Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Did you teach them how to cut and paste?
Beside the fact that you cannot contend with the material presented.....what is the basis of your attempt to disqualify the material with the squealing of "cut and paste"?
It just means you have nothing, doesn't it.
Perhaps since I called you on your despicable PLAGURISM, lying about the actual sources in your posts and trying to pawn off the work of others as your own, the totality of the attribution you are now displaying is telling the world that you are capable only of parroting and unable to think for yourself!
Have a Nice Day Chica!
You have that in reverse....I exposed the fact that you didn't understand what plagiarism is....and, that your motivation in the attempted smear was to assuage your embarrassment in how I had to destroy you in a previous thread.
Get used to it.
Did you now! Here was my response to that sophistry at that time on the other thread, to which you couldn't respond because it fixed the lies as yours and you could not deny them!
"Really? Then where the Hell are your words, your thoughts? Why is there no lead in or no conclusion? How is the TOTALITY of that which you COPIED set aside as distinctly the work of another and not your own. Where are the REQUIRED quotation marks? Why the deviation in paragraphing from the original? Why the change in layout to your normal affected "style"? Why the improper change in the lead paragraph changing the number 8, established as the eighth point of the piece, changed to 1 as in YOUR usual style of bulleting? Why the unattributed font color change?
None of that is your work, but rather, that of another. Dropping the source at the bottom as you did is nothing but a provision for plausible deniability in your mind.
That is Rand Paul style PLAGURISM. You are really pissed because you got caught and exposed as a lazy cheat, a PLAGURIST and now a liar! You're a dishonest person with failed character!
Q.E.D." [Emphasis Added]
You were caught PLAGURIZING and then trying to cover your lie with false bravado! You corrected your bent toward PLAGURISM and I noted your attempt to redeem yourself this AM back on page 7 of this thread, but others started noticing the definite change in your style. Ya really should have kept your trap closed. Sometimes folks don't know when to just STOP rather than digging the hole they put themselves into deeper.
Our entire earlier exchange can be read on the thread, Lying About the Nuclear Deal, Page 12 if anyone is interested.
1. pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun
Since I used both quotation marks, and provided the link to the complete original, clearly, you are a liar attempting to score points without being able to defeat the material presented.
- the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Google.
2. Now....let's go on to give examples Liberal plagiarism: taking the words of the NYTimes, MSNBC, the DNC, Obama, Jon Stewart, etc.......and never giving credit to the source.
You simpletons do it every day.
I never do it.
3. Every OP I provide is part of a thread of 5 to 10 panels which lead to an undeniable conclusion......generally revealing how wrong, malevolent, and dishonest Liberals are...
...and that is why you have attempted to claim plagiarism.
It is the best you can do.
In short, you are, and will always be, a low-life liar.
Beside the fact that you cannot contend with the material presented.....what is the basis of your attempt to disqualify the material with the squealing of "cut and paste"?
It just means you have nothing, doesn't it.
Perhaps since I called you on your despicable PLAGURISM, lying about the actual sources in your posts and trying to pawn off the work of others as your own, the totality of the attribution you are now displaying is telling the world that you are capable only of parroting and unable to think for yourself!
Have a Nice Day Chica!
You have that in reverse....I exposed the fact that you didn't understand what plagiarism is....and, that your motivation in the attempted smear was to assuage your embarrassment in how I had to destroy you in a previous thread.
Get used to it.
Did you now! Here was my response to that sophistry at that time on the other thread, to which you couldn't respond because it fixed the lies as yours and you could not deny them!
"Really? Then where the Hell are your words, your thoughts? Why is there no lead in or no conclusion? How is the TOTALITY of that which you COPIED set aside as distinctly the work of another and not your own. Where are the REQUIRED quotation marks? Why the deviation in paragraphing from the original? Why the change in layout to your normal affected "style"? Why the improper change in the lead paragraph changing the number 8, established as the eighth point of the piece, changed to 1 as in YOUR usual style of bulleting? Why the unattributed font color change?
None of that is your work, but rather, that of another. Dropping the source at the bottom as you did is nothing but a provision for plausible deniability in your mind.
