Like I said, its sad that nobody cares where the information is coming from.
we do, depending on the circumstances.
if the topic was capital punishment or abortion, where there isn't, per se, a right or wrong answer, it would be "unethical" (even for a messageboard) to post someone else's opinion without crediting it.
however, where the topic relies on undisputable facts, it is entirely different. Did Barry Bonds use steroids? Did President Clinton have opportunities to prevent 9-11 while in office which he did not take advantage of? While there is more theorizing related to the latter question, it resembles the Bonds issue more than abortion or capital punishment. The answer relies on facts, pure and simple. For that reason, nobody really gives a shit whether Motown cited those articles. We don't need Motown's opinion, and sorry for this, but I really don't care what his opinion is on the subject. I do care, for the sake of this thread, about someone adding relevant facts to the discussion.
Saba you don't get it. I *might* care where the information came from if you could refute a word of it.
You are entirely missing the forest for the trees - I never read Harpers. I read the Times, I occasionally read the News or the Post, I check a couple blogs from time to time. I am appreciative of the sourcing work that Joel did.
If the information that he used from these articles was in some way inaccurate, well let's hear it.
Which is, of course, what we've been asking you to do for the last five pages... you'd rather attack his character than the information presented. Which, getting back to Rich/Rockadelic's point, is why nobody takes you seriously here (despite your wonderful website and extensive knowledge of Brazilian music).
Aside from the obvious ethical questionability of lifting an entire footnot from a Harpers Article and dropping it into a response you're making to a post uncreddited, the problem with facts is that if you dont reference where you got them from they are nothing but unsubstantiated assertions.
Lets say, just for fun, that I was going to try and refute one of Motowns 500 + word, jam-packed with facts posts. I would have to isolate all these facts, chase down the articles that he stole them from and THEN I could start to refute them. And, when I was all done, Motown could just cuntpaste an Utne Reader Article in response.
Its pretty sad commentary that nobody here cares where the information is coming from as long as its what you want to hear.
Furthermore, this whole claim that he's just using the same quotes, and "this is just a message board" is unsatisfactory. He is a teacher, and unless he teaches kindergarden, he should know better. I would expect him to fail a student that turned in the same thing, or maybe if the paper was on Bush war-crimes, then that would be okay? Would it Motown? Could you overlook just a little plagiarism?
I cite my references when I cuntpaste a news article. DrWu manages to do it and Fatback and everyone else here who expects to be taken seriously.
You're a joke really. What, did you think I was a reporter? I fly to Washington D.C. each night and have government sources tell me when Bush had a national security meeting? It's a fucking message board you idiot. If you can't tell when someone looks something up and uses it in a post that's on YOU. Get the fuck over it!
It's a silly way to dodge the argument though. I don't know that I've ever seen footnotes on a messageboard.[/b]
Im sorry. Its my fault that the only way you can respond to someone is to cut a paste a magazine article into your post. And its my fault that I didn't realize that you were a fraud and that if you say something its probably just an op-ed from somewhere. If I ever get cought for plagiarism, I'll say "hey Mr. Law Review Editor, if you cant tell when someone looks something up and uses it that's on YOU. Get the fuck over it." and they'll say, "Yo. That's alright dude, because we really dig what you're sayin."
It's a silly way to dodge the argument though. I don't know that I've ever seen footnotes on a messageboard.[/b]
I did not cite my source for this quote. I am admitting that I copied this from this message board, but did not give credit for it. Now that Soulstrut is like a school and everyone must cite their sources when posting I am admitting to my guilt in this case.
If the information that he used from these articles was in some way inaccurate, well let's hear it.
I am at a complete disadvantage to respond to assertions when, in order to do so, I first have to try and hunt down the authority for them. That's just not how it works and personally I'm not interested in having a discussion with a Harper's magazine Article. I dont expect footnotes in a post. But I would expect that if you are going to include a substantial part of a Harper's article in one of your posts than you would say, "This was in Harpers" or include the byline. Furhtermore, the material taken from Harpers article wasn't just a cut and paste, it had obviously been worked over and massaged, whether intentionally or not.
