JessieLilley wrote:
Gary, I gotta say, that's kinda weird. While I think most of us agreed (no, I don't pretend to speak for EVERYone here) that this was probably a case of using the same notes provided by the publicity department (sure looked that way), I see no reason for you all to have deleted everything. Through a third party, I know the writer was informed of the questions raised in this thread. I really would have thought that person would have eventually stopped by and told us what was up with it. Then we could let it stand as one of two things - another example of plagiarism - or (more probably) an example of how to tell the difference.

I'm really sorry this information was deleted
.

If the accusation is weak to begin with and (as you wrote) most agreed that there was a reasonable explanation or extenuating circumstance, why do I need to have the accused stand before a forum as if it were some sort of kangaroo court and do anything? To satisfy my curiosity at the expense of their character? To allow an individual's reputation be assaulted so that at the end of it all we get to say Hey, at least we know the difference between this and real plagiarism! and happily move on to discussing Famous Scary Freaky Monsters From The Vault magazine as if nothing happened?  To me, that's not just weird, it is unfair. And unjust.

I mean hey, we all know that doubts never linger about someone once they've been exonerated. We all agree on who played the monster in every scene, so we can get this right, too.

No, this isn't about a character in a monster movie, it's about a real human being. This isn't the Creeple Peeple's Court, it's the Classic Horror Film Board. The accusation didn't meet the smell test and it was way, way, way, way beyond the expiration date. Others may wish to dig in and swallow a heaping tablespoon of that, but I think that would be kinda weird. 



GARY L. PRANGE
I'm not all bad, just mostly.

"Sic gorgiamus allos subjectos nunc."