This week in unattributed appropriation.
And why blocking me wasn't needed.
Firstly, I’m not mad. All I want is attribution (and debate because his version doesn’t work, expressly because of his changes.)
Secondly, it would seem that none of this is forbidden. I contacted everyone and basically I’m told because it’s sufficiently remixed (mangled) and because he’s not presenting it academically, that it’s all allowable, if shady.
Third, it’s pointless blocking me. If I wanna see what he appropriated recently, I can do so.
/sigh
So anyway here’s my Amazon review, which I’m sure he will have deleted, or will not be approved in the first place, because that’s a thing that exists...
Title: Badly Prompted. A (completely legal, but rude) unattributed remix of Experiential Empiricism/Sourcery.
I was his first sale, because i was also his first subscriber. Very strange situation. We could have been friends. Still can be. All i want is attribution.
I would have helped him make this book better.
He’s not breaking any rules. He’s not trying to steal credit academically. He took my public scholarly idea, changed it enough that it’s “original,” and then printed it for sale and clicks. But in changing it, it no longer works as a theory. (He reintroduced unprovable externalism.)
But even then the book is just bad because it’s extremely long winded/padded and 100% AI. Again, the AI itself is a not a problem. In the future we’ll call this badly prompted. Garbage in garbage out.
For full documentation search “The Refactoring Pattern: When Frameworks Are Copied Without Understanding Their Foundations I wish he’d just attribute me. Innomen Feb 01, 2026.”
See also _my_ book, “Sourcery: The Domain of Inquiry Underlying The Entirety of Meaning and The Axiomatic Foundation of Both Science and Philosophy”
(I physically printed a screenshot rather than include it as a product review image, seemed wise in context.)
Context: