Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2016, 12:21 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 01:31 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 12:13 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  http://www.dictionary.com/browse/plagiarism
Plaigarism:
an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization and the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:

It's a 2 part process:
1. using or closely imitating the language and thoughts of another author without authorization
2. the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author

It's not either or.

Please prove how I have "represented" the author's work as "my own" in posts 1 & 2.

Part 1. has been committed by me. I have copied and pasted another author's work into a publicly readable form of communication. I don't deny that, but that isn't the only thing required for it to be called plaigarism. You keep arguing this point repeatedly as the only basis of your plaigarism claim. No one is arguing back or denying this point, but you still have part 2 to contend with.
Part 2. The representation of this author's work as my own is the final ingredient for it to be called plaigarism. This is the part I have been repeating over and over in my defense. When have I ever represented the author's work as my own? You have yet to address "representation" of "ownership"

You want the listeners to believe simply posting something in a publicly readable form of communication implies "representation of something as my own". It still falls under part 1. It's an assumption based on what? My 15 year old son copy/ pasted part of an article on volcanic eruption & emailed it to his friend for review whilst working on a group project without indicating it's source. His friend isn't going to say it's a form of plaigarism.
Lack of any form of representation or claims to ownership of said information does not qualify said posts as a form of plaigarism. How are you ever going to prove it was plaigarism without addressing "representation" & "ownership"?

What you are describing isn't plaigarism. You may quite possibly have to invent a new word to describe what i did and have society, over time, deem it as something negative for this to play out in your favor.
Accept when you are beat Whiskey.
Drinking Beverage

Moving on:
Regarding Gnostic & Agnostic:
gnos·tic/ˈnästik/
adjective
of or relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
http://www.google.com/search?q=gnostic+means

It's "you are beaten", ignoramus. Not "beat". I think I start to see your problem.

Nice try.
"pla·gia·rism
ˈplājəˌrizəm
noun
the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

Says nothing about your made up "2 part process".
Great that you think you see my problems. Maybe you should stop looking for other people's problems and start working on your own.
Regards your accusation of me making up a "2 part process":
Are you that daft?
It's the definition posted by dictionary.com which I hyperlinked.
It blatantly describes plaigarism as a 2 part process & I didn't even change up the wording when I listed it in point form.

The definition that you posted is also a 2 part process:

Plagiarism: The practice of
1. taking someone else's work or ideas
"AND"
2. passing them off as one's own.

What's the "and" there for?

By the God's below, how did you jump to the conclusion that I made up this 2 part process?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 12:52 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 01:22 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Hey Bucky, you never answered if you were female.
Just curious.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 01:36 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Nice one Agnostic shane. I see, you just edited your post from 7:52 today (real bad luck, dude. You have been caught again). Laughat
Mind if i post your "first draft" here? I promise ill put it in quotes so noone will accuse me of plagiarism, ok?
Oh, you are gonna say, i have made this up? Angel Too bad that i have ..... evidence here Laugh out load
The bold parts are -of course- pointed out by myself. Have fun, and

HERE WE GO:

Quote:I have a suspicion. I could be wrong about this ofcourse but there is something quite peculiar about you and Bucky that has been bugging me all day.

It's the way you both respond:
1. Liberal use of profanity in a similar manner
2. Impulsively accuse others of negative character traits
3. Easily insulted & emotionally passionate in your defense.
4. A chronic & peculiar obsession with gramatical & spelling errors
5. The use of some feminine type responses in some of your posts.
6. Work a sort of tag team style debate in almost every thread that peaked your interest.
7. You defend each other very intimately.

It's quite possible:
1. You & Bucky are one & the same
2. You are female, gay or somewhere in between.
3. You made both accounts to lend credibility & increase rep points to your posts/account.
4. You may be suffering from some form of split personality disorder & obsessive compulsive disorder.

If I'm right, I'm totally impressed by you.

One way to find out is if the mods checked the ip addresses used each time either of you posted.

I'm not accusing you though, just stating the linked pattern I observed seems to be more than mere coincidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 06:30 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 06:48 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 01:36 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Nice one Agnostic shane. I see, you just edited your post from 7:52 today (real bad luck, dude. You have been caught again). Laughat
Mind if i post your "first draft" here? I promise ill put it in quotes so noone will accuse me of plagiarism, ok?
Oh, you are gonna say, i have made this up? Angel Too bad that i have ..... evidence here Laugh out load
The bold parts are -of course- pointed out by myself. Have fun, and

HERE WE GO:

Quote:I have a suspicion. I could be wrong about this ofcourse but there is something quite peculiar about you and Bucky that has been bugging me all day.

It's the way you both respond:
1. Liberal use of profanity in a similar manner
2. Impulsively accuse others of negative character traits
3. Easily insulted & emotionally passionate in your defense.
4. A chronic & peculiar obsession with gramatical & spelling errors
5. The use of some feminine type responses in some of your posts.
6. Work a sort of tag team style debate in almost every thread that peaked your interest.
7. You defend each other very intimately.

It's quite possible:
1. You & Bucky are one & the same
2. You are female, gay or somewhere in between.
3. You made both accounts to lend credibility & increase rep points to your posts/account.
4. You may be suffering from some form of split personality disorder & obsessive compulsive disorder.

If I'm right, I'm totally impressed by you.

One way to find out is if the mods checked the ip addresses used each time either of you posted.

