Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
December 08, 2016

Russia Today Plagiarizes Moon of Alabama - Correspondence - Act I

The German edition of the Russia Today website, RT Deutsch, evidently plagiarized a piece I had written for and published on this site.

I have since communicated with the director of RT Deutsch, Ivan Rodionov, via Twitter. The responses were slow and uncommitted. Today Rodionov, as well as the author of the piece, Mr. Rupp, contacted me and denied that the obvious plagiarism has happened at all.

Meanwhile I have been contacted by other authors who claim to have also been plagiarized or ripped off by RT English and/or RT Deutsch. The authors in question are, like me, generally positive towards Russia and RT.

Indeed this site has been labeled a "Russian propaganda outlet" by U.S. media and by the Ukrainian-American fascists behind the censorship advocates at ProPornOT.

This issue thereby obviously not an "anti-Russian" action but simple concern of serious authors about their rights.

I will write about the other authors cases' in a later piece.

The plagiarizing issue with RT is likely to escalate. I decided to publish all relevant communication on this blog to keep the readers informed and to be able to let others know how RT in general, and RT Deutsch especially, is handling such issues.

Mr Ivan Rodionov contacted me on public Twitter today. Here is the whole public thread including his tweets, my responses and the relevant context:

Moon of Alabama @MoonofA


Russia Today (@rt_deutsch) Plagiarizes Moon of Alabama (@MoonofA) piece. Unresponsive to complains …

6:03 AM - 7 Dec 2016


Barbara McKenzie ‏@BarbaraMcK42 19h19 hours ago

@MoonofA Your article was well-written, and made its point succinctly. There's no excuse for hijacking it @RT_Deutsch @IvanRodionov_


Ivan Rodionov ‏@IvanRodionov_ 1h1 hour ago

@BarbaraMcK42 @MoonofA @RT_Deutsch Our contributor provided information supporting his claim of independent authorship which i believe 1/3

Ivan Rodionov ‏@IvanRodionov_ 1h1 hour ago

@BarbaraMcK42 @MoonofA @RT_Deutsch conclusive. I see no reasons to distrust him. His reply was AFAIK shared with you. If you see it 2/3

Ivan Rodionov ‏@IvanRodionov_ 1h1 hour ago

@BarbaraMcK42 @MoonofA it diferently pls feel free to use legal ways. Respectfully. 3/3


Moon of Alabama ‏@MoonofA 33m33 minutes ago

@IvanRodionov_ Mr Rapp's "explanation"via email is a sorry excuse and evidently factually untrue in at least 3 points. @BarbaraMcK42 1/2

Moon of Alabama ‏@MoonofA 29m29 minutes ago

@IvanRodionov_ Legal ways cost money-not yet ready to spend. Will escalate via my contacts w/ RT Moscow and German media @BarbaraMcK42 2/2

(For timemarks - the alternative Twitter view of the last tweet ("29m29 minutes ago") is marked (in Pacific Time) as 9:09 AM - 8 Dec 2016)


In the above exchange Mr Rodionov mentioned a response from the RT author who had plagiarized my text. That response had arrived via email.

Here is a copy (email addresses withheld) followed by a copy of my reply.

From: Mr. Rupp
Subject: Putin's joke
To: MoonofA
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 12:28:45 +0100

Hallo Bernard,

You are certainly aware of the fact, that Newton and Leibniz developed a very similar theory of calculus at the same time in history, apparently completely independent of each other.

I use this famous example to illustrate, that you were not the only person with mathematical knowledge to spot the mathematical issue behind Putin's "joke". By way of excluding a translation mistake as well as the possibility that Putin would have made such a silly chauvinist comment, especially on public TV, it was quite clear what the Russian president had really meant when he said, that Russia's borders do not end anywhere. Only the kid as well as a large part of the audience did not understand and applauded for the wrong reason. Thus Putin had to save the situation somehow, declaring it a joke but one could see on his face, he did not feel comfortable doing it.

Unfortunately at the time I was working on another project that I had to finish first. So I could not react immediately to this matter, which made headline in Western news. Somewhat belatedly I could turn to the subject, as by then some German media had also begun to slander Putin for his "joke". First I scanned the internet to see, if anyone else had come to the same conclusion as me, namely that Putin had referred to the definition of a border as an uninterrupted line running along the edge of a surface that does not have a beginning or an end. My search also took me to your site, which I read and liked very much.

This may have unknowingly influenced my approach to the subjects. But I did in no way translate line by line from your piece. What you declare as proof for your claim, namely the definition of a border, I have taken from the German "Duden". And translated it is the same in English. But for a Definition that should not come as a surprise.

And what you call the core issue, i.e. Putin's mathematical lecture, that was not there for you alone to spot. You do not have sole ownership of the recognition of a simple and well known mathematical problem for 5th graders.

Moreover I did make a reference to the MofA source in my manuscript but certainly not with respect to the core issue.

As to my person, I am a political writer. For most of the last 20 years I worked for one or the other of the two remaining left wing daily papers which have survived in Germany. On RT-Deutsch I publish since Spring this year.

The reason I reacted so late to your complaint is simple. Only last night I got the e-mail from Mr. Rodionov - who had been out of the country for a few days - informing me about the matter and asking me, to clean it up. As I am a freelance writer my articles are my sole responsibility and neither RT-deutsch nor Mr. Rodionow carry any blame.

As I do not feel guilty for the things you accuse me of, I cannot apologize for them. But I do not want to hide myself either. If you are still angry enough to sue someone, you have to sue me. If you want to do that, please let me know and I will find a lawyer and forward his address to you for further legal action.

My honorarium for the article in question was 200 Euro. I can provide you a copy of the Honorarium. It is not much to fight about in court. But I can transfer you a share of it, if this helps to sooth your anger. This would not be recognition of any guilt but it would safe me a lot of paper work.

Certainly I did not want to offend or hurt you. After all, I did like your article and it probably did help and influenced my writing.

I would appreciate, if you treat this letter as personal and not for publication.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Rainer Rupp

P.S. Now that we are actually in contact with each other I just had an idea, how we could turn this annoying situation into something good for both of us. You have produced some very good pieces of research, which would certainly find also a German readership. May be we could come to an arrangement, whereby I would translate occasionally an up to date piece of your research for publication in Germany under your name and with a split honorarium for both of us?


My reply:

From: MoonofA
Subject: Re: Putin's Joke
To: Mr. Rupp
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 2016 18:15:13 +0100
Your statements, Mr. Rupp, about the plagiarism of my text are -at least- misleading.

Some of your claims with which you try to prove that you did not copy and translated my text, which you did, can evidently not be true:

"My search also took me to your site, which I read and liked very much. This may have unknowingly influenced my approach to the subjects. But I did in no way translate line by line from your piece."

