1. DovBear has linked to a post by Renegade Rebbetzin, which reports on a review she did of DovBear's blog using a plagiarism detection website called copyscape, which showed only a few other instances of plagiarism not detected by me. She concludes by giving DovBear her "Seal of Approval." DovBear's post read as follows:
The most respected name in Jewish-blogging has checked my blog for further instances of plagiarism. Her results can be found here.The implication is that Renegade Rebbetzin's integrity is so great that her "Stamp of Approval" is, to quote the title of DovBear's post, the "Epilogue" to the DovBear plagiarism revelations.
I was perfectly content with the way DovBear apologized and corrected his previous posts and had no plans to re-emerge. But this attempt to procure this supposed "clean bill of health" is laughable. No offense to Renegade Rebbetzin, but while she may or may not be "the most respected name in Jewish-blogging," she is by no means impartial when it comes to DovBear. As anyone who has been reading either blog for any period of time knows, DovBear and Renegade Rebbetzin have a rather longstanding, warm relationship. In fact, Renegade Rebbetzin has referred to DovBear (or "Dovie," as Renegade Rebbetzin calls him) at least 46 times!!! Some might call her fixation on DovBear a bit odd. Either way, she should by no means be serving in judgment of DovBear.
Second, this "Seal of Approval" comes more than two weeks after the revelations were first made. I don't know if DovBear changed any posts prior to Renegade Rebbetzin's review, but her "Seal of Approval" is no proof that he didn't.
Third, the review in question does not prove that DovBear's website is clear of plagiarism other than the instances identified by me and in Renegade Rebbetzin's post. All it shows is a lack of plagiarism from online sources. As the resource used by Renegade Rebbetzin makes clear, it is only designed to identify plagiarism of online content. For all we know, DovBear's site could be full of plagiarism from non-Web based material. I don't know this to be the case, but it cannot be ruled out based on Renegade Rebbetzin's review.
2. This post makes my blood boil. He concludes:
But Renegade Rebbetzin's findings also point to another possibility. The anonymous blogger who outed DB, the so-called DovWeasel, appears to have miraculously found the only instances of plagiarism in over 3000 posts. He claims to have done so in two hours of looking. How could that be true unless he used plagiarism software to find them? I believe he did or was fed the information by someone else who did. That would make his claim that the 12 (or 14) cases found were the "tip of the iceberg" false and intentionally misleading. Worse than that, when combined with how DB was outed, it points to a hit, an organized attempt to destroy DB. That indeed is what I believe happened.The logic of this post is so twisted and full of holes, but I guess I can't expect more from this guy. First, for the umpteenth time, I did not use any special plagiarism software. All I did is review DovBear's archives and selectively copied and pasted text into Google from posts that used good spelling and were too formal and well-constructed as compared to DovBear's usual output. This wasn't too difficult. I skipped posts that included phrases like "Still, the announcment put into my head an impertanent question," or "These are ordinary kids, then, ordinary kids, the sort of kids who flourish when given love and patiance and understanding." I had a feeling that those egregious cases of bad spelling and horrific usage somehow didn't make it past the rigorous copy editing that separates DovBear from TNR and Slate. The entire checking process took a couple of hours. In any event, Renegade Rebbetzin's identification of additional instances of plagiarism proves that I did not use any special tools. If I did use special software, wouldn't I have found those examples as well?
Second, when did I say that "the 12 (or 14) cases found were the 'tip of the iceberg'"? Never. Maybe Robert Avrech did, but I am not Robert Avrech. I have suggested that we don't know whether there are other cases, but that's a very different claim than the one Failed Messiah says I made.
Failed Messiah's final point is that the "tip of the iceberg" claim (which I never made) "when combined with how DB was outed" (DovBear was outed?) "points to a hit, an organized attempt to destroy DB." I don't understand this statement. Suppose I did use plagiarism software. How does that show this was "a hit, an organized attempt to destroy DB" any more than if I had spent hours and hours going through the site post by post with Google?