[thelynchmob1]

But you're assuming all of the content is the same, except for one small change. It's not. Only the headlines are the same. Using your analogy, it's like taking another comedian's premise for a joke -- "a priest and a rabbi walk into a bar" or something -- and creating an entirely new routine from it.

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

The headline was the key interesting thing that drew people in, and the interesting bit of that was the '$subject$-Porn' bit, which he copied, blatantly in my opinion.

Also, although blatant copying in the writing/art/music is bad, in business it can be fine. If someone in my local area decided to open up a coffee shop or auto repair garage that were basically copies of other like businesses elsewhere, that would be fine; the 'epsilon' being they use a different name and branding. If that's the advice, its fine advice. What rubs me the wrong way is that it seems that the article is advising blatant copying but in giving it a cover to seem like its not. If the advice is to copy other successful businesses, then just say that. This doesn't need to be given a fancy name like 'the epsilon method' as if its some new innovative concept. Copying (with slight differences) is not a new idea. People know about copying already.

[suoduandao2]

Yes, but 'the epsilon method' is a different name and branding ;).

[Eddy_Viscosity2]

It is that. Perhaps I should just embrace this. I could write an article about my new original idea called 'the epsilon approach' which heavily uses the premise of the epsilon method, but with slightly different presentation.

[thelynchmob1]

so meta