Interpreter Drops a Thanksgiving Bomb on Kofford Books

[Res Ipsa]

And there are many examples where it seems pretty clear that Bradshaw was copying block quotations from MI. For example, here are two block quotes from MI that Bradshaw seemed to take from MI (right) to use in his book (left). While MI uses them in the main text, and Bradshaw includes them in endnotes, the immediately sequential use of identical block quotes seems to indicate quite clearly that he was lifting them and the research from MI.



Coincidentally(?), DCP did something similar several years ago when he copied a block quote and the introductory text from something I had written for his own FAIR conference paper. (Wherein he also other quotes to me that were by others.)
More on that here: https://loydo38.blogspot.com/2012/08/an ... erson.html

Holy cow! That was quite the blog post. What Peterson did to you was inexcusable and his attempt to gaslight you was cringeworthy.

[Dr. Shades]

At least Bradshaw managed to prove that producing a 500-page book in only several months does not require the gift and power of God.

Indeed he did. See my signature line, below.

[Marcus]

Would you mind posting the text for footnotes 609, 610, 611 and 612 in Bradshaw’s text?

I know that’s a lot to ask, thank you in advance if you have time to do it.

Thank you! It's pretty clear Bradshaw not only didn't put what he took from MI inside quotes, he didn't include the quotation marks and footnoted attribution that were inside the MI quote he mis-used. That's such blatant plagiarism.

And I recall reading your blog entry about Peterson's mis-use of your work. I'm sorry that happened. His attempts to publicly shame people by picking out bits to change meanings are despicable, and when he combines it with plagiarism, even more inexcusable.

[consiglieri]

At least Bradshaw managed to prove that producing a 500-page book in only several months does not require the gift and power of God.

Indeed he did. See my signature line, below.

Too good not to have been observed before.

I yield.

[consiglieri]

Thank you! It's pretty clear Bradshaw not only didn't put what he took from MI inside quotes, he didn't include the quotation marks and footnoted attribution that were inside the MI quote he mis-used. That's such blatant plagiarism.

And I recall reading your blog entry about Peterson's mis-use of your work. I'm sorry that happened. His attempts to publicly shame people by picking out bits to change meanings are despicable, and when he combines it with plagiarism, even more inexcusable.

I guess these things will happen when you’re rushing a book to meet a deadline…

[Marcus]

Thank you! It's pretty clear Bradshaw not only didn't put what he took from MI inside quotes, he didn't include the quotation marks and footnoted attribution that were inside the MI quote he mis-used. That's such blatant plagiarism.

And I recall reading your blog entry about Peterson's mis-use of your work. I'm sorry that happened. His attempts to publicly shame people by picking out bits to change meanings are despicable, and when he combines it with plagiarism, even more inexcusable.

I guess these things will happen when you’re rushing a book to meet a deadline…

With the added benefit that it can be blamed on the Interpreter's superlative peer review!

[Philo Sofee]

I guess these things will happen when you’re rushing a book to meet a deadline…

With the added benefit that it can be blamed on the Interpreter's superlative peer review!

Yeah that stuff really works for them...

[Marcus]

With the added benefit that it can be blamed on the Interpreter's superlative peer review!

Yeah that stuff really works for them...

Ikr? Now there’s a great conspiracy theory— Peterson and the Interpreter Board have constructed a subpar peer review process in order to maintain deniability when their FARMS-like techniques (inevitably) backfire.

[IHAQ]

Now that Bradshaw's deceitfulness, theft of intellectual property, and plagiarism have been publicly documented, will Interpreter/Bradshaw be removing the book from circulation whilst they conduct an internal investigation into their VP's behaviour? Or are they going to ignore the problem and in so doing have the Interpreter Foundation positively reinforce their own VP's bad behaviour? Can the authors of Method Infinite seek legal redress at this point?

This is a tenet from Interpreter's mission statement:

Scholarship: Our leadership, staff, and associates incorporate standards of scholarship appropriate to their academic disciplines.

https://interpreterfoundation.org/foundation/#mission

How does Bradshaw's treatment of Method Infinite and its authors stack up against that stated principle?

[Kishkumen]

I am confident that Bradshaw's violation of the trust of Kofford Books and the authors of Method Infinite will not be addressed in any significant way. It is even less likely to be treated like a real problem because we are fussing about it here. That does not mean it is OK in the larger picture by any means, but what we are talking about is an organization that has a legacy of behaving poorly. This will not change now.