

The above translation of KH's publishers' "oversight" is taken from http://thelogicalchristian.blogspot.com/2010/06/pastor-kong-hees-publisher-explains-its.html. Thanks Stan. You're an esteeemed man of letters.

Actually I had earlier considered not blogging any response to KH since Stanley had done admirably in showing how HOLEy is KH's 'clarificatiom'. But then the publisher now says its their 'honest mistake'. Really? The game is afoot!

“Contained similarities”. That’s a good spin. Hello, it’s a word for word copy in practically all the articles. There were 350 articles? Looks like even Attributes don’t know the contents of their publishing. The book is called “Renewing…. 90 days”, i.e. one day one articles @ 90 articles/vol. Do the maths Duhhh!

The publisher “asserted”? Why not show hardcopy proof to CONFIRM rather than merely “assert”? If Kong Hee had permission to use the materials, its strange that he did not mention this in his ‘clarification’. Its strange that he did not post a copy of photo of one written permission. That would have shut his detractors up.

Any self-respecting publisher would make sure the author proof-reads and approves the book contents. I know all publishers make their client author or his representative sign against the printed proofs? This is so that they avoid being blamed and sued by the author if there are any legal hassles in the book contents. Attributes did not bother to check and get Kong Hee to approve the contents? It is not their ‘oversight’. The onus is on Kong Hee to provide the material including the crediting of the external sources. So why are they willing to take the fall for Kong Hee’s ‘oversight’?