Plagiarism... What is it and do you believe it's wrong?

[random3434]

Well, sure... it's laziness. But that laziness is a result of moral depravity...

Plagiarism is theft; it is deceit; it is fraud... It is intellectual bankruptcy.

Now in the case of those on that other forum; it goes beyond that... it is systemic to the ideology.

They are claiming A RIGHT to steal the work of others and deceitfully advance such as their own.

The right wing nuts on that site believe that they are ENTITLED to the intellectual work produced by other people. Just as they are entitled to healthcare; a Job, a house; and of course FOOD...

They are the Sarah Palin Lovers and they are part and parcel of those EXCEEDINGLY DISAPPOINTED THAT SHE HAS NOT DONE MORE TO "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE" America...

They're the one's who will be the most likely, in the wake of the November elections; where America kicks the ideological Right to the electorial curb... to seek out a means to strike back at America; to align themselves with Americas war enemies...

All the result of their feeling that something to which they have no claim... has been; or is being taken from them.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pubes...

I will give you $1,000 if you can point out every instance of plagiarism on this board.

Well shoot me $20 for EZs plagiarism of this OP... over in flame last night. Sure, it was for comedy relief... but it's a classic... and as such worth the premium.

I'll stipulate to plagiarism existing on this board... It exists... the issue is not its existence, the issue is the systemic acceptance of such as an ENTITLEMENT.

And Xot... I'm not talking about the ignoramus that plops a selection down and omits attribution; be it out of haste, or as noted above; ignorance... Most people on these forums are not well educated, nor well practiced in the art; most will; when faced with exposure; having been recognized as committing such; will upon admonishment from their peers turn from the practice.

What I am speaking of is where the peer group finds insufficient reason to admonish the behavior; where personal, intellectual integrity is something in which plagiarism has absolutely NO RELEVANCE; it’s a foreign concept; and literally seen as archaic; a function of antiquated religious principle to which they've absolutely allegiance; do not recognize and for which they’ve no respect.

People who proudly proclaim anarchy as a function of their liberal philosophy; and by anarchy, I mean "SCREW YOU PAL! IT'S MINE NOW!" People who believe with every fiber of their being, that popular consensus is directly bolted to validity and truth.

You know... true believing Hopers for Change.

Come on big guy... You're not that far gone... are ya?

I'm not denying it exists...I'm just asking you to find every instance of plagiarism on this board. How about in the last month? You don't need to go back to 2003.

Once we have some specifics to discuss, rather than just hypotheticals, then we will discuss it.

I've given you specifics... I sourced actual examples... that you want to dismiss the source is a function of your own intellectual deceit.

But, I suppose the problem is that it, the example; doesn't reflect well on your ideology... so you need to distract from that discussion, and establish the absurd pretense that it doesn't exist... or that it's somehow irrelevant.

Which to be frank... seems AWFULLY familiar.

Tell me Xot... are you claiming that this board represents the full measure; the entire scope of reality; and as such that which exists in this site is the extent of that which can reasonably be used as a point of discussion?

'Cause if ya are... and I really don't see any way out for ya here... at least where you maintain continuity... but if that is what you're driving at... you're gonna need to take it up with management; as the site map is gonna need a fairly significant overhaul. And frankly, it's really gonna dry up most of the conversation...

BUT with that said... I want to congratulate ya on a WONDERFUL example of a Progressive advocating for policy which can ONLY result in regression....

I mean you're really ALL OVER IT!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well, sure... it's laziness. But that laziness is a result of moral depravity...

Plagiarism is theft; it is deceit; it is fraud... It is intellectual bankruptcy.

Now in the case of those on that other forum; it goes beyond that... it is systemic to the ideology.

They are claiming A RIGHT to steal the work of others and deceitfully advance such as their own.

The right wing nuts on that site believe that they are ENTITLED to the intellectual work produced by other people. Just as they are entitled to healthcare; a Job, a house; and of course FOOD...

They are the Sarah Palin Lovers and they are part and parcel of those EXCEEDINGLY DISAPPOINTED THAT SHE HAS NOT DONE MORE TO "FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGE" America...

They're the one's who will be the most likely, in the wake of the November elections; where America kicks the ideological Right to the electorial curb... to seek out a means to strike back at America; to align themselves with Americas war enemies...

All the result of their feeling that something to which they have no claim... has been; or is being taken from them.

SWEET MOTHER! That's BRILLIANT!

(Xot... EZ's come to help ya out... feel better?)

It's all you buddy... What shall we make of it?

 

[random3434]

SWEET MOTHER! That's BRILLIANT!

(Xot... I've come to help ya out... feel better?)

It's all you buddy... What shall we make of it?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

SWEET MOTHER! That's BRILLIANT!

(Xot... I've come to help ya out... feel better?)

It's all you buddy... What shall we make of it?

Excellent deja vu...

Anytime there Xot... you're missing battin' practice...

'This is fundamental son... and ya can't stay sharp without y'er fundamentals...' Coach Frick '76

 

[random3434]

Excellent deja vu...

Anytime I'm there, here I am... you're missing battin' practice...