You translated the core paragraph of my piece sentence by sentence - line by line, nearly word by word! My post on the subject sets these texts next to each other. It is obvious to anyone who can read that your paragraph is a translation of my text.


It is inexplicable that you would "unknowingly influenced" structure that paragraph sentence by sentence in your copy exactly as I did in the original.

"Moreover I did make a reference to the MofA source in my manuscript but certainly not with respect to the core issue."

No, you did not!

When I read your copied piece first on Nov 30/Dec 1, after having noticed it through Mr. Rodinov's promotional tweet, I immediately saved the whole HTML page to a local disk. There was NO REFERENCE to MoA anywhere in there. MoA was only inserted as a source for a minor statement AFTER I later complained to Mr. Rodionov. The firsts saved version and the current one are now displayed in the updated post at my site and can be easily compared.

"What you declare as proof for your claim, namely the definition of a border, I have taken from the German „Duden“. And translated it is the same in English."

So, Mr. Rapp, you want to tell me that you hear Putin in Russian on a TV show and while writing about it in German for a German language news outlet you first look up the German version in the Duden but then -just by chance of course- insert the same link to the English definition of "border" that I used in my text?!? Why would you use the English definition link for the word border in a German text at all? Why not use the German definition link from the Duden and insert that?

In your text you write the definition of border as "*Ein Band oder eine Linie um oder entlang der Kante von etwas."*

That**is no way consistent with any version in the Duden that you have claimed to have looked up. There is no "Kante" in any of those Duden definitions.

Please compare here:

Indeed what you used in the RT text is a (bad) translation of the English freedictionary definition I used: "A part that forms the outer edge of something."

Your response is obviously not serious but pure obfuscation behind which you want to hide the plagiarism of my piece.

RT Deutsch is the publisher of the website where the text appeared as part of its regular content. It is as such fully responsible for the texts on that site. I will continue to correspond with RT Deutsch and RT central in Moscow about the issue and expect them to take the appropriate measures.


PS: Reading that sorry explanation for your plagiarism and then the "offer" in your PS: paragraph my mind flashed with the word "extortion"!

So far the current communication between Moon of Alabama/Bernhard, Russia Today Deutsch and the plagiarizing author.

I will leave it to the readers and commentators here to judge.

Posted by b on December 8, 2016 at 18:40 UTC | Permalink

next page »


This whole episode gives the Fake Russian News themes a bad name :). RT should be ashamed.
When in a hole, stop digging. RT needs to get that.

Posted by: Rius | Dec 8 2016 18:59 utc | 1

stop this crying
you're a 0 compared with RT, Trump, Putin.
(be glad they know you)

Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 8 2016 19:04 utc | 2

You should accept the invitation. That would strengthen the common cause, and also your own position. I have done so in similar situations, and good results ensued.

Posted by: Oliver K | Dec 8 2016 19:05 utc | 3

(IF they know you)

Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 8 2016 19:07 utc | 4

For G-d´s sake give it a rest already!

If you need money, ASK for it and we will be glad to help. Now accept the invitation, you deserve a wider audience.

Posted by: Mikh | Dec 8 2016 19:12 utc | 5

I'm having fun, at his expense, on his twitter page. i'm retired with hours to while away, lads and laddies. Go take a poke at this mofo. If we all have at him, it will be clear to his constituents that something is rotten in denmark and it ain't the cheese.

Posted by: Ruben Chandler | Dec 8 2016 19:14 utc | 6

lads and lassies.............hours to while away and no time to edit my own sh&

Posted by: Ruben Chandler | Dec 8 2016 19:15 utc | 7

I do not believe in the idea of intellectual property, we all stand on the shoulders of giants, and ideas have throughout human evolution, up until very recently, been shared. You simply cannot own an idea. That being said, give credit where it is due. Pepe and RTs MoA ripoffs are essentially spreading your great ideas, bringing them to a much wider audience than this site has, and ultimately a good thing for readers everywhere. You get a lot of your notions from Magnier, anyway. This whole episode seems too petty to bother with, and is detracting from your excellent journalism, b...

Posted by: dan | Dec 8 2016 19:23 utc | 8

you're modern:
So stop whining!

Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 8 2016 19:30 utc | 9

RT is playing it sitting on the fence, it foolishly is adhereing to pressure on one side to retain it's American readers, no more Wikileaks? On the other side seems to throw all caution to the wind as in this regard. Slightly bi-polar right now. I'll head over and have a word with them. ;)

Posted by: Gravatomic | Dec 8 2016 19:33 utc | 10

Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 8, 2016 2:04:54 PM | 2

I disagree, M of A is being noticed and quoted and it's the hard work being put into it. In this case, plagiarized and that becasue they believe that b is a 0 they can get away with it.

I think it's more of a 'we control' the narrative thing that all of MSM is doing.

We'll see.

Posted by: Gravatomic | Dec 8 2016 19:38 utc | 11

b. You most certainly have the right to protect your intellectual property rights. Keep up the pressure against RT. Even if RT is in general a good source of information in the big propaganda wars going on between the West and Russia it is imperative that they acknowledge the contributions of talented independent voices in the West that are challenging US hegemony. Not just let a 'thousand flowers bloom' but recognize that independent voices in the West have an important perspective that Russians do not have.

Russian Insider (no link, they do not deserve it) have built a business model from those voices. At least they acknowledge their sources but they have exploited many of those western critics of US hegemony to bring in advertising revenue for themselves.

Posted by: ToivoS | Dec 8 2016 19:41 utc | 12


Neither here nor there but reminds me of a quote.

If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange these apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have an idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas.

George Bernard Shaw

Posted by: ~f | Dec 8 2016 19:48 utc | 13

5 black inches of wasted ad space on the right sidebar. Jeez. You just can't help some people. Nobody would care if there were dancing Kardashians and ripped-jeans ads on the right sidebar. Maybe you can offer Kellogg's, Starbucks and Target an advertising deal that they can't refuse.

Sorry, no pity from me.

Posted by: chipnik | Dec 8 2016 20:02 utc | 14


And if you have a milkshake and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw, that reaches all the way, are you watching, to your milkshake, I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE! I DRINK IT UP!!

Posted by: chipnik | Dec 8 2016 20:03 utc | 15

b - thanks for the overview here... he is lying and that is obvious.. where to go from here is an open question.

to the whiners on this thread, give it up!! it is a legitimate beef that some of you would like to ignore and go so far as to aggravate the host further.. what fucking assholes some of you are..

Posted by: james | Dec 8 2016 20:05 utc | 16

This is what is important....for the love of all this sacred move on please.

Posted by: sean | Dec 8 2016 20:06 utc | 17

Having been the victim of intellectual property theft some years ago, I can certainly sympathize. That part of me says to go after the bastards.

