Whereupon Rachel Shubin destroys a Bayly

And he doesn’t know it

Last week Joseph Bayly of the brothers Bayly line took up the cause of Douglas Wilson, attempting to defend him against the charge of plagiarism. You will recall that Rachel Miller uploaded 70+ images demonstrating massive amounts of plagiarized text in the Omnibus textbook series, which is published by Veritas Press (Douglas Wilson, general editor). Mr. Bayly grounded his argument on an abusive ad hominem combined with a fallacy of composition and in this respect he represented his family tree well. Stupid runs in the Bayly DNA and Joseph Bayly inherited the whole gene.

Enter Rachel Shubin. Please read the whole thread to get the context, but in short, Mr. Bayly displayed his family’s trademark contempt toward women in his replies to Rachel, piling on the snark at the end. Here is Rachel Shubin’s answer:

*  *  *

You’re right; you are fuzzy. How about this. You’re on the board of directors for Athanasius College, right? And they have a statement in the student handbook on plagiarism, right? Here’s what it says:

“Students must perform all academic work with honesty and integrity. Tutors are provided by the college for those struggling with their work, and while joint study is acceptable and encouraged, any copying or completion of written work by one student for another will be met with academic discipline.

All plagiarism is forbidden, and will be taken very seriously, as well as misrepresentation or misappropriation of the works of others without proper citation.” [Athanasius College 2015–2016 Academic Year General Course Catalog]

So, let’s see. I was going to post the side-by-side image of one of the really obvious passages, but then you said you would take the link down. So then I just opened the image in a new window to get the image without the surrounding commentary, but that still links to the other site. So . . . here is the side-by-side from Miller’s site with none of the surrounding commentary. Since you linked to her full site in your article, I assume you won’t have a problem with a link that goes just to primary source images without any of her editorial.

What if a teacher from your college came upon this in a paper from one of the students? The page on the left from Omnibus I (page 211) was published in April 2005. Most of the text from that page was taken from Harvard.edu. The WaybackMachine.org web archive has that text printed on that page as early as February 2004 (note the date on the top right) So, my question is, how would your school respond if this came from one of its students? Is it plagiarism or not?

Other than the one inadvertant comment that I retracted, I have made no statements as to who inserted the text into the book, and that is because I don’t know. Actually, I reviewed part of Miller’s article again (that’s how we’re doing it, right?), and she says she doesn’t know who did it either. Since it isn’t possible to tell who actually did it in most of the cases, the question then shifts to whose responsibility is it?

Here is how Wilson himself answers that exact question in a post from a few years ago about Mark Driscoll’s plagiarism woes. He describes a situation that sounds very similar to what I think probably happened here. Since I’m linking directly to Wilson’s own blog, I assume you won’t have a problem with that either. (Quote found here)

Here is the part I found interesting:

“The production of a book involves numerous people who handle the words prior to publication, unlike a term paper. How could something bad get in? Well, think about research assistants, copy editors, copy editors who think they should have been the author, copy editors who think they should have been the fuehrer, content editors, politically correct content editors, and so on. Just a few weeks ago I had the experience of opening a book I wrote only to have my eyes light upon something that I could never have possibly written, and which some helpful editor (or gnome in the printing press) had inserted for me. It was quite embarrassing, but I didn’t do it, although this leads to the next point. I am nevertheless responsible for it. My name is on the cover.”

Well, Joseph, thank you for discussing all this with me, but I spent far too much time visiting with you today. Not only do I have other things on my calendar for tomorrow, but I think this is going nowhere. Thus, I will withdraw and leave the last word to you. I trust you’ll use it to appear very reasonable and balanced.

*  *  *

Boom.

UPDATE:
One of the Baylys has answered Rachel Shubin by banning her:

[NOTE FROM TB: Of course there are some small number of places in Omnibus that need to he changed. Joseph has said this a number of times, but each time you respond by acting as if he’s not acknowledging it and it still must be proven. So readers not keeping up with the discussion will be deceived by your comments, thinking Joseph is denying there are places where Omnibus needs to be cleaned up. In other words, you are deceiving our readers. Ms. Shubin, stubborn denial of the truth is your name. Ms. Miller’s sin is as public as can be and everyone examining her body of splenetic diatribes against Pastor Wilson (including this latest iteration) clearly sees it’s time for her elders to meet with her. That’s what Son Joseph’s post points out, but you want to hijack his post to add fuel to Ms. Miller’s public sins. In other words, you refuse to acknowledge the truth and stubbornly persist in defending Ms. Miller’s sin. Sadly, then, I must tell ask you to be quiet and leave the premises.]