That is Rand Paul style PLAGURISM. You are really pissed because you got caught and exposed as a lazy cheat, a PLAGURIST and now a liar! You're a dishonest person with failed character!
Q.E.D." [Emphasis Added]
You were caught PLAGURIZING and then trying to cover your lie with false bravado! You corrected your bent toward PLAGURISM and I noted your attempt to redeem yourself this AM back on page 7 of this thread, but others started noticing the definite change in your style. Ya really should have kept your trap closed. Sometimes folks don't know when to just STOP rather than digging the hole they put themselves into deeper.
Our entire earlier exchange can be read on the thread, Lying About the Nuclear Deal, Page 12 if anyone is interested.
1. pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun
Since I used both quotation marks, and provided the link to the complete original, clearly, you are a liar attempting to score points without being able to defeat the material presented.
- the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Google.
2. Now....let's go on to give examples Liberal plagiarism: taking the words of the NYTimes, MSNBC, the DNC, Obama, Jon Stewart, etc.......and never giving credit to the source.
You simpletons do it every day.
I never do it.
3. Every OP I provide is part of a thread of 5 to 10 panels which lead to an undeniable conclusion......generally revealing how wrong, malevolent, and dishonest Liberals are...
...and that is why you have attempted to claim plagiarism.
It is the best you can do.
In short, you are, and will always be, a low-life liar.
The fact that your post I critiqued initially now has a set of quotation marks when it didn't before is beside the point. I don't know how they were added after the fact and I don't really care at this time. The fact is your remaining offenses against Fair Use of a copyrighted work still remain, including those I didn't mention previously such as the use of ellipses. Proper attribution of another's work demands that any alterations to the original be noted in an accepted manner. You failed to do that to the point it looked like your usual "style". But the problem with that was the entire post was a copy and paste and totally bereft of any word or thought of your own. That is PLAGIARISM!
Even if I erred and missed the quotation marks which now, mystically and magically appear on the post, even IF that were the case, it is still a plagiarized bit without proper the attribution. It is in the Rand Paul style of plagiarism as I stated before.
Rail on all you wish against it, but your protestations will not affect the truth of the matter. You're a PLAGIARIST! You might want to correct that defect and take some writing classes to learn how to write and attribute correctly.
I'm anything but a liar, but if that puts the wind up your skirt to deflect from your own characteristics you wish to conceal, it won't change either the Moon or the Stars or the knowledge of others to the contrary.
Beside the fact that you cannot contend with the material presented.....what is the basis of your attempt to disqualify the material with the squealing of "cut and paste"?
It just means you have nothing, doesn't it.
Perhaps since I called you on your despicable PLAGURISM, lying about the actual sources in your posts and trying to pawn off the work of others as your own, the totality of the attribution you are now displaying is telling the world that you are capable only of parroting and unable to think for yourself!
Have a Nice Day Chica!
You have that in reverse....I exposed the fact that you didn't understand what plagiarism is....and, that your motivation in the attempted smear was to assuage your embarrassment in how I had to destroy you in a previous thread.
Get used to it.
Did you now! Here was my response to that sophistry at that time on the other thread, to which you couldn't respond because it fixed the lies as yours and you could not deny them!
"Really? Then where the Hell are your words, your thoughts? Why is there no lead in or no conclusion? How is the TOTALITY of that which you COPIED set aside as distinctly the work of another and not your own. Where are the REQUIRED quotation marks? Why the deviation in paragraphing from the original? Why the change in layout to your normal affected "style"? Why the improper change in the lead paragraph changing the number 8, established as the eighth point of the piece, changed to 1 as in YOUR usual style of bulleting? Why the unattributed font color change?
None of that is your work, but rather, that of another. Dropping the source at the bottom as you did is nothing but a provision for plausible deniability in your mind.
That is Rand Paul style PLAGURISM. You are really pissed because you got caught and exposed as a lazy cheat, a PLAGURIST and now a liar! You're a dishonest person with failed character!
Q.E.D." [Emphasis Added]
You were caught PLAGURIZING and then trying to cover your lie with false bravado! You corrected your bent toward PLAGURISM and I noted your attempt to redeem yourself this AM back on page 7 of this thread, but others started noticing the definite change in your style. Ya really should have kept your trap closed. Sometimes folks don't know when to just STOP rather than digging the hole they put themselves into deeper.
