You remind me of people I have been tasked to assist in writing during
my school years. Your work is so botched it's beyond salvage. If you
want to call it an attack it is up to you. But if you really want a
full-blown critique, loan me a review copy, and I'll send it back with
my notes.
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.
Otherwise, further above I have shown that your attack from amazon.com was
NOT removed, and that you were lying.
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.
So, can you provide evidence for what you're talking about or not?
As second: your attack from amazon.com was NOT removed. Neither me nor
anybody else complained, and therefore it was not removed - as can be
seen
by everybody who opens the page he
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg...78422?v=glance
So, here I must conclude that you're lying.
I checked two days ago, and they were gone. Maybe they put it back at
the behest of people who read this thread?
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.
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?
(Remember that you can easily contact amazon.com and ask them to show you
such evidence.)
As next, it is well-known to us that there are several readers who do not
hate that book but me - and who repeatedly attack my person by
prentending
of attacking the book. The silly thing about this is that all four of
them
are well-known to me: two because they plagiarized me, and two because
they
attacked the book although they never read it.
I don't give a what who else you've ****ed off, but it's reassuring
its a big group and certainly growing, no doubt. You never replied
about you attacking genuine experts in this field. In this thread
alone, you've shown your typical condescending attitude towards ppl
who've been there, done that.
Well, given that the whole print run of that book was meanwhile sold out, I
wonder how "big" this "group" really is...
This aside from the fact that you seem unable to agree with yourself if it's
you alone who's criticising publications I authored or co-authored, or if
there is some "group"...
That poster, who I do not know personally but have had the pleasure of
reading his posts over the years, was, as I understand it, Executive
Officer of VX-4, "The Evaluators", the US Navy's fighter test
squadron. They tested and developed tactics and technolgy for the
Navy's tactical air force. He was also Commanding Officer of VF-126,
one of the elite adversary/aggressor squadrons, who no doubt were
immersed in knowledge of bad guy capabilities. From his postings, I
understand he was also posted as an Instructor Pilot in exchange with
the USAF, teaching them to fly F-4 Phantoms, not to mention long
service with the Fleet in F-4s and F-14s. Now, answer this: How is it
you know more about fighter tactics than he?
Your main problem appears to be a very bad memory. The man I think you're
talking about posted several times into this thread too.
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.
That's right: I can't play baseball.
Add to that:
1)You cannot be humbled, ever.
Certainly not by characters like you.
2)You cannot recognize superior authority in knowledge, when faced.
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 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?
3)You can't penetrate Military Aviation writing in-depth.
Can you provide evidence that I ever even attempted to do so?
Your work is
superficial, and amaturish.
I guess it makes no sence to ask you to provide evidence for this?
4)You won't admit errors.
Can you point me at any of my errors (except if you consider publishing of
that first book by Schiffer as one)?
Well, from exchange with him I'm sure that he is still convinced that
Iranian F-14s were not armed with AIM-7s. Would you like to join him in
that
opinion?
Let's see. He was a serving general officer in one of the most
professional air forces in that region. Iraq had recieved satelite
targeting data from the US, and other military intel during that
conflict. You would think whatever intel on the F-14 they were unable
to ascertain locally, were provided to them also by Uncle Sam. Now who
do I believe, him or some egotistical amature with a very weak base
of work?
Can you provide evidence that Iranian F-14s were not compatible with AIM-7s?
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.
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?
But OK. That's at least specific enough. On the page 33 of "Iran-Iraq War
in
the Air, 1980-1988", there is one sentence taken from that book. On the
end
of it is sign for footnote 39.... and the footnote 39 (p.54) says:
"TOMCAT!
The Grumman F-14 Story, by R.Adm (USN. Ret.) Paul T. Gillcrist."
Yes, that is true. I admit I missed that piece, but that was several
months ago that I read your book. And I do remember now what I thought
as I read that book: Tom Cooper quoted and gave credit for that
single line.
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?
It certainly read like the authors were presenting the information
regarding the F-14 pre-sale drama as their own.
I have shown you above that this is not truth: do you have any evidence of
the contrary?
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....
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"?
Eventually, you ough to admit appearing pretty silly regarding this, then
in
your eagerness to attack me you failed to notice that both books were
published by Schiffer Military Publishing, Atglen. Do you seriously
consider
them so stupid to accept a manuscript that is plagiarising one of their
earlier books?
Well, that Iran-Iraq war book was written so poorly, I don't think
they even read it, or if they did, released it anyway, thinking it can
float on the weight of their reputation. Once you post the relevant
chapter I have asked you to, I'm going to renew my contact with
Admiral Gillchrist, and maybe he'll take it up with Schiffer.
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.
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.
Well, perhaps you could contact Mr. Ian Robertson (editor) and ask him. I
never got any answer regarding this.
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.
