In an email, culture editor Andreas Tobler gave me three examples of phrases that were supposedly taken unchanged from Wikipedia and gave me a deadline of five hours. It was Monday, which is pretty busy for me with a TV and a radio show. Nevertheless, I responded within the ultimatum given. As I also learned that Tobler had received a PDF of the book from another Tagi editor, to whom I had sent it in confidence, and that they wanted to break the embargo period, I contacted the editor-in-chief.
In an email, Tagi editor-in-chief Arthur Rutishauser assured me that this would not happen and that "my best arguments" would be included in the article. This reassured me. However, I pointed laos rcs data out to Arthur that I could only do this if I knew the allegations against me. But despite asking, I was refused. So the article appeared on the following Monday, in which they inserted some randomly selected quotes from my first email that I had not approved for publication. The large-printed "proof" of my crime - a concrete passage - had not been presented to me. Nor did I know that my journalistic book would be absurdly compared with a thesis by Doris Fiala that was rejected by the ETH.
I then suggested to Rutishauser that I would like to discuss the matter with the author in a longer conversation on Radio 1. But this was rejected with the strange comment that the Tagi was "only interested in the matter and not the person" - and this after I had been targeted several times in a harsh manner ("The Schawinski method", "Schawinski (with picture) on page 1: cheating the reader"). I was then offered the opportunity to respond in 4500 characters, which I declined with the comment that this was the Köppel method: first hit hard, as loudly as possible. Then the person being vilified could defend themselves, thereby gaining maximum attention and two articles for the price of one.