Our entire earlier exchange can be read on the thread, Lying About the Nuclear Deal, Page 12 if anyone is interested.
1. pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun
Since I used both quotation marks, and provided the link to the complete original, clearly, you are a liar attempting to score points without being able to defeat the material presented.
- the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Google.
2. Now....let's go on to give examples Liberal plagiarism: taking the words of the NYTimes, MSNBC, the DNC, Obama, Jon Stewart, etc.......and never giving credit to the source.
You simpletons do it every day.
I never do it.
3. Every OP I provide is part of a thread of 5 to 10 panels which lead to an undeniable conclusion......generally revealing how wrong, malevolent, and dishonest Liberals are...
...and that is why you have attempted to claim plagiarism.
It is the best you can do.
In short, you are, and will always be, a low-life liar.
The fact that your post I critiqued initially now has a set of quotation marks when it didn't before is beside the point. I don't know how they were added after the fact and I don't really care at this time. The fact is your remaining offenses against Fair Use of a copyrighted work still remain, including those I didn't mention previously such as the use of ellipses. Proper attribution of another's work demands that any alterations to the original be noted in an accepted manner. You failed to do that to the point it looked like your usual "style". But the problem with that was the entire post was a copy and paste and totally bereft of any word or thought of your own. That is PLAGIARISM!
Even if I erred and missed the quotation marks which now, mystically and magically appear on the post, even IF that were the case, it is still a plagiarized bit without proper the attribution. It is in the Rand Paul style of plagiarism as I stated before.
Rail on all you wish against it, but your protestations will not affect the truth of the matter. You're a PLAGIARIST! You might want to correct that defect and take some writing classes to learn how to write and attribute correctly.
I'm anything but a liar, but if that puts the wind up your skirt to deflect from your own characteristics you wish to conceal, it won't change either the Moon or the Stars or the knowledge of others to the contrary.
Perhaps since I called you on your despicable PLAGURISM, lying about the actual sources in your posts and trying to pawn off the work of others as your own, the totality of the attribution you are now displaying is telling the world that you are capable only of parroting and unable to think for yourself!
Have a Nice Day Chica!
You have that in reverse....I exposed the fact that you didn't understand what plagiarism is....and, that your motivation in the attempted smear was to assuage your embarrassment in how I had to destroy you in a previous thread.
Get used to it.
Did you now! Here was my response to that sophistry at that time on the other thread, to which you couldn't respond because it fixed the lies as yours and you could not deny them!
"Really? Then where the Hell are your words, your thoughts? Why is there no lead in or no conclusion? How is the TOTALITY of that which you COPIED set aside as distinctly the work of another and not your own. Where are the REQUIRED quotation marks? Why the deviation in paragraphing from the original? Why the change in layout to your normal affected "style"? Why the improper change in the lead paragraph changing the number 8, established as the eighth point of the piece, changed to 1 as in YOUR usual style of bulleting? Why the unattributed font color change?
None of that is your work, but rather, that of another. Dropping the source at the bottom as you did is nothing but a provision for plausible deniability in your mind.
That is Rand Paul style PLAGURISM. You are really pissed because you got caught and exposed as a lazy cheat, a PLAGURIST and now a liar! You're a dishonest person with failed character!
Q.E.D." [Emphasis Added]
You were caught PLAGURIZING and then trying to cover your lie with false bravado! You corrected your bent toward PLAGURISM and I noted your attempt to redeem yourself this AM back on page 7 of this thread, but others started noticing the definite change in your style. Ya really should have kept your trap closed. Sometimes folks don't know when to just STOP rather than digging the hole they put themselves into deeper.
Our entire earlier exchange can be read on the thread, Lying About the Nuclear Deal, Page 12 if anyone is interested.
1. pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun
Since I used both quotation marks, and provided the link to the complete original, clearly, you are a liar attempting to score points without being able to defeat the material presented.
- the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Google.
2. Now....let's go on to give examples Liberal plagiarism: taking the words of the NYTimes, MSNBC, the DNC, Obama, Jon Stewart, etc.......and never giving credit to the source.
You simpletons do it every day.
I never do it.
3. Every OP I provide is part of a thread of 5 to 10 panels which lead to an undeniable conclusion......generally revealing how wrong, malevolent, and dishonest Liberals are...
...and that is why you have attempted to claim plagiarism.
It is the best you can do.
In short, you are, and will always be, a low-life liar.
The fact that your post I critiqued initially now has a set of quotation marks when it didn't before is beside the point. I don't know how they were added after the fact and I don't really care at this time. The fact is your remaining offenses against Fair Use of a copyrighted work still remain, including those I didn't mention previously such as the use of ellipses. Proper attribution of another's work demands that any alterations to the original be noted in an accepted manner. You failed to do that to the point it looked like your usual "style". But the problem with that was the entire post was a copy and paste and totally bereft of any word or thought of your own. That is PLAGIARISM!
Even if I erred and missed the quotation marks which now, mystically and magically appear on the post, even IF that were the case, it is still a plagiarized bit without proper the attribution. It is in the Rand Paul style of plagiarism as I stated before.
Rail on all you wish against it, but your protestations will not affect the truth of the matter. You're a PLAGIARIST! You might want to correct that defect and take some writing classes to learn how to write and attribute correctly.
I'm anything but a liar, but if that puts the wind up your skirt to deflect from your own characteristics you wish to conceal, it won't change either the Moon or the Stars or the knowledge of others to the contrary.
Give her a break...Plagarism got her through Columbia University
I've known families that had done excellent work teaching their children at home, however this is not always the case. Some of these children turn out to be dumb as a box of rocks...like PC Chick.
Full Story @
Home-schooled and illiterate - Salon.com
Though I fell out of touch with my home-schooled friends as we grew older, a few years ago, I reconnected with a few ex-Quiverfull peers on a new support blog calledNo Longer Quivering. Poring over their stories, I was shocked to find so many tales of gross educational neglect. I don’t merely mean that they had received what I now view as an overly politicized education with huge gaps, for example, in American history, evolution or sexuality. Rather, what disturbed me were the many stories about home-schoolers who were barely literate when they graduated, or whose math and science education had never extended much past middle school.
Take Vyckie Garrison, an ex-Quiverfull mother of seven who, in 2008, enrolled her six school-age children in public school after 18 years of teaching them at home. Garrison, who started the No Longer Quivering blog, says her near-constant pregnancies – which tended to result either in miscarriages or life-threatening deliveries – took a toll on her body and depleted her energy. She wasn’t able to devote enough time and energy to home schooling to ensure a quality education for each child. And she says the lack of regulation in Nebraska, where the family lived, “allowed us to get away with some really shoddy home schooling for a lot of years.”
“I’ll admit it,” she confesses. “Because I was so overwhelmed with my life… It was a real struggle to do the basics, so it didn’t take long for my kids to fall far behind. One of my daughters could not read at 11 years old.”
No Longer Quivering
If only you could rebut my posts you wouldn't have to lie about 'em.
You have that in reverse....I exposed the fact that you didn't understand what plagiarism is....and, that your motivation in the attempted smear was to assuage your embarrassment in how I had to destroy you in a previous thread.
Get used to it.
Did you now! Here was my response to that sophistry at that time on the other thread, to which you couldn't respond because it fixed the lies as yours and you could not deny them!
"Really? Then where the Hell are your words, your thoughts? Why is there no lead in or no conclusion? How is the TOTALITY of that which you COPIED set aside as distinctly the work of another and not your own. Where are the REQUIRED quotation marks? Why the deviation in paragraphing from the original? Why the change in layout to your normal affected "style"? Why the improper change in the lead paragraph changing the number 8, established as the eighth point of the piece, changed to 1 as in YOUR usual style of bulleting? Why the unattributed font color change?
None of that is your work, but rather, that of another. Dropping the source at the bottom as you did is nothing but a provision for plausible deniability in your mind.
That is Rand Paul style PLAGURISM. You are really pissed because you got caught and exposed as a lazy cheat, a PLAGURIST and now a liar! You're a dishonest person with failed character!
