Re: Theos-World Answer to Daniel.
Nov 17, 2001 10:36 PM
Poor Ms Muhlegger. Yet again she is reduced to slander and name-calling
as an alternative to answering straightforward questions of fact. Yet she
was so outraged by my allegations of theft of material and plagiarism
that on November 4 she wrote to me announcing that her (unnamed) lawyers
in Sydney were about to initiate legal action against me for making them.
I asked for the name of the lawyers so I could contact them directly. I'm
sure no-one will be surprised to hear that she wouldn't tell me. Perhaps
the legal documents she claimed were being express couriered to Thailand
for her signature so court action could immediately begin were lost on
the way? Likewise, I still awaiting the threatened visit from the Police
(though, unless the Police as as ignorant of Australian law as Ms
Muhlegger or her "Sydney lawyers", I'm not sure why they'd be
interested). I'm happy to go on repeating the statements that Ms
Muhlegger is a thief because she stole Dr French's material, and a
plagiarizer because she stole more of it and published it without
acknowledgement in articles for which she claimed authorship.
Should this matter be on this discussion site? Of course. If someone
participating claims scholarly credentials, such credentials ought to be
tested. I would expect the same standards to apply to me: if I, in books
or my thesis, have stolen material or plagiarized, please - someone! -
If Ms Muhlegger is not a thief and a plagiarizer, let her demonstrate the
fact by straightforward answers to these questions:
1. Did she have Dr French's permission to publish material from her
thesis on her previous web site? if so, how was that permission obtained?
2. When Dr French stated that she did not have permission do publish, why
did she not remove the material? Particularly given her statement in her
e-mails to Dr French and me of November 4 in which she declared: "But I
want to assure you I will take everything off, you don't have to worry
yourself about that."
3. Did she subsequently pass the material, having been informed that she
did not have permission to publish, to the "new" website?
4. Did she incorporate large sections of Dr French's material verbatim,
but without any acknowledgements, in articles for which she claims
authorship? does she deny that she has plagiarized this material?
5. Does she consider that the theft of other people's material, whether
by publishing it without permission or plagiarizing it, is acceptable
It's worth noting that not in a single posting on this site, nor in any
of her many e-mails to me or Dr French, has Ms Muhlegger ever explicitly
stated that (i) she had permission to publish the material, or (ii) she
had not plagiarized material. Most people, accused of something of which
they were innocent, would immediately deny the allegations and provide
evidence/explanation. Those who respond by attacking their accusers or
changing the subject are usually those who are guilty.
Ms Muhlegger can be assured that the facts of her dishonest behaviour
will be published in every possible forum, drawn to the attention of all
scholars in the field of Theosophical history and published in every
journal in the area .... over and over and over again until she
satisfactorily deals with the matter. She should forward a copy of this
e-mail to her Sydney lawyers immediately, and make sure they have my
contact details! I eagerly anticipate correspondence from them. She might
also forward to them the following statement which, by University
regulation, appears in the front of every Australian thesis: "Under the
Copyright Act 1968 this thesis must be used only under the normal
conditions of scholarly fair dealing for the purposes of research,
criticism or review. In particular no results or conclusions should be
extracted from it and it should not be copied or closely paraphrased in
whole or in part without the written consent of the author. Proper
written acknowledgement should be made for any assistance obtained from
this thesis. .... Section 31(1)(a)(i) provides that the copyright
includes the exclusive right to 'reproduce the work in a material form'.
Thus copyright is infringed by a person who, not being the owner of the
copyright and without the licence of the owner of the copyright,
reproduces or authorizes the reproduction of a work, or a substantial
part of the work, in a material form, unless the reproduction is a 'fair
dealing' with the work 'for the purpose of research or private study'.
Dr Gregory Tillett
[Back to Top]
Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application