Let me weigh in here as well.

There is nobody more sensitive to plagiarism than I am -- it is quite literally a firing offense where I work and we've had cases that led to that. It is no small thing.

That said, the examples in this case seemed to my eyes to be minor at best, a few boilerplate phrases parroted by a writer early in his career. The source doesn't matter that much; but in this case it barely merits a 'meh', and surely not worth the hang-him-high response that resulted.

 In contrast, real plagiarism involves lifting quotes, evocative descriptions, wordplay, the writing and thoughts of another writer. That's what sunk the CREATURE book and Spiderbaby -- not that the authors lifted facts and boilerplate phrases but that they appropriated and represented as theirs' the intellectual thought processes of another writer.

BIG difference.

Looking at these things as news stories -- i.e., would I publish this in a newspaper -- the latest examples would not qualify. Sadly, the CREATURE book and Spiderbaby are clearly news events that do merit coverage and reaction here.

But I don't think the CHFB should become some look-what-I-found plagiarism filter site. (And especially when personalities get involved; there's a bit more to this incident than has been described).

Should the author have responded? Sure, he could have said, hey, it was a long time ago and I guess I should have been more careful. And onward.  But he opted not to, and I respect that, too.

What I think ultimately led to Gary's decision (which I support), was not so much the facts of the case, but the hobnail boots that emerged. A casual reader -- and aren't we all -- would conclude, wow, that guy is a plagiarist, too. 

And that's not fair.

Reputations and scale do matter; for those who disagree, that's OK too.  But there's a difference between sad revelations of serial plagiarism and a hunting ground... Or in some cases, a hunting game.

david