5. Dasource says that ShadowSend V2 is not Cryptonote because they coded it from the ground up, they didn't copy and paste anything from cryptonote and he wanted to get that point across, if you want to argue that it ripped off cryptonote, you might as well argue all cars are a ripoff of the Model T. Also would like to reiterate that the cryptonote whitepaper was referenced in the Shadowsend whitepaper.
Sorry but that doesn't fly. If you take the blueprints (i.e. whitepaper) for a Model T, tweak a part or two, and then build your "new" BaxterCar in a different factory, then yes it is still a rip off of the Model T.
Including a reference in a whitepaper is not good enough; the proper way to cite a reference and avoid plagiarism is by indicating which particular portion of the document is derived from the reference. But in this case that was not done and can not be done because it is virtually the entire document. Interestingly, the other references in that whitepaper are indeed cited (most of them at least). For some "odd" reason, the cryptonote reference is never cited in the text.
Nobody has ever claimed that the code was copied. What is copied is the design and cryptography. It better be, by the way, because the shadowsend white paper contains no security proofs. So tell me this about shadowsend: Is the design identical such that the security proofs in the cryptonote white paper apply, or is it insecure?