So far as I recall Reagan himself didn’t purchase the toilet. It was purchased instead under a freewheeling tax-and-spend government whose Congress had been in Democratic hands for nearly five decades.
But I imagine you knew that.
And hammers at the time, IIRC, were going for $4 or $5 dollars each when purchased by people actually needing to make a profit from their work.
ETA: Posted in reply to Jenaroph.
Sorry, must have missed it in all the times you said that while claiming you didn’t plagerize it.
Plagiarist.
No, Hector. Not a bag of hammers. That’s what you’re as dumb as. The price was for one hammer.
And without liberal progress most of us would be working 22-hour days for 8 cents and selling our spare kidneys to buy food.
See, we can do slippery-slope arguments, too.
Actually, luci, there was. Here’s the link gfactor provided. If you do a search on the term “2009” you’ll find the version mentioning Pelosi, Boxer, Reid, and Obama. The third paragraph from the bottom mentions the former lug-nut twister in Flint, MI.
By George, I think he got it. Or almost, since he does not appear to quite have recognized that it was an insult directed at him.
It’s funny, to me at least, that we’ve gotten around to talking literally about hammers, Stanley.
Yabbut 95% of 22 cents an hour is only about eighteen cents an hour. That’s not much to pay to live in the greatest country on EARTH!
I think it’s really sad that you’re still sticking with this pathetic excuse. I was initially willing to believe that you genuinely hadn’t intended for anyone to believe that the copied article was your own work. (Although note that posting an entire article is against the rules even if it is properly cited.) But by clinging to the most ridiculous justification for failure to cite that I’ve ever encountered (and I work in academia), you’ve convinced me that you’re either a dishonest weasel or that you have no clue what plagiarism even is.
If the latter is the case, maybe I can help. See, you don’t need to have made a specific claim that the post was entirely your own work in order to be a plagiarist. You only need to have failed to state that it was NOT your own work. There is nothing at all about the phrase “I’ve seen the future” to suggest that what follows is anything other than your OWN attempt at a parody of what might occur in the future.
Oh, and “It should have been obvious it wasn’t my work” isn’t a defense either. Plenty of students hand in work that is obviously not theirs, that’s what tips their instructors off to the fact that they’re plagiarizing. If I’d seen nothing but your OP I probably would not have believed that you actually wrote that whole Onion article yourself, but I definitely would have believed you were trying to pass it off as your own.
There’s a very rational reason to believe you plagiarized the post: you copied someone else’s writing without stating that it had in fact been written by someone else. That’s what plagiarism IS. Part of my job is teaching undergrads what constitutes plagiarism, and what you did was unquestionably plagiarism. Your intent doesn’t have anything to do with whether it was plagiarism or not.
Since this is a message board and not some kind of academic assignment then the standards for citing sources are pretty loose. It would have been perfectly acceptable to provide no cite other than “This showed up in my inbox”, although again it was still against the rules to post the whole thing.
*I’d have a lot easier time believing this if you hadn’t spent so much of this thread trying to tell us that your OP clearly indicated that you hadn’t written the parody article yourself. It didn’t.
[jumps up and down, sticks hand in air] Abusive! Abusive! And to people posting here, too. Ed, Cecil, Mods, MOTHER!!11! we’re being abused with abusive language, repeatedly too.
FWIW, here’s the relevant information from the 4th edition of the APA Publication Manual:
(The material I elided is just verbiage specific to psych papers and doesn’t change the meaning of the guideline.)
So according to one of the standard sets of guidelines, yes, your OP would be considered plagiarism.
But you see, it isn’t, because he said so. That clear it up for you?
Well, in fairness, it was specifically because he said he’s seen the future. In the 4th Edition of the APA manual, on page 294, it clearly describes the “I’ve seen the future” exclusion to the need to cite another’s work as not one’s own. In particular it says “(see, e.g., ‘I’ve seen Bruce Springsteen in concert…’)”.
He’s a plagiarist, everybody knows it, and the only result from all of his pathetic yammering in this thread is to make me think that not only is he a plagiarist, but he also possibly is too stupid to be able to understand what plagiarism is. Either that or he’s a liar. Either way, it does not improve my estimation of him.
Well, maybe. Gotta define “plagiarism” in a meaningful way, which is in context. In an academic paper, where citation of sources is the very essence, this is a much more serious matter. Academics live and breathe by being cited in the work of others, its their brownie points. So a much stricter standard necessarily applies.
A lot of these glurges are passed around with a sense of vague possessiveness: its “our” stuff, making fun of “their” positions. Perhaps more to the point, there is no authorship specified, there really isn’t anyone to attribute blame/credit where due. Makes it a lesser level, perhaps even renders moot.
To render this tiresome point simplistic: if there is no actual “author”, then a thing like this cannot be “plagiarized” in the sense that there is no one to steal it from. Mere pretense, allowing you to assume that one is the author, doesn’t rise to the level of “plagiarism”.
I’d say more, but my definitive paper for the American Society of Hermeneutic Theosophy is due, and demands my time.
Are you kidding me? A of a lot of people live very nice lives in this country. Do you honestly think it is liberalism that has provided the houses they live in and the cars they drive and the lives they live, lives characterized by good clothing and good food and recreation? Lives of relative luxury and plenty, when compared with most other parts of the world. (Or any part, actually. Supposedly there are countries with higher standards of living, but I don’t know of any with the abundance of nice housing and automobiles and lifestyles that exist here.)
No, it’s free market capitalism that has made this country great and provided the nice homes and lifestyles that the vast majority of its citizens enjoy. If you want to see liberalism at work, go take a look at housing projects and ghettos frought with crime and misery and a populace so down and dispirited that it couldn’t get up if it wanted to, and Social Security recipients trying to eke out a living on the paltry sum they get each month after being forced to pay sizable chunks of their income into it every month for forty or forty-five years.
Liberalism holds the promise of equal deprivation for everybody. I’ll opt for the other way.
Hey, you there, newbie! I know what you’re thinking, you’re new here and you’re thinking “This is a droll bit of whimsy, nobody could possibly believe such utter processed puppy chow, much less offer it with a straight face.”
Nope. He means it.
Singlehandedly? No.
Do you honestly believe that conservatism is what prevents every citizen from having to give 95% of what they make to the government?
Hey, that was interesting SA. Where’d you get it from?
No, what has provided that is exploitation of the working classes.
Dear Lord, you really are that ignorant. Have you actually been outside your gated community since the Fifties?
As long as you yourself are not in the segment of the population being more deprived, of course. :rolleyes: