Tate Gerard <tate23@bellsouth.com> wrote in
news:cths9a$aq2$0@pita.alt.net:
> <:TomBa (NP-f36):> wrote:
>> "Dr.Reality" <james_riske@nothingwillhappen_hotmail.com> wrote
>> in news:ctfg6c$pv5$0@pita.alt.net:
>>
>>
>>>The following article shows why pedophiles should just end
>>>their pathetic, miserable lives, they are nothing more than a
>>>menace to children everywhere.
>>>
>>>
>>>HOW PEDOPHILES OPERATE
>>>
>>>
>>
>> [snip plagerism]
>>
>> jamie;
>>
>> You're slipping deeper into absurdity.
>>
>> If this plagerized article is "good," then why don't you give
>> credit where due to the author?
>>
>> An oversite in your heat of passion?
>>
>> I'll take you off the hook and provide the website address for
>> you: (thanks to my friend Google)
>> http://www.tigerhawktalk.com/howpedophilesoperate.html
>>
>> But, don't feel too smug in your complacency. In looking
>> through the other pages of Colleen Downey Morse, the astounding
>> assertion shows up: "(NAMBLA's motto is "get them by eight or
>> it's too late.);" A fact that has been thoroughly discredited
>> as absurd and a figment of overactice imaginations. Yet it is
>> presented herin as 'fact.'
>>
>> Further: "When I was a little girl I was sexually abused by my
>> grandfather for ten years of my childhood. I did not tell
>> anyone until long after he died. Children are often too scared
>> to tell. When I grew up I began to tell my story."
>>
>> It makes one wonder about the credibility of other 'facts' that
>> Colleen provides. A casual perusal shows the article to contain
>> propoganda parroting, without consideration to veracity. Typcal
>> of one that has an axe to grind...
>>
>> How do you consider such recounts to be 'good?' What criteria
>> do you employ to determine the worth of an article?
>>
>> Shouldn't such determination be made based upon contents being
>> factual and verifiable, instead of opinions and melodrama?
>>
>> It has been said that misery loves company. You seem to seek a
>> lot of company here...
>>
>> What skeletons are you hiding in your closet?
>>
>>
>
> Hey pedo Tomba/Laurence, maybe you should clue yourself in to
> what the word "plagiarism" means, note the proper spelling too
> you fool.
>
> plagiarism
>
> n 1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else
> and is presented as being your own work 2: the act of
> plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were
> your own.
>
> Now point out where Doctor Reality made any claims to being the
> author of the article.
>
>
Hey TaterHead...
My speel chekr wasnt turned on, but you gor the gist if my post
nonetheless...
Pasting contents of a webssite without notation of the source is
plagiarism; several of the responses took these words to be jamies
(he should be so fortunate!)
jamies' claim to authorship arises by default due to his lack of
attribution to the source. A simple (and usual) inclusion of the
source address would have been sufficient to deflect allegations of
plagiarism, but was omitted in the post. Did jamie do this on
purpose, or is he just stoopid?
--
TomBa -- (NP-f36)
"Such is the human race...
often it does seem such a pity that Noah...
didn't miss the boat." -- Mark Twain
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 |
|