I also think that to try and, first pretend like there was nothhing wrong, and now to say that its somehow my fault that I should have known, is just rediculous. As well as being an admission of guilt.
It's a silly way to dodge the argument though. I don't know that I've ever seen footnotes on a messageboard.[/b]
I did not cite my source for this quote. I am admitting that I copied this from this message board, but did not give credit for it. Now that Soulstrut is like a school and everyone must cite their sources when posting I am admitting to my guilt in this case.
The longer you keep trying to downplay it like this, and pretend that its all nothing, with your ha-ha-ha little citation to a single sentence from another post, which you know is completely different from stealing an entire footnote from a Harpers article as well a sprinkle of other parts and a dash of Time magazine, for flavor, the longer I'm going to rub your nose in your mess.
It's a silly way to dodge the argument though. I don't know that I've ever seen footnotes on a messageboard.[/b]
I did not cite my source for this quote. I am admitting that I copied this from this message board, but did not give credit for it. Now that Soulstrut is like a school and everyone must cite their sources when posting I am admitting to my guilt in this case.
The longer you keep trying to downplay it like this, and pretend that its all nothing, with your ha-ha-ha little citation to a single sentence from another post, which you know is completely different from stealing an entire footnote from a Harpers article as well a sprinkle of other parts and a dash of Time magazine, for flavor, the longer I'm going to rub your nose in your mess.
I always knew you were a fraud.
cuntpasted from Sabadabadabadaba, SoulStrut 09/21/06 10:26 AM
If someone is making Anti-American accusations and using Al Jazeera as their source for their "facts" I'm sure you can all see how that might be a problem.
And for the average person on a BBS to prove or dispute these "facts" without, as Motown so eloquently put it, flying to Washington for secret meetings every night, it's impossible.
No one bothers to dispute "facts" that support their own personal stance.
And by no means am I suggesting that Motown's sources were innaccurate or biased, but the point is without knowing who/what they are, you can't even begin to know one way or the other.
If someone is making Anti-American accusations and using Al Jazeera as their source for their "facts" I'm sure you can all see how that might be a problem.
And for the average person on a BBS to prove or dispute these "facts" without, as Motown so eloquently put it, flying to Washington for secret meetings every night, it's impossible.
No one bothers to dispute "facts" that support their own personal stance.
And by no means am I suggesting that Motown's sources were innaccurate or biased, but the point is without knowing who/what they are, you can't even begin to know one way or the other.
And on that count Saba is 100% on the mark.
again, this is only an issue where someone disputes the facts. if i say that george bush knocked down the towers...people are going to question me. now when i tell them that my source is jadakiss' "why"...well, i guess i'm going to get a bunch of .
As that dude Woo from Berkeley has shown time and time again, you can rationalize pretty much any argument that is grammatically correct. However if one can really believe that what this administration is doing is correct and proper, I would see that person as a cynic. Someone who never had much optimism for a better future. The way I see it, its simple, one has to do whats best for oneself and everybody else. That is the only strategy that works over time, and it works for everything.
If the information that he used from these articles was in some way inaccurate, well let's hear it.
I am at a complete disadvantage to respond to assertions when, in order to do so, I first have to try and hunt down the authority for them. That's just not how it works and personally I'm not interested in having a discussion with a Harper's magazine Article. I dont expect footnotes in a post. But I would expect that if you are going to include a substantial part of a Harper's article in one of your posts than you would say, "This was in Harpers" or include the byline. Furhtermore, the material taken from Harpers article wasn't just a cut and paste, it had obviously been worked over and massaged, whether intentionally or not.
I also think that to try and, first pretend like there was nothhing wrong, and now to say that its somehow my fault that I should have known, is just rediculous. As well as being an admission of guilt.
So really you're just lazy or you really don't have anything to refute it? I mean you had enough time to track down where MoTown gathered his information from, but you can't take the extra step to acutally form an argument against it outside of... YOU DIDN'T CITE SOURCES... get the fuck outta here, we get it, your calling a technicality, now focus on the actual issues Sab, answer the questions, take the time to cite your sources and show us how wrong MoTown is... Stop crying wolf, and do something... maybe... for once... actually fucking do something.
