Thank you, skepticlawyer/Helen, that response proves you were the plagiarised party, and not guilty of plagairism. Of course, I retract any implication you were in the wrong.

Although I made an honest mistake in assuming you wrote your article only last year, I also apologize totally for any offense given, particularly as this is clearly a sensitive issue for you.

Regards,

Clive

I apologise for any inference in my response to Clive which may have reflected on the verisimilitude of SkepticLawyer.
That was not my intention.

Barney

Strewth! What is this all about really?

I wonder what Wanda Koolmatrie thinks about all this tip toeing around possible litigious action?

Thanks, people. I do appreciate you coming back and retracting. As Clive points out, this kind of thing is very irritating, as well as detracting from what had been an interesting and lively discussion up until that point. Poor Robert - who'd put all that effort into asking such good questions - got short shrift as I had to waste my comments for the day on trivial stuff.

May I make one small request for the future? Going off half-cocked is not a great look, and shoe-leather tastes pretty ordinary.

I'll come back later today when I've had a think about Robert's questions.