There's another part of me that recognizes the common cause we all share and hate to see dissent.

That being said, €200 ain't bad for essentially a copy and paste job. Why would RT want to pay a hack schlub when it could have the original source?

If you ask me, RT is being stupid and shortsighted.

Posted by: woogs | Dec 8 2016 20:21 utc | 18

b is totally right to reject this bozo's offer.

It is disappointing to see MoA readers urging b to, essentially, "go along to get along" with media jerks similar to those that we criticize at MoA all the time. And b's stand is not any less righteous because he hasn't exhausted other ways of making money (via ads or reader donations).

I doubt very much that b is looking to maximize his income. With his talents, he could do that easily by ending the blog and devoting himself to commercial pursuits.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 8 2016 20:50 utc | 19

Nice to see this problem show which readers actually have Principles.

RT's deplorable behavior will cause it loss of credibility when it needs to be building it up and loss of viewership. If RT fails to do the right thing, it will lose me and those of my household.

Posted by: karlof1 | Dec 8 2016 21:01 utc | 20

b, while I regret that this conflict escalated that much, I feel you should chill down a bit. Maybe Mr. Rupp should admit bit more fault that he actually does, maybe his feeling is indeed that he was only "influenced". Yet, I do not understand at all what you want to tell with your reasoning about the German word "Kante" using an online Duden dictionary.

Kante means, among other meanings, the limitation of a plane, or the line formed by planes bordering to one another. So Mr. Rupp's wording is clearly proper German, and not necessarily stemming from an automatic translator. For describing the outer limitation of something, it is absolutely appropriate to use that kind of wording, and it is no more proof of plagiarism than presented already.

I deem it perfectly possible that Mr. Rupp was not aware about stealing content, yet I think that he had better apologized, and you not published a letter which was explicitly not provided for publication (I fail to see consent by Mr. Rupp to do so). Such publication without consent is considered a legal offense no less than copyright violation, at least in Germany.

Posted by: aquadraht | Dec 8 2016 21:03 utc | 21

If b lives in the US, I can understand why he wants to save his a...
The Alternet article he links to about the ppl behind propornot does not let anyone augurate for an easy future

Posted by: Mina | Dec 8 2016 21:07 utc | 22

>Posted by: woogs | Dec 8, 2016 3:21:37 PM | 18

If you ask me, RT is being stupid and shortsighted.

What is their fault and what you want them to do?
Some freelancer put b text in his article and sell it to RT. They paid for it. They didn't steal anything from b and do not know him. What they must to do?

Posted by: zzz | Dec 8 2016 21:07 utc | 23


It isn't about money - I didn't ask for money in my first contacting Rodionov. I asked for a note that the piece was based (solely) on mine and a link back. I asked for decency.
That has been rejected. Instead I have been told, more or less, to fuck off.
Sorry, THAT is an INSULT and now you will have to pay.

That insult was doubled today.
First that dumb plagiarist claiming he did not plagiate me at all. How stupid does he think I and readers here are? It is all documented and easy to see.
Then him offering a bit of the money he gets for translating MY writing to German. WTF - I am German - I don't need to pay a translator - certainly not one who rips off my work.
Then Rodionov telling me to fuck off and sue RT even though he knows well that I can not afford the costs his company can afford.

Now I am pissed ....

But boy - there are methods to hurt RT Deutsch if need be. Not by force, not by legal nonsense, not by cyberattacks.

Warn other authors VERY LOUD AND PUBLICLY not to ever trust that shop?
Collect & publish stories from other authors who have been ripped by RT ?(Got two so far!)
Activate contacts with RT central to make some fire in Berlin?
Write a piece for the German tabloid Bild (those nazis hate RT) or some other German outlet on how RT rips off original authors? With all the documentation available here that should be quite easy. I am sure they would eat it up, PAY FOR IT and make a big show out of it.

I have always been generous with giving other sites no-cost rights to republish MoA - with links back and authorship mentioned.

But Rupp stole my content to make money. Caught he stupidly denies it. RT covers for him and denies me my rights.

Hey. Not with me! They think this small site/dude can not hurt them. They are wrong.

Posted by: b | Dec 8 2016 21:08 utc | 24


Rupp may have understood what Putin said in the same way that b understood it - but Rupp used b's words to explain it.

Posted by: Jackrabbit | Dec 8 2016 21:14 utc | 25

The gentleman clearly thought on similar lines as you, saw your article and thought why start from scratch. It's a €200 piece of hack journalism. It's daily news, Bernhard, not an immortal poem.

Rupp is cordially lying, offering to share the honorarium for what it's worth (not much) with you. The offer to collaborate on future projects has merit both for Rupp and yourself. You're too lazy and proud to run around the German blogosphere hawking your wares. Rupp has the contacts and could use an additional revenue stream which is in line with his own deep political convictions (more on that later).

Oliver K is right. You should have accepted the offer and moved the ball forward. You've been noticed now. It would be a pity to undo that good notice with prattish behaviour. Your Putin article was not among your finest work, nor particularly deeply researched. It was just a clever joke.

The life of freelance journalism at all but the highest reaches of Condé Nast is miserable. No one wants to pay you properly, your work has to be done at a speed to exclude proofreading or fact checking, your rent is late, you have to curry favour or there will be no work at all. On top of that most of the time you write anything interesting your editor will cut that section out for fear of libel or offending the publisher or losing his job after the State Department complains.

As you've heard in the comments last time, Rainer Rupp is a well known former spy who did much to preserve the balance of power during the cold war, possibly averting nuclear war. The poor fellow has ended up working as a hack journalist in rump Germany. Thank him for his service and be kind.

Posted by: Uncoy | Dec 8 2016 21:17 utc | 26

After reading this post, I think this freelancer Rainer Rupp sounds like an unprincipled sleazebucket twat and must bear watching. If his articles appear on other news websites and readers notice evidence of plagiarism (of other alt news blogs, not just Bernhard's MoA), then we need to notify the original writers that he is exploiting their work for profit and to tell websites like that they should not accept the work of plagiarists and must carry out proper checks on the people they hire.

I for one don't want the values and ethics of Western corporate "Craig Timberfake" mainstream media infiltrating sites like Ivan Rodionov should be running a much tighter ship with regards to accepting work from writers, ensuring that they do their own research and investigation, and insisting that they give proper credit to those sources they rely on and cite.

Just because RT Deutsch is owned (mostly or wholly) by the Russian government doesn't mean its values or charter have been approved by Moscow. In its day-to-day work, for all I know, RT Deutsch and its sister units in other countries may be operating in much the same way and according to similar principles as other Western news media outlets do whether they are privately owned or publicly funded.

Bernhard is right not to accept Rupp's offer of an honorarium split. I wouldn't even trust RR to split any monies 50/50. Suppose B did accept RR's offer, the result will be that B will end up wasting time and energy chasing RR for his rightful half-share of future income.

Posted by: Jen | Dec 8 2016 21:41 utc | 27

Sounds like the sort of arguments my daughters would engage in when they were young. Harden up precious and get back to doing what you do best.

Posted by: Peter AU | Dec 8 2016 21:41 utc | 28

Back in the days, when Pepe Escobar was writing regularly for the Asian Times, he often took some inspiration here and very often linked to here. That's how many people discovered MoA.

Posted by: Mina | Dec 8 2016 21:44 utc | 29

@ All who think it’s time for b to move on:

FFS. Disgusting. This b’s site and he has the right to air his angst that he is aggrieved of his property.

Hey, it ’s not about money. IMHO, an offer of 100,000 ounces of gold from RT Deutsch– (the only sound money) - would not heal the dishonesty of their managers and editors.

If I stole an item and sold it I am a thief and the purchaser an accomplice.

Have we on this blog, well reasoned commenters of intellect, thrown away “the principle of it” Credit where credit is due.

Morals be dammed. So dammed. Geeeesh

Posted by: likklemore | Dec 8 2016 21:55 utc | 30

After the fake-news journos who are actually Russian spies, meet the spy-cooks (only in Turkey)
at least they don't need fake news websites or the onion!

Posted by: Mina | Dec 8 2016 21:58 utc | 31

'b' careful about what you might decide to do. Obviously the RT 'management' was caught out and chose to be defensive in their response. What context they operated from is unknown but standing behind their reporter was the automatic reaction, likely done without fully investigating or considering all the facts. Once that was done, the Rubicon was crossed and retreat becomes out of the question, as you have reported. Let a night's sleep or so pass to consider your position, you might better appreciate taking a stand that does not burn bridges between yourself and RT Deutsch but clearly inform them of your displeasure of what has transpired and any future repeat will be handled in another fashion . Forget revenge, that will only eat your integrity for lunch and poison the future. RT Deutsch is in face save mode and cannot be enticed to behave otherwise; become Sun Tzu.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Dec 8 2016 22:02 utc | 32

Ivan Rodionov should be running a much tighter ship with regards to accepting work from writers, ensuring that they do their own research and investigation, and insisting that they give proper credit to those sources they rely on and cite.

But how it even possible for article in question?
There nothing to check or source for this "core of article". It just observation, not even unexpected. Aside from jokes every fifth or sixth comments at russian forums was about the same.

Posted by: zzz | Dec 8 2016 22:04 utc | 33

I am sure b has watched plenty of work, both his own and others, get lifted and tweaked enough to remove it from the original state to bother. And so, I think we can be certain that b has picked his battle well here.

It's a pretty sad state of affairs really, because establishment media is on the run. The WaPo's '200' publication was a very thinly veiled and desperate attempt to hang on to the old switches and levers of population control.

Old media is being challenged, and is self outlets like RT really don't need to do anything special to continue this trend, except to not fuck up. Which they are doing by getting sloppy and lazy here.

Seems to me that that b not looking to get on the RT payroll here but is merely delivering a swift kick to RT's testicular region, therby asking them to get their shit in order.

B will retain his cult following regardless, potentially dragging new, principled followers to his blog. In contrast, an ongoing argument with an otherwise supportive blogposter is a dead loss and messy, messy PR for RT.

... *** ... *** ...

Radio Free Europe was a U.S. backed entity primarily engaged with delivering what would be censored material to Soviet and Soviet influenced states from 1949.

With establishment media unwilling to clean it's act up, the establishment itself is now stepping in to attempt to hold the status quo. Digital blackout incoming for yank plebs. Some of you yanks in here are alright you know...been nice knowing you.

So then, in 2017, who will it be to 'Radio Free America'...' of the free...'?

US Congress Quietly Passes Bill Targeting “Russian Propaganda” Websites
On November 30, one week after the Washington Post launched its witch hunt against “Russian propaganda fake news”, with 390 votes for, the House quietly passed “H.R. 6393, Intelligence Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017“, sponsored by California Republican Devin Nunes (whose third largest donor in 2016 is Google parent Alphabet, Inc), a bill which deals with a number of intelligence-related issues, including Russian propaganda, or what the government calls propaganda, and hints at a potential crackdown on “offenders.”

Posted by: MadMax2 | Dec 8 2016 22:08 utc | 34

Good ideas inevitably get ripped off.

Posted by: paul | Dec 8 2016 22:11 utc | 35

Maybe Rainer Rupp is getting paid by both RT and ProPornOT and is kind of a double agent to act against "Russian weaponized propaganda information lies". There has been a lot of talk in the likes recently with regards to "the fake news", US Congress (or was it Senate) that passed some kind of legislation against Russian media, the European Parliament that passed a resolution against Russian media, ... .

Although RT is like the BBC with a blind spot for Russia, maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea if they could save there face somehow... like generously donating money to you (anonymously) and sacrificing plagiarizer Rainer Rupp.

Posted by: Mon | Dec 8 2016 22:19 utc | 36

something fishy in this thread

it seems that newcomers are the fastest at giving advice

I say: b go ahead doing what you think is right

no advice for you, just solidarity

Posted by: claudio | Dec 8 2016 22:28 utc | 37

This latest sojourn back at MoA is after an extended absense so I guess I should not be suprised that so few of the commenters on this thread have familiar handles (among those of the "Toughen up this the the real world b"), If I recognise none is that because I've been away so long or because, the commenters are RT astroturfers descending on a site they rarely frequent to defend their income stream? Who knows? only they do & if they are mercenary it is doubtful they are capable of feeling shame having lost that 'luxury' long ago.

So few of the comments in this thread reflect considering this from b.'s point of view - instead they offer the usual MSM garbage of "in the real world we.." That line much used by neoliberals to behave like assholes and then attempt to claim a faux high ground by calling it'pragmatism'.

I haven't met b. but over the years I have prolly formed a sometimes accurate view of what it must feel like to be b - spending your day trying to find a line between observed reality and the frustration that is brought about by knowing how the world is currently operating against the knowledge of how we can (and have on occasion) lived. Even when surrounded by friends and loved ones, that can be an isolating experience.

Not all the time sure but even among those who might agree, friends don't want to hear about how screwed up things are every day. But for b that isn't a choice, if he doesn't dig deep into the horrible, too frequently mundane cognitive dissonance between what we could be and what we actually are, there is no new topic for readers to mull and comment upon.

b. often hits a home run with his commentary and mostly it never goes beyond the bounds of MoA readers, which means that when it does circulate further he is entitled to a sense of gratification and a metaphorical pat on the back, not anonymity and bullshit from a parasite who has likely developed a murky moral code about others point of view from making a living cruising the net looking for works to steal and sell.

