White people report having less sex than members of other races

[L.K.Eder]

Name calling doesn't change facts, Little man.

The OP plagiarized the text - word for word - from a media outlet who enforce copyright. THAT IS FUCKING PLAGIARISM.

Stupidity suits you.

The name calling was the sprinkles served on the ice cream cone of your frozen inability to comprehend simple posts. I criticized Si Modo's post based on:


Rotfl! Try. To. Pay. Attention. SiModo accused the OP of stealing Data from those who conducted the study without realizing the very first line states who did the Study:

Posted by SM:

"Soooooo, you do studies of bedtime habits of different ethnic groups, huh? As you haven't referenced who actually did this work, either YOU did it, or you are stealing the data of those who DID do the work. If YOU did the work, YOU should let us know your methodology.

Although I doubt YOU did the work. I suspect you plagiarizing the work of others. It's pathetic theft of intellectual work without a refernce."


Read that again you dummy bitch. The entire accusation is endemic to the Study Data. That is why SM is a whiny dumbass....the very first fuxxing line states who did the Study.


P.S. When I said "Read that again you dummy bitch." I was not being sarcastic. It was a prediction of fallout from your stupidity. Now read it again or don't and show your stupidity again.

You're still not getting it, so I'll go slowly for you. There are two points: (1) The OP copied, word for word, a newspaper article and (2) if citing a study, one properly references the persons who actually did the work (not just an organization). Both of those conditions - copying and not citing the persons who actually did the work - are plagiarism. Deal with it.

maybe if you PM the OP nicely, he will PM you his source.

btw:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15.

you can take one shoe off and use your toes.

 

[Si modo]

The name calling was the sprinkles served on the ice cream cone of your frozen inability to comprehend simple posts. I criticized Si Modo's post based on:


Rotfl! Try. To. Pay. Attention. SiModo accused the OP of stealing Data from those who conducted the study without realizing the very first line states who did the Study:

Posted by SM:

"Soooooo, you do studies of bedtime habits of different ethnic groups, huh? As you haven't referenced who actually did this work, either YOU did it, or you are stealing the data of those who DID do the work. If YOU did the work, YOU should let us know your methodology.

Although I doubt YOU did the work. I suspect you plagiarizing the work of others. It's pathetic theft of intellectual work without a refernce."


Read that again you dummy bitch. The entire accusation is endemic to the Study Data. That is why SM is a whiny dumbass....the very first fuxxing line states who did the Study.


P.S. When I said "Read that again you dummy bitch." I was not being sarcastic. It was a prediction of fallout from your stupidity. Now read it again or don't and show your stupidity again.

You're still not getting it, so I'll go slowly for you. There are two points: (1) The OP copied, word for word, a newspaper article and (2) if citing a study, one properly references the persons who actually did the work (not just an organization). Both of those conditions - copying and not citing the persons who actually did the work - are plagiarism. Deal with it.

maybe if you PM the OP nicely, he will PM you his source.

btw:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15.

you can take one shoe off and use your toes.

And your point is to let us know that you still can't grasp the simple concept of plagiarism? I think most of us get that by now.

 

[CurveLight]

Name calling doesn't change facts, Little man.

The OP plagiarized the text - word for word - from a media outlet who enforce copyright. THAT IS FUCKING PLAGIARISM.

Stupidity suits you.

The name calling was the sprinkles served on the ice cream cone of your frozen inability to comprehend simple posts. I criticized Si Modo's post based on:


Rotfl! Try. To. Pay. Attention. SiModo accused the OP of stealing Data from those who conducted the study without realizing the very first line states who did the Study:

Posted by SM:

"Soooooo, you do studies of bedtime habits of different ethnic groups, huh? As you haven't referenced who actually did this work, either YOU did it, or you are stealing the data of those who DID do the work. If YOU did the work, YOU should let us know your methodology.

Although I doubt YOU did the work. I suspect you plagiarizing the work of others. It's pathetic theft of intellectual work without a refernce."


Read that again you dummy bitch. The entire accusation is endemic to the Study Data. That is why SM is a whiny dumbass....the very first fuxxing line states who did the Study.


