TheBold vs KeithOz3 May 2024 21:13
Keith,
Re your "Big Scoop" on TheBold.
I wasn't going to bother commenting, but since you have semi rejected an olive branch with further stern words, here is my take on your accusations.
You say that:
"TheBold claims to know more about drilling and rigless testing than anyone else on this board, and more than Lonny & Moyra....".
Yet I haven't encountered any such statement?
Having established a false context, you proceed to accuse him of plagiarism, referencing a particular post from March at 15:14.
I took a look at the post you mention, then the wider thread for proper context. There is no attempt to plagiarise whatsoever.
The text is delivered in the form of technical writing, a style impossible to mistake for his own, forming the second part of two post, necessary to navigate LSEs character limit, the first of which still contains the numbered annotations for reference from the original article.
There is no attempt to disguise this and so pass the text off as his own.
You reference a second post from 16:24, which you seem to feel supports your argument. It does not.
The 16:24 post is a question, born of ignorance. There is a post at 14:56 which similarly belies a lack of certainty on the same subject.
Bookending a piece of technical writing with questions, which the author of the primary text would clearly know the answer to, is not the action of a plagiarist.
With specific reference to the post at 16:14 and 16:11 you go on to say:
"You have just copied direct from Petrowiki, changing a few words here and there to make it look like your own work."
Yet the text is present in its entirety, no words have been removed, no attempt has been made to disguise its source, nor adjustments made to alter its style in order to claim ownership.
Over the twin post, spanning around 4000 characters, the only embellishment of any kind is the addition of a mere two words, "sand" and "jet", inserted simply to clarify a point, certainly nothing matching your description of modification with intent to deceive.
Imo it is your own post that seeks to deceive, fueled by an obvious displeasure at being challenged over the likely timing of various Ops events.