I swear outside fo your brazilian records you are absolutely useless... You must have been picked on ALOT as a kid.
And Rock, like Johnny said you are missing the forest for the trees... This is a friggin message board, not a thesis, report, published news story... it has nothing to do with citing sources it has to do with forming logical informative arguments. Nothing Motown posted is new news... its pretty much known to anyone that reads multiple news sources...
So really you're just lazy or you really don't have anything to refute it? I mean you had enough time to track down where MoTown gathered his information from, but you can't take the extra step to acutally form an argument against it outside of... YOU DIDN'T CITE SOURCES... get the fuck outta here, we get it, your calling a technicality, now focus on the actual issues Sab, answer the questions, take the time to cite your sources and show us how wrong MoTown is... Stop crying wolf, and do something... maybe... for once... actually fucking do something.
I swear outside fo your brazilian records you are absolutely useless... You must have been picked on ALOT as a kid.
And Rock, like Johnny said you are missing the forest for the trees... This is a friggin message board, not a thesis, report, published news story... it has nothing to do with citing sources it has to do with forming logical informative arguments. Nothing Motown posted is new news... its pretty much known to anyone that reads multiple news sources...
Figuring out a faker is easy, that took all of ten minutes. If by take the extra step you mean posting something from Commentary without saying thats where it came from then, yeah, I might have time for that, but what would be the point. Also, stealing big chunks of a magazine article and putting it into your posts is not a "technicality."
It is, frankly, un-American for U.S. citizens to pour money into any bank account that bears the sabadoodoostick name, you being despicable enough to suggest that "the U.S.A can do no wrong" after the 9/11 terror attacks "and bush is great!" as an excuse to go to war.
i changed a few words from an editorial from a paper you might like but it pretty much sums up how "I" feel.
It is, frankly, un-American for U.S. citizens to pour money into any bank account that bears the sabadoodoostick name, you being despicable enough to suggest that "the U.S.A can do no wrong" after the 9/11 terror attacks "and bush is great!" as an excuse to go to war.
i changed a few words from an editorial from a paper you might like but it pretty much sums up how "I" feel.
You are sadly misinformed sir. There is neither money pouring into any of my bank accounts, nor did I ever say any of those things.
But that doesnt change the fact that Motown is a fraud.
[ "the U.S.A can do no wrong" and bush is great![/quote} nor did I ever say any of those things.
hahaha- yeah i know but really man... you haven't said much in this thread except RUBBISH about citing sources, "atleast what i write are my own thoughts" and "it's not fair...wahhhwahhhwahhh! i don't want to argue with magazine clippings." boo hoo!
I just want to stay on point.
good call! ANSWER THE QUESTIONS and get over this motown67 non-story pal!
It is, frankly, un-American for U.S. citizens to pour money into any bank account that bears the sabadoodoostick name, you being despicable enough to suggest that "the U.S.A can do no wrong" after the 9/11 terror attacks "and bush is great!" as an excuse to go to war.
i changed a few words from an editorial from a paper you might like but it pretty much sums up how "I" feel.
You are sadly misinformed sir. There is neither money pouring into any of my bank accounts, nor did I ever say any of those things.
But that doesnt change the fact that Motown is a fraud.
I just want to stay on point.
That point being...
Keith Olbermann on Bush
so yes... please stay on point.
Saba... Iw ould be amazed if you could even assemble some defined answers and an actual logical argument, "Shitcock" (Jinx74 - Soulstrut - 2006 - Sharon Jones... Ever Heard of Her? < Thread).
The fact that you will be a lawyer amazes me when its obvious you can not even answer simple questions...
The fact that you will be a lawyer amazes me when its obvious you can not even answer simple questions...
I think you have a profound misconception of what lawyers do. If anything, Saba is displaying the gifts that may make him an excellent member of the profession.
