I wrote earlier that RSubedi's effort to post that news item could well be shrugged off as a small, if clumsy act, and leave it at that. I am not sure why some people here are splitting hairs and are being so harsh toward him. For the record, I do NOT know who RSubedi is; so I have nothing to gain by buttering him up. But in the interest of this kurakani, let me explain my reasoning: I base my points on two issues related to plagiarists and plagiarism: a) public attention and b) ownership of the produced materials. It's conceivable that, in general, a plagiarist is NOT likely to draw public attention to the work s/he has produced. [It's probably true that those who publish plagiarized books are far fewer in numbers than those who submit plagiarized papers in schools and colleges.]. So: It's conceivable that, in general, a plagiarist is NOT likely to draw public attention to the work s/he has produced. Why? Because doing so would increase the possibility of his/her work being exposed as a fake. A plagiarist, then, would produce the work by copying/stealing/borrowing others' ideas without attribution, expect to to slip by, and enjoy the credit quietly. BUT RSubedi's behaviour here is just the OPPOSITE. He actually draws public attention to the fact that he has posted such and such news on that Web site, and invites people to take a look at that piece of news. Had he been a plagiarist, he would not have done that, would he? I mean, why would anyone draw attentiion to some work only to be exposed as a plagiarist? This does not make sense. *** Second, a plagiarist uses other people's ideas as his/her own. In Subedi's case, his disclaimer AT THE VERY LEAST leaves NO DOUBT that all he did was COLLECT those news items from all over the place. Sure, one could argue that the disclaimer is INADEQUATE in a strictly academic sense. Fine. BUT, even after allowingh for that inadequacy, let's be honest enough to admit that the disclaimer was ADEQUATE for any of his readers to conclude/deduce that Subedi himself did NOT claim that he wrote those up himself. This much is clear. A plagiarist would claim ownership, which Subedi does not. So, if Subedi is indeed a plagiarist, as some have claimed here, then, he would be a strange kind of a plagiarist: Someone who draws public attention for the work he says he collected from other sources. Like I said, it's one thing to characterise his work as a clumsy effort, and ask him to post the Web links of the articles he collects. But he does NOT appear to deserve the kind of gaali he's been getting here . . . on the basis of what he posted on his Web site. oohi ashu