Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane

[Agnostic Shane]

(11-03-2016 10:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(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

I find this utterly hilarious. You expect me to believe a gay guy calling me dear and sweetie has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he is gay?
It's what led me to believe you had feminine tendencies and my hunch turned out to be correct.
I'm making a poll. Let's see what everyone thinks.

[EvolutionKills]

(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 10:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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

I find this utterly hilarious. You expect me to believe a gay guy calling me dear and sweetie has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he is gay?

Depends. Is he using it to be an asshole, is he using it sarcastically, or is he using it with earnest endearment? Also, a woman could also use that word in all of those exact same ways (and more) to a man, or to another woman for that matter.

So yeah, it really has nothing to do with the fact that he's gay. The only thing that would change is if he used it in an honestly endearing way because he found you to be genuinely attractive, as opposed to a straight man pretending to do so for whatever reason. That's it. The straight dude could say it in the exact same way. Actors get paid to do this.

So the important determining factor here is the context of the usage, and not the sexual preference of the 'gay guy'.

(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's what led me to believe you had feminine tendencies and my hunch turned out to be correct.

Wait, what? Feminine tendencies?

You have idiotic tendencies, given your forums posts. Wonder how long it'll take all of us to verify that. Wait, it's already done? Hot damn! Isn't armchair psychology great!?

(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm making a poll. Let's see what everyone thinks.

[Agnostic Shane]

(11-03-2016 10:01 PM)WhiskeyDebates 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.

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?

(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?

(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:

(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.

(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.

(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.

To represent does not mean to imply. If you are going to use he English language to win an argument at least use it honestly.
If you want to label someone then at least use a label that fits. I'm sure you can find some negative flaws in my character, but plagiarism just doesn't stick.

Your best argument is now based on the logic that failure to place a reference link implies plagalrism because it somehow implies I represented the information as my own.

Do you know the difference between represent and imply?

Dictionary.com:
represent
[rep-ri-zent]
Spell Syllables
Synonyms Examples Word Origin
See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
verb (used with object)
1.
to serve to express, designate, stand for, or denote, as a word, symbol, or the like does; symbolize:
In this painting the cat represents evil and the bird, good.
2.
to express or designate by some term, character, symbol, or the like:
to represent musical sounds by notes.
3.
to stand or act in the place of, as a substitute, proxy, or agent does:
He represents the company in Boston.
4.
to speak and act for by delegated authority:
to represent one's government in a foreign country.
5.
to act for or in behalf of (a constituency, state, etc.) by deputed right in exercising a voice in legislation or government:
He represents Chicago's third Congressional district.
6.
to portray or depict; present the likeness of, as a picture does:
The painting represents him as a man 22 years old.
7.
to present or picture to the mind.
8.
to present in words; set forth; describe; state.
9.
to set forth or describe as having a particular character (usually followed by as, to be, etc.):
The article represented the dictator as a benevolent despot.
10.
to set forth clearly or earnestly with a view to influencing opinion or action or making protest.
11.
to present, produce, or perform, as on a stage.
12.
to impersonate, as in acting.
13.
to serve as an example or specimen of; exemplify:
a genus represented by two species.
14.
to be the equivalent of; correspond to:
The llama of the New World represents the camel of the Old World.

No where does the definition of represent say it can be "implied". A representation cannot be implied.
The words clear and official has been used to show how representation is done.
There is no clear and official statement from me showing I have represented the said information as my own.

You yourself have admitted it's somehow implied, due to a lack of reference.
Your rebuttal to that is a disclaimer that I wrote stating the information found in posts 1 & 2 are not my official replies and in fact are plagued with errors and mistakes which I do not support. See post 4.
Your rebuttal to that is that it has already been "represented" and therefore cannot be retracted.
The problem with that is it has never been "represented" & the ones implying that I claim the information as my own isn't me.

Let's see how well you tackle these points if you truly are good at debates:
1. Plagiarism requires representation
2. To imply does not mean to represent
3. Not doing something is not the same as representing something
4. I have never represented the information as my own

It's not my fault you misunderstand the meaning of plagiarism and use it incorrectly.
I would gladly admit fault if you could at least find the proper terminology for the fault.
Here I will help you:
I am guilty of partial copyleft infringement & it is not considered a form of plagiarism.

[Bucky Ball]

(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I find this utterly hilarious. You expect me to believe a gay guy calling me dear and sweetie has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he is gay?
It's what led me to believe you had feminine tendencies and my hunch turned out to be correct.
I'm making a poll. Let's see what everyone thinks.

Of course you do, of course you do, fool. You are in Junior High aren't you. Nervous laughter is often the mark of being surprised by one's own ignorance.
When mommy lets you out of the basement in Podunck Junction, go check out one of the MANY places in Oceanside (or where ever) all the gay marines congregate and tell them they have "feminine tendencies". When you wake up with your concussion, black eye, and fat lip, maybe you'll rethink you idiotic, sexist stereotypes you buy into out there in Podunck, which Hollywood has convinced you are true.

Fucking ignoramus.

