As I quoted you:
This is not going to be productive if you cant remember what you wrote even when its quoted back to you.
That does not destroy the moral case - the case still exists. Acting immorally is not the same as destroying the moral case, do you really think that I can destroy any moral case you care to present by acting against it? This is not going to be productive if you draw flawed conclusions like that.
Of course I had, why do you think I choose that particular example. So you are well aware that Libertarians did not plagiarise the idea, and that it existed well before Rand. Sorry if I was being too subtle.
That is a very different statement to you saying Libertarians plagiarised the idea. Most libertarians don't argue the basis the NAP, they just accept it as a core principle. So as the NAP existed before Rand, and Libertarians dont use Rand's derivation of it they are not plagiarising Rand (at least in this instance). This is not going to be productive if you make sweeping statements that are mis-applied.
I'm hard on objectivists because many of them fall into applying Rand's statements in the wrong context, which leads to them being considered dogmatic.