32 Comments

  1. “I only read a few of Ms. Miller’s slides before I gave up looking for plagiarism…” How telling.

  2. Rachel Shubin, you write with such clarity and I love reading it.

    Ha ha ha! If someone rats out Douglas Wilson and the person is a woman then it stands to reason that we can call her mean patriarchal names like… Feminist.

    This Joseph Bayly quote about Rachel Miller is rich. Because, uh, he’s not trying to “smear” Rachel or anything untoward like that. And say it ain’t so, he thinks Rachel lacks “modesty and shame” the two patriarchal pillars. Damn, I bet she’s heartbroken. The Take-No-Prisoners comment:

    “Feminists who want to hold onto conservative Christian credentials claim they submit to their husbands at home, in private. Occasionally they trot their husbands out online to testify to their submissiveness at home. But in their online attacks on men, these women take no prisoners. You can see it on all the Reformed sites: women condemn pastors and elders without a hint of modesty or shame.”

    What a scurrilous joke.

    1. They only care when women critique pastors they agree with. Check out the comments they allow and encourage by women when they disagree with a pastor.

    3. @Rachel:

      Here’s a small comparison between your post and his response:

      Your post is 701 words, written on a flat-line. It includes six citations and two blockquotes, each from Omnibus. The name Wilson appears only 9 times:

      • Once in the title, because he is the General Editor of the Omnibus textbook series (published by Veritas Press)
      • Once in in the body text in reference to his influence on Classical Christian Education, which was the subject of the three-post series you wrote.
      • Another time in the body text in reference to A Justice Primer, which they pulled after you caught them plagiarizing.
      • And six other times when you reference each volume that he edited, as required by the rules of citation.

      Mr. Bayly’s post runs 4,084 words; he uses the name Wilson 37 times; and I think this string of quotes summarizes his primary concern about you:

      “Rachel Miller’s malice against Pastor Doug Wilson,” “toxic” “editorial leadership,” “sexual rebellion,” “online attacks on men,” “outdoing” your “feminist sisters,” “unhinged,” “hostility against Pastor Wilson’s teaching,” “irrational,” “hatred for Pastor Wilson,” “constant attempts to discredit him through charges of plagiarism,” “a fatwa . . . issued by Judge Rachel,” “mounting a smear campaign based upon lots of deceptive pictures,” “almost all of them are false charges,” “trying to smear Doug Wilson,” “many, many, many false charges,” “doesn’t care about collateral damage,” “toast anyone and anything if she thinks doing so will harm the reputation of Pastor Doug Wilson,” “Burn ’em down,” “Burn it down,” “Consumed by her hatred,” “falsely accusing Pastor Wilson of plagiarism,” “bonkers, off the deep end in holding Pastor Doug Wilson, his co-editors, the many contributors to Omnibus, Veritas Press, and their staff to an entirely different standard than the standard she lives by herself,” “rants against Pastor Wilson,” “her very public ‘malignant spirit’ against Pastor Wilson,” “her very public failure ‘to show probable cause’ in her attack upon Pastor Wilson,” “her scandal and sin.”

      Probably missed a few but this pretty much captures the essence.

      I think I speak for the entire human race save those 20 morons who read and agree with the Bayly Blog, when I say that, like his father and his uncle, Joseph Bayly is an idiot.

  3. Fighting facts with insults is the argumentative equivalent of fighting fire with gasoline. Instead of dousing the flames, it spreads them explosively. The Baylys don’t seem to realize they are napalming their own position.

  4. Clearly someone is “unhinged,” “bonkers, ” and smearing others with baseless accusations. But it’s not me.

  5. This won’t happen but the best thing Joseph Bayly could do is replace the post with something like this:

    “I don’t agree with Rachel Miller on many things but I do agree that she has proven the Omnibus textbook series published by Veritas Press (Douglas Wilson, General Editor) suffers from multiple instances of plagiarism — so much so that Veritas Press should immediately pull the volumes from the market. I may not agree with all of her findings but I do agree with her conclusion, and as much as I respect Douglas Wilson, I have to admit that he is the General Editor of the series and therefore the captain must go down with the ship.”

