Hey, Chumpsky, how about you enlighten us.

The BBQ Pit
181

Well this is all fucked now isn’t it?

Chumpsky was challenged and answered the challenge most nobly. A great debate (if I may) ensued, where he fought on all fronts against many a poster. While being more of a (wannabe) social democrat than a communist, I admired and learned from his posts. (wish i could have helped you man but I was way out of my league)

To have it end like this is simply FUCKED!

Chumpsky admit you stole/failed to reference that material and apologise, then you can get back to debating the issues. 'Till then you know you will be constantly plagued by the latter half of this thread and ignored.

182

Just for your edification Gary Kumqat, Chumpsky is referring to the Allied support for the counter-revolutionary “Whites” during the period of 1918-1919. The first to land were the British in Murmansk in the north and the Japanese ( somewhat independantly ) in Vladivostock in the east. Later the French landed in the south around Odessa and Sevastopol and the Americans landed in the north around Archangelsk, I believe. Eventually about 200,000 Allied troops were landed, but they had conflicting goals and only a vague rationale for being there ( the Allied claim was that it was a counter to the Germans, as WW I was still raging at that point ). Churchill wanted to crush Bolshevism, but the British were cagey and simultaneously proposed negotiations. Foch wanted a “crusade” against Bolshevism, and both the French and Italians pressed the case for supporting the Whites in material terms. But the French scarcely got involved in the fighting themselves. The Americans seem to have been even more muddled. All in all the Allies didn’t get into any of the really heavy fighting, though the Marxist analysis below claims their material support was what was moist significant. Allied casualties were only around a few thousand I think, mostly in the northern zone. The increasing collapse and chaos of the Whites and the failure to agree on goals amongst themselves led to a general withdrawal by 1919 ( except the Japanese, who held Valdivostok for several years ).

A couple of very short essays:

http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/romeo/russia1918.htm

http://mars.acnet.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/russia/lectures/28civilwar.html

And to make Chumpsky happy, a Marxist analysis:
http://www.marxists.de/russrev/trudell/civilwar1.htm

  • Tamerlane
183

Chumpsky, you’ll note from my other threads here that I’m something of a Pinko myself, and I’ve agreed with you in other threads.

But that was plagiarism. At the very kindest to you, I could posit that you’ve got a great memory for passages but a terrible memory for sources, and that you wererewriting things you’d read from memory.

That, as unlikely as it is, is likelier than your writing a passage almost identical to another passage that you’d never read.

The latter simply doesn’t happen.

You need to apologize and learn to cite your sources. To do otherwise is to discredit your (and sometimes by extension my) ideas. And I don’t want that to happen.

Daniel

184

Thanks Tamerlane, it’s interesting reading. Not quite the invasion he described, is it.

185

Oh, I meant post this one too, which you can regard as a brief opposite to the Marxist position: http://www.gmu.edu/departments/economics/bcaplan/museum/muchado.htm

  • Tamerlane
186

During the Russian Civil War, a bunch of Western countries, including the US, sent troops and supplies to support the “Whites”…those Russians fighting to overthrow the Communist government. Here’s a link, which includes links to more information:

http://www.regiments.org/milhist/wars/ww1/russia.htm

187

Also check out
http://www.militaria.com/8th/WW1/siberia.html
for American intervention in Siberia during the civil war.

Chumpsky I don’t think i’m alone when i say this,
although my politics are similar to your own,
your whole approach is wrong.
Bullying tactics, obnoxiousness and plagiarism are not viable tactics for converting others to your political point of view.

Mogiaw

188

Chumpsky

It has become quite obvious that besides being totally lacking in the integrity department, you don’t embarrass easily. Because if you did, you wouldn’t have joined this MB to begin with.

Did you really think, that with the incredible number of smart people that post here, you were going to be able to pull off your charade indefinitely? Hell, what’s amazing to me is that you’ve been able to pull it off for this long! If there’s a positive in that, is that most people here are willing to give others the benefit of the doubt – in your case, that you were a very well read, bright yet naive and abrasive idealist. And I’m betting you loved seeing yourself in that light as well. The “SDMB People’s Champion,” who’d managed to more than hold his own with some of the brightest minds around. Not bad, no, not bad at all, in fact, you certainly had me impressed. But no more.

In some ways, I can understand you trying to hold on to that mirage, it’s obvious that you’ve worked very hard in crafting it. But, and it’s a HUGE but, that is all it is, a mirage built on conceit and the intellect of others. A huge no-no in my book – and I suspect in almost everyone else’s here as well.

Think I am being too harsh? Think again. See, as long as you continue your ridiculous line of “defense” I will continue to hammer you with your lies. Ultimately, I do hope there’s a lesson learned in all of this for you.