Q.E.D." [Emphasis Added]
You were caught PLAGURIZING and then trying to cover your lie with false bravado! You corrected your bent toward PLAGURISM and I noted your attempt to redeem yourself this AM back on page 7 of this thread, but others started noticing the definite change in your style. Ya really should have kept your trap closed. Sometimes folks don't know when to just STOP rather than digging the hole they put themselves into deeper.
Our entire earlier exchange can be read on the thread, Lying About the Nuclear Deal, Page 12 if anyone is interested.
1. pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun
Since I used both quotation marks, and provided the link to the complete original, clearly, you are a liar attempting to score points without being able to defeat the material presented.
- the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Google.
2. Now....let's go on to give examples Liberal plagiarism: taking the words of the NYTimes, MSNBC, the DNC, Obama, Jon Stewart, etc.......and never giving credit to the source.
You simpletons do it every day.
I never do it.
3. Every OP I provide is part of a thread of 5 to 10 panels which lead to an undeniable conclusion......generally revealing how wrong, malevolent, and dishonest Liberals are...
...and that is why you have attempted to claim plagiarism.
It is the best you can do.
In short, you are, and will always be, a low-life liar.
The fact that your post I critiqued initially now has a set of quotation marks when it didn't before is beside the point. I don't know how they were added after the fact and I don't really care at this time. The fact is your remaining offenses against Fair Use of a copyrighted work still remain, including those I didn't mention previously such as the use of ellipses. Proper attribution of another's work demands that any alterations to the original be noted in an accepted manner. You failed to do that to the point it looked like your usual "style". But the problem with that was the entire post was a copy and paste and totally bereft of any word or thought of your own. That is PLAGIARISM!
Even if I erred and missed the quotation marks which now, mystically and magically appear on the post, even IF that were the case, it is still a plagiarized bit without proper the attribution. It is in the Rand Paul style of plagiarism as I stated before.
Rail on all you wish against it, but your protestations will not affect the truth of the matter. You're a PLAGIARIST! You might want to correct that defect and take some writing classes to learn how to write and attribute correctly.
I'm anything but a liar, but if that puts the wind up your skirt to deflect from your own characteristics you wish to conceal, it won't change either the Moon or the Stars or the knowledge of others to the contrary.
Give her a break...Plagarism got her through Columbia University
If only you could rebut my posts you wouldn't have to lie about 'em.
I've known families that had done excellent work teaching their children at home, however this is not always the case. Some of these children turn out to be dumb as a box of rocks...like PC Chick.
Full Story @
Home-schooled and illiterate - Salon.com
Though I fell out of touch with my home-schooled friends as we grew older, a few years ago, I reconnected with a few ex-Quiverfull peers on a new support blog calledNo Longer Quivering. Poring over their stories, I was shocked to find so many tales of gross educational neglect. I don’t merely mean that they had received what I now view as an overly politicized education with huge gaps, for example, in American history, evolution or sexuality. Rather, what disturbed me were the many stories about home-schoolers who were barely literate when they graduated, or whose math and science education had never extended much past middle school.
Take Vyckie Garrison, an ex-Quiverfull mother of seven who, in 2008, enrolled her six school-age children in public school after 18 years of teaching them at home. Garrison, who started the No Longer Quivering blog, says her near-constant pregnancies – which tended to result either in miscarriages or life-threatening deliveries – took a toll on her body and depleted her energy. She wasn’t able to devote enough time and energy to home schooling to ensure a quality education for each child. And she says the lack of regulation in Nebraska, where the family lived, “allowed us to get away with some really shoddy home schooling for a lot of years.”
“I’ll admit it,” she confesses. “Because I was so overwhelmed with my life… It was a real struggle to do the basics, so it didn’t take long for my kids to fall far behind. One of my daughters could not read at 11 years old.”
No Longer Quivering
I admit Cruella, that what comes from Salon has only a 10% chance of containing factual elements - but let's pretend the the party sycophants at the leftist site have actually uncovered what they claim..