    He should insert an apology in there as well, for being such an ass.

  6. What is the appeal of Doug Wilson that he is continually surrounded by sycophants? And, what does it say about Doug that he is such an emotional and psychological black hole that he will suck the soul out of every one of them? Has he sunk so low that the a** kissing of the Bayly clan provides a welcome ego boost? Apparently, no one dares to hold DW responsible for his repeated ethical failures. The spectacle grows in commonality with the fading days of a bloated, disease ridden Henry the VIII. No one dared tell him the truth either.
    Rose Huskey

    1. Outside of their small ghettos, hardly anyone in Christendom has heard of Mr. Wilson or his comrades and their disciples. The few who have, recognize them for what they are.

  7. How old is Joseph Baly? From his family photograph he looks to be barely out of his teens. When did they start giving the keys to grown-up church to sixteen year olds?

    3. So he’s 34-ish. From his internet demeanor he behaves more like a petulant, know-it-all teenager than a pastor. Is Athanasius College some kind of church “vanity college” akin to NSA?

  9. Well, I just read the paragraph that informs Rachel Shubin that she has been banned. If, by chance, you are a Wilson sycophant dropping by to read this thread, allow me to inform you that you are utterly, completely, beyond question, irrevocably, irretrievably, certifiably crazy. Seriously. Wow. Just…..wow……you’re insane. Just like Doug Wilson, but maybe you’re not as disgustingly fat as the good “Pastor”. Maybe you’ve got that going for you. Now you must ponder whether I’m a male or an uppity female. Send the elders after me. Oh wait, that won’t work, I don’t belong to any Wilson related cult.

  12. “Look, guys I already told you these are “Small problems” that need to be “Cleaned up.” But you shrill harridans still dare to pretend that words mean things and that facts are important! Get back, back I say! Into the kitchen with you! And TAKE OFF THOSE SHOES!!! YOUR ELDERS WILL BE HEARING FROM MY ELDERS ABOUT YOUR FAILURE TO SUBMIT TO MALE BLOGGERS IN OTHER STATES!”

    1. I know, LOL. They’re so delusional it just fills me with maniacal glee. Someday I hope to meet a Bayly in person, so I can simply laugh myself into hysterics when they try to exert authority at me. What utter ponces.

  13. Further proof that everyone from Doug Wilson to Mark Driscoll has no business *writing* (cough) books because they have NOTHING original to say and have to steal from others.

    The college I went to, you’d get kicked to the curb and no degree. It would be officially marked on your transcript as well.

    These guys are just losers.

    1. You’d be amazed at how many “Christians” don’t think plagiarism is a big deal.

      Mark Driscoll has set up shop over in Scottsdale, a mere 15 minute drive from my home (which, if you know anything about the Phoenix metro area, means his “church” is practically in my driveway). I’ve gone out every Sunday but one to stand in front of the “church” with a sign and remind people who are attending that Driscoll has unresolved problems. The ones who talk to me (not very many, mind you) don’t seem to think that Driscoll’s plagiarism is a problem. Or the misappropriation of funds. Or the way he treats women. Etc., etc., etc. Some days, I think, “not my circus, not my monkeys,” but when the next Sunday rolls around, I am back out there with my sign, because someone has to let the attendees know that Mark Driscoll is toxic.

  14. Funny how the Bayly boys don’t show up to cross lances on this turf, where their texts and links would not be deleted or deactivated. Ever. I don’t know who you are Ulysses, but I just said a reverse imprecatory prayer for you.

    1. The Baylys would never venture to dare comment in a forum where they don’t have absolute control of the content. They’re cowards and pantywaists.

    2. Such is the nature of internet bullies. Tough hombres in the safe cyber confines of their own cyber space, but to venture into more unwelcoming territory? Not a chance.

  15. A woman can get a ways in one of their comment threads at first, by appearing to exhibit the “feminine deference” that Tim B. teaches. I’ve never been able to figure out the difference between that and the submission of all women to all men, though.

  16. Thanks for all the kind things you’ve said here, everyone. I appreciate it. I’ve been on the Bayly blog twice now, I think. Not exactly finding a compelling reason to return, but then it sounds like I’ve been booted off so I can cross that off my Things To Bother With list anyway. Bummer!

Comments are closed.