Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-03-2016, 07:25 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 05:19 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  
(11-03-2016 11:26 AM)Peebothuhul Wrote:  I would more say it's culturally specific.

Using 'Dear' in a sarcastic manner is more something English, Canadians, Australians etc might do/use from my limited experience.

While Brits and some of us Commonwealth countries might use "dear" to patronize somebody, it's uncommon to see it used as a stand-alone by either gender. More typically, it's used as one component of a more complex insult. For example:

Would you like some help with your thinking dear? You look ready to sprain something.

"Dearie" is also common and often nastier.

Yes Very true, very true.

I was trying to be brief in my post in helping folks understand the more subtle differences between certain cultures. Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 10:01 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(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.
I'd ask if you were serious but I'd be wasting my time. I've already explained this what must be a half a dozen times or more now, still glutton for punishment that I am I'll do it again and I'll be as through as I possibly can.
Before I start let me say that what I am about to say, while entirely factually accurate, is none the less irrelevant. Why it's irrelevant we will get to later I just wanted to be as up front about it as I can. Now lets get started.....

When you posted that definition did you bother to read it? I'm curious because if you had you would have realized that you had committed plagiarism. I say this because the last 7 words are what do you in and I'm surprised that even you missed that.
Now given that you already admit to part 1 I don't have to waste my time demonstrating that again, so lets look at "part 2" which says.."the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:". I underlined the relevant bit.

By copy+pasting another authors work and not crediting the author you have, by the wording of the definition you chose to include, represented that authors work as your own. It's not required for you to say "this is mine" (though you kinda did) it's merely required that you present anothers work without crediting them according to your definition. Which you absolutely did. Unequivocally did.

However even more damning is the fact that you didn't JUST copy+paste another work you copy+pasted it, deleted something you didn't like and entered your own words and then failed to provide a source, credit it, or provide any distinction between your words and his.
So yes by the wording of the definition YOU supplied you committed plagiarism in post 1 and 2, especially post 1. Unequivocally and beyond any shadow of a doubt.

HOWEVER.....it's not really a problem that you did, and everything I just wrote, while totally accurate, was irrelevant and that is because.....the definition you supplied is largely irrelevant itself. Now had you bothered to read the one link I gave you you would have seen this "Plagiarism is the "wrongful appropriation" and "stealing and publication" of another author's "language, thoughts, ideas, or expressions" and the representation of them as one's own original work.[1][2] The idea remains problematic with unclear definitions and unclear rules. Given that the definition(s) of plagiarism are unclear and problematic (given that there is no agreed upon rules or laws, that they change from institution to institution) relying on a single definition is untenable. This is why I haven ever argued from the definition, even though you guilty there too) but from organizations and institutions that deal with plagiarism on a daily basis. If you read that link you will find that by every single definition of plagiarism given you are guilty. Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Stanford, and Brown all give definitions of it in actual real world usage, as did Plagiarism.org, and by every one of those you are guilty.

The problem that you face now is that you either accept those as authoritative on the subject or you don't, if you don't then you are tacitly offering up your definition as authoritative (which you believed to be the case when you wrote it) and if so then you are STILL guilty because even it agrees with me. You are a plagiarist and that's not an insult, not a "defamation", not a "character assassination" it's a FACT. A demonstrated one.

First it was not plagiarism cause you asked for it to be taken down before anyone noticed which was a lie. Then said it wasn't plagiarism cause you asked a legal professional and he said it had to be "official" and both of those were lies. Then it wasn't plagiarism because of a bunch of other equally wrong/dishonest protestations and now it's not plagiarism because you think the definition proves you didn't but that's wrong as well cause it actually does. I mention all this because at what point do you get tired of shifting those goal posts all over the bloody pitch?Drinking Beverage

(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This is the part I have been repeating over and over in my defense.
That's just not accurate. You have been throwing anything you can at the wall hoping something will stick, including out and out lying. Repeatedly.

(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When have I ever represented the author's work as my own? You have yet to address "representation" of "ownership"
I've actually addressed it several times. In almost every single post actually, so I don't know what you talking about. Claiming ownership merely requires you to not credit the author (according to the definition you supplied, and ever single one I have supplied) it don't require an active proclamation of ownership or for you to plant a banner in it.

(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You want the listeners to believe....
Listen to a lot of textual conversations do you?Drinking Beverage


(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  simply posting something in a publicly readable form of communication implies "representation of something as my own".
Strawman fallacy. Not my position at all, your cutting out half of my argument to make it look laughable and that's a fallacy. "Simply posting something in a public readable...blah blah blah" is not my argument nor what makes what you did plagiarism. Posting the works of someone else without crediting that author, while also editing your own thoughts over top of it and not telling anyone the difference is plagiarism.

You are being deliberately dishonest.

(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
.......your defense is that it can't be plagiarism because your child does it too? uh.....lolwut?

(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Lack of any form of representation or claims to ownership of said information does not qualify said posts as a form of plaigarism.
".....the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:Drinking Beverage

(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  How are you ever going to prove it was plaigarism without addressing "representation" & "ownership"?
Same way I have been for days now, correctly and factually with accurate sources and not lying. Try it some time. Drinking Beverage

(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  What you are describing isn't plaigarism.
Yup it is sorry lad. It was when you lied about the laws, and it is now that you have failed to understand your own source.

(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
Nope I can just use your own definition or every single one provided by any other source on what constitutes plagiarism in the real world.


(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Accept when you are beat Whiskey.
Take your own advice.



