More comments to LP

Following up on this post, after LP apologized and tried to explain, I replied:

Citing references and influences in ANY paper is not just an academic exercise. Michael Schwartz noted in another thread that

"Once we move into 'second tier' and 'dialectical' (in the Bhaskarian sense) waves of cognition, but also in being with one another do our projects, as 'totalizing,' present themselves as also open, dynamic, stratified, always already on-the-way, and only activated as such via dialog and in community."

Mark Schmanko also noted in this thread that

"[I]t'd be nice if an explicit gesture of appreciation of some sort were voiced in tandem, mainly because, it's true, in these types of internet spaces we end up drawing from each other's insights a great deal, and much of this is not conscious - I no doubt have learned and refined in so many ways my thinking by virtue of this forum (and to a lesser extent the website)."
Citing references is one way of expressing how our own innovations were inspired by, and grew out of, dialog within our community. We can at once take credit where it is due for our unique contribution to that community while also recognizing that we stand on its shoulders. Hence it's not just academic papers that express this sentiment but any paper.

Your expression of that appreciation in responses here should also find its way into the paper by referencing IPS as more than just that one denigrating statement, which sets us up a foil to your brilliant and apparently and solely individual correction. While I appreciate your own variations on ideas in the paper, there are numerous sources from which you draw and those ideas are not completely your own.