sorry, jokes on you Johnny and you dont even care. He's a teacher, he knows what he's doing - and now I know what he's doing. You can make excuses for him, I don't particularly care. All the bullshitting we do on this board isnt going to change anything but at least I know that what I write on this board is mine whether you agree with it or not. That's more than he can say which leaves him with nothing; somebody elses ideas with a few words changed around so they fit together. A+ smiley face.
who cares? this is a thread about bush, if motown cited news sources in support of his argument, that just adds...support. i never bothered to see if he characterized the facts/opinions/theories as his own because it is irrelevant.
furthermore, there have been dozens of times when you responded to political threads with full news articles from various sources (probably links from the heritage foundation). in fact, when you wrote that nonsense about the wiretaps being legal, i specifically asked you to explain "in your own words" why you thought they were legal because i anticipated that you were going to regurgitate some wacko law professor's journal article on the subject.
dude, you can't have it both ways.
your missing the point. he didnt cite. please, don't YOU pretend like that doesn't mean anything. I never pass anything off as being mine that isnt. If I want to paste an article I include the byline because i know you guys arent going to want to read something from NRO or Washington Times without knowing it and would be suspicious of it anyway. The answer I gave you to your question was in my own words.
Look man. I dont really care, but it wasnt even that hard to figure it out and regardless of whether you agree with the point of view or not, it wasnt just a phrase or two. Its big parts, its not only words, its ideas and structure. If you guys dont mind reading someones posts on line not knowing that you're really reading a Time Magazine article or some thinktank piece that isnt being cited so you dont really know where its coming from, what the motivations or the agenda of the author may be just because you like what it says, that's your shortcoming not mine.
your missing the point. he didnt cite. please, don't YOU pretend like that doesn't mean anything. I never pass anything off as being mine that isnt. If I want to paste an article I include the byline because i know you guys arent going to want to read something from NRO or Washington Times without knowing it and would be suspicious of it anyway. The answer I gave you to your question was in my own words.
Look man. I dont really care, but it wasnt even that hard to figure it out and regardless of whether you agree with the point of view or not, it wasnt just a phrase or two. Its big parts, its not only words, its ideas and structure. If you guys dont mind reading someones posts on line not knowing that you're really reading a Time Magazine article or some thinktank piece that isnt being cited so you dont really know where its coming from, what the motivations or the agenda of the author may be just because you like what it says, that's your shortcoming not mine.
i don't think i'm missing the point. we agree that there is a difference between citing a news source and plagiarism, however, we obviously disagree as to whether any of that is relevant to this thread. nobody asked for motown's opinion. this was a discussion about bush and he added relevant facts and arguments to rebuke your position. if motown tried to publish those articles as his own, it would be a different story. as it stands, he just added useful information to the discussion...which had nothing to do with him, personally. in the same regard, you continually cite news articles as if they were representations of your opinions. the fact that you cite them and he didn't is meaningless....at least here it is. the two of you aren't running against eachother for a political office. this is a discussion and debate on politics. sources are only relevant when someone calls bullshit.
Johnny when you type something I assume its Johnny talking, and when I type something its me talking, when Motown writes someting is it Harper's talking, the New York Times maybe, Time Magazine? All we do here is write, there is nothing else here but what we write. So like I said, maybe my arguments arent the most thought out or clear, but at least they're mine because minus that there isn't much to offer here.
Maybe Ill just start posting National Review articles and saying "this is a little something I was pondering over the weekend"
You're not doing a goddamn thing other than shifting the attention from yourself.
Slobababoo, I ask you, please tell all of us what's good about Bush and why you support him. Enough with the semantics.
peter, remember the other day when you cut and pasted headlines from the Drudge report and did not cite them? and when you posted an "article" from the WPost that was from the OP/ED page?
sayin
wrong. i made a comment about something that happened to also be linked to drudge although I pasted the original source. You just called me out on the fact that it was linked through drudge. And saying something is an "article" rather than an "op-ed" is not lifting the entire footnote from a Harper's article and dropping it in a post without saying anything"
peter, remember the other day when you cut and pasted headlines from the Drudge report and did not cite them? and when you posted an "article" from the WPost that was from the OP/ED page?
sayin
wrong. i made a comment about something that happened to also be linked to drudge although I pasted the original source. You just called me out on the fact that it was linked through drudge. And saying something is an "article" rather than an "op-ed" is not lifting the entire footnote from a Harper's article and dropping it in a post without saying anything"
This is what I wrote in its entirety. If I didnt know better, I would think you were selecctively quoting my post to make it look like a plagiarized.