I'm not accusing you though, just stating the linked pattern I observed seems to be more than mere coincidence.
I don't understand.
Caught doing what? Editing my post?
Do you derive pleasure when you see people edit their posts?
What can I say, everyone has their vices. How old are you?
Are you video taping the thread? I have to admit you seem to be a tad bit creepy at this point.
*backing away slowly*
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 06:48 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
What a fucking clueless fool.

I'm a "sock" of Stark anyway. Laughat
Facepalm
Angel

Are you "institutionalized" AS ? If not, you ought to be.

All I can say, is, with some of the nuts we see here ..... so glad I don't have to actually interact with some of these idiots in real life.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 06:50 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 12:52 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Hey Bucky, you never answered if you were female.
Just curious.

Maybe you could buy a clue, fool.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 06:56 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 06:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-03-2016 12:52 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Hey Bucky, you never answered if you were female.
Just curious.

Maybe you could buy a clue, fool.
Avoiding the question girl friend?
Glad to see you stopped proporting that silly claim of plaigarism.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 07:00 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 12:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Great that you think you see my problems. Maybe you should stop looking for other people's problems and start working on your own.

Says the idiot who just got done telling me I had one.

(11-03-2016 12:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Regards your accusation of me making up a "2 part process":

It's "regardING", not "regards", ignoramus. No wonder you have to plagiarize others. You have NO education. You can't even write in English.

(11-03-2016 12:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Are you that daft?
It's the definition posted by dictionary.com which I hyperlinked.
It blatantly describes plaigarism as a 2 part process & I didn't even change up the wording when I listed it in point form.

Dictionaries don't "blatantly" do anything. That word is totally inappropriate. ONE dictionary perhaps. Many others .... not so much, dumb ass.

Don't get caught in the weeds, sweetie (sarcasm ... just in case you are too stupid to get that also). People *can* make perfectly logical points with any sort of language, including *profanity* for emphasis. Grow up.

(11-03-2016 12:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The definition that you posted is also a 2 part process:

Wrong "taking and using" is ONE (combined) act. Pathetic you are.

(11-03-2016 12:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  By the God's below, how did you jump to the conclusion that I made up this 2 part process?

You fucking said it was, dumbass. Facepalm

Almost time for pills. Be sure the nurse knows where you are.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 07:11 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 06:56 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(11-03-2016 06:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Maybe you could buy a clue, fool.
Avoiding the question girl friend?
Glad to see you stopped proporting that silly claim of plaigarism.

Let me try this *reeeeeeeel slow*.

Ask one of the nice mods (after you take your meds) how to look at someone's profile, dear.

*pats on head*

Then read this : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

Facepalm

(BTW, I stopped nothing. There's nothing more to be said. You were caught at it red-handed. Everyone knows you are 110 % delusional and dishonest, by now. You are incapable or reading or writing anything, without reinterpreting / rearranging it all in your sick brain. No wonder you say you say you are sure of nothing. Facepalm

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
11-03-2016, 07:13 AM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 07:30 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 07:00 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(11-03-2016 12:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Great that you think you see my problems. Maybe you should stop looking for other people's problems and start working on your own.

Says the idiot who just got done telling me I had one.

(11-03-2016 12:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Regards your accusation of me making up a "2 part process":

It's "regardING", not "regards", ignoramus. No wonder you have to plagiarize others. You have NO education. You can't even write in English.

(11-03-2016 12:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Are you that daft?
It's the definition posted by dictionary.com which I hyperlinked.
It blatantly describes plaigarism as a 2 part process & I didn't even change up the wording when I listed it in point form.

Dictionaries don't "blatantly" do anything. That word is totally inappropriate. ONE dictionary perhaps. Many others .... not so much, dumb ass.

Don't get caught in the weeds, sweetie (sarcasm ... just in case you are too stupid to get that also). People *can* make perfectly logical points with any sort of language, including *profanity* for emphasis. Grow up.

(11-03-2016 12:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  The definition that you posted is also a 2 part process:

Wrong "taking and using" is ONE (combined) act. Pathetic you are.

(11-03-2016 12:21 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  By the God's below, how did you jump to the conclusion that I made up this 2 part process?

You fucking said it was, dumbass. Facepalm
There is that chronic obsession again. You really should get it looked at, before it becomes an unhealthy addiction.

I said "I made it up"? I didn't ask if you think it's a 2 part process, I asked how did you assume "I made it up".
Anything I said has to be "made up"? You're bordering on delusional right about now.

Words like "sweetie" & "dear", be it sarcastic or not totally play off as feminine in most cultural norms. If you are that opposed to the label then maybe you should try avoiding those words in your reply.
I'm just saying.

You read a sentence with the word "and" in it and didn't come away with two seperate points in which the "and" was used to seperate? I think your obsession with grammatical errors is detracting from your comprehension skills.

I love you use of misdirection when trying to prove your points. It's takes a lot of skill to truly pull it off:

Taking & Using are one combined act. So what? An act can be a combination of multiple processes to create an act.
It does not detract from the fact that "taking" & "using" are 2 distinct processes.
Your attempt to confuse a 2 part process as 1 for the purpose of proving a plagiarism claim isn't fooling anyone with an ounce of intellect.

The fact still remains you are unable to show any form of REPRESENTATION & OWNERSHIP of someone else's work has been passed off as MY OWN.
In fact you are the one trying to pass it off as my own, since I clearly died no such thing & it is vital to your accusation.

Add borderline dishonesty to your list traits that make you a Forum Troll.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: