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 :)
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
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. 😉😂😇