(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Regarding Gnostic & Agnostic:
gnos·tic/ˈnästik/
adjective
of or relating to knowledge, especially esoteric mystical knowledge.
http://www.google.com/search?q=gnostic+means

Just because....
Oooooooooh no you don't you little weasel! Nope, if you are going to talk about Gnostic AND Agnostic then you post BOTH definitions from your source not just one to try and pretend like you position has merit it doesn't. From the same source:
ag·nos·tic
aɡˈnästik/
noun
noun: agnostic; plural noun: agnostics
1. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or of anything beyond material phenomena; a person who claims neither faith nor disbelief in God.


Agnostic is NOT interchangeable, nor is it shorthand for, "I don't know". "Agnostic Agnostic", and "Agnostic Gnostic" make no sense, don't work in English, and rely exclusively on your willful ignorance of the words despite it being explained to you multiple times. Agnostic does not mean what you are trying to force it to mean. End of story.

Oh and this is rather a bit amusing: "a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known ....... beyond material phenomena..."
Thoughts absolutely exist & everything else is absolutely unknowable.

"Agnostic"shane indeed. Rolleyes Drinking Beverage

(10-03-2016 11:44 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  This is why an Atheist can be both Agnostic & Gnostic about God, because the word Gnostic is not directly correlated to the word God. It is a common societal misconception brought about from the continuous use of the word when describing a world view relating to the existence of God.
Nope, that's just wrong and no one here or anywhere else agrees with your twisted and perverse use of "agnostic." You are just wrong, end of story.


There no swear words, maybe you will try dancing with a bit of honesty now? If so, where is that citation I asked for? I'm still waiting. I'd really like to know if you pulled a whole legal professional and set of laws out of your as......butt. Girl_nails

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
11-03-2016, 10:07 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 06:56 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Avoiding the question girl friend?

You have exactly zero room to point this out to anyway by the way given that I have been waiting since freakin' January for you to answer some very basic questions and you still wont.

Zero room if you are at all concerned with not looking like a hypocrite obviously.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 10:19 PM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 11:02 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 11:32 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Definitely worth looking into. You may be quite right, but I do hope no Canadians, Brits or Aussies are insulted by what you said.
I'm, more or less, Canadian and he's right shane. The point of the sarcasm in "dear" is to take a term of endearment and turn it on it's head making it NOT a term of endearment. It has no gender attached to it at all. What with words not having a gender and all. :l


(11-03-2016 11:32 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You know how much everyone hates stereotyping.
*looks at all your posts asking people if they are women cause ladies are "emotional and temperamental" *
Haha ya, would hate to do that!
[Image: 7834953.gif]


(11-03-2016 11:32 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Might I ask if you had the option of sarcastically insulting me (for having childish logic) in a crowd which word would your prefer out of only the following:
Son, Child, Sweetie or Dear.
I think the better question is that with multiple questions unanswered by you, the better part of a dozen examples of you lying which you have failed to address, why the fuck are you here trying to be sexist about individual words?

EDIT: I see you think me and bucky might be the same person. Figured out that lying wasn't working for you and decided to double down on being a delusional paranoid schizophrenic was the way to go did ya. Uh....K.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
11-03-2016, 10:23 PM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 10:28 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 05:02 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(11-03-2016 04:36 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Of course TO YOU it does, as you come from the 19th Century and are still in Junior High. It was ONLY sarcastic. Apparently you obsessed with being some sort of victim here.

So now after saying something, yet again, you try to dance around and make it look different when you are called on it. Keep your hugs and advice to yourself, pervert.
So now besides a being a disastrous failed physicist, you're an amateur shrink. Weeping
Stick to working on the round Earth. That's about all you're up to.
You're starting back to troll again.
Deducing you had gender issues from your writing patterns isn't exactly what I would call amateur.
A gay guy calling me a pervert for sending him a hug? I can't tell if that's an insult or a compliment at this point.

How is a gay guy calling me sweetie to be considered sarcastic. It's disrespectful to any straight guy, regardless of how gay people want it to be perceived.

You'll interpret it any way that suits your present post. It was nothing else. I realize since you live in mommy's basement in Podunk Junction, you have no experience with the big real world. It's EXACTLY like you calling people "girl friend". Hypocrite. You continue to use feminine references, attempting to insult. You really are a misogynist women hater. You think they are less than men, and referencing men that way is your way of "insulting" people.

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
11-03-2016, 10:26 PM (This post was last modified: 11-03-2016 10:32 PM by WhiskeyDebates.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 05:02 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  How is a gay guy calling me sweetie to be considered sarcastic. It's disrespectful to any straight guy, regardless of how gay people want it to be perceived.

No it's not, what the fuck are you talking about? Terms of endearment are only disrespectful coming from gay people if you are homophobic. If a woman interested in men uses a term of endearment and a man interested in men uses a term of endearment and you only find the gay guy disrespectful guess fuckin' what? You're a homophobe.

I'm not gay, have many gay friends, and it has NEVER once bothered me. You're just a bigot.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
11-03-2016, 10:28 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 05:10 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  Today's lesson is on why you shouldn't try to take the moral high ground from the bottom of a canyon.

I laughed out loud and scared my dog, thank you for this. Laugh out load

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 10:30 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 05:46 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's used in conversations by opposing genders.

I'm seeing a whole lot of "not fucking based on gender at all" you cunt.

It is held that valour is the chiefest virtue and most dignifies the haver.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-03-2016, 10:49 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Right, so AgnosticShane is still being a cunt? Nothing new here? Moving on...

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
11-03-2016, 10:59 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 05:46 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's used in conversations by opposing genders.

No kidding, genius. But not exclusively.
It's also commonly used as sarcasm.

"If a male greeted me with dear, darling or honey I would find it camp or sarcastic depending on tone. A female under 60 using this, would make me feel awkward if I was not her lover unless she was obviously joking or flirting. 'Luv is expected from a woman running a London Cafe".

http://english.stackexchange.com/questio...s-a-friend
http://ask.metafilter.com/185909/condescending-names

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: