Chumpsky, have you no sense of decency sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?
[sub]The preceding statement just happened to tumble from my fingers. Any resemblence to an actual statement by an actual historical figure is purely intentional.[/sub]
Chumpsky, what I don’t think you’ve grasped is that your credibility is completely shot among nearly all of the posters on this board. (Or if you’ll jerk your knee so hard as to bruise your forehead, you can refrain from demanding that I retract such a slanderous allegation. I’ll suggest you just reread the thread.) You can protest and complain that some of your posts weren’t blatantly stolen, but the fact remains that your demonstrated intellectual dishonestly leads me to question every single post you make.
For me, at least, it’s going to take a long time before I’ll believe that any of your ‘essays’ aren’t a result of theft.
If you can’t even argue your viewpoint in your own words, how am I supposed to be swayed?
The honest thing to do now is to admit that what you did was wrong. You’ve not only stolen – now you deny that it was a problem at all.
Say goodnight, Gracie…
Ahh yes. Care to back up that “belief”?
I already have! Several times! I admitted that copying the sentences from Maas was wrong. Yet, I still totally deny that the sentences on ITT and GM were plagiarized, and wrote a lengthy reply to the paragraph regarding Kosovo.
Ed sez that he would have to admonish me if he found out that I did any such thing. So far, he’s never noticed any bodies…
so you’re saying that the identical word-for-word phrasing of your posts and the ITT and GM sites were just, what? Parallel evolution like the Yangs and Coms on Omega 7? Pull the other one, sister.
You moron, they weren’t word for word. Shall I re-post the entire argument I already posted, or will you just ignore it again?
:eek: and :eek: again.
[Chumpsky**, you’ve haven’t really listened to anything else I’ve ever said to you, so I don’t expect you to listen to this, but you’ve got bigger problems than Red_Fury at the moment. Did you somehow miss Lynn Bodoni’s post on this matter? In case you did, here it is again:
Are you completely incapable of seeing what a fool you are making of yourself here? Let it go, for fucks sake.
Kiss my ass. I will not let it go.
Again, I apologized for the copying of Maas’ sentences. But, what really has me irate is the implication from RedFury and other posters here that many, if not most, of my posts have been plagiarized. I will not let this drop until there is a retraction of this vicious slander, or some evidence is produced to back it up.
Ban me if you like, but I will continue to insist on this point.
Give it up. You plagarised. Apparently at first you were reciting it from memory, now you were just taking from it, not citing it, then posting it three times just so you wouldn’t be marked as a plagarist?
Bullshit.
Bullshit is right. I admitted straight up that I had copied the lines from Maas. What I insist that I wrote from memory are the sentences regarding ITT and GM.
OK, well, I guess that question’s answered then.
It would appear that I spoke too soon…
Does that make the fact you plagarised any better? No, plain and simple you stole it. Even if you owned up on it because someone ‘found you out’, it’s still plagarism in my eyes. The fact is, you posted the link, not telling anybody you plagarised from it. Nobody noticed, up until Fury showed it wasn’t you.
People were made to assume that YOU wrote that.
I still think it’s impossible for you to write something so close to the originial verbatim in your post.
Your a plagarising jackass.
Still, I ask you to give it up.
Paraphrasing without citation is also plagiarism. Here commences the lesson:
{Direct quotation}
{paraphrase}
I forgot to mention something I found interesting.
I’ve had at least one teacher over the years who’s even required that one provide a citation when quoting one’s own published work! This even went to the extent that when I took a digital photograph myself and used it for a term project, I had to cite the photograph as Photograph by Monty, 2002. Not only did it help me not plagiarize, it kept the prof happy.
Hah! I just noticed that I “double quotation marked” my direct quotation example above. Apparently I forgot that I was already placing the example within the quote lines!
Hmmm…if it isn’t my bud, Chumpsky, back for more. Guess this matter wasn’t settled after all.
Well then, let’s see if this helps with your closure issues – or whatever other issues have you in a tizzy.
Your claims about posting from work can be found right here
**
Yes, indeed, small trivial stuff like who actually writes some of your stuff?
Anyhow, more examples of plagiarism you ask? What do you know, I just may be able to accommodate your request. Anything for a bud, right? In fact, why don’t we take a look at another post from the Kosovo thread? Good idea methinks, and I hope you do too.
In it, you write:
And, being the clever fellow that you are, right in the next paragraph, you add the following sentence:
**
So, since I am not exactly a chimp either – nothing against chimps, but hey! – I put those two together, and get…well, I get the rightful owner of that intellectual property, one
Michael Parenti, ** verbatim **:
So, bud, about that definition of plagiarism we don’t agree in, care to explain yours one more time? Because the above most definitely fits mine.
On second thought, never mind, no need to answer anyway. Because the only definition that matters at this time, is the one the SDMB staff makes.
Have a lovely evening, bud.
4th example, chumpsky. gonna give it up?
Chumpsky, nobody here is going to bother searching through every single one of your old posts for instances of plagiarism because three (or two, or one) is enough. Now we’re going to listen to your arguments with as much interest as you listen to ours: not much.
But I’m a glutton for punishment so let’s look at RedFury’s statement that you keep posting because you’re so outraged:
"Number two. Although I am perfectly aware that we have any number of extremely bright and qualified people on this board – some, I am sure, qualify as “geniuses” – it is extremely suspect for someone that often claims to be posting “from work” to be able to sustain the kind of scholarly output (right or wrong in its views, but erudite, well-written and chockfull of factual information) that he did."
Here, RedFury simply stated what made him suspicious of you. If you really don’t post from work, then his suspicions were based on a faulty premise, but it just so happens that his suspicions were otherwise on the mark. Hmmm, he must be psychic or something.
In the next sentance:
"I am willing to bet that each of those essays and articles he plagiarized, had a lot of hours of research and brainpower behind them."
He states that the articles you plagiarized were probably the result of hard work on the part of the original authors, I would imagine that’s true.
Either way, I don’t see RedFury asserting that most or all of your posts are plagiarized, he simply laid out why he was suspicious. He later writes that he suspects the rest of your work, but that’s not an accusation, it’s just a statement of how he’s going to look at your work from now on.
P.S. On preview, it appears that RedFury got you yet again, it looks like his suspicions are well founded.