Putting your writing career in a coffin is not something I
would relish (I don't hack people for the fun of it), but if that's
what you want me to do...
Feel free to do so whenever you have time. Just, do us all a favour and
finally provide some kind of evidence.
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.... ?
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. All
you need to do is to - instead of posting lies about me here - write several
e-mails to all these contacts of yours and then to my publishers.
I'm affraid, however, that you might need some evidence for your
accusations, so - please - take care to first find any.
It is the in footnote 39 and footnote 43 of that chapter, just for
example. You're only so much involved in attempt to attack me, that you
oversaw this completely.
Should you want to continue in the same style, I'll obviously have to
post
here also something like 30 other footnotes from that book...
What makes me wonder here, how would you then describe such books like
"Red
Wings over Yalu", which consist of footnotes and references to almost
40%?
From what I recall, your footnotes were as shallow as the text, and
added nothing to further understanding of the topic. Vague is the word
I would employ to give name to your footnotes.
Surely, surely. Can you provide evidence for the footnotes in "Iran-Iraq War
in the Air, 1980-1988" being "vague"?
Or is it now so that you "don't remember" (i.e. haven't read) them - like
you "don't remember" those mentioning Mr. Gillcrist's book?
That's not the answer to question I asked. So, here again: WHERE am I
"known
as plagiarizer"?
You're known as a plagerizer to me.
Well, that much about that. Do you remember what I said about the meaning of
your opinion to me?
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?
And there were critiques at Amazon.com sharper
and less vile in tone than mine, yet equally truthfull. The reviews
for your book @ Amazon were near unanimous: it's bunk.
All the "critiques" are still there. Why don't you go there and see them
for
yourself?
I'll take your word for it. Why is it everyone who voices their
disapproval of that God damn book has to be somehow after you?
The answer is simple: you are none of "them", and because you are completely
unable to provide any kind of evidence for your ridiculous accusations.
All you posted here so far are insults and lies which were easy to counter.
Post evidence that ANYTHING I ever authored or co-authored is a
plagiarisation - or be a man and admit that you are lying.
And after
several months up there, everyone's postings were removed!
This is a lie, and you know that. Nothing was removed.
Besides, what is with the following review:
http://www.journal.forces.gc.ca/engr...o3/book7_e.asp
Wow, a review from a Canadian Military Journal. Oh golly gee wiz
Wally, I'll read it as soon as I'm finished reading the review on
bobsledding by the prestigious Kuwaiti Forum of Winter Sporting. Try
again, ace.
Have you read that review - so to be able to explain us the worth of opinion
by somebody who is teaching War Studies at Royal Military College?
As you can see, I'm here, with my full name.
Oh, and who are you and what are your qualifications?
Oh little old me? I'm just a thumbsucker who likes jet books. Got any
good ones do ya?
Do you recall what I said how much I care about your opinion?
Re. Steve Davies: Steve is meanwhile acknowledged as THE expert when it
comes to USAF F-15s, with excellent contacts within the USAF F-15C/E
circles, a number of related books, articles and even TV-shows. If he's
what
you describe as "amateur", I'm gladly joining him in that status.
I thought THE expert[s] when it comes to USAF F-15s were at Nellis?
I'm happy you've given your pal a reach-around. It's absolutely
touching and a tear jerker when you folk do that. I'm sure he thinks
you're THE expert on non-aligned air arms too. ONI, AIA and DIA have
nothing on you and your posse at www.acig.org. You heard it here
first! And screw those dozens of reputable authors out there who just
don't know what the hell they're screaming about, not when ACIG.org
and Tom Cooper are around.
Very convincing, that's sure....
BTW, who are all these "reputable authors"?
Well, of course not: you don't hate me. You are just engaged in a
campaign
of spreading lies about me.
Ah Yep. You got me. You won't tell on me will ya? Any other
conspiracies you care to share?
Twisting my words again? Did _I_ use a word "conspiracy" here or is it you?
Take a look above and see what I said.
Could you at least once do slightly better but constructing, offending and
lying?
To be sincere and direct - as I always am: I don't care the least about
your
opinion, nor am I trying to change it.
I'm just putting your lies straight.
You just post that stuff I asked you to, regarding the F-14 sale.
You're accusing me, so you have to provide evidence. If you are unable to
find evidence for your statements, you're lying - and my lawyer is going to
take care about the rest.
Don't you get creative now and dare add anything. Better yet, post a
scan of the pages. I'll be ready with my ****. Or you can just save us
all time and fess up. Save your rep while you can, friend. Because
once you post those jpegs, you've just flushed yourself down the hole.
But let's not let it reach that, buddy. Just tell me you messed up a
little and won't do it again, promise-to-God, cross-your-fingers
hope-to-die, and I'll get off your case.
I'm here and waiting for your evidence: can you finally show some or is
****ing against the wind the best you can?
--
************************************************** ***********************
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
************************************************** ***********************