The thief's crude lies and self justification indicate a thick skin built up over many confrontations such as this, it is sickening yet another indication of how low we have all sunk, but it also indicates that b's reasonable outrage isn't this particular parasite's first rodeo.

What happens next is b's call only he knows whether he should pursue it further or not and attempts to pivot into irrelevancies such as whether b should waste time and energy cluttering his site up with ads for consumerist shit are not helpful - for a start I would be surprised if any regular wasn't running ad block and no script as a matter of course. Plus since the 'fake news' beat up the duopoly that controls net advertising, google & FB, are doing their usual of shitting on the small players while protecting the biggies by telling those with alleged 'contentious' points of view on their sites that they are too controversial and will now be 'de-monetised'.

If I was in b's shoes I wouldn't allow myself to be 'talked down' by the justifiers of the parasite, I would feel very tempted to take the blue to the next level - even if I knew there was a good chance of doing so would be self-destructive.

So why crank Bernard up more with bullshit? He's justifiably pissed - how about showing support for whatever call he makes - that is what friends do.

Posted by: Debsisdead | Dec 8 2016 22:29 utc | 38

b playing the Drama Queen?

Quote from MoA RT plagiarism piece I googled

"After a complain Moon of Alabama is now mentioned as a source for specifically one small sentence in the RT Deutsch piece. But the whole idea that is the main theme of the piece if based on the MoA piece. Core paragraphs are nearly verbal (translated) copies. Their original authorship is not in any way marked or mentioned."

I came up with this


in the year 2016 pieces published on www are searchable to/by source

Posted by: ALberto | Dec 8 2016 22:31 utc | 39

@claudio /debsisdead - exactly right.. the trolls are in overdrive here lambasting b for taking a principled stance.. shows you were they are at!

@alberto.. if you don't know how to post using the code provided, nothing you have to say or post amounts to much of anything and just highlights your ignorance..

hopefully, b will come and delete your link so the thread can return to normal.. i am not reading anymore of your posts..

Posted by: james | Dec 8 2016 22:45 utc | 40

I'm sorry to see this on page one. Maybe that's the problem with a blog, it only has page one. But it only has one writer, and one writer can follow just so many threads at one time.

This can easily consume you, destroy your ability to read, digest, analyse, and write about everything that is going in the real, unprincipled world outside the window.

This was a throw away article. There were/are much more important articles or yours stolen by others. Every one of them, probably, sold by some petty thief to some sleazy medium. These people ... thieves, plagiarists ... are part of the unprincipled world. They are like gnats, swarming annoyingly before your eyes. Guys 'with a job to do', like the unprincipled publisher of RT and his soul-brothers in the western TNC MSM, buy these knock-offs to glut the maws of their dueling disinformation organs. I've never been able to drive the gnats away, I've always had to leave their vicinity to get away from them.

I hope you will keep on doing what's brought us all here to read, enjoy, marvel at to begin with. Put this on page 33, and only devote that much of your time to it. It's not worth it.

It's your blog, your decision, you'll do what you want. I just don't want to deprive you of my free advice though, worth every penny you've paid for it ;)

Posted by: jfl | Dec 8 2016 22:47 utc | 41

#37 claudio

exactly my thoughts.
Intellectual property aside, the notion of "splitting the money" on something you just got for free is an insult, even if the guy perhaps didn't even notice.

Posted by: radiator | Dec 8 2016 22:48 utc | 42

#29 Mina--
Yes, Pepe Escobar in Asia Times was also my 1st link to MoA. I don't know how to weigh down on all of this.

Posted by: John Earls | Dec 8 2016 22:52 utc | 43

as another sidenote I wouldn't expect "Bild" to publish anything negative about RT if their cost would be to mention MoA. MoA is a far bigger threat to the orwellian mainstream propaganda bullshit than RT is. If anything, I'd expect RT and Bild to be on the same side here, both being more or less propaganda outlets. It says a lot about b's integrity (I guess so) that he's publishing this.

Posted by: radiator | Dec 8 2016 22:54 utc | 44

RT Deutsch is where old burnout spies go to die.

Posted by: stumpy | Dec 8 2016 23:22 utc | 45


A google search of your piece is proof that your intellectual property was appropriated without citation.

Check out FREE APA Citation Generator

APA generator is just a suggestion. Perhaps (b @MoA) at the end of the piece would accomplish the same purpose.

james @40 MoA is usually free of personal attacks. You cite no fact or source for your personal attack?

It is my experience that b frowns on personal attacks @ MoA

Posted by: ALberto | Dec 8 2016 23:24 utc | 46

Once upon a time (early 1990's),before the Murdoch corporation started consolidating all news content in a centralised location for onward dissemination to its multiple media outlets, independent authors were paid for their endeavours by all reputable news outlets. The going rate was anything up to $1 a word depending on the complexity of the work and the desirability of the publishing house to capture that particular content.

By consolidating content the Murdoch organisation effectively hoovered up any content from any source and used it at will (usually piecemeal with other content as part of a larger story) in most cases without proper authorisation or any payment. Any author spotting his content being used in this manner and complaining was quietly told to 'fuck off' and 'sue us if you don't like it'. This nefarious practice was then subsequently replicated by most of the other large media companies over time.

The result was that many independent authors were frozen out of the market at least until blogging and the internet came along.


Posted by: MARTIN | Dec 8 2016 23:38 utc | 47

@ 46

Yeah, I agree was well. I meant nothing by the quote at 13. The comment I was replying to about ideas made me remember the quote. As an artist I quote often, an homage, tho never copy. Which gets to the rub of the issue. It's one thing to quote and make your own work but quite another to copy. That would be one-sided and not enriching to the idea.

Posted by: ~f | Dec 9 2016 0:07 utc | 48

ALberto@39 - The long link you posted unintentionally messed up the formatting of this page.
The Google link contains "+" characters, which are interpreted as non-breaking characters -
b's site software will not automatically split the link and attempts to place the entire
string of characters on one line.

B's article and all the replies are unreadable as they scroll past the right edge of the screen.
(Mina: your link is the second longest and will break formatting as well)

Please repost your reply and ask B to delete @39 so we can read the article & replies.
This is the shortened form of your link: Google MoA search

Posted by: PavewayIV | Dec 9 2016 0:41 utc | 49

I'd really like to read this, but since the text runs about eight inches off each side of my monitor, it's not really possible. Can't this be fixed?

Posted by: AntiSpin | Dec 9 2016 0:59 utc | 50

Alberto @ 39

You are an ass? keep your links to yourself. Do you have two functioning brain cells? Fuck-off.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Dec 9 2016 1:22 utc | 51

Need one of those James Bond "You've got Russians eyes" surfer rifts playing in the background.

