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

[Dante]

BUT WAIT!


Didn't you know that all teachers and professors are left wing leftists? Since this is true (according to so many on here) then HOW can they be against plagiarism, since it's all the leftists know how to do?

Simple, one word....

Hypocrites


Do as we say not as we do. Plagierism is okay for teachers to do, but not for students.

Where is the jent? Don't you 3 stay in a pack? She'll be on soon I'm sure talking about the evil ways of public school teachers too.

Yes Light, all teachers plagiarize because they are all
'

LEFTIST AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!


Hasn't Pubes taught you anything in his Plagiarism 101 Thread?




*PS-You may want to learn how to SPELL Plagiarism if you're going to hang on Pubes coattails!

oops! neg rep by mistake.

sorry

 

[THE LIGHT]

Where is the jent? Don't you 3 stay in a pack? She'll be on soon I'm sure talking about the evil ways of public school teachers too.

Yes Light, all teachers plagiarize because they are all
'

LEFTIST AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!


Hasn't Pubes taught you anything in his Plagiarism 101 Thread?




*PS-You may want to learn how to SPELL Plagiarism if you're going to hang on Pubes coattails!

I did didn't I. Good catch.

Blame the evil leftist public school systems for your bad spelling!

You know that would make a good thread title.

 

[random3434]

I did didn't I. Good catch.

Blame the evil leftist public school systems for your bad spelling!

You know that would make a good thread title.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm..............................and get 10,000 responses!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

BUT WAIT!


Didn't you know that all teachers and professors are left wing leftists? Since this is true (according to so many on here) then HOW can they be against plagiarism, since it's all the leftists know how to do?

Simple, one word....

Hypocrites


Do as we say not as we do. Plagierism is okay for teachers to do, but not for students.

Where is the jent? Don't you 3 stay in a pack? She'll be on soon I'm sure talking about the evil ways of public school teachers too.

Yes Light, all teachers plagiarize because they are all
'

LEFTIST AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!


Hasn't Pubes taught you anything in his Plagiarism 101 Thread?




*PS-You may want to learn how to SPELL Plagiarism if you're going to hang on Pubes coattails!

Ironically... when this little journey began... that's exactly how I spelled the first thread I created...

Point being that plagiarism is not one of those things that usually sits at the top of the mind... I doubt I had even considered the notion since the heady days of Joe Biden's tour-de-Douche when he was busted for it... what... had to be the early 90s... maybe late 80s.

And the sweet heart of THAT irony is that the idiot that spent the most time excusing it, is the one who ran to correct my spelling of it.

Which just goes to show ya that there's more to understanding the concept than knowing how it's spelled...

But I should point out how much I appreciate EZ coming to troll the thread with her chronic attempts to distract from the issue and may I also note that misrepresenting my standard... in an absurd fit of deception has been adorable.

EZ... I just want ya to know that despite your stark limitations; it's clear to me that you're doin' the very BEST ya can... God bless ya. And no one can take that from ya. EVER.

I mean when the inevitable thread comes along that speaks to pedophilia, I trust you'll be right there doin' everything ya can to take the edge off that cultural menace; cause, after all, who's it really hurt anyway... Right?

You're truly a credit to Moderate, Centrist, Progressive, mainstream seekers of Social Justice everywhere...

 

[random3434]

Simple, one word....

Hypocrites


Do as we say not as we do. Plagierism is okay for teachers to do, but not for students.

Where is the jent? Don't you 3 stay in a pack? She'll be on soon I'm sure talking about the evil ways of public school teachers too.

Yes Light, all teachers plagiarize because they are all
'

LEFTIST AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!


Hasn't Pubes taught you anything in his Plagiarism 101 Thread?




*PS-You may want to learn how to SPELL Plagiarism if you're going to hang on Pubes coattails!

Ironically... when this little journey began... that's exactly how I spelled the first thread I created...

Point being that plagiarism is not one of those things that usually sits at the top of the mind... I doubt I had even considered the notion since the heady days of Joe Biden's tour-de-Douche when he was busted for it... what... had to be the early 90s... maybe late 80s.

