By that logic, december should still be able to post here, and at least a portion of that argument is the same as Starving has made about his posts. He’s stated in the past that he’s given up all hope of any of us actually “learning” anything from what he says, and only posts so that those lurkers who might, perchance, stumble across his turdblossoms of wisdom take comfort in the facts that he alone can so bravely put forth in the face of such tireless opposition as we, the great unwashed, are so want to do. Its bullshit when he says it, and its bullshit when someone tries to use it as a justification for allowing him to remain here.
Anyone who subscribes to the same level of sheer, unadulterated amounts of bullshit that Starving does (and FTR, I am not lumping people who call themselves “conservative” into the same pile as Starving, my issue with Starving has nothing to do with him being “conservative” and everything to do with him having less intellectual honesty than a $2 whore) is not going to be swayed be a well reasoned argument, backed up with numerous citations. They, like the fucknuggets who insist that there is no proof of Darwin’s famous theory, have foresworn any desire to actually look at the issue and study it in a rational matter. Their mind is made up, and they’re not going to allow a silly thing like facts to get in the way of what they believe.
The only thing they can understand, besides someone fapping away at the same kind of lies they already believe, is, to be honest about it, blunt force trauma. Admittedly, that won’t change their mind, but it will cause them to STFU, which, IMHO, is just as good. Given that taking Starving, and others of his ilk, out and beating them to within an inch of their life is not legal, the only remaining course of action is ban him from the boards.
Starving Artist is a perfect example of modern conservatism. Stupidity stuffed into anger, wrapped around ignorance, forming a mighty Turducken of simpleton ideology.
What happened? Once there were smart people among the conservatives. Now Jindal, McCain and Palin have to talk to them like they’re children because only stunted worthless dregs remain.
At least Scylla is charismatic. Stupid, simple and laughably obtuse, but he’s likable. SA is as endearing as a retard swinging a length of barbed wire.
That’s the great thing about “our times”. Everyone has the right to work harder and longer (sounds dirty doesn’t it), and get less in return. Tis a grand grand thing.
I disagree. Plagiarism goes to context. It requires dishonest intent.
It’s important to keep the chronology of events in order. I received an email forwarding cleverly composed in a journalistic style. There was no attribution. I looked to see who wrote it because I thought it was clever and wondered who the joker was. Nothing was there. I accepted that it was probably written by some conservative wit and sent off to make the rounds via email.
As far as the parody itself goes, I took it to be attacking mainly the current [del]spending[/del] stimulus bill, and using the disability act for jargonistic style. I thought it was hilarious and that posting it here would get a laugh from some, agreement from some, rolled eyes from others, and fury from some of the usual suspects (many of whom are the primary posters to this thread).
So I copied it, dashed in here to check the Pit rules on joke threads, discovered that parodies are okay if disclaimered as such, and posted it. That’s it. That’s all the thought that went into it.
Now, what did I expect would be the result? I expected that I would be spending a lot of time debating the pros and cons of current government spending programs in light of the current Democrats in Congress and whether or not things would ever get to the ridiculous lengths described in the OP. Plagiarism, ownership, provenance, whatever, never crossed my mind. I got an email, I copied it, and I posted it. The entire episode took no more than a couple of minutes.
Now plagiarism, as I understand it and as defined by M-W, requires deliberate intent to pass off something as one’s own. I did not do that and I know that I did not do that. Therefore, when someone accuses me of having done so, particularly when the accusation is obviously motivated by anger over the OP, I’m gonna argue about it. I believe in similar circumstances you would do the same. It’s contrary to human nature to respond to angry and inaccurate accusations of malfeasance with an apology. It simply is. And that’s why I argued the point.
With regard to plagiarism itself, you need to understand that it would have been dishonest for me to admit to it. It would have been a lie. There was no plagiaristic intent and for me to admit to it would have a lie, a dishonest and chicken-shit tactic undertaken in the cynical hope that it would silence my critics. And as far as apologies go, given that no plagiarism had occurred there was nothing to apologize for…or at least that was my thinking at the time. LHoD, Bricker, and a few others eventually persuaded me otherwise, but at this point we’re talking about my behavior earlier in the thread.
So this is my answer to you about how the thread came into being, what I expected to happen as a result of it, and why I responded as I did to posters seeking to make an issue out of my alleged plagiarism.
With respect, no. I didn’t post “just” a quote about Bruce Springsteen. I posted a Google link showing virtually countless instances of the phrase “I have seen the future” being used to illustrate the experience of having come upon something that appears to be the wave of the future, and to answer accusations that no one would take the phrase to mean what I said it did. I am quite confident that I have shown an abundance of evidence to prove the phrase means just what I said it did.
And I was making a humorous prediction about what the future held with Democrats in charge of Congress, and the parody served the same function as Springsteen did in the rock critic’s statement. The OP was the subject of the phrase, not the elucidation of it.
I suppose it’s lost on you that you just made one of my key points for me. I was accused early in the thread of using the phrase to lead people into thinking I had written the OP. I was castigated and called names when I denied it. Other posters, some of whom have been adversaries, offered their observations that the phrase didn’t mean I had written it, and that they weren’t led to believe that I had written it. It seems to be mostly people with a pre-existing axe to grind where I’m concerned who are hanging on to this meme and the accusations of plagiarism, and frankly you seem to fit into this category to a certain extent yourself.
I’m not “insisting” that the phrase should have been enough; I merely offered my belief that is should have. I didn’t harp on it or engage in any other type of behavior that one would normally think of as “insisting”.
And finally, I took the advice of some the more reasonable posters to this therad and aplologized, yet you’re still on about all this. I am about at the same point with you as you are with me. I’ve explained all this as well as I’m able. If you still can’t see my points, then like you with me, I’m done trying to persuade you.
I’ll look forward to your response should you decide to post one.
Oh, and I should note that starting from the OP it takes me (if I’m counting correctly) a total of sixteen keystrokes or mouseclicks to find the relevant Snopes page. That’s not a whole helluva lot of effort to take in order to track down an attribution.
I must have overlooked your guidelines post. I’ll look at it and comment on it tomorrow. I’m done for tonight.
As far as your second post, are you suggesting that upon having received an humorous and anonymous forwarding email from a relative that I should have run around looking for attribution before posting it as a gag?
I have no ire about what you have said in the past, I read the OP and thought it was your own work, and I think one sends a sincere apology to all or one is not apologizing at all. See the recent ex-Bishop for a good example.
“I am sorry if/that you were upset” is NOT an apology.
“I am sorry that I upset you” is an apology.
Modify as needed, and don’t forget to quote the original source
Anyone who’s curious may Google “unintentional plagiarism” and see the many, many writing guides that discuss this issue and how it might be avoided. Note however that “unintentional plagiarism” is usually something like paraphrasing a quote or borrowing an idea without citing the original author, or failing to attribute a short quote. Cutting and pasting an entire article would rarely, if ever, be considered anything other than intentional plagiarism of the most blatant kind.
*I teach people about plagiarism and how to avoid it as part of my job. That is the axe I have to grind, fighting ignorance on the subject of plagiarism. Your OP is as clear an instance of plagiarism as there can be.
The facts are not in dispute here. You cut and pasted an entire article into your OP without attributing it or even stating that it was not your own writing. This is plagiarism any way you slice it. There is no possible circumstance that would make it not plagiarism. Every time you have claimed that it was not you were either deliberately lying or stubbornly ignorant. Either way you are wrong. Maybe you haven’t noticed this before, but on this board people don’t take kindly to the posting of information that is factually incorrect – especially not when the poster keeps doing so after having been repeatedly corrected.
You may have made a careless but innocent mistake when you posted the OP without saying it was not your own writing, but your behavior after that point cannot be similarly excused. I can certainly see why so many people here dislike you. You clearly care more about your ego than the truth.
What you shouldn’t have done is taken credit for it, which by posting it under your name with no hint that it wasn’t yours, you did.
But, this just shows WHY the government regulations and interference that you cry about are needed. People like you would gladly steal other people’s work or property for your own, so the honest people need protections from the thieves. And, like most thieves, you cry about how horrible and unfair it is that you got caught. Yes, this is a very small example, but it establishes that you don’t have a problem with stealing from others if you feel you won’t get caught. The question now is how much you feel like you could get away with. I guess that’s what your ilk is like though.