Posted by: ~f | Dec 9 2016 1:34 utc | 52


If I had a nickel ($50 today) for every IPR of mine that got ripped off, I'd have been able to retire,
that's from clients with contracts. Once they get their hands on the digital product, then it's FOAD.

Even when I get a wage-pittance for developing IPR, the managers take all the credit, cut the ribbons,
go to the after-party's, and I don't even get a notice, I'm busy working until 10PM on their next IPR.

As a psychological self-survival tool, my non-nonsense mentor gave me this piece of self-appraisal:
"The world is full of A-students working for C-students, and all are praying they'll be able to retire."

Then it's incumbent on indie IPR creators to sell advertising space. Sell off that right sidebar!!

Posted by: chipnik | Dec 9 2016 1:36 utc | 53


I remember those days! We got paid really good as web masters during the 1980s.
Today, Hindus are doing the journalism, in English, overnight, from Hyderabad,
for $500 a month, and there are 1,000,000 more waiting in line for $495 a month.

It's a Gigacene Epoch. Anyone sobbing over lost IPR is already rear-view mirror.
The model today (has always been) build readership, then sell ad space like hell.

Posted by: chipnik | Dec 9 2016 1:46 utc | 54

Zerohedge has a post that might be of interest:

A quick perusal provides a number of pearls to contemplate concerning 'fake news' and propaganda shills.

Please delete my #50 above. Alberto isn't worth the candle (or the time to edit oneself).

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Dec 9 2016 1:51 utc | 55

Debs is right.
As an aside, while both Leibniz and Newton came up with differential calculus, their approaches were very different. That's evident even today, through the distinct notations for the derivative: dy/dx (Leibniz) vs f' (Newton)

Posted by: s | Dec 9 2016 1:53 utc | 56

I want to say b that I respect the value that your contributions to our world are not about making money but need to be respected as intellectual property.

That says much good about who you are as a person in our dog-eat-dog world.

Thank you for your efforts.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 9 2016 2:02 utc | 57

Clearly you have been plagiarized and the correct thing for RT to do is to apologize and give proper credit. But now that they have refused to do this, you have to decide how much of your time and energy this matter deserves. That is a purely personal decision and your loyal readers will still support you either way.

Posted by: Lysander | Dec 9 2016 2:07 utc | 58


Has it ever occurred to you that some people don't give a fuck about "the model today - has always been". They also have a distaste for selling advertising.

They just like to research, analyse and write. If they are doing that for free, WTF are you doing on this site!

Posted by: MARTIN | Dec 9 2016 2:48 utc | 59

@23 zzz quote "What is their fault and what you want them to do?
Some freelancer put b text in his article and sell it to RT. They paid for it.
They didn't steal anything from b and do not know him. What they must to do?"

if RT deutsch had a shred of credibility, they would terminate any future relationship with "Rainer Rupp"
and tell him he has a choice -> return the 400 euros, or go to court with RT over stealing others work..
that is what an honourable company would do, led by an honest person.. in this case, Ivan Rodionov seems
to be as big of a dipshit as the theft would stole b's work.. the fact 'Rainer Rupp" is such a lousy liar
doesn't help him any other.

RT deutsch must have answer to RT headquarters on some level.. this Ivan Rodionov shows how he is not fit
to run RT deutsch and needs someone better able to serve RTs interest, as opposed to his and 'Rupp's'.

glad to hear it ain't over and b plans on taking it to the next level.

Posted by: james | Dec 9 2016 2:50 utc | 60

I can't believe they couldn't offer a token apology at the very least. The calculus part was especially cringe inducing. One would think that RT would perfer to get out ahead of this asap after being accused of plagiarism. You have to know responding in such a way isn't going to be appreciated by the accuser. I'd think by now corporate news of any ilk would be well versed in PR basics. This response is so...unprofessional.

Posted by: FecklessLeft | Dec 9 2016 3:01 utc | 61

Can one think of a better way to divide and master than to get two alternative news sites going at each other.
It would seem much of what MoA presents is exactly in RT's editorial interest, and the reverse.
Superficially, it appears the management at RT Deutsch may not have great experience in that capacity and be prone to judgmental error as reported.
Once a position is taken, many times it becomes impossible to withdraw and reconsider; preservation of face ranks high in self-preservation,
only disciplined experience oriented towards greater purpose can offset or overcome that process.
How convenient for the purveyors of false information that MoA and RT have been incited into disregard for each other when natural allies would have been expected.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Dec 9 2016 3:45 utc | 62

Not knowing the difference between "border" and "borders" and not knowing the difference between Euclidean geometry and non-euclidean two dimensional geometry b should be ashamed for every reference to that "bit of additional entertainment".

Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 9 2016 3:57 utc | 63

As a retired IP lawyer I’d offer a 7 step program for deciding how to deal with this:

Step 1. Take a couple deep breaths.

Step 2. Check the balances in your bank accounts.

Step 3. Find a way to format your blog so these comments don’t go trailing 3 feet off the right end of the screen ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Step 4. Check the exact wording again to be sure you’re dealing with a clean cut/copy job. There is no plagiarism or copyright violation if someone repeats your general idea in their own words.

Step 5. Go back and review the “circumference post” that is at the bottom of all of this. Read the comments, too. Ask yourself if you want to be making a public stink over this particular post. And the reason I say it is that it wasn’t exactly your brightest effort. It was actually a bit daft as a number of us regular readers commented at the time.

Step 6. Remember this adage when it comes to litigation: The process is the punishment. And the reason I say it is that if you keep fucking with these guys, you may be the one that ends up getting sued. RT could easily, just for fun, drop $50,000 to sue you for defamation or some other charge just to drag you through 10 miles of shit. Even if they were to lose such a case, you would be the real loser for having to spend $75,000 to defend yourself.

Step 7. Repeat step 2.

Posted by: IpsoFacto | Dec 9 2016 4:02 utc | 64

b @ 24

All strength and best wishes to you, Bernard.

To 'tug the forelock' and bow before his 'Lordship', as a 'Zero(0)', is to die a little death. Stand tall.

A coward dies a thousand times before his death, but the valiant taste of death but once.
- William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar

Posted by: Outraged | Dec 9 2016 4:30 utc | 66

Deleuze understood that “because of money [human] speech, [language] is rotten to the core..
it is impossible to capture human meaning through speech”

By getting into the news b entered news "business", a den of hyenas, cesspool of opportunists, careerists, propagandists
who will stop at nothing to pursue their lust for money and fame over dead bodies of any honest dreamers who think that
they could change the world but in fact they are discarded or turn into nothing but "righteous" influence peddlers
for those who sign their paychecks. And that applies to western MSM, independent media as well as state sponsored media such as
BBC,RT,RAI,TVP,ZDF and others as well as Russian speaking channels like Rossia etc.,

Those who entered this "news" rat race must produce and they do produce, a fake news, stolen news, forged news, propaganda news, pseudo-news
plagiarized news or sometimes real news if it could be sold. No matter, what they ass will be covered as long as eye balls or clicks are there.