P.S. When I said "Read that again you dummy bitch." I was not being sarcastic. It was a prediction of fallout from your stupidity. Now read it again or don't and show your stupidity again.

You're still not getting it, so I'll go slowly for you. There are two points: (1) The OP copied, word for word, a newspaper article and (2) if citing a study, one properly references the persons who actually did the work (not just an organization). Both of those conditions - copying and not citing the persons who actually did the work - are plagiarism. Deal with it.

You're full of shit. Your post I quoted said absolutely nothing about the article. You accused the OP of stealing study data based on claiming he didn't cite who did the study even though that was the first fuxxing OP line. Then...lol.....you try to claim the person who did the study has to be named and not simply the organization. Holy butt saliva! Just admit your obvious fuck up. I promise you the world won't end and you'll feel a lot better.

 

[L.K.Eder]

You're still not getting it, so I'll go slowly for you. There are two points: (1) The OP copied, word for word, a newspaper article and (2) if citing a study, one properly references the persons who actually did the work (not just an organization). Both of those conditions - copying and not citing the persons who actually did the work - are plagiarism. Deal with it.

maybe if you PM the OP nicely, he will PM you his source.

btw:

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15.

you can take one shoe off and use your toes.

And your point is to let us know that you still can't grasp the simple concept of plagiarism? I think most of us get that by now.

i guess you need to be kicked harder, so the needle can leave the stupid groove.

otoh, it will then land in the piss&moan groove.

damn, what a sad record.

 

[Si modo]

The name calling was the sprinkles served on the ice cream cone of your frozen inability to comprehend simple posts. I criticized Si Modo's post based on:


Rotfl! Try. To. Pay. Attention. SiModo accused the OP of stealing Data from those who conducted the study without realizing the very first line states who did the Study:

Posted by SM:

"Soooooo, you do studies of bedtime habits of different ethnic groups, huh? As you haven't referenced who actually did this work, either YOU did it, or you are stealing the data of those who DID do the work. If YOU did the work, YOU should let us know your methodology.

Although I doubt YOU did the work. I suspect you plagiarizing the work of others. It's pathetic theft of intellectual work without a refernce."


Read that again you dummy bitch. The entire accusation is endemic to the Study Data. That is why SM is a whiny dumbass....the very first fuxxing line states who did the Study.


P.S. When I said "Read that again you dummy bitch." I was not being sarcastic. It was a prediction of fallout from your stupidity. Now read it again or don't and show your stupidity again.

You're still not getting it, so I'll go slowly for you. There are two points: (1) The OP copied, word for word, a newspaper article and (2) if citing a study, one properly references the persons who actually did the work (not just an organization). Both of those conditions - copying and not citing the persons who actually did the work - are plagiarism. Deal with it.

You're full of shit. Your post I quoted said absolutely nothing about the article. You accused the OP of stealing study data based on claiming he didn't cite who did the study even though that was the first fuxxing OP line. Then...lol.....you try to claim the person who did the study has to be named and not simply the organization. Holy butt saliva! Just admit your obvious fuck up. I promise you the world won't end and you'll feel a lot better.

Of course my post said nothing about the article because the OP copied it. I searched for the source myself.

Repeating the obvious: The OP copied word for word a newpaper article. The OP did not properly cite those who did the work. Two counts of plagiarism. It's simple yet eludes you.

What an idiot you are.

But, I can understand your and Eder's defense of a racist.

 

[L.K.Eder]

You're still not getting it, so I'll go slowly for you. There are two points: (1) The OP copied, word for word, a newspaper article and (2) if citing a study, one properly references the persons who actually did the work (not just an organization). Both of those conditions - copying and not citing the persons who actually did the work - are plagiarism. Deal with it.

You're full of shit. Your post I quoted said absolutely nothing about the article. You accused the OP of stealing study data based on claiming he didn't cite who did the study even though that was the first fuxxing OP line. Then...lol.....you try to claim the person who did the study has to be named and not simply the organization. Holy butt saliva! Just admit your obvious fuck up. I promise you the world won't end and you'll feel a lot better.