And the sweet heart of THAT irony is that the idiot that spent the most time excusing it, is the one who ran to correct my spelling of it.

Which just goes to show ya that there's more to understanding the concept than knowing how it's spelled...

But I should point out how much I appreciate EZ coming to troll the thread with her chronic attempts to distract from the issue and may I also note that misrepresenting my standard... in an absurd fit of deception has been adorable.

EZ... I just want ya to know that despite your stark limitations; it's clear to me that you're doin' the very BEST ya can... God bless ya. And no one can take that from ya. EVER.

I mean when the inevitable thread comes along that speaks to pedophilia, I trust you'll be right there doin' everything ya can to take the edge off that cultural menace; cause, after all, who's it really hurt anyway... Right?

You're truly a credit to Moderate, Centrist, Progressive, mainstream seekers of Social Justice everywhere...

Quit hitting on me Pubes, I'm taken!


And why are you talking about your pedophilia obsession on here?

I think maybe it's something you need to talk to your priest about, you need more help than we can give you here at the USMB.


GET HELP NOW PUBES< BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Where is the jent? Don't you 3 stay in a pack? She'll be on soon I'm sure talking about the evil ways of public school teachers too.

Yes Light, all teachers plagiarize because they are all
'

LEFTIST AMERICANS!!!!!!!!!


Hasn't Pubes taught you anything in his Plagiarism 101 Thread?




*PS-You may want to learn how to SPELL Plagiarism if you're going to hang on Pubes coattails!

Ironically... when this little journey began... that's exactly how I spelled the first thread I created...

Point being that plagiarism is not one of those things that usually sits at the top of the mind... I doubt I had even considered the notion since the heady days of Joe Biden's tour-de-Douche when he was busted for it... what... had to be the early 90s... maybe late 80s.

And the sweet heart of THAT irony is that the idiot that spent the most time excusing it, is the one who ran to correct my spelling of it.

Which just goes to show ya that there's more to understanding the concept than knowing how it's spelled...

But I should point out how much I appreciate EZ coming to troll the thread with her chronic attempts to distract from the issue and may I also note that misrepresenting my standard... in an absurd fit of deception has been adorable.

EZ... I just want ya to know that despite your stark limitations; it's clear to me that you're doin' the very BEST ya can... God bless ya. And no one can take that from ya. EVER.

I mean when the inevitable thread comes along that speaks to pedophilia, I trust you'll be right there doin' everything ya can to take the edge off that cultural menace; cause, after all, who's it really hurt anyway... Right?

You're truly a credit to Moderate, Centrist, Progressive, mainstream seekers of Social Justice everywhere...

Quit hitting on me Pubes, I'm taken!


And why are you talking about your pedophilia obsession on here?

I think maybe it's something you need to talk to your priest about, you need more help than we can give you here at the USMB.


GET HELP NOW PUBES< BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE!

Oh that's the stuff Girly...

"I know you are, but what am I?"

Thatta girl... don't stand on the need to say smart-stuff all the time... otherwise the'll start expectin' it... mix in some of the classics.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Allrighty then... So we agree, that the Leftist sense on entitlement is a pervasive, virulent cultural infection; which is now presenting in the intellecual integrity; proving that such is a threat to the viability of any culture which tolerates such...


Good to know...

Now what? What should be done, even as we observe the ideological Left is attempting to foist the fraud that Legislation before the Legislature which has never been voted on and passed; has been passed; so as to send to the executive to be passed into law...

Thus the Left is at this very moment; desperately attempting to induce martial law through deception...

Any answers?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Allrighty then... So we agree, that the Leftist sense on entitlement is a pervasive, virulent cultural infection; which is now presenting in the intellecual integrity; proving that such is a threat to the viability of any culture which tolerates such...


Good to know...

Now what? What should be done, even as we observe the ideological Left is attempting to foist the fraud that Legislation before the Legislature which has never been voted on and passed; has been passed; so as to send to the executive to be passed into law...

Thus the Left is at this very moment; desperately attempting to induce martial law through deception...

Any answers?