'This is fundamental son... and ya can't stay sharp without y'er fundamentals...' Coach Frick '76

 

[xotoxi]

Well shoot me $20 for EZs plagiarism of this OP... over in flame last night. Sure, it was for comedy relief... but it's a classic... and as such worth the premium.

I'll stipulate to plagiarism existing on this board... It exists... the issue is not its existence, the issue is the systemic acceptance of such as an ENTITLEMENT.

And Xot... I'm not talking about the ignoramus that plops a selection down and omits attribution; be it out of haste, or as noted above; ignorance... Most people on these forums are not well educated, nor well practiced in the art; most will; when faced with exposure; having been recognized as committing such; will upon admonishment from their peers turn from the practice.

What I am speaking of is where the peer group finds insufficient reason to admonish the behavior; where personal, intellectual integrity is something in which plagiarism has absolutely NO RELEVANCE; it’s a foreign concept; and literally seen as archaic; a function of antiquated religious principle to which they've absolutely allegiance; do not recognize and for which they’ve no respect.

People who proudly proclaim anarchy as a function of their liberal philosophy; and by anarchy, I mean "SCREW YOU PAL! IT'S MINE NOW!" People who believe with every fiber of their being, that popular consensus is directly bolted to validity and truth.

You know... true believing Hopers for Change.

Come on big guy... You're not that far gone... are ya?

I'm not denying it exists...I'm just asking you to find every instance of plagiarism on this board. How about in the last month? You don't need to go back to 2003.

Once we have some specifics to discuss, rather than just hypotheticals, then we will discuss it.

I've given you specifics... I sourced actual examples... that you want to dismiss the source is a function of your own intellectual deceit.

But, I suppose the problem is that it, the example; doesn't reflect well on your ideology... so you need to distract from that discussion, and establish the absurd pretense that it doesn't exist... or that it's somehow irrelevant.

Which to be frank... seems AWFULLY familiar.

Tell me Xot... are you claiming that this board represents the full measure; the entire scope of reality; and as such that which exists in this site is the extent of that which can reasonably be used as a point of discussion?

'Cause if ya are... and I really don't see any way out for ya here... at least where you maintain continuity... but if that is what you're driving at... you're gonna need to take it up with management; as the site map is gonna need a fairly significant overhaul. And frankly, it's really gonna dry up most of the conversation...

BUT with that said... I want to congratulate ya on a WONDERFUL example of a Progressive advocating for policy which can ONLY result in regression....

I mean you're really ALL OVER IT!

OH SHIT!!!

I forgot that engaging in a conversation with you is like talking to this guy...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA1hyqA6UTY]YouTube - Paranoid schizo complains to city about "rogue helicopter pilot"[/ame]

You only make sense to yourself.

I'm out.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

I'm not denying it exists...I'm just asking you to find every instance of plagiarism on this board. How about in the last month? You don't need to go back to 2003.

Once we have some specifics to discuss, rather than just hypotheticals, then we will discuss it.

I've given you specifics... I sourced actual examples... that you want to dismiss the source is a function of your own intellectual deceit.

But, I suppose the problem is that it, the example; doesn't reflect well on your ideology... so you need to distract from that discussion, and establish the absurd pretense that it doesn't exist... or that it's somehow irrelevant.

Which to be frank... seems AWFULLY familiar.

Tell me Xot... are you claiming that this board represents the full measure; the entire scope of reality; and as such that which exists in this site is the extent of that which can reasonably be used as a point of discussion?

'Cause if ya are... and I really don't see any way out for ya here... at least where you maintain continuity... but if that is what you're driving at... you're gonna need to take it up with management; as the site map is gonna need a fairly significant overhaul. And frankly, it's really gonna dry up most of the conversation...

BUT with that said... I want to congratulate ya on a WONDERFUL example of a Progressive advocating for policy which can ONLY result in regression....

I mean you're really ALL OVER IT!

OH SHIT!!!

I forgot that engaging in a conversation with you is like talking to this guy...

You only make sense to yourself.

I'm out.

Hey that's a SWEET FAIL!

And specifically that to which I was speaking where I mentioned that ya had no way out... assuming ya mantained continuity.

So... ya aren't interested in the classic examples of plagiarism that EZ laid down for ya?

Can't ya see that she's REALLY tryin' hard here, to prove that plagiarism is no big deal? And that my point is WAY over blown... which would sorta make my point; and you wouldn't want THAT, now would ya?

Come Xot, butch up... and finish your argument; or concede, to me; that ya actually had no point and were more interested in changin' the subject...

 

[random3434]

Hey that's a SWEET ASS!

And specifically that to which I was speaking where I mentioned that ya had no way out... assuming ya mantained continuity.

So... ya aren't interested in the classic examples of plagiarism that I laid down for ya?

Can't ya see that he's REALLY tryin' hard here, to prove that plagiarism is no big deal? And that his point is WAY over blown... which would sorta make my point; and you wouldn't want THAT, now would ya?

Come one, come all,, you leftists!... and finish your argument; or concede, to me; that ya actually had no point and were more interested in changin' the subject...