Of course my post said nothing about the article because the OP copied it. I searched for the source myself.

Repeating the obvious: The OP copied word for word a newpaper article. The OP did not properly cite those who did the work. Two counts of plagiarism. It's simple yet eludes you.

What an idiot you are.

But, I can understand your and Eder's defense of a racist.

nice. dig, bitch!

 

[Si modo]

You're full of shit. Your post I quoted said absolutely nothing about the article. You accused the OP of stealing study data based on claiming he didn't cite who did the study even though that was the first fuxxing OP line. Then...lol.....you try to claim the person who did the study has to be named and not simply the organization. Holy butt saliva! Just admit your obvious fuck up. I promise you the world won't end and you'll feel a lot better.

Of course my post said nothing about the article because the OP copied it. I searched for the source myself.

Repeating the obvious: The OP copied word for word a newpaper article. The OP did not properly cite those who did the work. Two counts of plagiarism. It's simple yet eludes you.

What an idiot you are.

But, I can understand your and Eder's defense of a racist.

nice. dig, bitch!

As I used to tell my students when I was discussing integrity, "Yes, I am".

 

[L.K.Eder]

Of course my post said nothing about the article because the OP copied it. I searched for the source myself.

Repeating the obvious: The OP copied word for word a newpaper article. The OP did not properly cite those who did the work. Two counts of plagiarism. It's simple yet eludes you.

What an idiot you are.

But, I can understand your and Eder's defense of a racist.

nice. dig, bitch!

As I used to tell my students when I was discussing integrity, "Yes, I am".

did you call them defenders of racists or racists when you fucked up on integrity, teach?

 

[Si modo]

nice. dig, bitch!

As I used to tell my students when I was discussing integrity, "Yes, I am".

did you call them defenders of racists or racists when you fucked up on integrity, teach?

Not 'teach', 'prof'. I never 'fucked up' on integrity and I'm not fucking up here. You just can't grasp a simple concept. Joe Biden did, though. And it is exactly an improper reference that got him in hot water.

 

[CurveLight]

You're still not getting it, so I'll go slowly for you. There are two points: (1) The OP copied, word for word, a newspaper article and (2) if citing a study, one properly references the persons who actually did the work (not just an organization). Both of those conditions - copying and not citing the persons who actually did the work - are plagiarism. Deal with it.

You're full of shit. Your post I quoted said absolutely nothing about the article. You accused the OP of stealing study data based on claiming he didn't cite who did the study even though that was the first fuxxing OP line. Then...lol.....you try to claim the person who did the study has to be named and not simply the organization. Holy butt saliva! Just admit your obvious fuck up. I promise you the world won't end and you'll feel a lot better.

Of course my post said nothing about the article because the OP copied it. I searched for the source myself.

Repeating the obvious: The OP copied word for word a newpaper article. The OP did not properly cite those who did the work. Two counts of plagiarism. It's simple yet eludes you.

What an idiot you are.

But, I can understand your and Eder's defense of a racist.

You accused the op of stealing study data on the basis of not citing who did the study.

 

[Si modo]

You're full of shit. Your post I quoted said absolutely nothing about the article. You accused the OP of stealing study data based on claiming he didn't cite who did the study even though that was the first fuxxing OP line. Then...lol.....you try to claim the person who did the study has to be named and not simply the organization. Holy butt saliva! Just admit your obvious fuck up. I promise you the world won't end and you'll feel a lot better.

Of course my post said nothing about the article because the OP copied it. I searched for the source myself.

Repeating the obvious: The OP copied word for word a newpaper article. The OP did not properly cite those who did the work. Two counts of plagiarism. It's simple yet eludes you.

What an idiot you are.

But, I can understand your and Eder's defense of a racist.

You accused the op of stealing study data on the basis of not citing who did the study.

Yup.

 

[L.K.Eder]

As I used to tell my students when I was discussing integrity, "Yes, I am".

did you call them defenders of racists or racists when you fucked up on integrity, teach?

