Temple wrote of Hackethal:
Please don’t believe things just because he states them as facts and provides source links. His claims often contradict his sources.
and
Hackethal frequently uses source links to make his claims look true.
This reminded me of Hackethal’s claim that Temple is a hypocrite on the issue of plagiarism because Temple used the phrase “active-minded”.
Hackethal wrote (link omitted):
The part “active-minded” is an implicit reference to one of Rand’s ideas (which Temple makes explicit only much further down his article, contrary to his own stance on avoiding plagiarism). An active mind (as opposed to an open one) is one that critically evaluates ideas and holds firm convictions. Rand says objectivists should have an active mind.
But Hackethal’s own link to Temple’s alleged stance on avoiding plagiarism says:
When criticizing others, including me, Temple’s stance on plagiarism is: “Plagiarism is taking credit for ideas or writing that isn’t yours.” He says the name of the originator of an idea should be “in the main text” and “not just in the [end]note […].” He explains his stance further: “The appropriate action is to credit [the originator] by name in the main text every time one of [their] major ideas is introduced, at minimum.” He does not define “major”. “[I]ntentional malice is clear” to him when an originator is not credited “even once”.
Temple gives several quotes of Rand discussing the concept of an active mind “in the main text” of the article Hackethal is referencing. Temple not only names Rand as the source but specifically names “Ayn Rand’s Philosophical Detection, from Philosophy: Who Needs It.” Also, Temple is not “taking credit” for the idea. (Also, I personally wouldn’t regard it as one of Rand’s “major ideas” anyway.)
So Hackethal’s own example of Temple allegedly acting contrary to his own stance on plagiarism is just blatantly false.
I guess Hackethal is counting on his readers not bothering to check his claims and just assuming that what he says must be true because he provides links. As Temple says: “Hackethal frequently uses source links to make his claims look true.” and “His claims often contradict his sources.”
Also, even if Temple didn’t quote Rand on the issue of having an active mind, I think the context makes it clear anyway. Virtually any reader who’s enough of a Rand fan to be aware of the existence of Harry Binswanger would get the reference. (I think Temple is basically saying that Binswanger banned Temple even though Temple has qualities Rand championed (such as being “active-minded”). So it’s implicitly crediting Rand for identifying and championing that quality anyway. It’s also implicitly criticizing Binswanger for not appreciating a quality that Rand championed.)
Also, more broadly, Temple says that he’s a fan of Ayn Rand in the sidebar/header thingo of his curi blog. Even Temple’s X/Twitter bio says that he likes Ayn Rand. Temple also explicitly says that he/CF “builds on” and “takes inspiration from” Objectivism.
I guess Hackethal is trying to make it seem like Temple is being unreasonable about avoiding plagiarism and giving credit in order to obscure Hackethal’s own plagiarism of ET/CF. But if Hackethal were to act the way that Temple does in Hackethal’s own cherry-picked “active-minded” example, then Hackethal would have to—like Temple—credit and quote ET/CF “in the main text” of his articles, say he’s a fan of ET/CF in the sidebar/header of his blog (and even X/Twitter bio), acknowledge which ideas used for Veritula come from ET/CF and—even if Hackethal were to originate new ideas—acknowledge that he “builds on” and “takes inspiration from” ET/CF, etc., etc. None of which Hackethal does. To the contrary, Hackethal attacks and lies about Temple—presumably in an attempt to obscure the fact that Hackethal plagiarized ET/CF.