With your link, you dishonestly suggest to people who didn't hit the links in the article that the posted author 1. stole his article from James Lubinskas, and 2. that you are setting things aright.
The posted author inserted not one, but two links to Lubinskas, which is where you got the link you re-posted. If Stix had stolen Lubinskas' work, do you think he would have inserted two links to the same article! Duh! You didn't set anything aright, but rather misrepresented both articles. Lubinskas didn't write the "original article"; his article appeared in 2001. The original article would have appeared some time between 1974 and 1979, and most likely was written by Clark Howard, whose 1979 book is obviously the source for both articles.
You don't by any chance work at the New York Times, do you?
Or 3.None of the above.
I'm not dishonest, and wasn't trying to discredit anyone. It is possible I made an honest mistake when I assumed the article the author linked to with the words "white on black" was SOURCE material for their own article. I applauded the fact that the linked article correctly said "black on white"...That's all. No offense to anyone intended, least of all a fellow Freeper.