I've seen the future, and this is it:

[Jenaroph]

@not_alice

Yes agreed, I left that part out. I am sorry about that. I stand corrected.

:smack:

Now, THAT’s an apology!

[elucidator]

@Rubystreak

…If he had done the basic Google search, he’d see what an old chestnut it was…

And the old chestnut wasn’t bad, rather good, actually, until lesser minds “improved” it to fit their agenda. The notion of a legal mechanism to compensate persons who are simply dull-normal, devoid of any special talent or ability, is passably good. It ain’t Swift, it ain’t Twain, but it aint Mallard Fillmore, either.

But they wouldn’t leave it alone, they “improved” upon it, like improving a bicycle tire by letting out some air and replacing it with sand. Someone took a minor gem of drollery and made it into a leaden and mean-spirited screed. Notice the “improvements”: taking a document retrieval specialist with no special skills and turning her into an auto worker too stupid to turn lug nuts. Being dull normal is not a disability, retardation clearly is.

(I expect this is where you got your “laziness” theme. Mention “auto worker”, you think “union”, which led you straight to “lazy”. Pavlov explained this all quite well…)

If anyone deserves a thorough pitting, its the assholes who debauched this bit of whimsy in a desperate and doomed effort to pretend that, yes, we do have a sense of humor. We stole it, but we’ve got it, and its ours.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

@Rubystreak

There’s a lesson here if you’re willing to learn it. Admitting you were wrong in this instance does not demean you or your point of view.

You’re such a terrific educator, Rubystreak–I wish you had a student here.

[Boyo_Jim]

@not_alice

Yes agreed, I left that part out. I am sorry about that. I stand corrected.

:smack:

Good one!

I like you! (I’m sure that has been said before, but I don’t know who said it first. )

[elucidator]

Philosophy | West Valley College

Here you can find a copy of Kurt Vonnegut’s Harrison Bergeron, if you would care to see how the theme might have been addressed by a master satirist. Not one of my favorites in his work, a bit of dyspepsia and lacking his usual mournful humanity.

But if you want to heap scorn upon the notion of legislated equality, this is how its done.

[Hunter_Hawk]

@Starving_Artist

I will most certainly check for authorship if I post anything anonymous again

Good. Now go forth and sin no more. (John 8:11. See how it works? ;))

[elucidator]

And don’t go round casting any swine before pearls, either!

[Hunter_Hawk]

@Starving_Artist

The information you posted seems to more of a style guide for publication of the American Psychological Association than an unequivocal statement regarding legal or dictionary definition of plagiarism. Perhaps the word is used elsewhere in the manual but I didn’t see it addressed in the snippets you quoted so I can’t speak to it.

Oh, and one last thing (because I am, after all, a humorless pedantic fucktard): The text I originally quoted is in the section “Ethics of Scientific Publication”, under the heading “Plagiarism”.

[Lance_Turbo]

Intent, intent, intent, Merriam Webster.

Intent, intent, intent, Merriam Webster.

Repeat.

I see the word “intent” in a lot of Starving Artist’s posts. Do you know where I don’t see it? In Merriam Webster’s definition of plagiarize.

Starving Artist please Google “unintentional plagiarism”. Then come back, admit you were wrong, and move on.

[Raygun99]

@Starving_Artist

Look, Lamia, with respect you are simply not arguing factually. You have an axe to grind by your own admission because the subject is near and dear to you as part of your profession.

Dammit Lamia, there you go bringing facts into it again.

[mhendo]

Or how about some non-dictionary definitions from institutions who probably deal with plagiarism more frequently than anyone else:

DePauw University: Avoiding Plagiarism:

Plagiarism is turning in or passing off someone else’s work as your own. Sometimes, the line between borrowing and stealing is unclear. In an intellectual community, ideas are passed around freely. Most intellectual inquiry could not take place without borrowing from the work of others. Responsible, honest writers indicate their debts to others by clearly citing material that they have borrowed. Irresponsible or dishonest writers often fail to cite their borrowings and thus become guilty of plagiarism.

Duke University: Citing Sources and Avoiding Plagiarism:

Plagiarism occurs when a student, with intent to deceive or with reckless disregard for proper scholarly procedures, presents any information, ideas or phrasing of another as if they were his/her own and/or does not give appropriate credit to the original source. Proper scholarly procedures require that all quoted material be identified by quotation marks or indentation on the page, and the source of information and ideas, if from another, must be identified and be attributed to that source.

Northwestern University: How to Avoid Plagiarism:

Northwestern’s “Principles Regarding Academic Integrity” defines plagiarism as “submitting material that in part or whole is not entirely one’s own work without attributing those same portions to their correct source.”

Indiana University: Plagiarism: What It Is and How to Recognize and Avoid It:

In college courses, we are continually engaged with other people’s ideas: we read them in texts, hear them in lecture, discuss them in class, and incorporate them into our own writing. As a result, it is very important that we give credit where it is due. Plagiarism is using others’ ideas and words without clearly acknowledging the source of that information.

An apposite observation from the American Historical Association:

Plagiarism, then, takes many forms. The clearest abuse is the use of another’s language without quotation marks and citation.

And from Plagiarism.org:

All of the following are considered plagiarism:

* turning in someone else's work as your own
* copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
* failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
* giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
* changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
* copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on "fair use" rules)

Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism.

Of all those quotations, the only one that mentions intent makes clear that, even without intent, it is perfectly possible to plagiarize.

Starving Artist would have been called on the carpet for plagiarism by every academic i know. The question of his punishment would then be a matter for some consideration, based on intent and on the proportion of the work that was plagiarized: if he truly copied and presented someone else’s work without intent to deceive, and if the copied section was a small portion of the paper, then he would probably just be asked to rewrite the paper; if it was clear that he intended to deceive, and/or the copied portion was a substantial part of the paper, he would fail the paper and probably the course.

I’ve let students off with a warning in the past for plagiarizing more than Starving Artist did in the OP, but i also made clear to them that, even though they were just getting a warning, there was no doubt that what they did was plagiarism.

Of course, this is all just a conspiracy among liberal academics.

[pseudotriton_ruber_ruber]

The only thing I will follow through on, to the limits if need be, other than repeat offenders (who are typically on some sort of probation anyway), is plagiarists who deny that they have committed plagiarism, as SA continues to do. “If you insist that this isn’t plagiarism,” I explain, “then you are challenging my ability to judge what is plagiarism and what is not. In that case, I will insist on bringing this to a formal board that will decide if who is correct, you or I, and I will ask them to apply a penalty that may be harsher than the penalty I would apply if the entire decision were left to my judgment.” I usually ask for an unambiguous written statement admitting to plagiarism before I let it go, just to guard against plagiarists later insisting that they misunderstood what they were admitting to, the despicable shit-weasels.

[Lamia]

@Starving_Artist

Look, Lamia, with respect you are simply not arguing factually.

No, that is exactly what I am doing. I’m afraid all the facts are on my side here.

*You have an axe to grind by your own admission because the subject is near and dear to you as part of your profession. You are attributing to the word plagiarism standards that do not exist in it’s dictionary and legal sense. Plagiarism requires dishonest intent.

*No, it doesn’t. Your wishing it so doesn’t make it true.

You want to go to the dictionary? In your earlier post you specifically mentioned the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition of the word. There is nothing at all in that definition about intent. One of the definitions given for “plagiarizing” is “use (another’s production) without crediting the source”, which is exactly what you did. In the OED one definition of “plagiarize” is “to copy (literary work or ideas) improperly or without acknowledgment”, which again is exactly what you did.

There is no legal definition of plagiarism because plagiarism in and of itself is not a crime. There is a legal definition of copyright infringement, though. Posting an entire article from The Onion would have been a copyright violation even if you had named the original source. That’s why Gfactor had to trim the OP, because you were violating both fair use and the board’s copyright policy.

*You cannot logicially argue that my hastily and unthinkingly copying and pasting information presented without attribution in a political email forwarding from a relative meets that standard.

*What standard, the standard you made up for yourself? I guess you’ve got me there – if you’re allowed to invent a definition for plagiarism then you can easily define it in such a way that what you did isn’t plagiarism. That’s pure Humpty-Dumptyism, though.

*In my view it would therefore be dishonest to admit plagiarism because that is not what I did according to intent or to any unbiased and objective definition of the word.

*I’ll tell you what’s dishonest: insisting that what you did wasn’t plagiarism when you have clearly and repeatedly been shown that it precisely fits any standard definition of plagiarism, including the Merriam-Webster dictionary definition that you picked out yourself.

You are wrong, Starving Artist. That’s all there is to it. You’re wrong, you’ve been wrong all along, and at this point you’re really just lying when you say you aren’t. The really sad thing is that you aren’t fooling anyone but yourself.

[MsWhatsit]

Hey, I was away from the boards for most of today. Did all of those hordes of people ever materialize to call me on my silly shit?

Just checking.

[Carmady]

“I’ve seen the future, and this is it” implies first that you had the vision of the future described in the article, and second that you are in fact the author.

Otherwise, it would be “someone else saw the future, and they described it as follows.”

In addition, you didn’t use quotes or quote tags.

There is only one conclusion I can draw from this:

Starving Artist is, in fact, a writer for the Onion. He wrote the article. In a drunken stupor, he accidentally let his secret slip, and now he is forced to pretend to be a plagiarist rather than admit that his “Republican” persona is a fraud.

[Jenaroph]

There are probably a hundred threads on the board where someone posted something pasted from an email, someone else pointed it out, and a mod closed it before it got past the first page. Example.
Why for pete’s sake couldn’t this have been one of them? Is it just because instead of saying “oops sorry” Starving Artist decided to say “oh no no no no no it’s not plagiarism”? Why reward that?

[Terrifel]

Well… it’s instructive innit? Psychologically. I mean, you could write a paper on it.

[Bosstone]

@Jenaroph

There are probably a hundred threads on the board where someone posted something pasted from an email, someone else pointed it out, and a mod closed it before it got past the first page. Example.
Why for pete’s sake couldn’t this have been one of them? Is it just because instead of saying “oops sorry” Starving Artist decided to say “oh no no no no no it’s not plagiarism”? Why reward that?

It would be discrimination in violation of AWNAA.

[alterego]

Burn him!

[Jenaroph]

@Bosstone

It would be discrimination in violation of AWNAA.

Sorry to come back late, but…dare I ask?