[qoute]Lots of good news out there this morning:
My top favorite is this story on John Kerry.
Asked if he dreads the prospect of being ???Swift-Boated??? all over again, Kerry counters that he would relish such a fight.
???I???m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other,??? he declares. ???I am so confident of my abilities to address that and to demolish it and to even turn it into a positive.???
Way to go John, three years too late. He could start by releasing all of his military records, not bloody likely.[/qoute]
I specifically state that it is somethiing I read in the news. But, I did find more long Motown quotes that Im sure I could show are plagiarized if I poke around a little. Maybe I will.
I'll just add one more thing to this and then be done with it. If I type a long piece it's probably because I've done some research on something to back up my point of view. Here' some facts from article, then some analysis of my own at the end. I rarely cite sources or foot note stuff. Why should I? This is goddamn Soulstrut! If something has quotes in it " " where do you think I got that from? I sure as hell didn't remember it off the top of my head. I think most people who read my stuff, can figure that out. And if you read that Harper's magazine article there is tons of stuff I didn't use becuase it wasn't relevant to the point I was trying to make, which was Bush didn't do anything about Al Qaeda. And yes, I used a Time piece and some other articles as well. Should I cite my sources every time I post something from now on just to satisfy Sabadoodoo, the voice of reason and truth on this board? Hell you have no legitimacy in my book to begin with. You come on and snipe most of the time and talk shit and now you suddenly want to be taken seriously, and even then, it's only on occasions.
In the end, if you look at my original post it started off with a rather long part about Bush and Al Qaeda and then a bunch of short responses. If you can't tell which ones are just me writing and giving an opinion, and which ones are based on some research that obviously have direct quotes from people in it as a hint, then that's your problem. Not mine.
I'll just add one more thing to this and then be done with it. If I type a long piece it's probably because I've done some research on something to back up my point of view. Here' some facts from article, then some analysis of my own at the end. I rarely cite sources or foot note stuff. Why should I? This is goddamn Soulstrut! If something has quotes in it " " where do you think I got that from? I sure as hell didn't remember it off the top of my head. I think most people who read my stuff, can figure that out. And if you read that Harper's magazine article there is tons of stuff I didn't use becuase it wasn't relevant to the point I was trying to make, which was Bush didn't do anything about Al Qaeda. And yes, I used a Time piece and some other articles as well. Should I cite my sources every time I post something from now on just to satisfy Sabadoodoo, the voice of reason and truth on this board? Hell you have no legitimacy in my book to begin with. You come on and snipe most of the time and talk shit and now you suddenly want to be taken seriously, and even then, it's only on occasions.
In the end, if you look at my original post it started off with a rather long part about Bush and Al Qaeda and then a bunch of short responses. If you can't tell which ones are just me writing and giving an opinion, and which ones are based on some research that obviously have direct quotes from people in it as a hint, then that's your problem. Not mine.
You use considerable amounts of material that is not quoted, and it appears t hat you do it often. I don't see any independent analysis from you. Unless by independent you just mean not quotated to its rightful source. To claim that there is plenty of material that you didn't plagiarize, is unacceptable. I never cared if any of you took me seriously, but judging by the length and the depth of your posts, you did. In the end I'm the one that should be taken seriously because at least my words are my own. You, on the other hand, are just a parrot. Why should anybody read your posts? Why don't you just buy us all an online subscription to Harpers?
You use considerable amounts of material that is not quoted, and it appears t hat you do it often. I don't see any independent analysis from you. Unless by independent you just mean not quotated to its rightful source. To claim that there is plenty of material that you didn't plagiarize, is unacceptable. I never cared if any of you took me seriously, but judging by the length and the depth of your posts, you did. In the end I'm the one that should be taken seriously because at least my words are my own. You, on the other hand, are just a parrot. Why should anybody read your posts? Why don't you just buy us all an online subscription to Harpers?
You are the only person[/b] that seems to not get the fact that I have looked stuff up in articles and books, etc. and used them in long posts. Again, that is completley implied in the posts, especially when they have direct quotes from people. Sorry that I actualy believe in finding info and providing some facts for an argument.
You are sounding more and more like a whinny baby. Really, I say that in all seriousness. "Motown has not used footnotes! He doesn't mean what he says!" Sounds more like, why doesn't anyone listen to me!!! Whatever.
Please show me the way to the always footnoted message board.
I'll just add one more thing to this and then be done with it. If I type a long piece it's probably because I've done some research on something to back up my point of view. Here' some facts from article, then some analysis of my own at the end. I rarely cite sources or foot note stuff. Why should I? This is goddamn Soulstrut! If something has quotes in it " " where do you think I got that from? I sure as hell didn't remember it off the top of my head. I think most people who read my stuff, can figure that out. And if you read that Harper's magazine article there is tons of stuff I didn't use becuase it wasn't relevant to the point I was trying to make, which was Bush didn't do anything about Al Qaeda. And yes, I used a Time piece and some other articles as well. Should I cite my sources every time I post something from now on just to satisfy Sabadoodoo, the voice of reason and truth on this board? Hell you have no legitimacy in my book to begin with. You come on and snipe most of the time and talk shit and now you suddenly want to be taken seriously, and even then, it's only on occasions.
In the end, if you look at my original post it started off with a rather long part about Bush and Al Qaeda and then a bunch of short responses. If you can't tell which ones are just me writing and giving an opinion, and which ones are based on some research that obviously have direct quotes from people in it as a hint, then that's your problem. Not mine.
You use considerable amounts of material that is not quoted, and it appears t hat you do it often. I don't see any independent analysis from you. Unless by independent you just mean not quotated to its rightful source. To claim that there is plenty of material that you didn't plagiarize, is unacceptable. I never cared if any of you took me seriously, but judging by the length and the depth of your posts, you did. In the end I'm the one that should be taken seriously because at least my words are my own. You, on the other hand, are just a parrot. Why should anybody read your posts? Why don't you just buy us all an online subscription to Harpers?
Yo, enough with this silly shit. We all know, and have known[/b] that Motown's posts relating to politics are for the most part consolidated quotes that sum up his overall point or rebuttal. You would have to be naive or an idoit to think otherwise. Who in their right mind would would take the time to write all that up FOR A MESSAGE BOARD? Especially when this person has a career that carries over into his off work/home life and a family?
Use common sense.
And speaking of...
You truly can't answer the question, can you Sabadabadabadabada?
Here is something I've been working on for a while.
The times were the best, the times were the worst, it was a wisdom age, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way???in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Here is something I've been working on for a while.
The times were the best, the times were the worst, it was a wisdom age, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way???in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
You and Harvey Archaic going to the same creative writing courses?
Here is something I've been working on for a while.
The times were the best, the times were the worst, it was a wisdom age, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way???in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Oh, I see, using sarcasm as a defense. Witty!
You could have at least attempted to explain yourself instead of finding ways to hide.
You use considerable amounts of material that is not quoted, and it appears t hat you do it often. I don't see any independent analysis from you. Unless by independent you just mean not quotated to its rightful source. To claim that there is plenty of material that you didn't plagiarize, is unacceptable. I never cared if any of you took me seriously, but judging by the length and the depth of your posts, you did. In the end I'm the one that should be taken seriously because at least my words are my own. You, on the other hand, are just a parrot. Why should anybody read your posts? Why don't you just buy us all an online subscription to Harpers?
You are the only person[/b] that seems to not get the fact that I have looked stuff up in articles and books, etc. and used them in long posts. Again, that is completley implied in the posts, especially when they have direct quotes from people. Sorry that I actualy believe in finding info and providing some facts for an argument.
You are sounding more and more like a whinny baby. Really, I say that in all seriousness. "Motown has not used footnotes! He doesn't mean what he says!" Sounds more like, why doesn't anyone listen to me!!! Whatever.
Please show me the way to the always footnoted message board.
Either you are the worst teacher in the world, or the worst liar. We aren't talking about the original quatations that were shared by you and the original article and attributable to the persons you are both writing about. We are talking about taking several pieces of the article including a rather lengthy footnote and dropping in to a response as if it were your own. If you were just using the same quotation then how was I able to find the article that you used so quickly? I would think that many writers would have used those very same quotes? I wouldn't expect you to footnote your posts (although I did warn you to footnote that long article you wrote the day you posted it), but I also don't expect you to reply to one of my posts by dropping in pieces of a Harper's Article with no indication that it isnt your own words.
Here is something I've been working on for a while.
The times were the best, the times were the worst, it was a wisdom age, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way???in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
Oh, I see, using sarcasm as a defense. Witty!
You could have at least attempted to explain yourself instead of finding ways to hide.
Sorry Day, but I think this whole Motown plagiarism scandal is a much bigger story than the same old "name one good thing" argument we have every other day.
and Saba wins as we argue about MoTown's use of quotes. Can we please get back to teh fact that BUSH and his bussies have not done a fucking thing about shit the whole time they have been in office and as Day said. Don't care about the 98% below the extremely wealthy?
I am still waiting to read something good about Bush...
Either you are the worst teacher in the world, or the worst liar. We aren't talking about the original quatations that were shared by you and the original article and attributable to the persons you are both writing about. We are talking about taking several pieces of the article including a rather lengthy footnote and dropping in to a response as if it were your own. If you were just using the same quotation then how was I able to find the article that you used so quickly? I would think that many writers would have used those very same quotes? I wouldn't expect you to footnote your posts (although I did warn you to footnote that long article you wrote the day you posted it), but I also don't expect you to reply to one of my posts by dropping in pieces of a Harper's Article with no indication that it isnt your own words.
Dude, you really can't tell the differences between using facts and someone's opinion.
Here's the first paragraph I wrote in response:
Pres. Bush told the 9/11 Commission that ???If his advisers had told him there was a [terrorist] cell in the United States, they would have moved to take care of it.??? He also claimed that he knew Al Qaeda was a threat and that his administration had been dealing with it before 9/11. Both of those statements were false and were at the heart of a series of obfuscations by the administration to gloss over their failure to deal with Al Qaeda and terrorism before 9/11.p[/b]
That's called an Introduction paragraph. It's suppose to briefly tell the reader the topic of the essay. It contains a quote from Bush to the 9/11 Commission. It is in quotation marks. That obviously comes from some article or book. It doesn't have a footnote but you should be able to figure that out yourself. That is a fact.
The last sentence of an Introduction paragraph is the Thesis = main point. That's in bold. That is my OPINION.
Here is my 2nd paragraph:
Even before the November 2000 elections, the in-coming Bush team was given briefings on the threat of Al Qaeda. Those began in September and lasted until November 2000. After his election, the Bush transition team was given another series of briefings on the threat. At one of those briefings, Clinton???s National Security Adviser Sandy Berger told in-coming National Security Adviser Rice that, ???I believe that the Bush Administration will spend more time on terrorism generally, and on Al Qaeda specifically, than any other subject.???
That is called a Supporting Paragraph where you give evidence to prove your Thesis. That is all FACTS. That obviously comes from some source. There is another quote included in it if you are too dense to figure that out. Do you think I was at the November 2000 briefing between Clinton's administration and the Bush team? No, I fucking read it in a Harper's magazine and are using some FACTS from that article to say that even before Bush was president his team was warned about Al Qaeda.
The following paragraphs are also presentation of FACTS from Harper's and other magazines.
Here is my last paragraph:
Overall, your attempt to compare Clinton???s response to Bin Laden and Bush???s falls far, far short. The Clinton administration came to realize the threat posed by Al Qaeda. They launched half-hearted attacks and hesitated more than once, but were aware of the threat Bin Laden posed and actually tried to do something. The Bush administration on the other hand didn???t seem to care, and did nothing until after 9/11.
That's called a Concluding Paragraph and sums up my OPINION after presenting some FACTS as evidence for my Thesis/Main Point.
Here's the very first thing I wrote in my Iraq post:
Many people on SS know that I am very interested in politics. Ever since 2002 I have been following Iraq very closely and have written about it several times here on the Strut. Below is my last big project of the summer before I have to go back to teaching. It???s a history of U.S. involvement in Iraq from Clinton up to the present. I???m obviously an opponent of the war, but I???ve tried to write things as straight forward as possible. Hopefully people will get a better understanding of how we got involved in the mess and what problems we face in the future after reading it. The essay is based on several books and 11 files full of articles that I???ve cut out since 2002, probably numbering over 500 by now. Enjoy.[/b]
I spent almost the entire summer researching and writing that piece. It's based upon a bunch of books and over 500 articles. It has lots of FACTS cited in it from those sources to back my OPINION.
And the reason why I usually respond to your posts is because I like telling you that YOU'RE WRONG.
It's a silly way to dodge the argument though. I don't know that I've ever seen footnotes on a messageboard.[/b]
Iraq was authorized by Congress so there is plenty of blame to go around;
Did Congress decice to attack Iraq? Did Congress leak stories to the press about Iraq's ties with Al Qaeda and WMD, hook up Iraqi National Congress defectors for interviews with major newspapers, convince the majority of the American pbulic that Iraq was behind 9/11, devise the invasion plan, not send enough troops, not prepare for the aftermath, claim that Iraqis would be celebrating in the streets, a democracy would suddenly be formed within 6 months, the U.S. would be sending its troops home then, the Palestinians would then have to give in to the Isarelis, democracy would spread throughout the Middle East and Islamic terrorism would be defeated?[/b] Last time I checked Congress doesn't determine and create foreign policy other than provide the cash and oversight, the Exectuive Branch and the President does.
Sabadookie, that part in bold is a summary of a speech Cheney gave before the war. I didn't footnote it. Call the plagarism police!
Comments
your missing the point. he didnt cite. please, don't YOU pretend like that doesn't mean anything. I never pass anything off as being mine that isnt. If I want to paste an article I include the byline because i know you guys arent going to want to read something from NRO or Washington Times without knowing it and would be suspicious of it anyway. The answer I gave you to your question was in my own words.
Look man. I dont really care, but it wasnt even that hard to figure it out and regardless of whether you agree with the point of view or not, it wasnt just a phrase or two. Its big parts, its not only words, its ideas and structure. If you guys dont mind reading someones posts on line not knowing that you're really reading a Time Magazine article or some thinktank piece that isnt being cited so you dont really know where its coming from, what the motivations or the agenda of the author may be just because you like what it says, that's your shortcoming not mine.
haha, he misspelled plagiarism
i don't think i'm missing the point. we agree that there is a difference between citing a news source and plagiarism, however, we obviously disagree as to whether any of that is relevant to this thread. nobody asked for motown's opinion. this was a discussion about bush and he added relevant facts and arguments to rebuke your position. if motown tried to publish those articles as his own, it would be a different story. as it stands, he just added useful information to the discussion...which had nothing to do with him, personally. in the same regard, you continually cite news articles as if they were representations of your opinions. the fact that you cite them and he didn't is meaningless....at least here it is. the two of you aren't running against eachother for a political office. this is a discussion and debate on politics. sources are only relevant when someone calls bullshit.
stop lying.
you wrote this.
you did not quote or cite the following:
"Asked if he dreads the prospect of being ???Swift-Boated??? all over again, Kerry counters that he would relish such a fight."
http://www.examiner.com/a-284761~Meet_the_Next_President__Kerry_s_Second_Shot.html
i guess thats one benefit to cuntpasting articles off the internet and saying its your own is that everything is spelled right.
This is what I wrote in its entirety. If I didnt know better, I would think you were selecctively quoting my post to make it look like a plagiarized.
[qoute]Lots of good news out there this morning:
My top favorite is this story on John Kerry.
Asked if he dreads the prospect of being ???Swift-Boated??? all over again, Kerry counters that he would relish such a fight.
???I???m prepared to kick their ass from one end of America to the other,??? he declares. ???I am so confident of my abilities to address that and to demolish it and to even turn it into a positive.???
Way to go John, three years too late. He could start by releasing all of his military records, not bloody likely.[/qoute]
I specifically state that it is somethiing I read in the news. But, I did find more long Motown quotes that Im sure I could show are plagiarized if I poke around a little. Maybe I will.