"We" don't know anything of the sort anymore than "we" know that rightists have an entitlement as "a pervasive, virulent cultural infection". Your opinion above is asinine. Offer some nonplagiarized evidence and citation/documentation for such a silly statement, please.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Allrighty then... So we agree, that the Leftist sense on entitlement is a pervasive, virulent cultural infection; which is now presenting in the intellecual integrity; proving that such is a threat to the viability of any culture which tolerates such...


Good to know...

Now what? What should be done, even as we observe the ideological Left is attempting to foist the fraud that Legislation before the Legislature which has never been voted on and passed; has been passed; so as to send to the executive to be passed into law...

Thus the Left is at this very moment; desperately attempting to induce martial law through deception...

Any answers?

"We" don't know anything of the sort anymore than "we" know that rightists have an entitlement as "a pervasive, virulent cultural infection". Your opinion above is asinine. Offer some nonplagiarized evidence and citation/documentation for such a silly statement, please.

Sadly Sis... for your failing point; obtuse denials that evidence has not been advanced does not effect the reality that evidence actually has been advanced.

At this point your assertion fails; as they usually do...

Now I've pulled you out of ignore and lent you the courtesy of this response; but where you return to this thread and fail to turn to that evidence, or through evidence of your own... and rest your next post in this thread ON that evidence; then your obtuse ass will go right back to ignore and I'll have nothing more to do with ya.

 

[L.K.Eder]

..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&#8230; that Webster&#8217;s does not provide a definition for the term; and that that as such; I lied&#8230; yadda yadda.

Now that&#8217;s the relevant exchange&#8230;

The suggestion that a citation of definitions; at the request of the opposition; must be attributed to avoid plagiarism is preposterous&#8230; 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&#8230; 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&#8230;

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&#8230; 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&#8230; 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&#8217;s work to project the deceit that the work represents THEIR OWN WORDS&#8230; that such represents their innate command of the subject&#8230; thus such represents a fraudulent projection of authority&#8230; on which the author is entirely leaning.

Thus Ravi is in truth, doing exactly the same thing which the respective contributors have done&#8230; defending the indefensible&#8230; and right here on USMB. Ravi is once again, defending unsustainable principle&#8230; once again the nauseating stench of moral relativism seeps from the intellectual bowels of the ideological Left&#8230; 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]

Nation Shudders At Large Block Of Uninterrupted Text

even the board software snips it

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

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='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.

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.

Nation Shudders At Large Block Of Uninterrupted Text

even the board software snips it[/QUOTE]

Yeah... rumor has it that the site is considering opening up a SHORT-THREAD for you with 'special needs'.

The problem seems to be finding someone to moderate it. No one presently on the job is willing to clean the windows.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The concept is "common knowledge", not commonly used words.

Here is a help aid for you: Paul Robeson Library:: Real Life Examples!

 

[Gatekeeper]

Copying someone elses work, and presenting as your own is plagiarism and just plain damn dishonest in my book.

Pretty easy to spot though. Look for the string of sentences that are a bit more formal and articulate than is normal for this message board. Put it in google with " " around them. See if you get any hits.

And then call the person out on it.

Radioman says,

Look for the string of sentences that are a bit more formal and articulate than is normal for this message board.

Are you suggesting that we are informal and inarticulate?

Well at times I am very 'inphormal' and' inarktulate' along with typo's and spelting and 'gramikle' errors. But I have 'lernt' to 'reed' typonese vewy vewy well.

Oh, BTW, copying someone else's original posts ,stories, pictures etc., anything, is wrong
period without first giving credit to the originator of same. Besides, one could be sued.

 

[JakeStarkey]

RadiomanATL is correct, of course. Anyone in the media, copyediting, publishing, academia, etc., becomes familar with a particular individual's writing abilities. If it suddenly improves noticably overnight, suspect the worse and hope for the best as it is run through one of the anti-plagiarism detection software programs.

 

[rightwinger]

What I personally believe is...
I've recently run across a group of people who are prone to copy and paste paragraphs of information from various web sources; and while that's hardly unusual in a web forum; this crowd believes that doing so with absolutely NO DISCERNIBLE attribution; and representing such as one's OWN work... using such to fraudulently imply that such represents one's OWN command of the subject; towards establishing one's self as an authority on that subject is perfectly fine.