{Author Beth Fertig says that as many as 20 percent of American adults may be functionally illiterate. They may recognize letters and words, but can't read directions on a bus sign or a medicine bottle, read or write a letter, or hold most any job. Her new book, Why cant U teach me 2 read, follows three young New Yorkers who legally challenged the New York City public schools for failing to teach them how to read — and won.}
Years Of Schooling Leaves Some Students Illiterate NPR
Yeah, that is 20% Ms. Deville. So lets say that the party propaganda hounds really did dig up a single home schooled person who is illiterate? 1 in 5 from the government schools graduates illiterate.
Rebut em?
You know I don't read them
Did you now! Here was my response to that sophistry at that time on the other thread, to which you couldn't respond because it fixed the lies as yours and you could not deny them!
"Really? Then where the Hell are your words, your thoughts? Why is there no lead in or no conclusion? How is the TOTALITY of that which you COPIED set aside as distinctly the work of another and not your own. Where are the REQUIRED quotation marks? Why the deviation in paragraphing from the original? Why the change in layout to your normal affected "style"? Why the improper change in the lead paragraph changing the number 8, established as the eighth point of the piece, changed to 1 as in YOUR usual style of bulleting? Why the unattributed font color change?
None of that is your work, but rather, that of another. Dropping the source at the bottom as you did is nothing but a provision for plausible deniability in your mind.
That is Rand Paul style PLAGURISM. You are really pissed because you got caught and exposed as a lazy cheat, a PLAGURIST and now a liar! You're a dishonest person with failed character!
Q.E.D." [Emphasis Added]
You were caught PLAGURIZING and then trying to cover your lie with false bravado! You corrected your bent toward PLAGURISM and I noted your attempt to redeem yourself this AM back on page 7 of this thread, but others started noticing the definite change in your style. Ya really should have kept your trap closed. Sometimes folks don't know when to just STOP rather than digging the hole they put themselves into deeper.
Our entire earlier exchange can be read on the thread, Lying About the Nuclear Deal, Page 12 if anyone is interested.
1. pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun
Since I used both quotation marks, and provided the link to the complete original, clearly, you are a liar attempting to score points without being able to defeat the material presented.
- the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Google.
2. Now....let's go on to give examples Liberal plagiarism: taking the words of the NYTimes, MSNBC, the DNC, Obama, Jon Stewart, etc.......and never giving credit to the source.
You simpletons do it every day.
I never do it.
3. Every OP I provide is part of a thread of 5 to 10 panels which lead to an undeniable conclusion......generally revealing how wrong, malevolent, and dishonest Liberals are...
...and that is why you have attempted to claim plagiarism.
It is the best you can do.
In short, you are, and will always be, a low-life liar.
The fact that your post I critiqued initially now has a set of quotation marks when it didn't before is beside the point. I don't know how they were added after the fact and I don't really care at this time. The fact is your remaining offenses against Fair Use of a copyrighted work still remain, including those I didn't mention previously such as the use of ellipses. Proper attribution of another's work demands that any alterations to the original be noted in an accepted manner. You failed to do that to the point it looked like your usual "style". But the problem with that was the entire post was a copy and paste and totally bereft of any word or thought of your own. That is PLAGIARISM!
Even if I erred and missed the quotation marks which now, mystically and magically appear on the post, even IF that were the case, it is still a plagiarized bit without proper the attribution. It is in the Rand Paul style of plagiarism as I stated before.
Rail on all you wish against it, but your protestations will not affect the truth of the matter. You're a PLAGIARIST! You might want to correct that defect and take some writing classes to learn how to write and attribute correctly.
I'm anything but a liar, but if that puts the wind up your skirt to deflect from your own characteristics you wish to conceal, it won't change either the Moon or the Stars or the knowledge of others to the contrary.
Give her a break...Plagarism got her through Columbia University
If only you could rebut my posts you wouldn't have to lie about 'em.
Rebut em?
You know I don't read them
Perhaps since I called you on your despicable PLAGURISM, lying about the actual sources in your posts and trying to pawn off the work of others as your own, the totality of the attribution you are now displaying is telling the world that you are capable only of parroting and unable to think for yourself!
Have a Nice Day Chica!
You have that in reverse....I exposed the fact that you didn't understand what plagiarism is....and, that your motivation in the attempted smear was to assuage your embarrassment in how I had to destroy you in a previous thread.
Get used to it.
Did you now! Here was my response to that sophistry at that time on the other thread, to which you couldn't respond because it fixed the lies as yours and you could not deny them!
"Really? Then where the Hell are your words, your thoughts? Why is there no lead in or no conclusion? How is the TOTALITY of that which you COPIED set aside as distinctly the work of another and not your own. Where are the REQUIRED quotation marks? Why the deviation in paragraphing from the original? Why the change in layout to your normal affected "style"? Why the improper change in the lead paragraph changing the number 8, established as the eighth point of the piece, changed to 1 as in YOUR usual style of bulleting? Why the unattributed font color change?
None of that is your work, but rather, that of another. Dropping the source at the bottom as you did is nothing but a provision for plausible deniability in your mind.
That is Rand Paul style PLAGURISM. You are really pissed because you got caught and exposed as a lazy cheat, a PLAGURIST and now a liar! You're a dishonest person with failed character!
Q.E.D." [Emphasis Added]
You were caught PLAGURIZING and then trying to cover your lie with false bravado! You corrected your bent toward PLAGURISM and I noted your attempt to redeem yourself this AM back on page 7 of this thread, but others started noticing the definite change in your style. Ya really should have kept your trap closed. Sometimes folks don't know when to just STOP rather than digging the hole they put themselves into deeper.
Our entire earlier exchange can be read on the thread, Lying About the Nuclear Deal, Page 12 if anyone is interested.
1. pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun
Since I used both quotation marks, and provided the link to the complete original, clearly, you are a liar attempting to score points without being able to defeat the material presented.
- the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Google.
2. Now....let's go on to give examples Liberal plagiarism: taking the words of the NYTimes, MSNBC, the DNC, Obama, Jon Stewart, etc.......and never giving credit to the source.
You simpletons do it every day.
I never do it.
3. Every OP I provide is part of a thread of 5 to 10 panels which lead to an undeniable conclusion......generally revealing how wrong, malevolent, and dishonest Liberals are...
...and that is why you have attempted to claim plagiarism.
It is the best you can do.
In short, you are, and will always be, a low-life liar.
The fact that your post I critiqued initially now has a set of quotation marks when it didn't before is beside the point. I don't know how they were added after the fact and I don't really care at this time. The fact is your remaining offenses against Fair Use of a copyrighted work still remain, including those I didn't mention previously such as the use of ellipses. Proper attribution of another's work demands that any alterations to the original be noted in an accepted manner. You failed to do that to the point it looked like your usual "style". But the problem with that was the entire post was a copy and paste and totally bereft of any word or thought of your own. That is PLAGIARISM!
Even if I erred and missed the quotation marks which now, mystically and magically appear on the post, even IF that were the case, it is still a plagiarized bit without proper the attribution. It is in the Rand Paul style of plagiarism as I stated before.
Rail on all you wish against it, but your protestations will not affect the truth of the matter. You're a PLAGIARIST! You might want to correct that defect and take some writing classes to learn how to write and attribute correctly.
I'm anything but a liar, but if that puts the wind up your skirt to deflect from your own characteristics you wish to conceal, it won't change either the Moon or the Stars or the knowledge of others to the contrary.
Give her a break...Plagarism got her through Columbia University
There have been no studies of homeschooled students’ academic performance that have used representative samples rather than recruiting volunteer participants.
Homeschooling Educational Neglect - Coalition for Responsible Home Education
I am learning how to make browned hash potatoes by watching videos on YouTube; i love modern times.
[
I believe she took those internet courses at home. They provided her with multiple choice questions, with the key answers on the back.
Rebut em?
You know I don't read them
Everything you need to know, DailyKOS tells you in the morning brief!
Thinking is for conservatives - you'll stick to blindly obeying - like good democrats do....
I prefer to barter with housemates; i am even open to short orders.I am learning how to make browned hash potatoes by watching videos on YouTube; i love modern times.
I'm thinking that could eventually lead to a manager position at the Waffle House. lol
1. pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm/
noun
Since I used both quotation marks, and provided the link to the complete original, clearly, you are a liar attempting to score points without being able to defeat the material presented.
