muckrights-sans-merde
bonum fabula frat
### clarification-regarding-earlier-today
other pages:
=> yep-that-was-me.html yep-that-was-me
=> waiting-for-roy-to-scooby-doo-free-hardware.html waiting-for-roy-to-scooby-doo-free-hardware
=> the-second-biggest-lie-at-muckrights.html the-second-biggest-lie-at-muckrights
*originally posted:* sep 2021
```
Mon 11:00:48 │ 〖schestowitz〗 │ gm, activelow
Mon 11:00:52 │ 〖schestowitz〗 │ what are those codes?
Mon 11:06:49 │ 〖activelow〗 │ good morning
Mon 11:07:33 │ 〖activelow〗 │ was queried by someone accusing you of plagiarism and wanted to let you know to feel free to publish anything you desire with inspirations of mine
```
its understandable that activelow is missing the point here, but he is.
> Mon 11:08:35 │ 〖activelow〗 │ schestowitz: when citing please do so correctly, otherwise i got no problem with this
the problem was that he took an entire article, rewrote it and provided no attribution.
> Mon 11:09:18 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ did we copy-paste something large?
no, you rewrote it. since you claim to have a phd, you know that even if you rewrite an article, you should provide attribution. in fact the license requires it, but this is about integrity and not copyright. people are already free to rewrite my articles.
the article in question was licensed by-sa and requires attribution for derivative works.
the fact that im pretty casual about this in general has not changed. i would have chosen cc0 for that article EXCEPT that its from a website where by-sa is used specifically so there is additional reason to mock roys bullshit when he violates the license.
again, this is about honesty and the copyright issue is (perhaps) skirtable through roys treatment (laundering) of the material.
i gave activelow both the original and a link to the material on muckrights, which was ripped off in march of this year.
> Mon 11:09:31 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ I saw someone using bad words last night and could not make sense of it
you are such a sad and pathetic liar. you yourself have criticised people for dismissing stallman based on nothing more than the "f word", and you are completely full of shit.
> Mon 11:10:32 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ is the query is encrypted, my irc client does not support it
rofl...
```
Mon 11:10:39 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ it's like a long garbled hash
Mon 11:12:14 │ 〖activelow〗 │ nothing relevant
Mon 11:12:52 │ 〖activelow〗 │ if you want i can post the website url here which accused you of plagiarism and misrepresenting facts, but i do not feel any drama over this is worth any effort
```
wait a couple years, you may feel differently after seeing what roy does to your work.
```
Mon 11:16:47 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ Oh, now I know who that is
Mon 11:16:50 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ and what's going on
```
no you dont.
```
Mon 11:17:26 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ he wrote the wiki pages
Mon 11:17:34 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ and don't like me linking to them???
```
no, i dont like you lying about them and pretending:
* that you had anything to do with them (you didnt)-- this "we" stuff is bullshit, and im not the only former contributor who called you out on it:
> When I wrote my paper, I made sure to clearly signal ALL the Muckrights links at the very start. This made it obvious where I found out about the story from.
> Alongside the Muckrights links was the EWWFS link. I wanted to acknowledge EWWFS as inspiration for the paper.
> How do I get repaid for this? Muckrights announced my paper in the most misleading way I can think of. Instead of clearly linking to the PDF at the start of their derivative works, Ron just shoved the PDF link in the most obscure place I can think of. This is the kind of integrity and treatment I got from Muckrights, after how much respect I gave it as a source in my paper.
as it happens, that is also regarding the time that the website roy pretends not to know about was censored, by roy.
* he also insinuated that it (the wiki post) refutes what activelow was saying. your take on it (which not for the first time, you pretended my research was "ours" and used that to try to make a point that it DOES NOT MAKE) is bullshit and does not have anything to do with what you said it did:
> Sun 17:38:30 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ we covered it
no you didnt.
```
Sun 17:38:32 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ and d lang
Sun 17:38:51 │ 〖schestowitz〗 │ http://techrights.org/wiki/Github-free
```
no, that was not you.
> Mon 11:19:10 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ he lurks in IRC then...
as it happens, i do not. i would be happy to let you think otherwise, but it will not fool any competent administrator. if you actually self-hosted like you claim to, i would just say "oh sure, yes, im there right now..." but since your administrator IS competent, i wont bother teasing you like that. i am basically never in your irc. not lurking, not in pm, not on the server. but you really dont have to take my word for it.
> Mon 11:29:49 │ 〖activelow〗 │ the nickname disconnected from techrights irc already, couldn't respond anymore
it is already clear there was nothing else to discuss.
> Mon 11:31:43 │ 〖activelow〗 │ again, feel free to publish (which doesn't require my consent anyway), and when citing please do so with honesty
no point, it wont be cited with honesty. that was the whole of the complaint. hes about to lie to you again:
> Mon 11:52:55 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ activelow: i did not even know about that site
this isnt the first time youve lied about that, and it probably wont be the last.
you censored a link to it in march-- it was not my doing. that link was from the article of another former contributor, and i did not put him up to it. i can also link to HIS complaints about your censorship and misattrbution, but i have already noticed that activelow is not concerned by this. he is free to trust you of course, even if that trust is misplaced.
> Mon 11:52:58 │ 〖schestowitz-TR〗 │ until now
and now the truth:
* as just mentioned, you personally censored a link to that website in march
* another chatter showed it to you months ago and its still in your own fucking logs
* you very clearly lifted an article from it the same month (the article itself was written in february)
* you insinuate that you co-wrote things from the wiki that you had no input on, for the purpose of discouraging others from doing research
* you mentioned the same website in april, in a video. at least one video, and possibly two
* and you even pretended i was coming back in march, which i did not do
i understand how your lying works. it works like heroin. you dont care enough to stop yourself from an od, you need to keep making the dose bigger and bigger to get the same high.
your lies are stacking up, there is still time, but you need to put muckrights in the hands of a non-liar NOW (i couldnt guess who, your best bet is probably mincer, lol-- no, i am quite serious) if you want to save it from your bullshit. you can do exactly what the guy from snopes is doing, and clean up your act, and lean on other people instead.
there are other highs, roy. you did the bodybuilding high, the compulsive lying high, you CLAIM to be a medical researcher and im sure you can find some other safe activity to produce dopamine.
at any rate, you should not count on this one. im not pretending to give a shit about you-- i DO NOT give a shit about you, at all. but what im saying is true just the same. you can get a "high" from conquering your own fucking pathological bullshit, and then pick up your "advocacy" as a REAL THING, not some bullshit like it was before. consider this in the likeness of a plea to davros.
all of this excludes the epo stuff. i find it boring as fuck, but i have no evidence that its also bullshit. its too boring to debunk, and im not interested in helping the epo or any of the miserable farces connected to it.
=> https://muckrights-sans-merde.neocities.org