Subject:
|
plagarism [Re: "Saving" Private Lynch]
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 May 2003 14:36:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
344 times
|
| |
|
|
> That said, I tend to dismiss the Guardian and the NYT (to pick two) as less
> worthy of my attention, not because of their particular editorial outlook,
> but rather because they tend not to be reliable.
In what way is the Guardian not "reliable"? You may not find it "reliable", but
you do cite it when the text is right [eg]:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=19650
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13371
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13531
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=13946
> The NYT in particular, lies
> by omission on a regular basis. We're not talking about plagarism here (1),
> we're talking about fabrication of information, leaving key facts out to
> support assertions, not publishing retractions, refusing to investigate
> things that matter, and then baldly denying it.
If all that is true, let the market damn them both and FoxNews can prevail!
>
> That said, I can't imagine even John Neal, if you sat him down and made him
> answer honestly, having much good to say about certain conservative sources,
> because they tend to faff the accuracy too.
>
> 1 - there seems to be a peculiar fascination with plagarism in some corners
> here. I'm rather baffled by why it's so fascinating, actually. I would tend
> to think that out and out fabrication of facts is far worse than plagarism,
Perhaps you think that as you are a plagiarist[1]?
[1]The proof:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=19098
> and that plagarism by a national newspaper's reporter is rather worse than
> plagarism of a random line or two here in .debate by one of the regulars...
I understand the NYT has apologised; that's more than you have done. The BIG
problem with your plagiarism is that you have a tendency not to cite support
for 'your' arguments here [e.g. your attack against the Guardian above]. One
could draw the conclusion that this is because it would further evidence your
plagiarism?
> but then I find that last "crime" rather small beer.
Perhaps you think that as you are a plagiarist?
What I must question is your willingness to demand respect for 'your' own IP
[the GOB tm and your instructions come to mind] whilst being only too willing to
pass of the work of others as your own.
>
> But who knows? Perhaps using assertions of plagarism against others,
> repeatedly, (as in over and over and over again) to the point of being
> tiresome about it,
My inbox suggests otherwise.
> is considered a valuable rhetorical technique in some
> schools of thought. Me, I think it just tends to cover up a paucity of
> ideas, but of course, your mileage may vary.
Perhaps if you openly admit your misdemeanour and apologise we could all
move on?
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: "Saving" Private Lynch
|
| (...) Excellent advice. But you'd agree that some sources are more credible than others, right? Or would you tend to view all sources with equal credulity? I would think not, and further, I would think that a source that tends to be factually (...) (21 years ago, 16-May-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
23 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