You write, in the thread that originally caught my eye to your postings:

But it wasn’t “you,” was it? Because the one that did, was actually the Rev. Dr. Robert M. Bowman, Lt Col, USAF:

**
I hope the combined three posts I’ve written here are enough to make you cease and desist from continuing to steal other people’s work, because the long and short of it, is that doing so will get nowhere fast either in real life or here. Unless a possible jail sentence is part of your aspirations.

Stop it. I beg you. Start over the right way while you still have time.

189

“The whole idea behind socialism is that the benefits from creative work should go primarily to those who did it- the workers.”
Chumpsky, you have it backwards: the people who are doing the creative work aren’t the ones on the assembly line, but the ones who thought up the business (created it……get it???), who built the building (created it……get it???), who put together the payroll (created it….get it???), who are creating the jobs, creating the wealth…….

The owner of a company has done more creating than the guy who designs the machine, who does more creating than the guy who sticks a bolt in it.
Get it???

………………….probably not……………….
:sighs:

190

wow…see what I get for taking so long to post!!!

Chumpsky…what an apropos name to choose…

191

Extremely minor nitpick:

I’ve been told that Khruschev’s famous speech actually used a Russian idiom, which, although it literally translates to “we will bury you,” has a meaning more along the lines of “we will outlive you” (i.e. “we will survive long enough to participate in your burial.”)

Back to your regularly scheduled hammering of inaccurate and pigheaded plagiarists…although perhaps Chumpsky will come back with another pithy Russian saying, “The tallest blade of grass is always the first to be cut down by the scythe.”

192

I disagree with Chumsky on some points, but I know one very right-wing guy, that has a remarkable memory; my father. About something he has read, he can easily, some years after write it down almost word by word.
I remember when I once lost an argument with him about Karl XII, and his arguments where just more or less word by word from the 12-volume “Svensk historia”.

Anyhow, when I read Chumsky, I begun to remember what I had read about ITT.
I read the book Sampson, Anthony. The Sovereign State of ITT in 1974, or -75. I just could not remember the name of the book, had to Google.
Anyhow, I remember that I read after this book a book written by an American author telling about SKF selling ball-bearings to the nazis, from their US plant, while USA was on war with the nazis.
I also read about ITT and Alliende, some other books about the Seven Sisters etc., and wrote an essay about everything. I am sure that I wrote quite a lot that could be near the texts that the different books had.

Now, take three-four words of anything I wrote above, Google it, and my best guess is that You get some 27.000 hits.
Then look from where I have plagiarized this everything. I think You will find one guy that has told something about his fathers memory etc.

ATTENTION! If my memory would be like my fathers, You could put some 10 words in Your Google and say that he [Henry, The Moron] has plagiarized, and I would be very baffled about Your accusation!

Say what You say about Chumsky, but he has read a lot.
I think I also have, but the years, the years…, they have taken a lot from my memory.
And if You have time, study human memory, the studies made through hypnotism…, well You will be taken aback what a human can remember from texts, just glancing at them.

I think that our brave Chumsky, fighting the windmills, does not have to Google, remembers a lot and that’s why he does not need to put and does not even know why he should Google so much to give You well known facts. Well known facts to him. Or facts that he interpret as the Truth. Or something between. Everything is subjective, but however, You can learn a lot about anything, and Your facts are still subjective, or objective.

But You hardly begin to explain to someone that does not know what You are referring to and pile up cites for him?

E.g… facts and different versions of history that Tamerlane here gave You. If it was news, well, I do not know what is the discussion?
Often when I do not know, I either shut up, or make my cross-checking home-work.

And believe me, I have learned a lot from You guys, I am not so stupid that I go to a discussion, “knowing” that I know everything!

Reading many different views, usually takes You nearer the truth. This procedure I call cross-checking.

That there is people that are not familiar with anything that is not written in Readers’ Digest, I have seen many times.
The history well known, for many 'two-line-posters" begins at Germany in the thirties up to the end of W.W.II (fascism is interesting, isn’t it?) and jumps to some weeks before today, with some spots from some main events somewhere between.

The most alarming thing is that people do not cross-check ‘the facts’ handed over by the media, they just take them as final truths.

Anyhow, if Chumsky, plagiarized or not, I can’t say, but I do not go out and accuse someone for writing “nearly the same words as the other guy”.

If every guy here in The Pit, that knows so much about W.W.II would make an 30 word description of it, we would come to the conclusion that “many of the Dopers are fucking plagiarizers”.
(I hope that even “the fast readers” understands that I am accusing anyone for this.)

So, now You can begin to shout at me, but if You can hold Your horses until I will open an own thread about this what I wrote above, please shout there.
I open the thread within 24 hours here in the Pit, I just have to meet some people and I will be a little bit occupied just now.