It's a silly way to dodge the argument though. I don't know that I've ever seen footnotes on a messageboard.[/b]
I did not cite my source for this quote. I am admitting that I copied this from this message board, but did not give credit for it. Now that Soulstrut is like a school and everyone must cite their sources when posting I am admitting to my guilt in this case.
The longer you keep trying to downplay it like this, and pretend that its all nothing, with your ha-ha-ha little citation to a single sentence from another post, which you know is completely different from stealing an entire footnote from a Harpers article as well a sprinkle of other parts and a dash of Time magazine, for flavor, the longer I'm going to rub your nose in your mess.
If I really care to respond to something on this board about politics, I usually look stuff up, gain some info and write a detailed response. That usually means names, facts, dates, etc. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON[/b] that has just figured this out. If you ask me what my sources are I am glad to share them. I fully admit that I used a Harper's article, a Time article, a U.S. News & World Report article, a piece from the New York Review of Books, a 9/11 Commission report, and maybe a couple others when I wrote my response. It's full of fucking facts to support my point of view which are expressed in the thesis at the end of the first paragraph and in the conlcusion paragraph. The piece has its own organization, if there are direct quotes from people it has " " marks around. I have been doing this since before you joined Soulstrut. If I wanted to cut and paste the entire article I would have and given the source. I've done that in the past, the torture discussion being a recent example.
To keep on saying posting on Soulstrut is the same as turning in an essay to your teacher or an article to a professional journal is making go from a smart ass to a DUMB ASS.[/b]
You are still shitting your pants over the fact that I actually research material to form responses. Get the fuck over it. Next time I make a long researched response I'm still not going to include footnotes.
It is, frankly, un-American for U.S. citizens to pour money into any bank account that bears the sabadoodoostick name, you being despicable enough to suggest that "the U.S.A can do no wrong" after the 9/11 terror attacks "and bush is great!" as an excuse to go to war.
i changed a few words from an editorial from a paper you might like but it pretty much sums up how "I" feel.
You are sadly misinformed sir. There is neither money pouring into any of my bank accounts, nor did I ever say any of those things.
But that doesnt change the fact that Motown is a fraud.
I just want to stay on point.
Your point being, attacking the most[/b] informed anti-war voice on this board - who always takes the time to post a literate and reasoned response - with a bogus argument. I'd suggest you should be ashamed of yourself, but as it is with spelling (and/or typing) you appear to have no capacity for it.
It's a silly way to dodge the argument though. I don't know that I've ever seen footnotes on a messageboard.[/b]
I did not cite my source for this quote. I am admitting that I copied this from this message board, but did not give credit for it. Now that Soulstrut is like a school and everyone must cite their sources when posting I am admitting to my guilt in this case.
The longer you keep trying to downplay it like this, and pretend that its all nothing, with your ha-ha-ha little citation to a single sentence from another post, which you know is completely different from stealing an entire footnote from a Harpers article as well a sprinkle of other parts and a dash of Time magazine, for flavor, the longer I'm going to rub your nose in your mess.
If I really care to respond to something on this board about politics, I usually look stuff up, gain some info and write a detailed response. That usually means names, facts, dates, etc. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON[/b] that has just figured this out. If you ask me what my sources are I am glad to share them. I fully admit that I used a Harper's article, a Time article, a U.S. News & World Report article, a piece from the New York Review of Books, a 9/11 Commission report, and maybe a couple others when I wrote my response. It's full of fucking facts to support my point of view which are expressed in the thesis at the end of the first paragraph and in the conlcusion paragraph. The piece has its own organization, if there are direct quotes from people it has " " marks around. I have been doing this since before you joined Soulstrut. If I wanted to cut and paste the entire article I would have and given the source. I've done that in the past, the torture discussion being a recent example.
To keep on saying posting on Soulstrut is the same as turning in an essay to your teacher or an article to a professional journal is making go from a smart ass to a DUMB ASS.[/b]
You are still shitting your pants over the fact that I actually research material to form responses. Get the fuck over it. Next time I make a long researched response I'm still not going to include footnotes.
Taking an entire footnote from an article without creditting that author is plagiarism. You can try to make whatever excuses you want about how hard you research but it doesnt change the fact that you're passing other peoples ideas, analysis, work off as your own. You keep saying you put quotes around direct quotes, what you fail to recognize is that when you steal a whole paragraph from another article you should quote that to. Or in this case, you should say before you start pasting "this comes from a Harper's magazine article" or include the byline.
Websters defines Plagiarism as: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source intransitive[/b] verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
He isnt a anti-war voice, he's just a google-news search engine pre-programmed for "anti-war".
Comments
we do, depending on the circumstances.
if the topic was capital punishment or abortion, where there isn't, per se, a right or wrong answer, it would be "unethical" (even for a messageboard) to post someone else's opinion without crediting it.
however, where the topic relies on undisputable facts, it is entirely different. Did Barry Bonds use steroids? Did President Clinton have opportunities to prevent 9-11 while in office which he did not take advantage of? While there is more theorizing related to the latter question, it resembles the Bonds issue more than abortion or capital punishment. The answer relies on facts, pure and simple. For that reason, nobody really gives a shit whether Motown cited those articles. We don't need Motown's opinion, and sorry for this, but I really don't care what his opinion is on the subject. I do care, for the sake of this thread, about someone adding relevant facts to the discussion.
You are entirely missing the forest for the trees - I never read Harpers. I read the Times, I occasionally read the News or the Post, I check a couple blogs from time to time. I am appreciative of the sourcing work that Joel did.
If the information that he used from these articles was in some way inaccurate, well let's hear it.
Which is, of course, what we've been asking you to do for the last five pages... you'd rather attack his character than the information presented. Which, getting back to Rich/Rockadelic's point, is why nobody takes you seriously here (despite your wonderful website and extensive knowledge of Brazilian music).
Im sorry. Its my fault that the only way you can respond to someone is to cut a paste a magazine article into your post. And its my fault that I didn't realize that you were a fraud and that if you say something its probably just an op-ed from somewhere. If I ever get cought for plagiarism, I'll say "hey Mr. Law Review Editor, if you cant tell when someone looks something up and uses it that's on YOU. Get the fuck over it." and they'll say, "Yo. That's alright dude, because we really dig what you're sayin."
I did not cite my source for this quote. I am admitting that I copied this from this message board, but did not give credit for it. Now that Soulstrut is like a school and everyone must cite their sources when posting I am admitting to my guilt in this case.
Don't worry, Sab. I doubt you'll ever hear anyone tell you this.
I am at a complete disadvantage to respond to assertions when, in order to do so, I first have to try and hunt down the authority for them. That's just not how it works and personally I'm not interested in having a discussion with a Harper's magazine Article. I dont expect footnotes in a post. But I would expect that if you are going to include a substantial part of a Harper's article in one of your posts than you would say, "This was in Harpers" or include the byline. Furhtermore, the material taken from Harpers article wasn't just a cut and paste, it had obviously been worked over and massaged, whether intentionally or not.
I also think that to try and, first pretend like there was nothhing wrong, and now to say that its somehow my fault that I should have known, is just rediculous. As well as being an admission of guilt.
The longer you keep trying to downplay it like this, and pretend that its all nothing, with your ha-ha-ha little citation to a single sentence from another post, which you know is completely different from stealing an entire footnote from a Harpers article as well a sprinkle of other parts and a dash of Time magazine, for flavor, the longer I'm going to rub your nose in your mess.
cuntpasted from Sabadabadabadaba, SoulStrut
09/21/06 10:26 AM
You're in the clear Motown. Keith has declared your facts undisputed.
If someone is making Anti-American accusations and using Al Jazeera as their source for their "facts" I'm sure you can all see how that might be a problem.
And for the average person on a BBS to prove or dispute these "facts" without, as Motown so eloquently put it, flying to Washington for secret meetings every night, it's impossible.
No one bothers to dispute "facts" that support their own personal stance.
And by no means am I suggesting that Motown's sources were innaccurate or biased, but the point is without knowing who/what they are, you can't even begin to know one way or the other.
And on that count Saba is 100% on the mark.
you never said they were in dispute...and...if you had, i'm sure his response would have been to cite his sources.
moreover, harpers and time magazine are not in the business of making up facts.
again, this is only an issue where someone disputes the facts. if i say that george bush knocked down the towers...people are going to question me. now when i tell them that my source is jadakiss' "why"...well, i guess i'm going to get a bunch of
that never happened here.
So really you're just lazy or you really don't have anything to refute it? I mean you had enough time to track down where MoTown gathered his information from, but you can't take the extra step to acutally form an argument against it outside of... YOU DIDN'T CITE SOURCES... get the fuck outta here, we get it, your calling a technicality, now focus on the actual issues Sab, answer the questions, take the time to cite your sources and show us how wrong MoTown is... Stop crying wolf, and do something... maybe... for once... actually fucking do something.
I swear outside fo your brazilian records you are absolutely useless... You must have been picked on ALOT as a kid.
And Rock, like Johnny said you are missing the forest for the trees... This is a friggin message board, not a thesis, report, published news story... it has nothing to do with citing sources it has to do with forming logical informative arguments. Nothing Motown posted is new news... its pretty much known to anyone that reads multiple news sources...
Figuring out a faker is easy, that took all of ten minutes. If by take the extra step you mean posting something from Commentary without saying thats where it came from then, yeah, I might have time for that, but what would be the point. Also, stealing big chunks of a magazine article and putting it into your posts is not a "technicality."
i changed a few words from an editorial from a paper you might like but it pretty much sums up how "I" feel.
You are sadly misinformed sir. There is neither money pouring into any of my bank accounts, nor did I ever say any of those things.
But that doesnt change the fact that Motown is a fraud.
I just want to stay on point.
That point being...
Keith Olbermann on Bush
so yes... please stay on point.
Saba... Iw ould be amazed if you could even assemble some defined answers and an actual logical argument, "Shitcock" (Jinx74 - Soulstrut - 2006 - Sharon Jones... Ever Heard of Her? < Thread).
The fact that you will be a lawyer amazes me when its obvious you can not even answer simple questions...
What were these questions again?
COULD YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION?
I think you have a profound misconception of what lawyers do. If anything, Saba is displaying the gifts that may make him an excellent member of the profession.
If I really care to respond to something on this board about politics, I usually look stuff up, gain some info and write a detailed response. That usually means names, facts, dates, etc. YOU ARE THE ONLY PERSON[/b] that has just figured this out. If you ask me what my sources are I am glad to share them. I fully admit that I used a Harper's article, a Time article, a U.S. News & World Report article, a piece from the New York Review of Books, a 9/11 Commission report, and maybe a couple others when I wrote my response. It's full of fucking facts to support my point of view which are expressed in the thesis at the end of the first paragraph and in the conlcusion paragraph. The piece has its own organization, if there are direct quotes from people it has " " marks around. I have been doing this since before you joined Soulstrut. If I wanted to cut and paste the entire article I would have and given the source. I've done that in the past, the torture discussion being a recent example.
To keep on saying posting on Soulstrut is the same as turning in an essay to your teacher or an article to a professional journal is making go from a smart ass to a DUMB ASS.[/b]
You are still shitting your pants over the fact that I actually research material to form responses. Get the fuck over it. Next time I make a long researched response I'm still not going to include footnotes.
Your point being, attacking the most[/b] informed anti-war voice on this board - who always takes the time to post a literate and reasoned response - with a bogus argument.
I'd suggest you should be ashamed of yourself, but as it is with spelling (and/or typing) you appear to have no capacity for it.
Taking an entire footnote from an article without creditting that author is plagiarism. You can try to make whatever excuses you want about how hard you research but it doesnt change the fact that you're passing other peoples ideas, analysis, work off as your own. You keep saying you put quotes around direct quotes, what you fail to recognize is that when you steal a whole paragraph from another article you should quote that to. Or in this case, you should say before you start pasting "this comes from a Harper's magazine article" or include the byline.
intransitive[/b] verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
He isnt a anti-war voice, he's just a google-news search engine pre-programmed for "anti-war".