Not 'teach', 'prof'. I never 'fucked up' on integrity and I'm not fucking up here. You just can't grasp a simple concept. Joe Biden did, though. And it is exactly an improper reference that got him in hot water.

"i never fucked up on integrity"

your deflection from your fuck up is not working.

so who is the racist? and who is defending racists?

 

[Si modo]

did you call them defenders of racists or racists when you fucked up on integrity, teach?

Not 'teach', 'prof'. I never 'fucked up' on integrity and I'm not fucking up here. You just can't grasp a simple concept. Joe Biden did, though. And it is exactly an improper reference that got him in hot water.

"i never fucked up on integrity"

your deflection from your fuck up is not working.

so who is the racist? and who is defending racists?

What exactly is your point? See if you can actually articulate it.

 

[Douger]

That's because minorities seldom make their cable payments in a timely fashion.

 

[L.K.Eder]

Not 'teach', 'prof'. I never 'fucked up' on integrity and I'm not fucking up here. You just can't grasp a simple concept. Joe Biden did, though. And it is exactly an improper reference that got him in hot water.

"i never fucked up on integrity"

your deflection from your fuck up is not working.

so who is the racist? and who is defending racists?

What exactly is your point? See if you can actually articulate it.

my point is, in your desperate attempt to deflect from your counting and reading comprehension problems you decided - instead of letting it drop or even admitting it and/or apologizing for it (hahahahah) - to dig deeper. when i kicked you your needle hopped from the stupid repetition groove into the piss&moan groove, as predicted, and then you called me among others a defender of racists, then you wrote you never fucked up on integrity.

do you need more help? i can draw you a pic, again.

 

[Si modo]

"i never fucked up on integrity"

your deflection from your fuck up is not working.

so who is the racist? and who is defending racists?

What exactly is your point? See if you can actually articulate it.

my point is, in your desperate attempt to deflect from your counting and reading comprehension problems you decided - instead of letting it drop or even admitting it and/or apologizing for it (hahahahah) - to dig deeper. when i kicked you your needle hopped from the stupid repetition groove into the piss&moan groove, as predicted, and then you called me among others a defender of racists, then you wrote you never fucked up on integrity.

do you need more help? i can draw you a pic, again.

I don't apologize to a plagiarist for calling them plagiarists.

 

[L.K.Eder]

What exactly is your point? See if you can actually articulate it.

my point is, in your desperate attempt to deflect from your counting and reading comprehension problems you decided - instead of letting it drop or even admitting it and/or apologizing for it (hahahahah) - to dig deeper. when i kicked you your needle hopped from the stupid repetition groove into the piss&moan groove, as predicted, and then you called me among others a defender of racists, then you wrote you never fucked up on integrity.

do you need more help? i can draw you a pic, again.

I don't apologize to a plagiarist for calling them plagirists.

how about an explanation for the "defense of a racist" statement?

 

[Si modo]

my point is, in your desperate attempt to deflect from your counting and reading comprehension problems you decided - instead of letting it drop or even admitting it and/or apologizing for it (hahahahah) - to dig deeper. when i kicked you your needle hopped from the stupid repetition groove into the piss&moan groove, as predicted, and then you called me among others a defender of racists, then you wrote you never fucked up on integrity.

do you need more help? i can draw you a pic, again.

I don't apologize to a plagiarist for calling them plagirists.

how about an explanation for the "defense of a racist" statement?

The OP is a plagiarist. The OP is also a racist, J.W.Booth-style. You can only attack me for calling him a plagiarist.

Nah.

 

[L.K.Eder]

I don't apologize to a plagiarist for calling them plagirists.

how about an explanation for the "defense of a racist" statement?

The OP is a plagiarist. The OP is also a racist, J.W.Booth-style. You can only attack me for calling him a plagiarist.

Nah.

your words:

But, I can understand your and Eder's defense of a racist.

well done.

 

[Si modo]

how about an explanation for the "defense of a racist" statement?

The OP is a plagiarist. The OP is also a racist, J.W.Booth-style. You can only attack me for calling him a plagiarist.

Nah.

your words:

But, I can understand your and Eder's defense of a racist.

well done.

Yup. And your point?