That she continues not to use apostrophes throughout the post and gets other things wrong ("I never ment to hurt"), pretty much sends the message that "I don't really know what I'm doing" and "I just don't really care." If, as an editor, she doesn't understand basic rules of punctuation, then is it any surprise that she doesn't understand copyright?

If, as she claims, the magazine is going to go out of business, the real culprit is the editor's lack of knowledge about the business she's in.

After all, we wouldn't feel sorry for a chef who had to close his restaurant after it was revealed that he was violating health codes. Why should we feel sorry for an editor who still doesn't understand copyright, even after having gone through this whole episode?

She steals someone else's work, gets caught and sends an arrogant, rude email with absurd claims (web is public domain) and then when she is hit with the internet backlash, she writes a post that it's not her fault because she was overworked and throws in an insincere apology where she still clearly doesn't believe she did anything wrong ("I think I did a nice job for you").

The original article didn't irk me nearly as much as her rebuttal. Quite frankly, if this really does put them out of business, they deserve it.

Yes.

Copyright is the default, not the exception. Unless there's an explicit declaration that copying is OK (e.g. Creative Commons, other licenses), you should assume you can't copy it.

She gets no sympathy from me. In fact, her comments just push me further from her side.