Since we're beating dead horses..

None of the verbatim borrowings from scholars are big ideas--they're simply textbook-type statements of core concepts. I haven't been suggesting that a Field Manual be footnoted (only arguing that "we don't do notes" isn't an effective defence in a document that, even in its non UChicago military form, does have notes and quotation marks).

More important, it wouldn't have taken more than an hour to rewrite the key concepts in original language, and avoid the entire "FM 3-24 is plagiarized" charge.

OK, I think I've really killed my horse now