Subject:
|
Re: What about the first?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 28 May 2004 10:43:32 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2393 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek wrote:
| |
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
| |
But what does that mean? Humility is irrelevant. Your obfuscation
is a dodge.
|
When someone observed to Winston Churchill that his predecessor as prime
minister, Neville Chamberlain, was a humble man, Churchill is reported to
have replied, “And he has so much to be humble about.”
Ditto for some current European leaders and opinion shapers, I think...
|
It turns out that if you leave a few words out of the search
http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&safe=off&q=%22much+to+be+humble+about%22+churchill&btnG=Search
you get a lot of sites with cites, most of which say that Churchill was
talking about Clement Atlee, not Chamberlain, and most of which have a
different wording. My memory of the quote was faulty and it caused me to do
too narrow a search resulting in finding only one site to cite (via cut and
paste).
Further, I failed to properly attribute the cite to the source, as I was
composing the post rather hastily. That, however, doesn’t mean that speed
excuses improper crediting.
|
Is this really the best explanation you can come up with after 15 months? That
is not how it looks. It looks
like you tried to pass someone else’s words off as your own (plagiarism) and
infringed their IP rights in the process.
Read your own words on this issue: “plagarism of a random line or two here in
.debate... I find that... “crime” rather small beer (within the context of a
greater acts of plagiarism).”
So was it plagiarism or not? The facts clearly indicate that is was; as a
result you owe me an apology. Unless you care to show how I have lied regarding
this issue?
| |
My apologies to anyone inconvenienced by this incorrect (and uncredited) cite.
My further apologies to anyone inconvenienced by certain people accusing me of
being a plagiarist based on this one incident, or on any other cases where I
may have misattributed wording that was properly that of other people.
Hopefully that should clear some things up. But I have my doubts. I’m sure
there are other slipups by me out there
|
That really is a shame; I have enjoyed some of the text you have posted here.
| |
for assidious and malintentioned nitpickers to
find.
|
If you are going to insult me, please at least check your spelling first; Don
has to look these “big words” up in his pocket dictionary! ;-)
Scott A
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: What about the first?
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur wrote: (snip) I explained what happened, I admitted fault, and I apologised for it. If it doesn't fit the format of the apology you want, or doesn't fit the facts as you imagine them to be, tough. Take it or (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) I use google, and you're right, I did need to look up the first biggie. Unfortunately the top link from google didn't help much: (URL) of assidious> Or maybe that was sneaky debator's trick for calling someone an insidious @$$ and passing it (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: What about the first?
|
| (...) It turns out that if you leave a few words out of the search (URL) get a lot of sites with cites, most of which say that Churchill was talking about Clement Atlee, not Chamberlain, and most of which have a different wording. My memory of the (...) (20 years ago, 28-May-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
91 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
