wrote in message
om...
Could you do us all a favour and finally get yourself a copy? I know you
wouldn't ever admit it, but your message is a clear-cut try to get one...
If
you would like to have one, why don't you simply ask? I'll gladly send
you a
copy.

I had an opportunity to buy, and I didn't. For the hundreth time, I
told you I
don't buy crap for my library. You said you wanted a full critique and
I offered. You think I've gone through all this trouble just for a
****ing handout?

Well, so far, you certainly did. Namely: you haven't offered any kind of
evidence our book being a "plagiarisation" of Gillcrist's work.

Do you have such evidence or not?

Now you've proved again that you haven't read the book. You're commenting
"about it" nevertheless: strangely, you don't do so by criticising the
book,
it's contents or whatever else - but all the time by offending my person.
You asshole.

"Asshole"? Is that what you call "book review"?

I have said I have seen your book and read it. Although
whether it was comprehensible to any human with a minimum of an
average
intellect is in serious question. I am a very well read person, and I
can spot
**** from a mile away.

I'm sure you did exactly that in this case: saw the book on the shelf in
some store - perhaps indeed from quite a few meters away - and instantly
declared it for what you guess it is.

There is no other explanation for all the nonsence you're babbling about it.

You don't raise a several thousand volume
library
without gaining an insight for quality. I'm going to do a side-by-side
comparison of that chapter(s) and the uncited material from
Gillcrist's "Tomcat!"

If you have such an immense "library", then you should actually be in a
perfect condition to offer evidence for any kind of plagiarisations - if
there are any. But, there are none, so all you can do is to insult me.

So, can you provide evidence for what you're talking about or not?
I've spent the last week posting evidence, you just refuse to budge.
You're going to get nailed good, and you know it. Just because I do
not own your book does not mean I have not read it! There are
bookstores, where one can examine and read, and public libraries out
there you idiot!

Where is all that "evidence" you've spent the last week posting?

All you posted is nonsence, supported by even more nonsence. Not that this
would surprise me very much: you can do whatever you like - and there is no
evidence for any kind of a plagiarisation, because there is none.

I can't wait to prove your Dr. Ambrose-style plagerism. You are in
very deep ****. I'm going to purchase that book post it myself.
And you are going to be one very embarrased person. Then I'm going to
forward
it to Admiral Gillcrist and Schiffer. Then they're going to spank you
ass for being what you are.

Babblabalah... Do you have evidence or not?

I can see you won't post what I have asked. I will purchase this book
and do the comparison myself. I need the book to hone the fine
details, but the outcome will be the same.

Yes, just like in the case of what you said about there being no citation of
Gillcrist's work where it should have been...


Another lie. Two days ago your critique was there, just like it was there
one, three, four and regardless how many days lapsed since you posted it
there.


Shut the **** up about my review. Amazon accepted it after review and
it stayed
there for awhile. When I checked on it, it was gone. Now you say its
back. I haven't checked but I said I'll take your word for it. Don't
try to pick nits
and change the topic Herr Cooper...we're talking about plagerism here.
That's a very very serious crime.

So, instead of becoming a candidate for heartattack, why don't you simply
sue me?

However, I can perfectly understand that you'll deny this. Must've been
there is a conspiracy between amazon.com and me - against you, of
course...

Can you provide evidence that any kind of critique for that book was ever
removed from amazon.com?

Can you provide evidence it was never removed? Do you check that page
every minute for the last 3 months? I think not. So it is you that's
misinformed
and possibly lying.

You're accusing me that it was removed, so you have to provide evidence that
it is. Can you provide any sort of evidence that anything was removed from
amazon.com - except for your useless guessing?

You were the man who said people were after you. It was very amusing
indeed
to discover you have a fan club out there.

Which "fan club"?

You have a talent of making
enemies, Mr. Tom Cooper. That's not very smart, when you're so
vulnerable
on the "Tomcat!"-"Iran-Iraq air war 80-88" plagerism.

And you're extremely talented in babbling nonsence and lying about things
you don't have the slightest clue about.

My issue here is with the "Iran-Iraq 80-88 air war" book and how you
plagerized
"Tomcat!" by Gillcrist. I was very kind and offered you several
opportunities
to avoid my now-inevitable side-by-side comparison of both texts. Now
everyone will see it and you're going to have some explaining to do to
your Publisher.

I told you above that you should do so. So, what are you waiting for? Why do
you lose your and my time with all this BS here instead of writing to
Schiffer and Mr. Gillcrist?

However, Pechs and me have never discussed tactics with even a single
word
in any of our exchanges (all of which can still be found under
google.google.com/groups). You don't have to believe me: ask him.

Well, sigh, this would mean that you're lying again - and there is
evidence
for this as well.

You had better watch who you call a liar. I don't relish being
defamed, and although I'm a very lenient man, I have my limits.

Well, I don't think you really have any limits: your offense, lies and
threats are getting more intense with every new post....

You're
oppening another
vulnerability here, by attacking my person. It's a fact that you
plagerized "Tomcat!" and when I complete the side-by-side comparison
of your Iran Iraq book with Gillcrist's volume, it will be trully
irrefutable. You're going to be known as a plagerizer pretty soon.
By calling me a liar, you're on your way to being a defamer as well.

Have you provided any kind of evidence for anything of the BS you posted
here so far? Not? So, what should one call you?

I never faced an authority superior in knowledge about air warfare
between
Iran and Iraq (or about specific Arab and African air forces) - on the
internet. That's right.
You have an unjustifiably high opinion of yourself. Give me a ****ing
break.

If you don't like to hear my opinion then don't ask me about it.

You only respond in personal taunts.

Can you show me these "personal taunts" in which I responded to you?
Where
did I offend you by even a single word? Despite all your bragging I
haven't
said even a single bad word about you - except you consider pointings at
your constructions and lies as such?
You called me a liar. You called me a character. You claim I write my
review in order to gain a free book off you? And all those other
posters
you have insulted over the years...the base of your fan club.

Which "all these other posters"? What would you like to lie about now?

With other words, you haven't read the book either... But you comment
about
it?
Oh I certainly attempted to read it. But it was written in such
fractured, grammatical error-filled English; not to mention the areas
that I was able to withstand and comprehend, were filled with
superficial ramblings on an interesting topic the authors' have little
insightfull knowledge on. I did not take home that 5lb, $40 overpriced
piece of ****, waste of ink and paper, to join my 7000 strong aviation
library.

As said: you haven't read it. Period.

How do you think I discovered your plagerism of "Tomcat!" by Gillcrist
if I did not read your book?

Don't know. But it's sure you simply never read that book Worst yet, you
obviously don't have a slightest clue about the meaning of a word
"plagierism", otherwise you'd never come to such a stupid idea like stating
that a book of almost 360.000 words is "plagiation" because it cites -
stress: CITES - two or three sentences (total of some 50 words) from another
book.

If you read the book you'd never come to the idea to say that "whole
sections" were "lifted" from anywhere else: you'd know they were not and you
could only make yourself silly by such statements. If you read the book
you'd know that it's silly to say that even "sections" were "lifted",
because nothing was lifted at all.

Even more so, you wouldn't come to the idea to declare "Iran-Iraq War in the
Air, 1980-1988" a plagiation also because it is describing the developments
surrounding the purchase of F-14s by Iran in a completely different
context - and to a much greater detail.

Finally, you wouldn't come to this ridiculous idea because Gillcrist states
something completely different about the combat experience with Tomcats in
Iran than Farzad and me are doing - not only in "Iran-Iraq War in the Air,
1980-1988", but even more so in "Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat", which
includes also quite a rebuff of some of Gillcrist's statements by one of the
Iranian officers who was involved in decision-making process.

Had you read the book you would know about this all. But, you're so
obviously clueless about this, that it's clear you never saw more but the
cover. My guess is that you've heard that the book contains some citations
from "Tomcat!" and that you found this suitable for your purpose.

There is at least no other logical explanation that comes to my mind. Of
course, given what nonsence you're posting here, I guess the word "logic"
does not mean much to you...

Now you changed your opinion and say that only a "portion" of
Gillcrist's
book - i.e. Chapter 7, page 48 - was "lifted". (BTW, you spell Mr.
Gillcrist's name wrongly).

Portion? Authors who plagerize take little bits here and there. You
damn near copied several hundred words from Gillchrist near word for
word.

Let's see. First you said: "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book draws massive portions
from
Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!"...almost word for word plagerism".

Then you said, "portion".

Now you're down to, "several hundred words" (in a book of nearly 360.000
words).

Could you agree with yourself about how much was eventually "plagiarised"
from that book?

I can. I will define 'massive' as "several sentences". And when I do
my side-by-side comparison, we'll see where you ****ed yourself.
You're going to be in deep ****.

Who are you to define anything? You don't even know the meaning of the word
"plagiarisation" as defined by internationally accepted rules and laws. So,
how can you define the word "massive" in connection to "plagiarisation"?

What you don't have the slightest clue about is, namely, that even if
"Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988" would consist of only some 10.000
words, and 100 of these would've been cited from "Tomcat!" it would still
not be a plagiarisation. Because the source was cited, and nothing like 10%
of the original work was used for creation of the new one.

Consequently, what you're doing here is plain nonsence: you don't really
even have a point. All you are doing is defamation.

Tell me one thing (at least): Don't you ever read your own posts? Or are
you
unable of understanding what you write?

On amazon.com you stated: "Whole sections are simply lifted from other
works...Tom Cooper unashamedly plagerizes Gillchrist's volume for much of
this chapter. He does not offer citations and whole sections are copied
word
for word". In your first post here you stated, "Iran-Iraq 80-88 book
draws
massive portions from Paul Gillchrist's "Tomcat!". In your second post
you
stated that "portions" of that book were "lifted". Then, in the last
message
above you say, "several hundred words", and all the time you "stress"
that
we have completely omitted any kind of indication from where the three
sentences in question came.

Now you say that you, "thought...(I) gave credit for that single line".

Are you a man enough to stand and admit that you are lying about this
whole
issue?

I admit slight, very minor and inconsequential inconsistencies in my
posts, but the core issue I stand by: The fact that you plagerized is
irrefutable.

Your whole standpoint is based on such "very minor and inconsequential
inconsistencies". You fabricate a case for a pure wish to bash and babble
about things you don't have a clue about. You ignore the fact that there is
absolutely NO evidence for your accusations, and you ignore the fact that
you are therefore lying.

That's all that is "irefutable" so far - and that's going to remain so even
if you post the whole book "Iran-Iraq War in the Air" here.

Now, to end this bull **** he-haw dance, you go and post that chapter
I'm speaking of, word for word, as it appeared in the book. This will
serve three causes: a)People who have yet to see your work will see
how poorly written that book is; b)It will stroke your ego; and c)It
will prove you're a plagerizer, because I'm going to post the
corresponding chapter from "Tomcat!", and we can compare and will see
what you refuse to acknowledge. We will know that you God damn stole
other people's work.

I could easily post the whole chapter here. That's not a problem as I
still
have the original manuscript in electronic form.

But, it is you who is attacking me of being a plagiarizer - so you have
to
deliver evidence for your accusation. Either you are able of doing this,
or
you are lying - in which case my lawyer would be outright greateful if
you
continue in the same style....
Await my upcoming side-by-side review. Please share it with your
lawyer, as I will certainly be sharing it with mine, for review.
Schiffer and Admiral Gillcrist too will recieve a copy.

Could you finally do this so I can stop wasting my time with your nonsence?

For your information, the same book is mentioned at least five times
elsewhere in footnotes of our book. So, you're lying here too.

A reputable, and now-late historian, Dr. Whatshisface Ambrose, also
quothed heavily from "Wings of Morning" by Dr. Childers. But a
noticable chunks of Childers' work, he flat out stole. He got pinched
for that one, just like you're going to be, Herr Cooper. Ambrose can
be forgiven. You cannot, because you are not a reputable historian.

Is this all you have of "evidence" that I am a "plagiarizer"?
No. It is an example of the type of plagerism that exists in your Iran
Iraq book. Quote some here, then use a bunch un-cited. Dr. Ambrose was
badly damaged by this expose; he expired shortly after this incident!

I'm asking again: Is this "evidence" that "Iran-Iraq War in the Air,
1980-1988" is a plagiarization of "Tomcat!"?

Please, do us all a favour: contact R.Adm (USN ret.) Paul T. Gillcrist
and
bring your matter also up to Schiffer Military Publishing. I don't know
the
contact details of Mr. Gillcrist, but you can reach the editor of the
book
via the website of Schiffer Military Publishing.
You can expect no less from me. This I assure you, Mr. Tom Cooper.

Then do it finally.

Be so kind to do that - and then post the results he I'm really
curious
about their reactions and looking forward for them. Foremost: I want you
to
present your evidence of any kind of my plagiarisations.
Await my review.

I'm waiting since four days...

You want me to add Osprey, several other publishers, and retailers to
that list?

Yes, please, do that too. Let me know if you need any e-mail adresses of
responsible people at Osprey.
I'll limit this to Admiral Gillcrist and Schiffer publishing. This is
where
your mistakes lie. But if you insist, I shall forward my report to
Osprey as well.

Yes, I insist you do so. I insist you to contact Osprey and declare all the
books I co-authored for them for plagiarizations as well. Then they can sue
you for your lies and I don't need to do that.

I'm actually rather surprised you haven't already informed all the
relevant
authorities and never issued a law suit against all these crimes I
committed.... ?
I was not the victim of plagerism here, I am only reporting it. But if
this issue evolves into the legal realm, I can report to you with
absolute confidence that we have the determination and resources
neccessary to fight and prevail.

I'm sure you have determination. Most likely you have also resources. The
problem is that you have no evidence - because there is none.

Oh, and because there are clear laws about what can be called a
"plagiarization".

The book we're talking here about is no plagiarization and it can never be
one. Consequently, whenever you say that it is a "plagiarization" you lie.
Do you understand this, and is this clear to you?

Your caper on that "Iran Iraq 80-88 book"
alone would sink ya, or at the minimum put a mark on ya you won't be
able to rub off.

Again: feel free to "sink" me, or "rub (me) off" as much as you like. I'm
not doing the "sinking" nor "attacking" here.
The enemy's vulnerability lies not in the attacker but within himself.

Talking from your own experience?

Before I read that book, you were
known simply as an amature, egotistical wannabe aviation historian.
Now you can add plagerizer to your title. I am positively certain,
others more knoledgable than I have recognized this as well. But they
don't like to wrestle with pigs, like I do.

And that should be a reason that none of them ever complained - less
issued
a law suit against somebody who is so much plagiarising "them all" as you
explain here?
Await my review, and its innevitable dispersion to the relevant
parties.

Then stop making yourself wet and post it finally.

Well, of course not: you don't hate me. You are just engaged in a
campaign
of spreading lies about me.
I can say that I now dislike you very much. I was not the victim of
plagerism, but your ideas of me somehow running a 'campaign of
spreading lies' are just
the stuff that defamation lawsuits are made of.

I told you already two times that I don't care about your opinion the least.

But, bear in mind that with every additional e-mail in which you post lies
about me, my work, or my co-workers, you are only adding more evidence into
the files of my lawyer. Should your interest be to get yourself sued and
charged for defamation, then you are free to continue in the same manner.

Contact me at
This has become very serious and I wish to discuss it with you in
private.

If you have a matter to discuss with me in private it's on you to contact
me, not on me to contact you. It's you who is lying here; it's you who is
offending me, my work - and my co-workers. I never said anything against
you, have no clue who you are or what is the actual purpose of your lies
about me posted on this NG. It's you who is lying about my work on
amazon.com and it is you who is doing so here; it is also you who is
offending me in every of your posts here.

There can be no evidence that my work is plagiarization because it is no
plagiarization. Consequently, I have nothing to hide.



--
************************************************** ***********************
Tom Cooper
Freelance aviation journalist

Author:
- Iranian F-14 Tomcat Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S7875

- Arab MiG-19 and MiG-21 Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6550

- Iranian F-4 Phantom II Units in Combat
http://www.ospreypublishing.com/titl...hp/title=S6585

- African MiGs
http://www.acig.org/afmig/

- Iran-Iraq War in the Air, 1980-1988
http://www.acig.org/pg1/content.php
************************************************** ***********************