 

[xotoxi]

I've given you specifics... I sourced actual examples... that you want to dismiss the source is a function of your own intellectual deceit.

But, I suppose the problem is that it, the example; doesn't reflect well on your ideology... so you need to distract from that discussion, and establish the absurd pretense that it doesn't exist... or that it's somehow irrelevant.

Which to be frank... seems AWFULLY familiar.

Tell me Xot... are you claiming that this board represents the full measure; the entire scope of reality; and as such that which exists in this site is the extent of that which can reasonably be used as a point of discussion?

'Cause if ya are... and I really don't see any way out for ya here... at least where you maintain continuity... but if that is what you're driving at... you're gonna need to take it up with management; as the site map is gonna need a fairly significant overhaul. And frankly, it's really gonna dry up most of the conversation...

BUT with that said... I want to congratulate ya on a WONDERFUL example of a Progressive advocating for policy which can ONLY result in regression....

I mean you're really ALL OVER IT!

OH SHIT!!!

I forgot that engaging in a conversation with you is like talking to this guy...

You only make sense to yourself.

I'm out.

Hey that's a SWEET FAIL!

And specifically that to which I was speaking where I mentioned that ya had no way out... assuming ya mantained continuity.

So... ya aren't interested in the classic examples of plagiarism that EZ laid down for ya?

Can't ya see that she's REALLY tryin' hard here, to prove that plagiarism is no big deal? And that my point is WAY over blown... which would sorta make my point; and you wouldn't want THAT, now would ya?

Come Xot, butch up... and finish your argument; or concede, to me; that ya actually had no point and were more interested in changin' the subject...

I'll wait for some links from you.

Otherwise, you are just wasting bandwidth with your mini-manifestos.

 

[Ravi]

Well I don't see what the post from other boards has to do with anything...

..and then you spend nearly the whole thread, and your whole post which I am responding to talking about it.

There are about five threads on it at the forum in question. Quite comical in a meltdown sort of way. Apparently someone did post something and pass it off as their own...and so did Pubic. I guess now he's a liberal, too.

 

[editec]

Obviously plagerising is intellectually dishonest.

But I find it somewhat amazing that the charge is being made that this is something that "liberals" do more than conservatives.

I would find it just as amazing if the charge was being made that conservatives do it more than liberals, too.

It might be an interesting sociological study, though to see if there is any merit to Publius' charge.

I suspect what we'd find is that plagerism is more often found in partisans (of any stripe) than non partisans.

The above is pure conjecture on my part, of course.

But it is based on some kind of logic, and here's my reasoning for suggesting we might find that to be the case...

It's NOT about the inherent honesty of partisans v non-partisans (although I do believe partisans must be less honest generally, but that's the subject of another thread)

It's that partisans have LOTS of good sources they can plagerize from and they do visit those, while non-partisans don't have as many sources to steal from since they are not visiting places that (in all likelihood) are saying EXACTLY what the non-partisan agrees with.

This is really an interesting topic, Publius.

I'm glad you thought of it.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

OH SHIT!!!

I forgot that engaging in a conversation with you is like talking to this guy...

You only make sense to yourself.

I'm out.

Hey that's a SWEET FAIL!

And specifically that to which I was speaking where I mentioned that ya had no way out... assuming ya mantained continuity.

So... ya aren't interested in the classic examples of plagiarism that EZ laid down for ya?

Can't ya see that she's REALLY tryin' hard here, to prove that plagiarism is no big deal? And that my point is WAY over blown... which would sorta make my point; and you wouldn't want THAT, now would ya?

Come Xot, butch up... and finish your argument; or concede, to me; that ya actually had no point and were more interested in changin' the subject...

I'll wait for some links from you.

Otherwise, you are just wasting bandwidth with your mini-manifestos.

Oh I hear ya... and were I you, trying to prop up your twisted little ideology; sponsoring a deceitful mass illusion, while simultaneously hoping to avoid any form of accountability for the results of that sponsorship... and were I saddled with insufficient cognitive means and a character which was insufficient to face it all... Honestly, I'd probably do the same thing.

Of course, if I did… I be just as wrong then, as you are now; but hey… who’s to say what’s right and wrong… right? J These constructs are purely manifestations born of individual or cultural preference; respective to the relative circumstances… wouldn’t you agree?

And what are the odds that there would be on this site, any signs of say… one member engaging in a raw abuse of decency; through ... Oh I dunno... say some system designed for some purpose and that system being manipulated to reflect a deceit; and the popular majority failing to rise to admonish such behavior?

OH that could NEVER happen here... because, after all, we're different from them... We are, to be sure, a bubble of superior reasoning in a sea of ubiquitous insanity.

For instance, no one working in an official capacity on this site, would ever be found baiting a member in a forum designed for free-for-all, uncensored discussions... and then turn around and cancel a member's subscription when the member not only responded to their taunts, but fed them their own intellectual feces... 'Cause that would be wrong.

And no member here would DEMAND an example of say... plagiarism, and where an official of the site comes along, damn near instantly to produce just such an example of plagiarism; that member then obtusely refuses to even acknowledge that example and demand that such has never happened; or is not happening here; thus they conclude the subject to be irrelevant.

'Cause that would be wrong...

Yeah Xot... as usual, you are ALL OVER IT!

Here's the thing tho'... it all ties together buddy... And you can deny it; avert your rhetorical eyes; rationalize around it all ya want. But the fact is that the entitlement mind set is a DANGEROUS, UNSUSTAINABLE species of reasoning and it is leading you and the gals directly where it's lead your ideological predecessors.

All I'm doing is trying to show ya the way home... asking you to examine the facts, so you can see where you're headin'.

That's all...

That you want to reject that demonstration, turn from it and pretend it doesn't exist is ALL YOU, big guy...

I'm honestly not trying to convince you; as I've no powers which provide for such; my job is to just produce the argument; I've no means to make you even observe it; let alone engage it, consider the evidence and respond in accordance with sound reasoning.

But the simple fact is; that were you actually what you otherwise claim to be... in your own heart… without regard to your public persona... you would.

 

[G.T.]

One of the most glorified defenses of plagiarism came from a hard right here.

He lifted a full thing from Zell Miller and claimed it as his own:

look, here you are. and totally glossing over your plagiarism. zell miller would not approve.

at long last have you no decency?

...

Ideas are NOT palagerized. And does NOT make it any less relevant as you portend. I repeated words from another person, as anyone would do, as I subscribe to them.

This is a history lesson. And what I fronted is correct, and right, no matter HOW you characterize it, in YOUR attempt to asassinate the words, much less the idea. I am on the mark.

Your feeble attrempt to discount them. is noted, and IGNORED for posterity.

Hot damn is that precious or what?

Valiantly graced over

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well I don't see what the post from other boards has to do with anything...

..and then you spend nearly the whole thread, and your whole post which I am responding to talking about it.

There are about five threads on it at the forum in question. Quite comical in a meltdown sort of way. Apparently someone did post something and pass it off as their own...and so did Pubic. I guess now he's a liberal, too.

Uh Nooouue...

Publius posted; as the result of a specific request to do so by the opposition; a dictionary definition for three commonly used words which are routinely employed by those with a minimal command of the english language; the definition was constructed as such... and the citations were summarily recognized BY THE OPPOSITION, AS SUCH; he did not pass it off the definitions as his own; he was asked for a definition; cited a definition; and when asked for the source; advanced the source; noting how ridiculous such was given the pedestrian nature of the relevant concepts; oka: commonly used words.

Any accounting of Publius posts, will find hundreds of posts where I cite that same source and readily offer clear and present attribution to same...

The distinction here is that the subject concepts; the words; were of such a pedestrian nature that no attribution was necessary; as first; the basic command of the language demonstrated by the evidence of the opposition's daily, prolific contributions; require the reasonable expectation that she is readily familiar with the defining composition of those concepts; and second; there is no reasonable means to contest the definitions, due to their elementary nature; and third; such definitions are readily available from nearly ANY dictionary resting in the English language; without disruption of their defining continuity.

Now, sadly... it falls to me to defend from the specific charges advanced by no less an authority, than an official of this site; the status of such requiring that it is reasonable to believe that the humble authority inherent in common membership is insufficient to overcome; absent a citation of the referenced record itself... which inherently bears the final authority...

I've stripped the evidence of any Link to the forum itself, in keeping with site policy... and have corrected for syntax, spelling and grammatical errors, advanced in the haste of the original exchange and highlighted the points which are key to my argument...

.
.
.
Well, in the "It's a Fact!" Column...

We have the incontrovertible FACT; newly established; that BobbyO... An ATHIEST Leftist.... is: A person of FAITH!

Now that's noteworthy ONLY because BobbyO has, rather emphatically, declared that she is NOT a person of faith... well, here... see for yourselves...

Roll TAPE!

I am PubliusInfantileScrotum, and I am a pampas ASS!! I think my [excrement] doesn't stink and that I am better than anyone on this forum!! I think I should be killed, slowly, with a cattle prod!!

YOU PAMPAS Piece of SHIT!! Who the FUCK do you think you are? It's just that kind of attitude that is killing this country!! Your kind has taken the heart out of this place. When you show me true, physical evidence of your God, then i will believe. Until then you will be looked upon as a brainwashed IDIOT!! Now go lay down before you hurt yourself!!

[quote='PubliusInfinitum' date='27 February 2010 - 08:33 PM]...

The evidence of the Creator's existence rest in your existence... unless you're hear to claim that you created yourself... and frankly Bob.. given your demonstrated intellectual means... that's fairly unlikely. And given that your existence is of the physical variety... I think that fills the billing of your request...

So there ya go... you've been exposed to the evidence... as you requested; so where do ya stand on God now, Bob?

And so it went... with Bobby's chronic denials of any and all evidence of A Creator... even as she sits amongst the creation... wherein she desperately clung to her own likely preconceived notions of a white haired and while invisible, an all too human, being; sitting on high, overlooking the earth... with little baby angles flittering around fluffy white clouds, pickin' on the obligatory golden harps... until ...

[quote='Bobby O.' date='28 February 2010 - 07:12 PM]... you live on faith. I can't do that. To me faith is bullshit!! ...[/quote]

Form there; the conversation; which was already on a dangerously steep angle, given Bobby's starkly limited intellectual means... went directly over the philosophical cliff for the little lady... whereupon, as the transcript below indicates; Bobby actually establishes herself as a person of absolute faith.

She's proves in indisputable terms that she is a person who believes deeply in things which she cannot prove... She knows them to be true; yet despite being unable to see the truth; which she desperately needs to be there; she can't actually touch that truth... thus; and quite naturally, she can't physically feel that truth. And unlike religious folks... Bobby doesn't even have the comfort of being able to turn to the ancient scriptures... at best all she can do is sit on the internet and rant on about her beliefs... professing her addle-minded, empty faith: 'IT'S TRUE! I TELL YOU! I don't care WHAT you say...'

[quote='Bobby O.' date='28 February 2010 - 11:18 PM][quote='PubliusInfinitum' date='28 February 2010 - 10:06 PM][quote='Bobby O.' date='28 February 2010 - 09:02 PM]
PubicInfantileScrotum, you are a self righteous TWIT!! YOUR arguments have NO merit whatsoever!! You think that just because you say it, then it is. God is just an idea. There has NEVER been proof outside of a single book, which was written by men. Life came about through chemical process combined with temperature and pressure. There was no Invisible being involved. Science has more than enough evidence to prove that. God didn't create us, and he didn't give us rights. Rights were given to us by MEN who wrote the documents giving us our rights!! You are a fool, who has been proven wrong again, and again, and again. You just refuse to accept it. Go get a life you insignificant piece of crap!!!
[/quote]

ROFLMNAO... and you claim that you can't live on faith...

Yet here ya are demonstrating profound faith... And your faith doesn't even have the benefit of a book...

Now you'll no doubt need to deny that... which is fine... as that is what a person of faith SHOULD DO!
So we're going to test your faith...


You've made a number of assertions here...

1.God is just an idea.

2.There has NEVER been proof outside of a single book, which was written by men.

3.Life came about through chemical process combined with temperature and pressure.

4.There was no Invisible being involved.

5.Science has more than enough evidence to prove that.

6.God didn't create us, and he didn't give us rights.

7.Rights were given to us by MEN who wrote the documents giving us our rights!!

Take each one of the elements of your faith and demonstrate to the extent of your means, their respective factual underpinnings...

Now I will tell you that you GOING TO FAIL... As there is no potential fact in ANY of them... not the least of which is the last of them.

Now IF you truly believe... and it's fairly clear that ya do... as a matter of fact; it's patently clear that you're DESPERATE to believe... you'll not rush to respond with your usual vacuous, anti-theist boilerplate... and you'll really give these; the specific elements of your faith, serious consideration and return to show the factual underpinnings which sustain these elements of your faith... in order to lead the unwashed who will otherwise recognize that your faith is rather sad, empty and a function of deceitful evil, which will only bolster their tangible, intellectually sound faith which is anchored in the ancient scriptures and which emanates directly from their soul...

And of course Bobby... you will concede, to me; by default... when you return to this thread and we find that your response fails to sustain any of these elements of your faith; and as I said, this is an absolute certainty... that you Sis... despite your protestations to the contrary... you will inevitably prove yourself to be a person of unbridled faith.

But... BEST of luck... nonetheless.
[/quote]

Sorry, I was watching the closing ceremonies. I have a better idea, for you. Instead of saying "look around you and you will see evidence of God" give me some solid, undeniable proof that God does truly exist. Until you do that, shove yourself and your ASSUMPTIONS about me up your ass.
[/quote]


So it was written; as it was done... Bobby returns to concede that she is a Person of DEEP... anti-Religious faith.

And THAT kids is all there is to THAT!


I hope you enjoyed it... feel free to take these methods and apply them to your own anti-theists... they work every single time that they're tried. [/quote]



[quote='PubliusInfinitum' date='01 March 2010 - 08:59 PM][quote='gailybee' date='01 March 2010 - 07:21 PM' ]


I'd like a definition of 'anti-religious faith'.
[/quote]

No problem...

Anti-: opposed to something: expressing or holding an opposing view, especially with regard to a political issue or moral principle

Religious: believing in a higher being: believing in and showing devotion or reverence for a deity or deities

Faith: belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something

Thus "Anti-religious faith" is simply being opposed to something; expressing or holding an opposing view, especially with regard to a political issue or moral principle; which provides for the belief in and shows devotion to and/or reverence for, a deity or deities; Opposition which requires belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something."

LOL... Now the cool part here... Gail would be quick to tell you that she represents a respect for intellect... meaning; mental ability; somebody's ability to think, reason, and understand; and this while she rejects the combining of three simple words to express a succinct point derived from the construct term.

Now I am old enough to remember when Leftists were sufficiently educated to actually be recognized as intellectuals.


And look at 'em now... Compound words confuse 'em...

Just look at poor Billy... She desperately wants to sustain her now long-since discredited point... and all can she do is glum onto a half baked screed from Gaily which offers little more than the color or reason... wholly incapable of recognizing that Gaily's argument is simple-minded fallacious twaddle.

ROFL...

Schmuck...
[/quote]

[quote='gailybee' date='01 March 2010 - 09:14 PM][quote='gailybee' date='01 March 2010 - 09:10 PM]
Speaking of schmucks--I wanted a real definition, not something you pulled out of your ass.

* NOTE: Now stay sharp here kids: this is where Ravi's argument is laid to the ignorant bone... Notice that the opposition states her clear recognition that the definitions of the pedestrian words were quoted; she specifically inquires as to the sources reference... despite such being ridiculous; given that the definitions are indisputable; evidenced in part by the absence of a dispute regarding the definitions themselves; with her would-be dispute being limited to the source itself; implying in her next breath that the source may potentially lack the authority essential to the employed usage... exposing the purpose for the inquiry,at that point; which I've highlighted with italics.

I noticed that you quoted your definition-

-from which source did it come?
[/quote]

No, I mean where is the source for your definition?

Or, are you telling me that you made up the term, and you're quoting yourself as the source?
[/quote]


[quote='PubliusInfinitum' date='01 March 2010 - 09:40 PM]
Huh... So you're in need of a source for three pedestrian words, which are routinely used in our contemporary, common language?

Really? Such seems a tap off-putting given your chronic declarations regarding your vocation being rooted education...

Fine... That would be Merriam-Webster's 2010 Collegiate Dictionary... Which, FTR: is my default source for such ...

Is that suitable? If not simply post your grievance and where such is objective, resting in sound reasoning; we can turn to any of the 300+ Dictionary reference resources from my collection; dating back to the mid-seventeenth century.

It should however be noted that references to the definitions of contemporary, commonly used words does not typically rate a citation of the source; particularly where one is engaged with one who is otherwise said to rest at a station where such would readily be recognized.

In such circumstances; where such may be contested; the opposition simply posts a countering definition; which usually rests in disagreements revolving around context or tense...

But... so be it... I suppose this is what one simply needs to expect from the neo-left intellectual...

Now is it appropriate that I mention that your request for the source implies that where the source is legitimate and valid; and where you have no countering definition from a source of equal or greater authority... then you concede the argument by default? Or should I save that for somewhere down the road?



Actually... Gaily... it's YOUR argument which violates the fundamentals of ad verecundiam... You're crying that the definitions advanced were invalid through the implication inherent in your demand for a source; implying that such were not 'real' and that the principles expressed required a resource to be valid.

It's a nasty combo of ad ignorantum and verecundiam... which is fairly typical.[/quote]

She then went on to demand that the term constructed of the three elementary concepts does not exist… that Webster’s does not provide a definition for the term; and that that as such; I lied… yadda yadda.

Now that’s the relevant exchange…

The suggestion that a citation of definitions; at the request of the opposition; must be attributed to avoid plagiarism is preposterous… and serves as little more than a common reductio train wreck, the net effect of which is to render the concept of plagiarism as meaningless.

Which… For the Record Ravi is simply presenting an attempt to diminish the nature of the offense itself; her argument is an implicit advocacy for the lowering of the standard…

Note that where she had the opportunity to not just note the offense; but to take a stand and admonish the contributor for her actions… she sought to diminish the offense by equating it to something which in NO POSSIBLE WAY, reflects the principles at play.

She implies that the citing of a definition of three commonly used words; in response to a specific request to do so; constructing the response to identify each submission as a sourced definition; thus informing the reader that such was of a formal citation; but simply failing to attribute the default resource… is exactly the same thing as lifting entire paragraphs of research, from MULTIPLE RESOURCES; on varying POINTS and plopping it into the body of one’s work to project the deceit that the work represents THEIR OWN WORDS… that such represents their innate command of the subject… thus such represents a fraudulent projection of authority… on which the author is entirely leaning.

Thus Ravi is in truth, doing exactly the same thing which the respective contributors have done… defending the indefensible… and right here on USMB. Ravi is once again, defending unsustainable principle… once again the nauseating stench of moral relativism seeps from the intellectual bowels of the ideological Left… A political Progressive; advancing a rationalization that can only undermine a sound, sustainable cultural tenet; advocating by default for policy that can and must result in cultural regression.

 

[xotoxi]

Oh I hear ya... and were I you, trying to prop up your twisted little ideology

What is my ideology?

Fill me in.

 

[xotoxi]

..and then you spend nearly the whole thread, and your whole post which I am responding to talking about it.

There are about five threads on it at the forum in question. Quite comical in a meltdown sort of way. Apparently someone did post something and pass it off as their own...and so did Pubic. I guess now he's a liberal, too.

Uh Nooouue...

Publius posted; as the result of a specific request to do so by the opposition; a dictionary definition for three commonly used words which are routinely employed by those with a minimal command of the english language; the definition was constructed as such... and the citations were summarily recognized BY THE OPPOSITION, AS SUCH; he did not pass it off the definitions as his own; he was asked for a definition; cited a definition; and when asked for the source; advanced the source; noting how ridiculous such was given the pedestrian nature of the relevant concepts; oka: commonly used words.

Any accounting of Publius posts, will find hundreds of posts where I cite that same source and readily offer clear and present attribution to same...

The distinction here is that the subject concepts; the words; were of such a pedestrian nature that no attribution was necessary; as first; the basic command of the language demonstrated by the evidence of the opposition's daily, prolific contributions; require the reasonable expectation that she is readily familiar with the defining composition of those concepts; and second; there is no reasonable means to contest the definitions, due to their elementary nature; and third; such definitions are readily available from nearly ANY dictionary resting in the English language; without disruption of their defining continuity.

Now, sadly... it falls to me to defend from the specific charges advanced by no less an authority, than an official of this site; the status of such requiring that it is reasonable to believe that the humble authority inherent in common membership is insufficient to overcome; absent a citation of the referenced record itself... which inherently bears the final authority...

I've stripped the evidence of any Link to the forum itself, in keeping with site policy... and have corrected for syntax, spelling and grammatical errors, advanced in the haste of the original exchange and highlighted the points which are key to my argument...









[quote='gailybee' date='01 March 2010 - 09:14 PM]

No, I mean where is the source for your definition?

Or, are you telling me that you made up the term, and you're quoting yourself as the source?

[quote='PubliusInfinitum' date='01 March 2010 - 09:40 PM]
Huh... So you're in need of a source for three pedestrian words, which are routinely used in our contemporary, common language?

Really? Such seems a tap off-putting given your chronic declarations regarding your vocation being rooted education...

Fine... That would be Merriam-Webster's 2010 Collegiate Dictionary... Which, FTR: is my default source for such ...

Is that suitable? If not simply post your grievance and where such is objective, resting in sound reasoning; we can turn to any of the 300+ Dictionary reference resources from my collection; dating back to the mid-seventeenth century.

It should however be noted that references to the definitions of contemporary, commonly used words does not typically rate a citation of the source; particularly where one is engaged with one who is otherwise said to rest at a station where such would readily be recognized.

In such circumstances; where such may be contested; the opposition simply posts a countering definition; which usually rests in disagreements revolving around context or tense...

But... so be it... I suppose this is what one simply needs to expect from the neo-left intellectual...

Now is it appropriate that I mention that your request for the source implies that where the source is legitimate and valid; and where you have no countering definition from a source of equal or greater authority... then you concede the argument by default? Or should I save that for somewhere down the road?



Actually... Gaily... it's YOUR argument which violates the fundamentals of ad verecundiam... You're crying that the definitions advanced were invalid through the implication inherent in your demand for a source; implying that such were not 'real' and that the principles expressed required a resource to be valid.

It's a nasty combo of ad ignorantum and verecundiam... which is fairly typical.[/quote]

She then went on to demand that the term constructed of the three elementary concepts does not exist… that Webster’s does not provide a definition for the term; and that that as such; I lied… yadda yadda.

Now that’s the relevant exchange…

The suggestion that a citation of definitions; at the request of the opposition; must be attributed to avoid plagiarism is preposterous… and serves as little more than a common reductio train wreck, the net effect of which is to render the concept of plagiarism as meaningless.

Which… For the Record Ravi is simply presenting an attempt to diminish the nature of the offense itself; her argument is an implicit advocacy for the lowering of the standard…

Note that where she had the opportunity to not just note the offense; but to take a stand and admonish the contributor for her actions… she sought to diminish the offense by equating it to something which in NO POSSIBLE WAY, reflects the principles at play.

She implies that the citing of a definition of three commonly used words; in response to a specific request to do so; constructing the response to identify each submission as a sourced definition; thus informing the reader that such was of a formal citation; but simply failing to attribute the default resource… is exactly the same thing as lifting entire paragraphs of research, from MULTIPLE RESOURCES; on varying POINTS and plopping it into the body of one’s work to project the deceit that the work represents THEIR OWN WORDS… that such represents their innate command of the subject… thus such represents a fraudulent projection of authority… on which the author is entirely leaning.

Thus Ravi is in truth, doing exactly the same thing which the respective contributors have done… defending the indefensible… and right here on USMB. Ravi is once again, defending unsustainable principle… once again the nauseating stench of moral relativism seeps from the intellectual bowels of the ideological Left… A political Progressive; advancing a rationalization that can only undermine a sound, sustainable cultural tenet; advocating by default for policy that can and must result in cultural regression.[/quote]

 

[Ravi]

..and then you spend nearly the whole thread, and your whole post which I am responding to talking about it.

There are about five threads on it at the forum in question. Quite comical in a meltdown sort of way. Apparently someone did post something and pass it off as their own...and so did Pubic. I guess now he's a liberal, too.

Uh Nooouue...