I'm just wondering what the member's of the USMB think about this....

Do you think that you understand plagiarism; and if so, what is that understanding; and if you feel that it's no big deal; please tell me why; and likewise for those who DO feel that plagiarism is a big deal.

Looking forward to you input.

Just trying to gauge the current conventional wisdom on the subject.

Thanks...

 

[xotoxi]

Nation Shudders At Large Block Of Uninterrupted Text

even the board software snips it

I tried to read your linked article, but I grew weary of reading as I had to scroll.

Would you mind summarizing with a simple Power Point presentation?

 

[xotoxi]

What I personally believe is...
I've recently run across a group of people who are prone to copy and paste paragraphs of information from various web sources; and while that's hardly unusual in a web forum; this crowd believes that doing so with absolutely NO DISCERNIBLE attribution; and representing such as one's OWN work... using such to fraudulently imply that such represents one's OWN command of the subject; towards establishing one's self as an authority on that subject is perfectly fine.

I'm just wondering what the member's of the USMB think about this....

Do you think that you understand plagiarism; and if so, what is that understanding; and if you feel that it's no big deal; please tell me why; and likewise for those who DO feel that plagiarism is a big deal.

Looking forward to you input.

Just trying to gauge the current conventional wisdom on the subject.

Thanks...

I thought that I would share MY ORIGINAL THOUGHTS on this issue in the following paragraphs...words that have never in the history of the universe been strung together in this exact pattern:


Just to be clear; the point here is not so much the copy and paste, but doing so and pretending that it's one's own work... and not just failing to credit the author; but actually mixing the work into your own, literally to employ the work; the research of another as your own.

That's theft of someone's intellectual property... is it not?

And is it not also fraud?

I mean none of us are experts in every field... and we all lean on the research of scholars and those who've otherwise invested their time and energy; along with, in many cases their own money to establish and compile the resources we use in our various debates.

There's certainly nothing untoward or underhanded in using those resources... as long as one attributes the work to the author and / or the resource from which it was culled.

Like any fair exchange, most people who've placed data in the public domain, out it there for others to use... it there free for the taking; and all that anyone asks is that they attribute the work to the resource they created. You get the use of the work and the creator of the site; or the author receives the credit which they are rightfully due; for having provided it.

Where such is recognized and respected, it provides incentive for others to follow suit; the public domain is seen as a place where a person can place their work and receive the credit for the work. Thus the advancement of readily available knowledge PROGRESSES...

Where such is not recognized; and the authors and creators of such resources begin to see their work being represented by others as their own; this can only provide good reason for researchers and scholars to avoid the public domain... thus producing a REGRESSIVE effect.

Which is where the Irony rests in this situation; those who I've found to be the LEAST 'concerned' with Plagiarism are the would-be PROGRESSIVES...

I mean entire FORUMS; which proudly proclaim their "liberal" orientation, who show absolutely NO INTEREST OR CONCERN for Plagiarism... where it has been demonstrated that entire PARAGRAPHS were lifted and fraudulently represented as the work of the plagiarist...

It just proves to me that the Ideological Left is, for all intents and purposes, a vessel adrift from any sense of morality...

Just looking for some input on how others see it... and I'd be particularly interested in the opinion of those professing to be liberal, progressive, socialist, or even the rarest of all Leftists... the dreaded anarcho-communist...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Ahh... so the concensus is that we have some adults who are prepared for a discussion and some children who are not...

By my count; the conclusion is that those of the Moderate, Centrist, Mainstream Progressive camp are not all that concerned with maintaining any form of ethical standards; in keeping with their ideological sense of entitlement; and the American's are...

Works for me...

 

[xotoxi]

 

[L.K.Eder]

Ahh... so the concensus is that we have some adults who are prepared for a discussion and some children who are not...

By my count; the conclusion is that those of the Moderate, Centrist, Mainstream Progressive camp are not all that concerned with maintaining any form of ethical standards; in keeping with their ideological sense of entitlement; and the American's are...

Works for me...

and if you get presented with right-wingers guilty of plagiarism, they become leftists.

neat.

welcome back, btw. are you planning on staying more than a day?