(Why is it, all (ugly) homophobic men are *just so sure* gay men would even give them a second look, when in fact, even on a desert island, they would have NOTHING to worry about ?)

[Bucky Ball]

(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  

(11-03-2016 10:59 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  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

I find this utterly hilarious. You expect me to believe a gay guy calling me dear and sweetie has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he is gay?
It's what led me to believe you had feminine tendencies and my hunch turned out to be correct.
I'm making a poll. Let's see what everyone thinks.

By the way, (sorry to burst you homophobic bubble) it has NOTHING to do with you. Your not special. For a few years on TTA, it's my response of "utter contempt" as in "this one is not even worth arguing with" on TTA. You're just one in a LONG line of fools who got the "yes dear, whatever you say" from me. It means "you're hopelessly ignorant". (Hughsie actually even once threw it back at me). So, no "honey" .... you're not special. You're just a hopelessly clueless ignorant unsophisticated bigot. When you get out of the basement, do try to get out a little more.

[Agnostic Shane]

(12-03-2016 07:13 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I find this utterly hilarious. You expect me to believe a gay guy calling me dear and sweetie has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he is gay?
It's what led me to believe you had feminine tendencies and my hunch turned out to be correct.
I'm making a poll. Let's see what everyone thinks.

By the way, (sorry to burst you homophobic bubble) it has NOTHING to do with you. For a few years on TTA, it's my response of "utter contempt" as in "this one is not even worth arguing with" on TTA. You're just one in a LONG line of fools who got the "yes dear, whatever you say" from me. It means "you're hopelessly ignorant". (Hughsie actually even once threw it back at me). So, no "honey" .... you're not special. You're just a hopelessly clueless ignorant unsophisticated bigot. When you get out of the basement, do try to get out a little more.

My bubble encompasses all straight guys.
You could burst our bubble/nuts (pun intended) by showing me how many female posters you have called "sweetie", "dear" & "honey" in the past 5 years.
That should shut me up for quite some time.

Total replies per female user/ feminine insults
Ratio against
Total replies per male user/ feminine insults

[Bucky Ball]

(12-03-2016 07:19 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 07:13 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  By the way, (sorry to burst you homophobic bubble) it has NOTHING to do with you. For a few years on TTA, it's my response of "utter contempt" as in "this one is not even worth arguing with" on TTA. You're just one in a LONG line of fools who got the "yes dear, whatever you say" from me. It means "you're hopelessly ignorant". (Hughsie actually even once threw it back at me). So, no "honey" .... you're not special. You're just a hopelessly clueless ignorant unsophisticated bigot. When you get out of the basement, do try to get out a little more.

My bubble encompasses all straight guys.
You could burst my bubble by showing me how many female posters you have called "sweetie", "dear" & "honey" in the past 5 years.
That should shut me up for quite some time.

LMAO.
We do get that you are SO fucking clueless that you would think that. Unlike you, I don't divide the world into black and white stereotypes by gender.


How about you tell us what "feminine tendencies" are, Mr. Creepy Man Who Hugs People WAY Too Much.

[Agnostic Shane]

(12-03-2016 07:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 07:19 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  My bubble encompasses all straight guys.
You could burst my bubble by showing me how many female posters you have called "sweetie", "dear" & "honey" in the past 5 years.
That should shut me up for quite some time.

LMAO.
We do get that you are SO fucking clueless that you would think that.


How about you tell us what "feminine tendencies" are, Mr. Creepy Man Who Hugs People WAY Too Much.

Avoiding the opportunity to prove me wrong i see. It's understandable considering that you always fail.

Total single replies per female user/ feminine insults
Ratio against
Total single replies per male user/ feminine insults

You are right though, I stopped sending those hugs after you confirmed you were gay. Didn't want you to get the wrong impressions. So are you saying Peebothol is also creepy considering he has sent me so many hugs? Or does it only apply to people you call sweetie/dear/honey?

[Bucky Ball]

(12-03-2016 07:26 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 07:22 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  LMAO.
We do get that you are SO fucking clueless that you would think that.


How about you tell us what "feminine tendencies" are, Mr. Creepy Man Who Hugs People WAY Too Much.

Avoiding the opportunity to prove me wrong i see. It's understandable considering that you always fail.

Total single replies per female user/ feminine insults
Ratio against
Total single replies per male user/ feminine insults

You proved yourself wrong .... "girlfriend".
Fucking clueless ignoramus

[Agnostic Shane]

(12-03-2016 07:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  

(12-03-2016 07:26 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Avoiding the opportunity to prove me wrong i see. It's understandable considering that you always fail.

Total single replies per female user/ feminine insults
Ratio against
Total single replies per male user/ feminine insults

You proved yourself wrong .... "girlfriend".
Fucking clueless ignoramus

Expected as much from you.
Never was able to prove anything you say past the fact that you always think you are right.

At least even when I think I am mostly right, I still give others the opportunity to prove me wrong. Your just plain stubborn.

I think you and I have 2 different concepts of the word Homphobic. You seem to be using it incorrectly quite often.
When your finished describing what you think a Homphobic is I'm sure you can label yourself a Hugaphobic with the very same logic.