Son of Dex ripped off?

[Recently_Digested]

http://home.flash.net/~paisano/aande.html#3

Are Son of Dex and Scott Bradshaw one and the same?

[Recently_Digested]

The link seems not to be working any more. It WAS a link to a college newspaper in San Antonio, where an article was recently published that was word-for-word similar to Son of Dex’s column, written by one Scott Bradshaw. I just wanted to know, from anyone who knows anything about Son of Dex, if he and Bradshaw are the same person.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

No, Son of Dex is not “Scott Bradshaw.” The link worked OK for me, and I’m pretty annoyed. This copies Son of Dex’s article, verbatim as far I can see.

Neat way to get stories when you’re a student journalist, eh? No need to even edit.

Thanks, Recently D, for bringing this to our attention.

[Edited by C K Dexter Haven on 01-18-2001 at 09:11 AM]

[Ceejaytee]

The link worked okay for me. Quoting from the Question posed by John Wiebel, here: http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mfrankenstein.html

I asked my college professor whether or not the concept of Frankenstein’s monster was possible. He gave me some lame answer about enzymes. But doesn’t the human body work on electricty? Why can’t pieces of people be
assembled and jolted back to life? Doesn’t DNA last forever, so couldn’t it be reused to make someone new?
Please give me the straight dope. Was Dr. Frankenstein ahead of his time or did Mary Shelley just have a real
good imagination?

and comparing it to the first paragraph of Scott Bradshaw’s article linked in the OP (you have to scroll down about halfway on the page):

Readers’ question: I asked my college professor whether the concept of Frankenstein’s monster was possible. He gave me some lame answer about enzymes. But doesn’t the human body work on electricity? If so, why can’t pieces of people be assembled and jolted back to life? DNA lasts forever, doesn’t it? So then couldn’t it be reused to make someone new? Was Dr. Frankenstein ahead of his time or did Mary Shelley just have a real good imagination?

you see they’re the same. Well, okay, maybe someone asked the question twice.

Son of Dex’s first paragraph of his answer:

Neither, really. Mary Shelley’s science isn’t much more than ill humours and leeches. There’s no explanation of how the good doctor accomplishes his task. There’s no lightning, there’s no sewing, there’s no grave-robbing. Shelley goes out of her way to avoid telling us how dead tissue can be reanimated. Dr. Frankenstein says he won’t tell because he’s afraid others will follow in his folly. Mary Shelley probably didn’t tell 'cause she just couldn’t come up with anything. There is an implication that pieces of bodies were utilized in some fashion (references to “dissecting rooms” and “slaughterhouses”) but there’s nothing explicit. As near as I can tell, the lightning thing is just a creation of Hollywood. As, I might add, is Igor, and what’s a Frankenstein film without him?

Scott Bradshaw:

Neither, really. Mary Shelley’s science isn’t much more than “ill humours and leeches.” In her infamous novel “Frankenstein or the Modern Prometheus,” there is no explanation of how the good doctor Frankenstein accomplishes his task. There is no lightning, there is no sewing, there is no grave robbing. In fact, Shelley goes out of her way to avoid telling readers how dead tissue can be reanimated.
Dr. Frankenstein, narrator of the macabre tale, defends the absence of details in his account of the bloody deed by simply expressing his fears that, given too much information, others might repeat his folly This is probably Mary Shelley’s way of covering the fact that she just couldn’t come up with anything. However, there are some instances in which Shelley presents some insight into Frankensteinís work. The doctor implies that pieces of bodies were used in some fashion (references to “dissecting rooms” and “slaughterhouses”), but there is nothing explicit. As near as I can tell, the lightning thing is just a creation of Hollywood as, I might add, is Igor. And whatís a Frankenstein film without Igor?

Then he goes on to discuss whether reanimation is possible.
Answer?: Looks like plagiarism to me.

[Ceejaytee]

Damn, I spend time cutting and pasting only to be beaten out as I hit the “submit reply” button. Oh well.

[Recently_Digested]

Now that that is settled: is someone going to do something about this, or do you want ME to do it (I go to UTSA), or should we just let it lie? Since this is SD “property” (in essence) that’s being ripped off, I can leave it to you folks if you want, or I can bring it to the newspaper’s attention. I’m assuming, also, that Son of Dex has never heard of “Scott Bradshaw,” never gave him any sort of permission, etc. …something we’re just not seeing, because it still boggles my mind that someone would so BLATENTLY plagerize (if that’s what’s going on) Son’s column.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

I have passed the information over to CHICAGO READER HQ and we’ll see what action they decide to take.

It won’t go ignored, for sure.

[Ed_Zotti]

I beefed to the paper and am happy to say they pulled it down within a few minutes. Putting your name over something somebody else wrote … man, that’s pathetic.

[JillGat]

I beefed to the paper and am happy to say they pulled it down within a few minutes. Putting your name over something somebody else wrote … man, that’s pathetic.

• Jill

[Ed_Zotti]

Everybody’s a comedian.

[Recently_Digested]

Are they going to print a retraction/explanation in the next week’s issue, because The Paisano is an actual paper as well, and although the online version is now corrected, the hard copy never can be, and believe me, nobody visits the webpage, hence, nobody will ever realize what happened.

[Recently_Digested]

Oh, and, BTW, thanks, Mr. Zotti.

[Billdo]

*Originally posted by Ed Zotti *
**Everybody’s a comedian. **

Wow, Ed, that’s profound. Did you make that up yourself?

[Ed_Zotti]

Everybody’s a critic, too.

I heard from the editor of the Paisano, who said they’d print an apology next week.

[Recently_Digested]

Just for the record, the latest issue of The Paisano hit the newstands today, and the retraction was tucked away on the back page, very small, and probably invisible to everyone save those who knew it was coming. Oh, well…I guess such was to be expected.

[bungie_us]

*Originally posted by Recently Digested *
**Just for the record, the latest issue of The Paisano hit the newstands today, and the retraction was tucked away on the back page, very small, and probably invisible to everyone save those who knew it was coming. Oh, well…I guess such was to be expected. **

Just curious, but how did the retraction read? I mean, how does one “retract” plagiarism?

[Fiver]

The apology was a good thing, but more importantly, I would hope that Scott Bradshaw is never allowed to write for that paper again.

[bibliophage]

*Originally posted by Five *
**I would hope that Scott Bradshaw is never allowed to write for that paper again. **

At the very least. If that newspaper had official ties to the college, he would probably be expelled or suspended. It appears that the paper is independent of the college, according to this I notice that Mr. Bradshaw’s name still appears among their list of writing staff, http://home.flash.net/~paisano/staff.html

[Recently_Digested]

First things first: from the looks of it, Scott won’t be writing for The Plager-isano anymore. His name is not listed in the staff credits of the hard copy issue released today. The webpage always takes one or two days to be updated, which explains the descrepancy.

Secondly, in tiny print, in the bottom right hand corner of the very last page of the paper, the retraction says, in essence (and I paraphrase heavily): “Last week we ran an article by the name of (article name) under the byline of Scott Bradshaw that was taken, almost word for word, from an article written by The Straight Dope’s Son of Dex. When Ed Zotti called us, we took it down immediately from our webpage. We’re so sorry. Please don’t think we’re irresponsible journalists.”

I’m assuming the exact retraction will be posted onto their website shortly.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

Recently D, thanks again VERY MUCH for calling this to our attention initially, and for helping track. Much appreciated!