- the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own. Google.
2. Now....let's go on to give examples Liberal plagiarism: taking the words of the NYTimes, MSNBC, the DNC, Obama, Jon Stewart, etc.......and never giving credit to the source.
You simpletons do it every day.
I never do it.
3. Every OP I provide is part of a thread of 5 to 10 panels which lead to an undeniable conclusion......generally revealing how wrong, malevolent, and dishonest Liberals are...
...and that is why you have attempted to claim plagiarism.
It is the best you can do.
In short, you are, and will always be, a low-life liar.
The fact that your post I critiqued initially now has a set of quotation marks when it didn't before is beside the point. I don't know how they were added after the fact and I don't really care at this time. The fact is your remaining offenses against Fair Use of a copyrighted work still remain, including those I didn't mention previously such as the use of ellipses. Proper attribution of another's work demands that any alterations to the original be noted in an accepted manner. You failed to do that to the point it looked like your usual "style". But the problem with that was the entire post was a copy and paste and totally bereft of any word or thought of your own. That is PLAGIARISM!
Even if I erred and missed the quotation marks which now, mystically and magically appear on the post, even IF that were the case, it is still a plagiarized bit without proper the attribution. It is in the Rand Paul style of plagiarism as I stated before.
Rail on all you wish against it, but your protestations will not affect the truth of the matter. You're a PLAGIARIST! You might want to correct that defect and take some writing classes to learn how to write and attribute correctly.
I'm anything but a liar, but if that puts the wind up your skirt to deflect from your own characteristics you wish to conceal, it won't change either the Moon or the Stars or the knowledge of others to the contrary.
Give her a break...Plagarism got her through Columbia University
If only you could rebut my posts you wouldn't have to lie about 'em.
Rebut em?
You know I don't read them
Almost as true as your avi.
There have been no studies of homeschooled students’ academic performance that have used representative samples rather than recruiting volunteer participants.
Homeschooling Educational Neglect - Coalition for Responsible Home Education
Bullshit.
The examination of standardized testing using the total population and is irrefutable.
Public schools are an irrefutable failure at educating children, but that isn't the real purpose of them.
Home schooling lacks the institutional aspect to prepare children for the transition from school to prison, and fails to create obedient subjects. That home schooling irrefutably creates far better educated people is seen as a negative by the educational bureaucracy, not a positive. The goal of public education is not to create bright, articulate, independent thinkers. Quite the opposite. Docile and obedient is the product that public schools seek to provide.
{
Horace Mann, credited as the father of the American public school system, studied a wide variety of educational models before implementing the Prussian system designed by Fredrick the Great. King Frederick created a system that was engineered to teach obedience and solidify his control. Focusing on following directions, basic skills, and conformity, he sought to indoctrinate the nation from an early age. Isolating students in rows and teachers in individual classrooms fashioned a strict hierarchy—intentionally fostering fear and loneliness.
Mann chose the Prussian model, with its depersonalized learning and strict hierarchy of power, because it was the cheapest and easiest way to teach literacy on a large scale.
This system was perpetuated throughout the early twentieth century by social efficiency theorists who sought to industrialize the educational process. Led by educators such as Ellwood P. Cubberley, they used education as a tool for social engineering:
“Our schools are, in a sense, factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned into products to meet the various demands of life.” (Cubberley, 1917)
Building upon the depersonalized uniformity and rigid hierarchy of the Prussian system, they constructed an industrial schooling model designed to produce millions of workers for Americaʼs factories.
Believing that most of America’s students were destined for a life of menial, industrial labor, these theorists created a multi-track educational system meant to sort students from an early age. While the best and brightest were carefully groomed for leadership positions, the majority was relegated to a monotonous education of rote learning and task completion.
Consequently, our schooling system is still locked into the Prussian-industrial framework of fear, isolation, and monotony. For both students and teachers, procedure is emphasized over innovation, uniformity over individual expression, and control over empowerment. It is, therefore, not surprising that the majority of Americaʼs classrooms have changed little in over one hundred years.}
The Prussian-Industrial Model
