"... who we are …"

I have asked who you are, since I assume you started this and are finishing it …

"... safety reasons."

Wow. Safety of what? I hope you are not seriously implying you are fearful of some physical harm, right?  You don’t have a pseudo-anonymous account name, with maybe the vaguest reference to where you can be found in this big, wide world of our?  Instead, you decided to provide your full name, address, and phone number?

Can’t imagine it … No, that cannot be it ...

You are far more likely concerned about the ... "safety" ... of your own investment in our Hive blockchain.  God forbid you experience anything like the reciprocal of what you yourself said to me at the beginning, threatening mine:

"You have been wasting your curation upvoting this account..."

I will now do my best to set that aside and finish what I started. At least as much as that is possible, given your failure, thus far, to address the points of my original appeal.

Appeal.  Key word.  My definition.  Which I will now make some attempt at serving as a ... "defense attorney" ... although we can both laugh at that.  I am an engineer ... 🤷‍♂️

As the "prosecuting attorney," please address the following responses to your ... "allegations:"

• Your #1 above - I have no idea what you are intending to convey with "No new users get blacklisted." What does that mean?


• Your #2 above - "Possible plagiarism ..."
  
  
  1. Every book review of his that I have read clearly state the title of the book and the author.  Typically with the book cover serving as the lead image!? 🤷‍♂️
     
     Including the post examples you cited in making your original "case" ...
  
  
  2. Knowing this, as I can't imagine that is confusing, how do justify this charge?  Further knowing your challenge is compounded by your electing to use inflammatory words like "fraud?"
  
  
  3. Presumption of innocence. "Innocent until proven guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt ..." Does this standard of justice apply wherever you are in the world?
     
     Make your case.  Provide ONE example of where he did not cite his source.  As it is, your cited examples fail this essential test ...


• From your original "case" - "These posts (there were hundreds not just these 3) had only 1 very short, original sentence:"
  
  
  1. While you provided an image, one of which clearly shows 2 sentences, you have provided no links, so that anyone might independent of you verify your claims.
  
  
  2. That said, this is the only part of your overall case, with which some might be sympathetic.  Not enough of his own content, while referencing the clearly sourced content of others ...
  
  
  3. What you fail to grasp, or at least acknowledge, is:
     
     
     • The enormous amount of time which is required to read the book, in the first place. And then extract those points which he deems of greatest interest for his followers to read and reflect upon.
     
     
     • To this point, he has clearly stated the time to create a ... "standard" ... post, would require far, far less of his time and effort.
       
       In contrast, what is your view of others of our fellow Hivians openly boasting of their "s...post" efforts where they are clearly stating it took them almost nothing to produce?
       
       Being consistent, I am sure you are bringing the hammer down on them as well, right?
     
     
     • He has clearly stated (although we can agree not consistently) that if the author ever finds his post, he will gladly give the paid out rewards to them.
       
       Given what I know of the man's integrity, I have no question this would take place.
     
     
• I and (as anyone can plainly see) others find very good value in this man's posts. And reward the time and effort he puts into presenting them to us accordingly.
  
  Please acknowledge:
  
  
  1. There are other ways to measure time, effort, and "quality content" than a simple word count.
  
  
  2. His well-earned rewards are nowhere near the top of the Trending list.
  
  
  3. His work in support of others is exemplary.  Our Hive blockchain would benefit from many more like him, rather than drive him and his readers away.


• Bottom line: While he, myself, and others are actively working to add value to our Hive blockchain, you are actively working to destroy it.



You have legitimate targets,
for your legitimate efforts.


This account is

not

one of them!

________________________

Please respond as though a "jury of his peers" is making the final decision, as to the merits of your "case." Not you.

And that these peers are:

1. Investors. Upon whom the future of our Hive blockchain depends.


2. Actively involved in adding value to their investment.


3. Inclined to view your efforts as destructive of the very value they are faithfully laboring away every day to create.



The above is not hypothetical. You are "talking" to one.

Thank you, in advance, for your careful consideration of how you now choose to respond.