A week ago, this comment was left by prominent conspiracy theorist Dave Hodges on saboteur365 in relation to this post. You can see the comment here. The comment is false, defamatory, libelous, and legally actionable by me, if I choose to sue Dave:
This is from Dave Hodges.This is a friendly, non-legal, for the time-being, warning. You do not have permission to plagiarize my articles by posting them to your site- I do not want my articles appearing on this site for any reason. Take down all articles associated with me and remove any links from this site to my web site.
I sent Dave four emails trying to get him to confirm that he actually posted that comment. He did not respond, so I assume he did write the unfriendly “friendly” comment. I find it rather chickensh*t for Dave to ignore my emails and refuse to confirm that he wrote that comment.
Here’s what I wrote that rankled Dave:
Jade Helm is openly sending the message that the government is prepared to kill us and will do so if need be. That message is intended to stifle dissent by creating a climate of fear.
Noted conspiracy researcher Dave Hodges holds a different opinion. Note that Dave never names the chosen ones in his articles. I believe he does often reach correct conclusions, but his work is suspect in my book for that failure. But let’s see what he has to say.
After this mild criticism stating “his work is suspect,” where I was rather generous in stating that I think he sometimes reaches correct conclusions, I then proceeded to quote two paragraphs from Dave’s site, WITH A LINK TO HIS ARTICLE.
Dave’s work essentially claims that martial law is coming via Jade Helm and that the Chinese and Russian military are going to occupy America. He claims to have his “inside” sources that have revealed the grand plan to him so that he can publish it on the Internet. That’s my understanding of his theories anyway.
Following the two quotes of Dave’s, I wrote:
I’m not convinced that the feds are going to be assassinating dissidents, including bloggers like myself, this summer. I do understand that they are in principle willing and eager to terminate patriots, Christians, white women with children, conservatives, anti-globalists, and whatever other dissidents they have deemed in their insanity to be enemies.
I view Jade Helm as another intimidation tactic, done in the same spirit as when the feds use the IRS and the media to intimidate us.
However, I could be wrong. What do you think?
I didn’t state why I disbelieve Dave’s theories, so let me do so now.
Why would the Chinese want to occupy a country thousands of miles away from China. They already own half the country anyway, they have no history of undertaking military adventures far away from their own soil, and they have a lot to lose and little to gain from sending troops into the USA to govern a foreign land where the citizens are armed and don’t like the Chinese very much. I’m sure they are spying on us and plotting against us, but it takes a giant leap into the world of tin foil hats to think that they are plotting a military invasion. The Chinese are not our friends, but they aren’t quite that stupid, in my opinion.
The other thing to consider is that surely the Chinese would have arranged for an “accident” by now to leave Dave dead for revealing their secret plans of conquest. The last I heard Dave is still alive. But if he really believes what he publishes, then I suggest that he make arrangements to be flown out of the country when the stuff hits the fan because the Chinese are going to be looking for Dave to line him up against a wall and take him out with a firing squad. If some agency of the federal government doesn’t assassinate him first.
Now back to Dave’s comment. Let’s look at the word “plagiarize.” During the 30 years I was a professor, 30 volumes of my work were published by Prentice Hall. I’m quite aware of what plagiarism is, and until Dave wrote his nonsense comment, no one had ever accused me of plagiarim. Plagiarism is a serious offense. Dave is either horrifically careless with his research, or woefully ignorant, or maybe he’s just a bully.
A Google search for the definition of the word plagiarism reveals this generally understood meaning:
the practice of taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing them off as one’s own.
You’ll note that I specifically mentioned Dave by name in my post, linked to his site, and disagreed with his ideas. That’s not plagiarism. Not only did I not steal his ideas and try to pass them off as my own, but I rejected them. Politely, of course.
If Dave is as careless with the research published on his site as he is calling people plagiarists, then it really calls into question his credibility.
Which has been called into question before. For example, there’s this at Zerohedge
wtf is this doing up here or did I miss the big SARC tag???
Hodges is just another unquestionable lunatic fudge-boy with the audio broadcasting skills of a roller derby arena announcer and his show sounds like shit as well… silly fat fuck, that Hodges……
Dave also made the Wackos Gallery
Dave Hodges, Alex Jones wannabe conspiracy and fear mongering blowhard
And then there’s this strong criticism of Dave at The White Wraithe
Since Dave is apparently too ignorant to raise the term, let me do it for him: copyright law. He holds the copyright to his writings (if he actually writes the material on his site–there is no author attribution given to his pieces). He can control how they are used and where they appear, with one exception. That exception is called fair use. Professors are pushed into attending workshops on fair use, thus it’s shocking that anyone writing for a living would not be familiar with it. There’s also the doctrine of implied licenses, as laid out by University of Texas system lawyers. Anytime you publish anything on the Internet there’s the expectation that people will republish it, quote it, print it, link to it, forwarded in emails, etc.
In over 4,700 posts to this site, I cited Dave four times, and used five paragraphs in three different posts.
DAVE THE BULLY HAS NO LEGAL RIGHT TO DEMAND THAT I REMOVE THOSE POSTS. IF SUING PEOPLE IS HIS HOBBY HE WILL FIND ME A FORMIDABLE OPPONENT IN COURT.
I am also not taking down the links to his site. No one in the history of the world has ever proclaimed posting links to a site on the Internet to be plagiarism or a violation of fair use.
As a courtesy to Mr. Hodges, I have removed the five paragraphs although they fall within the fair use doctrine. And since I’ve only linked to his site four times in 4,700 posts I will not use his material again here. It’s no great loss as far as I’m concerned since most of my posts deal with facts that are out in the open and easily provable. Facts that can be linked together to form coherent theories.
I really don’t like articles that use “unidentified insiders” as sources of information that many people would consider part of the lunatic fringe.
If I wanted to write that kind of blog, being based in Military City, USA (San Antonio, Texas) I would head for the bars around the bases, start buying the boys beers, and get all the “insider” information I might want. It’s amazing how young soldiers will tell tall tales to civilians when you offer to keep buying another round.
And if Mr. Hodges does enjoy the hobby of suing people, the first response from my lawyer (who is on retainer) will be to force Mr. Hodges to name his “inside” sources so that we can then depose them or take affadavits. You see, I’ve done this before. I know the rountine. It’s very expensive and time consuming, so I don’t have that hobby. Thus, I would prefer not to sue Mr. Hodges, but he can expect a countersuit for defamation if he wants to go that route.
It would be really interesting to watch Dave on the witness stand facing a sharp lawyer asking him to defend some of his writings as if they should be beyond criticism.