Publius posted; as the result of a specific request to do so by the opposition; a dictionary definition for three commonly used words which are routinely employed by those with a minimal command of the english language; the definition was constructed as such... and the citations were summarily recognized BY THE OPPOSITION, AS SUCH; he did not pass it off the definitions as his own; he was asked for a definition; cited a definition; and when asked for the source; advanced the source; noting how ridiculous such was given the pedestrian nature of the relevant concepts; oka: commonly used words.

Any accounting of Publius posts, will find hundreds of posts where I cite that same source and readily offer clear and present attribution to same...

The distinction here is that the subject concepts; the words; were of such a pedestrian nature that no attribution was necessary; as first; the basic command of the language demonstrated by the evidence of the opposition's daily, prolific contributions; require the reasonable expectation that she is readily familiar with the defining composition of those concepts; and second; there is no reasonable means to contest the definitions, due to their elementary nature; and third; such definitions are readily available from nearly ANY dictionary resting in the English language; without disruption of their defining continuity.

Now, sadly... it falls to me to defend from the specific charges advanced by no less an authority, than an official of this site; the status of such requiring that it is reasonable to believe that the humble authority inherent in common membership is insufficient to overcome; absent a citation of the referenced record itself... which inherently bears the final authority...

I've stripped the evidence of any Link to the forum itself, in keeping with site policy... and have corrected for syntax, spelling and grammatical errors, advanced in the haste of the original exchange and highlighted the points which are key to my argument...









[quote='gailybee' date='01 March 2010 - 09:14 PM]

No, I mean where is the source for your definition?

Or, are you telling me that you made up the term, and you're quoting yourself as the source?

[quote='PubliusInfinitum' date='01 March 2010 - 09:40 PM]
Huh... So you're in need of a source for three pedestrian words, which are routinely used in our contemporary, common language?

Really? Such seems a tap off-putting given your chronic declarations regarding your vocation being rooted education...

Fine... That would be Merriam-Webster's 2010 Collegiate Dictionary... Which, FTR: is my default source for such ...

Is that suitable? If not simply post your grievance and where such is objective, resting in sound reasoning; we can turn to any of the 300+ Dictionary reference resources from my collection; dating back to the mid-seventeenth century.

It should however be noted that references to the definitions of contemporary, commonly used words does not typically rate a citation of the source; particularly where one is engaged with one who is otherwise said to rest at a station where such would readily be recognized.

In such circumstances; where such may be contested; the opposition simply posts a countering definition; which usually rests in disagreements revolving around context or tense...

But... so be it... I suppose this is what one simply needs to expect from the neo-left intellectual...

Now is it appropriate that I mention that your request for the source implies that where the source is legitimate and valid; and where you have no countering definition from a source of equal or greater authority... then you concede the argument by default? Or should I save that for somewhere down the road?



Actually... Gaily... it's YOUR argument which violates the fundamentals of ad verecundiam... You're crying that the definitions advanced were invalid through the implication inherent in your demand for a source; implying that such were not 'real' and that the principles expressed required a resource to be valid.

It's a nasty combo of ad ignorantum and verecundiam... which is fairly typical.[/quote]

She then went on to demand that the term constructed of the three elementary concepts does not exist… that Webster’s does not provide a definition for the term; and that that as such; I lied… yadda yadda.

Now that’s the relevant exchange…

The suggestion that a citation of definitions; at the request of the opposition; must be attributed to avoid plagiarism is preposterous… and serves as little more than a common reductio train wreck, the net effect of which is to render the concept of plagiarism as meaningless.

Which… For the Record Ravi is simply presenting an attempt to diminish the nature of the offense itself; her argument is an implicit advocacy for the lowering of the standard…

Note that where she had the opportunity to not just note the offense; but to take a stand and admonish the contributor for her actions… she sought to diminish the offense by equating it to something which in NO POSSIBLE WAY, reflects the principles at play.

She implies that the citing of a definition of three commonly used words; in response to a specific request to do so; constructing the response to identify each submission as a sourced definition; thus informing the reader that such was of a formal citation; but simply failing to attribute the default resource… is exactly the same thing as lifting entire paragraphs of research, from MULTIPLE RESOURCES; on varying POINTS and plopping it into the body of one’s work to project the deceit that the work represents THEIR OWN WORDS… that such represents their innate command of the subject… thus such represents a fraudulent projection of authority… on which the author is entirely leaning.

Thus Ravi is in truth, doing exactly the same thing which the respective contributors have done… defending the indefensible… and right here on USMB. Ravi is once again, defending unsustainable principle… once again the nauseating stench of moral relativism seeps from the intellectual bowels of the ideological Left… A political Progressive; advancing a rationalization that can only undermine a sound, sustainable cultural tenet; advocating by default for policy that can and must result in cultural regression.[/quote] I'm not defending anyone, merely pointing out that you are as guilty as the other party of plagiarism. Your wall of words does not excuse you.

 

[Ravi]

Oh I hear ya... and were I you, trying to prop up your twisted little ideology

What is my ideology?

Fill me in.

Your ideology is:

not pubic's

You see, there is pubic's ideology and there is everyone else's.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

Pissing contests that spill over from other boards are frown upon here. Knock it off.