I admit that I thought that celander’s post in question was his original and would continue thinking so had it not been for others who objected. I am not sure if that would be considered plagiarism, when an uninformed person is not given clear explanation, but I understand that many people quote others with no ill intentions. For whatever reason, I feel that was the case here. Not exactly pretending those are his own words, but instead probably thinking everybody would have recognized them. Those of us who did not know any better were slightly mislead, but no harm was done. Now we learned something. Even two new names.
As for the text itself, nicely written, but must be from some old time. Parts of it are barely relevant these days although hard to dispute outside of the reasonably-willing group.
As for the text itself, nicely written, but must be from some old time. Parts of it are barely relevant these days although hard to dispute outside of the reasonably-willing group.