RE: What Not to Do on Steemit - Must Read!
Yes, @steemcleaners stopped one of my posts saying it had a low rating, even though it had votes. I have a feeling however that it was a robot without a person's oversight, or at least no oversight for 48hrs. The info may have been available from 1884 on a www site which also may be a plagiarists' as he had not mentioned the publisher, or even that it was written by the input of hundreds of readers. The excert that I had put up was part of a series. They are historical excerts, from a Victorian encyclopaedia which is no longer published since before WW2, so, as I had explained, had a person read the blog, rather than arbitrarily deciding on one post, the excerts which I have been posting are not claimed, nor are they a whole encyclopaedia. For reasons pertaining to WW1, they were rendered to my public for examples of our grandparents way of life after WW1. I experienced first hand, by swift hand when I was negligent, the etiquette and grammar expected of a formal social intercourse. Here on steemit.com these excerts are more easily found and used than searching a defunct encyclopaedia from the century before last. The teachings enclosed are still viable today, and 'I hope' my children and their cousins and their children will still base their polite social intercourse upon them. The persons overseeing their plagiarism robots might do well to actual read and apply some of these Hints in my blog. I have very little else of that publication to add, but some 100 year old Pharmacopoeia as an interesting aside, particularly for those among us who live far from shops and hospitals, or even flying doctors.
Thank-you.
Sorry I am for the vent, but arbitrariness always upsets.
Keep on keeping on. 😇
Resteemed.
Yes steemcleaners is a robot. You need to be careful, these robot goes around and cleans your payouts by downvoting. Good luck to you simon :)
The site hasn't even had the decency to reply. They allow an unthinking robot to make arbitrary decisions without oversite, and then when proven wrong or on argument so, still don't reply. As I said, the robots driver's need to oversite their actions, and for responsibility, perhaps actually read and if they have been arbitrary, resteem. They, the owners/drivers could well do with studying the politeness of formal communication as presented in my blog. @cheetah helped me discover the name of the collection. What I discovered is that the plagiarism seems to be that which @steemcleaners is using to call me. The www site @cheetah found looks very much like a copy/paste in which it doesn't say that the writer's are the public, and nor does it say who the publishers are, or that they are now defunct. So, where is my plagiarism, and who would try sueing me when there is a publicly collected encyclopaedia plagiarised in www from 1884, and the notes are referenced to another published by a defunct Co almost fifty years after that in the www. And as a no-longer published encyclopaedia that is at least 85 years old, the notes I give without claim, to my reading public, can hardly be 'plagiarised.'
I'm a gov't pensioner, and I'd love nothing better than a court case, but I really don't think an Attorney General, of England or Australia, would back any claim to ownership of a publicly collected encyclopaedia of 'common knowledge.'
So, apart from making me laugh, and annoying some of my readers, @steemcleaners are making asses of themselves, and showing themselves as ignorant and arbitrary. 😉😂😇