So sharpen Your pencils and have a nice day!

And thank You for reading my rant.

Henry

193

So which is more amusing:

A) Chumpsky thinks we’re all mindless sheep, unable to think clearly because of all the propogranda we’ve been indoctrinated with, and yet Chumpsky has to copy and paste the opinions and ideas of others as his own.

B) Chumpsky is angry that capitalism steals the creative works of people, yet he steals the creative work of others in order to appear smarter than he actually is.

194

Oh, dear, Henry. Your challenge to Google your words actually disproves what you’re trying to prove. I googled a few different phrases from your first couple of paragraphs (admittedly, I googled a string of 7-8 words at a time, to make it more in-keeping with RedFury’s approach and results), and got no hits in Google.

Admittedly, this is partly because your English is imperfect: in English, you are “in a war with” a group, not “on war with” a group, for example.

However, this is exactly the point: even though there’s quite a bit of discussion of WWII out there, your descriptions of parts of it are unique. It’s extremely rare for two people to come up with word-for-word identical descriptions of the same event.

Chumpsky is plagiarizing. Had he admitted to it immediately on being exposed, and apologized, then I wouldn’t go further and call him a liar. But given that he’s now lying about plagiarism, he’s lost all credibility. If he’s so willing to lie when he’s caught red-handed, why should I believe anything he says?

A shame, because I thought he had an interesting voice in these discussions, and I appreciated what I thought were good-faith posts defending a democratic socialist viewpoint.

Daniel

195

Just seen what RedFury found, the “We used the CIA to stir up old hatreds…”-piece.
That is clear plagiarism.

So read my post as that the plagiarism is clear.
Anyhow, I open a thread about the rest I wrote there;

  • what we believe without cross-checking
  • the usual believes (Readers’ digest-line of thruths).
  • where I agree with Chumsky (even not knowing where he got his information), and where I disagree.

I still can’t understand the motivesof plagiarism…

Henry

196

And here’s a counter-challenge:

Breed-specific legislation targets specific breeds of animals (usually dogs) for restrictions above and beyond those placed on other breeds. For example, American Staffordshire Terriers may be required to wear a muzzle at all times when they are off of their owners’ property, or Wolf Hybrid dogs may be forbidden from entering a jurisdiction’s borders. These laws can be written so that they pass Constitutional muster, but they are not the most effective way to address the problem of dangerous dogs: instead of targeting specific breeds, it is far more effective to target specific individual animals that have exhibited aggressive behavior.

This is a paragraph describing a current controversy within one of my areas of expertise. I wrote it from memory. If you can show me a paragraph online that loks almost identical to this, I’ll gladly apologize to Chumpsky for calling him a liar.

I’ll even expand the challenge: find any paragraph of mine from any post of mine that is both lengthy and substantially identical to someone else’s paragraph (and isn’t attributed properly), and I’ll remove the accusation.

Daniel

197

DanielWithrow
I put the fraze corrected as You wrote it should be corrected:
“US plant, while USA was in a war with the nazis”

Google said: “The following words are very common and were not included in your search: was in a with the.”
and gave me
“Results 1 - 10 of about 8,170”

I have to admit that it was less than I expected, but anyhow, everyone, including the foolish me, seem now to agree on that it was plagiarism.

198

Henry, try entering that phrase into Google surrounded by quotes. That’ll give you pages using the exact phrase, not simply pages containing some of those words.

I tried it, and got 0 results.

Daniel

199

Daniel
I naturally understood Your point, but tried anyhow. Your text that I tried first:

“dangerous dogs: instead of targeting specific breeds, it is far more effective to target specific individual animals that have exhibited aggressive behavior”
is too long for Google (max. 10 words)

so I took 10 words:

“dangerous dogs instead targeting specific breeds effective individual exhibited aggressive”

“behavior” I left away, even if it would have been a good target-word, but it can also be spelled “behaviour”, as they do it in England.

Results 1 - 10 of 11. Some was pdf.-files, but as I saw there was one even about monks as well :slight_smile:

But taking only 4 words, gave really doggy pages:
instead targeting specific breeds Results 1 - 10 of about 3,070.
I have no idea though how to begin to look for paralells, without using very much time on different combinations of words, in Google and proceed from the smallest… whatever it is in English.

But as I wrote, I got Your point, and admit that I am and was mistaken.

Henry

200

I have ten times more posts than the liar at hand. Show me anything I have posted as mine on the Internet and I’ll show you someone who plagiarized from me. It’s that simple. The odds of coming up with the same paragraph by chance are one in a gazillion. The odds that a Chumpski would do it are zero.