At this point I feel quite victimised, actually.

I don't think i've said anything here that could be interpreted as an attack. Lizzie posted a link about Cecil Sharp, and I recognised that the page was plagiarised - I actually remember the event that it was written to promote. As I explained, the wholesale copying of content is something to which I am particularly sensitive. My subsequent comments were simply well-meaning advice - but if you are going to post a link to a page of stolen content, are people meant to simply turn a blind eye because to do otherwise might hurt your feelings? All I have said is that Sam ought to name his sources, because if he doesn't, he might find himself in a position where his site is under threat. Not by me, but by the people who legally own the content he has copied.

I have tried to remain reasoned and sensible throughout this quite interesting thread, but yet again it's turned into one of Lizzie's diatribes.