After all the vile, indefensible shit that troll has said, plagarism seems pretty small beer.
We’re no doubt approaching the time when someone will post to this thread and say “plagiarism is just failure to re-word someone else’s work,” but as somebody who actually deals in news facts, I have to say you’re wrong. Restating facts does not extend to quoting somebody else while failing to use quotation marks or mention that you didn’t write the sentence. If I discover a fact, other people can use it, but that doesn’t mean they can copy and paste paragraphs of my work into their own without mentioning me. It doesn’t really matter if it’s analysis or fact when you’re talking about large chunks of recycled work. Did you see the hundreds of words they mentioned about David Souter, which Coulter used in the same order as someone else did 15 years earlier? That doesn’t fit into any definition of “restating” that I can think of.
What the original blog says, I think, is that it’s ridiculous to think that Coulter would ever call somebody in that situation a saboteur instead of a terrorist. It’s not the strongest part of the accusation, but he has a point.
astorian writes:
> Once, Garry was trying (or THOUGHT he was trying) to write about racism, and
> he used up the entire column quoting from a Nero Wolfe mystery.
Cite? He certainly doesn’t do this all the time. I’ve read a lot of Wills, and I don’t recall him ever doing it.
I would but only to go to the national enquirer with “Coulter to have love child by liberal athiest” story…
That would have to be worth millions…
Especially considering how unlikely it is that there’s a womb and ovaries inside that person. :dubious:
Oh good! Bricker’s here! To tell us how she has a constitutionally protected right to say what she says… :rolleyes:
Without ever once admitting what a worthless f**kwad she is. :dubious:
Defending the scum of the Earth, even on strictly legal grounds, is NOT a noble profession. Sometimes you have to step back. See the forest for the trees.
:spit:
It says a lot about the contents of Coulter’s books that a valid charge of plagiarism would enhance her reputation and hurt the reputations of the original authors.
By that measure, your scorn is hereby also conferred on:
Waenara
Rhubarb
Voyager
Oakminster
Pullet
Slithy Tove
astorian
EddyTeddyFreddy
drachillix
Marley23
Squink
Larry Borgia
Otto
WhyNot
Malacandra
ddgryphon
Squink
you with the face
Wendell Wagner
An Ann Coulter thread not in the Pit? Well, almost all of 'em tend to end up there, anyway, so off this one goes.
You’d defend her too?
or are you just defending Mr. Technically He/She/They are legally within their rights, all morality aside…
I beg your pardon, but I think I’ve once admitted that she’s a worthless fuckwad.
Why thank you, Skip!
I am just fucking sick of Bricker’s trolling, morally-bereft posts! Yeah, he might come in here and debate this, and make me look like an ass. It doesn’t change my opinion of his… morally-neutered… view of right and wrong. Somewhere, between law school, and his “career”, he LOST SIGHT of anything that was once important.
Fuck Bricker, and fuck you too, puhna!
The put Capone away for tax evasion.
ISTR a thread about an organization (magazine?) that’s declared not quoting without attribution and sloppy work to be plagiarism but I have no idea how to find it.
Nm. I’ve been informed I’m WAY out of line. I apologize to Bricker. That was way out of line. Way above my comprehension even. Sorry and I’m out of here.
Your display in this thread hasn’t given me a sufficiently high opinion of you to say one way or the other. Furthermore, your inability to restrain yourself outside The Pit, especially given such a relatively trivial topic (assuming for the moment that you are not one of the women specifically targeted by Coulter in her recent publication) as Ann Coulter, speaks ill of your ability to remain rational.
I will, however, note this about your view of Bricker: I was a member of this board back in 2000, and have been reading Bricker’s posts off and on for the better part of a decade now. He and I have certainly had stern and occasionally terse disagreements (as is the case with a number of other people, both for his part and for mine), but I don’t recall ever having formed the opinion that his was a trolling or morally bereft position on any issue.
What does strike me right now, though, is that you are attacking him here for something I’m betting he said elsewhere. He has two posts in this thread, and neither make any mention of his vocation or the people he defends, let alone anything else. If you have an issue with Bricker specifically, perhaps you should put all your eggs in one basket, adage be damned, and leave this thread for those of us not wishing to discuss the merits and/or demerits of Bricket.
(Marley: I did a textsearch in this thread for fuckwad. Nothing turned up. Sorry for the oversight;))
Well fuck. My post is now sort of entirely pointless, I suppose. (Almost 15,000 of them, you’d think I’d get used to that sort of feeling.) If a mod figures it’s worth deleting it, no skin off my nose. If not, no skin off anything else:)
Your cherry-picking a list of posters (strawman), junior modding, and calling me out as a n00b gives me a high opinion of you too. 
Cherry-picking? … You wanna know how I assembled that list? I took down the names of each poster who had contributed to the thread before your post. If that’s cherry-picking, I’d sure love someone pointing me to a dictionary showing the change the term has undergone since I last checked.
(Not even gonna dignify the rest of that.)