In the end, if you look at my original post it started off with a rather long part about Bush and Al Qaeda and then a bunch of short responses. If you can't tell which ones are just me writing and giving an opinion, and which ones are based on some research that obviously have direct quotes from people in it as a hint, then that's your problem. Not mine.
You use considerable amounts of material that is not quoted, and it appears t hat you do it often. I don't see any independent analysis from you. Unless by independent you just mean not quotated to its rightful source. To claim that there is plenty of material that you didn't plagiarize, is unacceptable. I never cared if any of you took me seriously, but judging by the length and the depth of your posts, you did. In the end I'm the one that should be taken seriously because at least my words are my own. You, on the other hand, are just a parrot. Why should anybody read your posts? Why don't you just buy us all an online subscription to Harpers?
You are the only person[/b] that seems to not get the fact that I have looked stuff up in articles and books, etc. and used them in long posts. Again, that is completley implied in the posts, especially when they have direct quotes from people. Sorry that I actualy believe in finding info and providing some facts for an argument.
You are sounding more and more like a whinny baby. Really, I say that in all seriousness. "Motown has not used footnotes! He doesn't mean what he says!" Sounds more like, why doesn't anyone listen to me!!! Whatever.
Please show me the way to the always footnoted message board.
Yo, enough with this silly shit. We all know, and have known[/b] that Motown's posts relating to politics are for the most part consolidated quotes that sum up his overall point or rebuttal. You would have to be naive or an idoit to think otherwise. Who in their right mind would would take the time to write all that up FOR A MESSAGE BOARD? Especially when this person has a career that carries over into his off work/home life and a family?
Use common sense.
And speaking of...
You truly can't answer the question, can you Sabadabadabadabada?
why yes!
The times were the best, the times were the worst, it was a wisdom age, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way???in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
You and Harvey Archaic going to the same creative writing courses?
Oh, I see, using sarcasm as a defense. Witty!
You could have at least attempted to explain yourself instead of finding ways to hide.
Either you are the worst teacher in the world, or the worst liar. We aren't talking about the original quatations that were shared by you and the original article and attributable to the persons you are both writing about. We are talking about taking several pieces of the article including a rather lengthy footnote and dropping in to a response as if it were your own. If you were just using the same quotation then how was I able to find the article that you used so quickly? I would think that many writers would have used those very same quotes? I wouldn't expect you to footnote your posts (although I did warn you to footnote that long article you wrote the day you posted it), but I also don't expect you to reply to one of my posts by dropping in pieces of a Harper's Article with no indication that it isnt your own words.
Sorry Day, but I think this whole Motown plagiarism scandal is a much bigger story than the same old "name one good thing" argument we have every other day.
http://thewaxcrusade.com/absent.wav
I am still waiting to read something good about Bush...
Dude, you really can't tell the differences between using facts and someone's opinion.
Here's the first paragraph I wrote in response:
That's called an Introduction paragraph. It's suppose to briefly tell the reader the topic of the essay. It contains a quote from Bush to the 9/11 Commission. It is in quotation marks. That obviously comes from some article or book. It doesn't have a footnote but you should be able to figure that out yourself. That is a fact.
The last sentence of an Introduction paragraph is the Thesis = main point. That's in bold. That is my OPINION.
Here is my 2nd paragraph:
That is called a Supporting Paragraph where you give evidence to prove your Thesis. That is all FACTS. That obviously comes from some source. There is another quote included in it if you are too dense to figure that out. Do you think I was at the November 2000 briefing between Clinton's administration and the Bush team? No, I fucking read it in a Harper's magazine and are using some FACTS from that article to say that even before Bush was president his team was warned about Al Qaeda.
The following paragraphs are also presentation of FACTS from Harper's and other magazines.
Here is my last paragraph:
That's called a Concluding Paragraph and sums up my OPINION after presenting some FACTS as evidence for my Thesis/Main Point.
Here's the very first thing I wrote in my Iraq post:
I spent almost the entire summer researching and writing that piece. It's based upon a bunch of books and over 500 articles. It has lots of FACTS cited in it from those sources to back my OPINION.
And the reason why I usually respond to your posts is because I like telling you that YOU'RE WRONG.
and never once addressed ANY OF MY POINTS
Sabadookie, that part in bold is a summary of a speech Cheney gave before the war. I didn't footnote it. Call the plagarism police!