Cult of Cthulhu Bible Review: Darrick Speaks, Part 3

And Darrick Dishaw is back, with more comments on his Cult of Cthulhu Bible!

let me put a new theory out there. one far more serious and disturbing…

the fact that Dan Harms has altered the Cthulhu Mythos Wikipedia entries AFTER reading Cthulhu Cult in order to substantiate his claims. words fail me, Mr. Harms. honestly, how far will you go to discredit me?

i did some research of my own. i asked a friend who looks at the Mythos Wikipedia frequently to do some checking. and he was sure that several entries were indeed altered from the time my book became available to the time your Cthulhu Cult blog entry was created.

for shame, Dan.

I’m glad to hear that Darrick has at least one “friend,” and one with the honored title of “Mythos Wikipedia looker” at that. Then again, it’s unlikely they’ll remain friends after Darrick finds out how dumb this person has just made him look in public.

Fear not, Darrick. As a great man once said, “I’ll explain, and I’ll use small words so that you’ll be sure to understand, you warthog-faced buffoon.”

Wikipedia does indeed rely upon users to create its entries. It’s also possible for anyone to go into Wikipedia and alter an entry. Those edits can be tracked. The page has indeed been edited since you published your book on January 1.

What you needed to prove was that I – or someone else – had edited the page after the Cult of Cthulhu Bible appeared so that it included the text from your book.

You can’t. The text was there before your book was published.

Watch and learn.

First, we’ll go to the Wikipedia entry for Cthulhu. If you click on the “history” tab at the top, it’ll take you to this page, with each edit sequentially beneath. Now, I edit under the unimaginative name “Danharms,” but of course, I’d be sneaky enough to have some secret name I only use to make you look bad, right?

Ah, but look at the little green buttons toward the left! By choosing one and then another, we can compare different versions of the same page! For instance, I can take one from December 31 and the one from January 6 and view a page showing the changes between the two versions.

I had thought you were capable of reading color-coded charts like the one I made of your book’s Cthulhu entry and this page, Darrick. In case you aren’t, though, note that none of the text from your book shows up, meaning it was not added between those edits. In fact, the first paragraph on my chart that’s not in your book was added between those dates.

In fact, this “fact” that you’ve “uncovered” really works in my favor. I can easily use this feature to track back to the exact edit of the page from which the section in your book was taken. It’s not worth my energy. Yet.

Plus, observant readers will note that Darrick hasn’t said anything about the other two websites where I’ve also found his prose. Neither of them has a wiki interface allowing me to alter the text. He hasn’t even mentioned either of them. Frankly, he should be grateful I defended him against the charge of misogyny, because I don’t think he’s capable of doing it on his own.

Let’s recap.

After my initial post, you told us that your book contained “a section without so much original prose,” effectively admitting that parts of it came from elsewhere without attribution. You immediately forgot that you said it and starting talking about revisions and pastiches and editing, until I proved the lifting was wholesale. Now you’ve made a shameful and pathetic attempt to foist the whole thing off on me, just like you’ve tried before to rewrite history after the fact, hoping that the readers would fail to remember that you’d already admitted it! Needless to say, you failed spectacularly.My advice? Own up. It doesn’t matter why or how this happened, but it shouldn’t have. Take responsibility. Apologize. Go to your publisher and ask them to pull the book. Give it back to them once you’ve rewritten those pages, which you’re more than capable of doing. Sell it. When people approach you later about the incident, let them know what happened. (Them Internets have loooong memories.) Put it behind you.

Or, just keep going.

It’s your choice.

UPDATE:  More here.

Published in: on January 9, 2007 at 7:41 pm  Comments (5)  

The URI to TrackBack this entry is:

RSS feed for comments on this post.

5 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. Thanks Dan, this hilarious exchange is brightening up a wet and windy January (on this side of the pond) no end. What will he think of next? Maybe the editors of Wikipedia are conspiring to make him look bad by retrospectively changing their page histories. With some help from the Internet Archive, the CIA, the Knights Templar and the Fiendish Fluoridators, of course. I shall be keeping my tin-foil beanie close to hand.

  2. Why does this feud remind me of when Peter Gilmore would go to any length to discredit Anton LaVey? I guess history really does repeat itself.

  3. LaVey was also a plagiarist, it’s true. Not quite as hilariously self-impaling as Darren, though.

  4. Doh! I too have impaled myself! Darren -> Darrick!

  5. Love it and hope you continue the great power of his coming jk actually i am a heretic to those followers and have even chased some off. Ha

    but lovecraft has really out done himself when he was alive hahahaha

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s