One way or another what b is doing and thousands of independent bloggers are doing is to battle for decency and a minimum decency
is to give credit due to those who made effort to bring the news or
analysis to wider audience to let them judge for themselves its credibility and how it resonate with their own personal analog experiences.

When money or ego steps in, everything of value is lost.

Posted by: Kalen | Dec 9 2016 4:32 utc | 67

Dear b.

Completely lost my longer first post and can hardly make this stupid expanded version work, so I'll try and summarize...

While I sincerely respect your principled objections regards acknowledgements and copyright laws, I respectfully ask that you just let it go now, and gracefully forgive any transgressions while never forgetting, as how we all have much bigger fish to fry and being as how we can't afford being divided while a war against "alternative Media' is being waged against us all under the banner of "fake news" and censorship now and no thanks to Obama's latest announcements about arming Syrian "moderate rebels" again, we now face a thermonuclear war stand off with Russia at any moment.

Posted by: RayB

Posted by: RayB | Dec 9 2016 4:53 utc | 68

President Obama’s decision could lead to an almost immediate escalation of the conflict and basically put the US in a situation of “waging a proxy war against the Russians and Syrians,” a former Pentagon official, Michael Maloof, told RT.

“The rebels, whom we cannot identify, are going to be getting some very sophisticated weapons. Potentially, I should say, man-portable air defense systems, which can knock down Russian and Syrian aircraft,” Maloof said. “And the fact too, that we have stocks already in Europe, that can easily be transferred with this waiver. Under the waiver, it’s supposed to be a 15-day notification to Congress, but Congress, as of tonight, Washington time, is going to be out of session until January. So these arms can go within hours.”

Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 9 2016 5:08 utc | 69

All this hooha just might bring more readers, imo. Did moa make the Washington post fake news list?

Posted by: Shadyl | Dec 9 2016 5:13 utc | 70

Berthold Brecht's "Capitalism is gamgsterism" seems relevant to the subject.

Fraud is an embedded product of the system. Thus Diogenes' "Searching for an honest man".

Posted by: chu teh | Dec 9 2016 5:27 utc | 71

it's regrettable.It would be even more regrettable if you let yourself get suckered into this. It's a psyop on you. snap out of it.

Posted by: Shh | Dec 9 2016 5:27 utc | 72

Oops! That should be Brecht's "Capitalism is gangsterism misspelled.

Posted by: chu teh | Dec 9 2016 5:29 utc | 73

Thanks "Hague" @ 69

You've just confirmed my very worst fears, that insane Nobel Peace Prize Obama is determined to go out of office having starting world war three in lieu of his substitute henchman/woman Hillary taking over his reigns. What the fuck is going on in the Globalist empire "deep state" and just before Trump takes power in January. to make sure that a nuclear war happens before that?

Posted by: RayB | Dec 9 2016 5:42 utc | 74

Plagiarism? For fucks sake. It's a blog. It's the internet.

Seriously, B, you got to be effin' kidding.

Posted by: DM | Dec 9 2016 7:30 utc | 75

Unfortunately, not having written anything of note throughout your whole life - you just don't get it. lol

Posted by: MARTIN | Dec 9 2016 8:00 utc | 76

This posting about IP theft is bring out lots of either lurking readers or trolls.

Given the disrespect they are showing for your efforts with their comments I would vote for the trolls label.

Good for you having a value that says life is not all about making money off pawning your readerships' eyeballs.

Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 9 2016 8:04 utc | 77


seriously, this idea that "it's a blog - it's the internet" somehow reduces serious research and commentary to the 'no value' category cannot be allowed to stand. DM is a product of Murdochworld where everybody's content is Murdoch's content and Murdoch's content sits behind a paywall on most of his sites.

Posted by: MARTIN | Dec 9 2016 8:10 utc | 78

it's a bog standard business model in media that allows large corporations to steal your intellectual property.

Posted by: MARTIN | Dec 9 2016 8:20 utc | 79

One last time, simply what's the real issue here, intellectual property and copyright's or the spread of factual information in an effort to avert more death and destruction and the outbreak of world war three?

Posted by: RayB | Dec 9 2016 8:44 utc | 80

Listen not to the psychoceramic @ 77

Before all else, find the item as it originally appeared on RT On Air.
IIRC it was reported there first.
Make double sure it isn't YOU who is plagiarising by inadvertence.
Have someone you trust double check AND a legally trained acquaintance as well.
Once you declare legal war, it becomes quite difficult both to extract yourself,
or fund the consequences should fact become adverse.
Pride can become nearly as expensive as divorce if you are not careful.
You will find your best friends will TELL YOU NO! DON'T! looking toward your real interests
and those willing to see you overcome with difficulties will encourage you without cease.

Posted by: Formerly T-Bear | Dec 9 2016 8:50 utc | 81

stick to your guns b, you are right. and how hilarious je offered to translate your work and share the profit! as if you are not a native speaker. RT should run a retraction or mention this ois a report about your work. it's easy enough to quote another publication, as you demonstrate so ofter and so easily. the idea he read your article and admits he may haver been influenced by it (gee ya thnk) is very telling. but ultimately not as telling as him reciting you verbatim. anyway, we know the truth and we know you are one if the moist precient viices

tbnks for all the work you do.

Posted by: annie | Dec 9 2016 9:12 utc | 83

sorry for the typos! didn't get a preview option.

Posted by: annie | Dec 9 2016 9:13 utc | 84

The plagiarizing issue with RT is likely to escalate

sounds like a prediction that's gonna cause itself to become true.

sic 'em.

Posted by: john | Dec 9 2016 11:31 utc | 86

Perhaps it is worthwhile to ponder a meta issue: the fiendish Russian threat to the Western Civilization formed by the hordes of Putin trolls and the fiendish web of websites that spew cunning propaganda.

The simple truth is that RT, the flagship of "Russian propaganda", is not that sophisticated. They can be sloppy, they systematically evade topics with no official position etc. They have their share of good pieces and programs, but in no way one can see a "hand of the mastermind" in what they do.

The "Western Civilization", or the sorry remnants of the dead Colonial empire that the western establishment Wishes to keep alive, is revolting to many citizens of the West, and this galaxy of websites that was compiled, sloppily, by ProPornoT, is indigenous Western reaction.

Most conspiracy theories assume some super intelligence guiding and controlling a myriad of independent individuals. And the Giant Russian Internet Plot is in this category.

Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 9 2016 12:12 utc | 87

Those of us commenting, debsisdead, are not trolls, nor even necessarily lurkers. Many of us are long time supporters who are either experienced journalists, web publishers, or IP lawyers. The article was a throw away. The total sum of the insight was a single geometric joke (geometry thank heavens was invented before IP rights). This is what happens in journalism. It's wrong but this is not the best test case. Rainer Rupp is (was) an admirer and has offered to make amends. b's frustration with IP theft has found the wrong and trivial target.

FYI, one quarter to one third of is stolen from the, stories appearing six to thirty six hours after they appear on the Daily Mail site. Probably the time to fact check the stories as not out and out untruths (many of those run on In turn, most of the stories on Daily Mail are stolen from other media outlets when they aren't made up. Daily Mail does have the merit of independence on the Brexit issue (ironically Mail on Sunday's editor is a hardcore remainer) and a willingness to print unflattering pictures and truths about establishment politicians.

When I worked at ABC television, we took our marching orders either directly from the State Department or we copied storylines for television wholesale from NYT (who had even more direct contact with Washington). When we weren't creating politically correct propaganda, we'd just copy what the other guys were doing. RT is also mass media. Those are the rules (or lack thereof). This outrage is tilting at windmills. I've never thought of b as a Don Quixote figure until now.

Alberto shows little education or consideration in dropping naked links into this site. But it can be fixed easily enough.

b, if you put this bit of code into your CSS, no one will be able to (easily) vandalise the comment section. I've wanted to send it to you via email for many months but rejects my main email address. Sorry. Here it is now for the world (hopefully it will make it through the Typepad filters, I'll do my best).

#content {max-width: 720px !important;}

In the meantime until B adds that code to his Typepad CSS file, those of you using Chromium or Firefox can add the above as a style in the Stylish extension and you won't have to deal with a broken comment sections, when the vulgar or ignorant post.

Posted by: Uncoy | Dec 9 2016 12:13 utc | 88

The way I see it, an injustice has been done to b by RT (secondary) and Mr. Rupp (primary). Theft of intellectual property is theft, so a fence and a thief.
RT's reaction is to hide behind their lawyers. kind of a knee jerk reaction for any corporation. Not what President Putin would have done, judging by the way he conducts his yearly Q&A sessions. I get the impression that when its the small man against the big inefficient and corrupt government or corporation, he would investigate the charge and there would be a price to pay for the government agencies or the corporation if true. Can I say b is the small man and RT is the inefficient corporation here? Might be better to talk to RT's paymaster than RT. Even RT need to get their butts kicked every now and then. With M of A's published records, hopefully u get a sympathetic hearing.
As for Mr. Rupp, I doubt u will get any kind of apology. He is trapped. and if he relies on publication as his livelihood, then its a matter of ruining his livelihood and he will fight.
So what would you do? I don't really know. The thief stole something from you and fenced it. An injustice has been done and you can either pursue justice or you can forgive. Nothing wrong with doing either. Seems that the thief is on our side of the fence so to speak. Can you work with a thief? Can you help the thief? Lots of questions only you can answer. I have been a mostly silent reader of your site, and know your integrity and truthfulness. Whatever you do, I am on your side, justice or compassion.

Posted by: termite | Dec 9 2016 12:21 utc | 89

Go ahead, all my support goes to independent news outlets against big mainstream media be it RT. Don't give up on this case.

Posted by: Conglomera | Dec 9 2016 12:33 utc | 90

Having read Mr Rupp's explanation for using b's Putin Geometry piece
as an excuse to hone his transcription skills, I'm inclined to think
"Nice try, Mr Rupp."

On the other hand it's a bit pathetic to hide behind the principle
of non-unique 'discovery' of an event to avoid explaining why he was too
busy/ lazy/ unimaginative to write his own version. There's at least a
hundred different ways to tell ANY story and, by knocking off b's version,
Mr Rupp and RT have tacitly admitted that b's version was superior to
any version which RT (and Mr Rupp) could imagine.

Imagine: Form a mental image or concept of...

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 9 2016 13:12 utc | 91

Paveway IV @49

Yes. I see my error and will avoid posting large search results again. My bad.

The point I was attempting to make is the fact that b's intellectual property survives on the www and therefore results of a search can be used as evidence of b being plagiarized by RT.

Thanks for correcting my error.

Posted by: ALberto | Dec 9 2016 16:42 utc | 92

trying to understand your sentence... so once installed the add-on "stylish", what should i do??
i am offered the possibility to 'create a new style... for MoA'.. should i go there? there is a windows with 'name: ...' -> should i paste your bit a code here?

Posted by: Mina | Dec 9 2016 18:51 utc | 93

Rupp shows lack of common courtesy. b is upset probably because of this. I totally can see why. Rupp in his own words shows he
is not as principled. In my view, snake in the grass type. On the other hand b this stress is not worth your wellbeing.
Is it not really a compliment that your word or idea was used by another. Yes it is not right, but you have bigger fish to fry.

Posted by: Amend | Dec 9 2016 21:18 utc | 94

@95 amend... another way of looking at it is that it gives RT a bad name... do they want that? that is how i see it. i now has less respect for RT as a consequence.. now, they can tell b to f-off and etc, but it doesn't change the fact RT's reputation has now soured... for others who figured this out a long time ago - kudos to you.. i still see RT as an alternative to what i have come to see as bs 24/7 by the western msm.. RT can do better here and the first step would be to dispose of this jackass rupp...

Posted by: james | Dec 9 2016 21:27 utc | 95

(IF they know you)

Posted by: From The Hague | Dec 8, 2016 2:07:38 PM | 4

I don't think b ever wrote for Putin, Trump or RT

he writes for us barflies, and we are grateful for this

you are extremely and unexpectedly rude

I can only suppose this is because you have a militaristic vision of politics, whereby people can only decide which power to support, and must not get in the way

Posted by: claudio | Dec 9 2016 22:19 utc | 96

Mina, thanks for your questions.

i am offered the possibility to 'create a new style... for MoA'.. should i go there? there is a windows with 'name: ...' -> should i paste your bit a code here?

Yes and yes. You have to create a new style for and then past my bit of code there.

Let us know how you get on.

Posted by: Uncoy | Dec 9 2016 23:15 utc | 97

claudio, agree entirely

b is correct to make objection, to the insult delivered

b has proven his exemplarity over many long years, in which i have been both participant & reader

as is obvious, to a simple reader, b's rigour is singular, respect it

Posted by: rememembereringgiap | Dec 9 2016 23:19 utc | 98

@ 99

rememembereringgiap ?

Posted by: Outraged | Dec 9 2016 23:57 utc | 99

outraged, i hope all is well with you & & other old camarades here

the disrespect by some of thesposters is beyond belief, knowing what intellectual energy b has expended for so many years, since before the immoral & illegal invasion of iraq

Posted by: rememembereringgiap | Dec 10 2016 1:09 utc | 100

next page »

The comments to this entry are closed.