Wow missed the point, did we? I brought up multiple valid critcisms of the list that did not involve where it came from but it's quality. I recieved a flippantly arrogant response about how people need to sleep and how it's a free site that skirted everything I had said.

But I am past it. JF can't admit making a mistake when it's blatently obvious he made one, and he has a herd of followers who will poo-poo any criticism against him. So I stand no chance and give up. I just hope there are more readers like me that are very disheartened about how this whole thing turned out.

And you're avoiding every other point I made, especially about the quality control. Can't you even admit that you might have made an error in judgement?

You know, if you're deleting all the posts calling you out on this, you might want to delete the one where you ask her for an apology.

I indeed believed the worst, but once again, given the same circumstances, I would have believed the same about anyone. One google search brought this list up under someone elses name. There was no response from you for about 12 hours as the accusations raged. Finally, you proved you had bought the content legally, but seriously, if the same thing would have happened to a submitted list, what would you have thought? That the list was obtained legally or that it was someone elses work?

You seem to have a lower standard for your own work than the work of others. While you have proven that you did not plagerize this work, you have completely avoided the fact that this was an obvious copy and paste job with no proofreading done. Once again, would you have published a list submitted by a reader if it had been this low quality?

So yeah, once again, not plagerism, but very amateurish. Considering the copy and paste job, lack of quality control on what's published under your name, and demanding an apology from the author you bought the work from, I think you are the one who should be making an apology to you readers and Shelly. You bought the work, but the most basic understanding of copyright law (which I'd assume you have) would tell you that buying work from an author, musician, artist, etc, does not mean you can re-label that product under your own name without consent from the said party. If you were unsure, you should have held off on the list until it was clarified.

And that's why I'm pissed. You have gone through this like you're above any criticism and anyone initially accusing you of plagerism is somehow an idiot for thinking such. I believe most people would have thought the same thing regardless of the author. Once again, making the rules does not make you above them.

Anyway, I think most people will see that what happened was not illegal, but really, really sleezey. Acting like you've done nothing wrong and demading apologies isn't helping that.

All hail the Bungle!

I did comment, but let's be honest here. I used one of the criteria for list submission (type some into google and see if anything comes up) and it came up, word for word, under someone elses name. If it had been another person's list and it failed the google test that badly, I doubt it would have been accepted.

Another criteria is to not copy and paste another's work. Bought or not, it's obvious that's what happened.

So sure, this wasn't plagerism and I accept that. That doesn't negate the fact that this list would have been rejected if it had been submitted from someone else. Making the rules for submission doesn't make you above those rules.

Jamie, as the person who runs Listverse, your lists should at least be up to the same quality standards that you ask for from others. In fact, yours should be higher to set an example.

Seriously man, with that disclaimer at the end of the list and a bit of proofreading, you could avoided this whole thing.

You're missing the point. If you worked hard on something, only to have someone claim it as theirs and that you weren't even part of creation process, I doubt you'd be so glib about it.

And everyone saying it was Jamie just finishing a submitted list, that doesn't fly either. At best, there was a huge mishap in proof-reading, but more importantly, when a person puts their name on a piece of work, they are responsible for the quality of that work. Trying to say that it was someone elses fault because they submitted it like this (which there is zero evidence for so far) means either a) the list was never proofread or fact checked or b) the person who submitted it should be credited because they obviously did half the work of the list.

Plagerism is always ugly. Trying to make excuses for it just makes it worse.

This is not a mistake, it's blatant plagerism. He stole the work of another author and claimed it as his own. The difference between copy and pasting from wikipedia is that it is a free source website that allows reproduction without notice. I doubt Shelley Barclay gave permission for this reproduction without her getting any credit.

And it is hypocrisy with a capital H.

Toyota should seriously rename the i-REAL the i-SLOTH. It just fits.

Just one point about #8...

I have received devestating news over the phone, and I did stare at the phone for awhile, pretty much praying that it would say "Just kidding!" It's totally irrational and it probably looks ridiculous, but I'm not sure how much a movie cliche it is or if it's a representation of how some people react in that situation.

Still an entertaining list despite my nitpicking.