And for those of you tired of the plagiarism conversation, go somewhere else and look at some puppies and rainbows.
It seems that the latest version of the thief’s apology reads thus:
“When I first received the allegations of plagiarism, I was presented with the information and could not deny the facts. While the content was not identical the subject matter was. I thought only content could be plagiarized. Changing a few a words around with a thesaurus, or simple copying and pasting content. It seems as though taking a general topic and rewriting it is plagiarism. That is simply my own ignorance on the matter, and I should have known better. It was a confusion of inspiration and plagiarism on my part. I am not denying my actions. I was in the wrong. I read a post, I thought it was interesting and wanted to make it into something that would be relevant for book blogging.”
I guess it was just a matter of time for her to claim ignorance in lieu deliberate wrongdoing. I imagine that she thought that deleting her previous words (if indeed that post on plagiarism was originally hers) would give her plausible deniability.
Plagiarism isn’t just copying and pasting word for word and passing it off as your own. It can be taking someones work and changing around the sentence structure, getting out your thesaurus and changing a few words here and there… basically taking the central idea tweaking it and passing it off as your own work.
Mind that she has deleted it from her own site (no link, not giving her hits) since the story broke in the book blog circles a few days ago.
Edited to add: rats! Cervenka spotted the similarities before this went live.