Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-03-2016, 07:48 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 07:36 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(12-03-2016 07:31 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  You proved yourself wrong .... "girlfriend". Rolleyes
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.

Ok "girlfriend". Whatever you say.
Are you sure you're a straight guy. I think you have "feminine tendencies".
How many of your straight friends do you address as "girlfriend" ? Consider

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
12-03-2016, 08:42 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(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.

No according to you it's not:
(10-03-2016 07:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Are you female by the way? Just asking Wink
Your heightened emotional responses are indicative of a generally female temperament.
The problem with compulsive lying is that is eventually you lose track of all your lies.




(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm making a poll. Let's see what everyone thinks.
Be sure to include a "fuck off Shane" or " No Shane your just a bigot option" so the poll is accurate.Drinking Beverage

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like WhiskeyDebates's post
12-03-2016, 08:59 AM (This post was last modified: 12-03-2016 09:18 AM by Agnostic Shane.)
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 08:42 AM)WhiskeyDebates 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.

No according to you it's not:
(10-03-2016 07:54 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Are you female by the way? Just asking Wink
Your heightened emotional responses are indicative of a generally female temperament.
The problem with compulsive lying is that is eventually you lose track of all your lies.




(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm making a poll. Let's see what everyone thinks.
Be sure to include a "fuck off Shane" or " No Shane your just a bigot option" so the poll is accurate.Drinking Beverage
Actually you can look at the timeline, your biases blurr your vision.
The responses with dear and sweetie occurred just before I made the above statement.
Any straight guy that provocatively gets called sweetie and dear by another supposed straight guy is going to question the motive.
At this point I reviewed his responses and realized there was a linear correlation to attacks on his character and the level of emotions expressed in each response.
A trait which is more common amongst the feminine gender.
Hence i was now able to publicly assume his heightened emotional responses are indicative of feminine tendencies.

Based solely on the timeline of events it can be observed that it was the words dear and sweetie that preceded my comment and my disposition that he has feminine tendencies.

Were you able to show there were no responses with "sweetie" or "dear" prior to my observational "feminine tendencies" comment it would validate your claim that it wasn't the "feminine sarcasm" that led me to believe he has feminine tendencies but rather his "emotional responses"

If you are going to try to accuse someone of dishonesty at least try to formulate a proper plan of attack by examining properly the evidence placed before you.

At this point I would like to point out to the crowd that Whiskey will not directly rebut anything I have just said in his next reply.
He will most likely totally ignore it to point out another ill conceived character flaw in the hopes that it alone will be enough to win his argument. His arguments are based mostly on misdirection and uncorrelated conclusions, coupled with personal attacks. What could have possibly make you think you should gives yourself a title with the word Debates in it is just bewildering.

To date Whiskey continues to call me consistently dishonest yet has never once won an argument to show an example of my dishonesty.
I challenge him to show just one example of a directly dishonest claim I have made without the use of some implied dishonesty.
For something tht he claims to be so direct just have a foundation in unambiguous wording.

It's not the first time such a challenge was made to him. I did it in the "What am I?" thread and when he accepted it, he was proven wrong and couldn't/didn't deny it. When asked to provide another example of dishonesty, he ran and said he didn't have time to waste.

Whiskey you don't have time to waste proving that people are dishonest, but you obviously have enough time to waste to call them dishonest. Where is your spine bro? At least Bucky has an abnormality, what's your excuse?

It's very common amongst theist to look for an unclear meaning in a claim and twist it to suit their personal biases. I didn't expect the same from an Atheist.

Are you sure it's not you that is being dishonest? I mean so many times you have been proven wrong and ran from the debate it begins to raise questions of either you having a mental block or a chronic disorder for fabricating stories & twisting the truth.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2016, 09:27 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 06:43 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  If you are going to use he English language to win an argument at least use it honestly.
There is absolutely no way your not aware of the blatant hypocrisy of that statement, considering you have used "defamation", "agnostic", "metaphor" and several others ENTIRELY and laughable wrong even after corrected.

(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
Yup it does, according to your definition and the definition of every other source I can find.

(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
The logic found in YOUR definition.
""the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:"
According to the definition you gave us and argued as if it was authoritative, by not crediting the original author you have engaged in the representation of that author's work as your own.
Also:
Stanford sees plagiarism as the "use, without giving reasonable and appropriate credit to or acknowledging the author or source, of another person's original work, whether such work is made up of code, formulas, ideas, language, research, strategies, writing or other form."[21]

Yale views plagiarism as the "... use of another's work, words, or ideas without attribution," which includes "... using a source's language without quoting, using information from a source without attribution, and paraphrasing a source in a form that stays too close to the original."[22]

Princeton perceives plagiarism as the "deliberate" use of "someone else's language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source."[23]

Oxford College of Emory University characterizes plagiarism as the use of "a writer's ideas or phraseology without giving due credit."[24]
Brown defines plagiarism as "... appropriating another person's ideas or words (spoken or written) without attributing those word or ideas to their true source."[25]

As well as:
All of the following are considered plagiarism:

turning in someone else's work as your own
copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not


(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Do you know the difference between represent and imply?
Entirely irrelevant, and just more shifting of goal posts. What you did is plagiarism according to YOUR source, and every other one above. You do NOT have to make an explicit claim, you just don't. And that would be IF you hadn't inserted your own writing in to the authors work which you did which makes it worse.

Your arguing against your own definition, I'm not. I actually took it and used to prove, again, that your wrong.


(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  You yourself have admitted it's somehow implied, due to a lack of reference.
No, your source and all of the above EXPLICITLY STATE, not imply, that by taking the work of someone else and failing to give credit, or even giving credit when inserting your words into an others work, is plagiarism.
I'm simply agreeing with the sources and definitions I've provided and the ones YOU have supplied.


(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
Days after you had already been caught, and once a-fucking-gain entirely irrelevant.

(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  See post 4.
I swear you are just trying to be an asshole at this point because it's post 5 (not counting the repost) and I've corrected this error so many times you have to be trying to actively be a shithead at this point.


(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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.
False, the moment you took someones work, changed it, and gave no credit or way to tell the difference you (ACCORDING TO YOUR DEFINITION) represented it as your work.

(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Let's see how well you tackle these points if you truly are good at debates:
1. Plagiarism requires representation
All of the following are considered plagiarism:
  • copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not

It actually does not "require" representation, you can be guilty of plagiarism even if you credit the original source, especially if you add your own words on top but keep the majority of the original work unchanged. Which you did.


(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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
Wrong.
"the representation of that author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author:"

Just wrong.

(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's not my fault you misunderstand the meaning of plagiarism and use it incorrectly.
I'm not, your just trying to weasel your way outta trouble. Considering the amount of education I had to give you just to get you to stop actively lying about the subject you can kindly go fuck yourself.
I'm using MULTIPLE sources, including YOURS, and they all agree with what I am saying. You have ZERO sources agreeing with you.

(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I would gladly admit fault if you could at least find the proper terminology for the fault.
I found it pages ago, so your just lying again.


(12-03-2016 06:12 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I am guilty of partial copyleft infringement & it is not considered a form of plagiarism.
Nope it's plagiarism according to all the sources I have given, according to your definition, and also according to common sense (not something I usually bring up) because if you type something out and give no credit to anyone else who would the reader naturally assume the author of it is?

The only reason me and Bucky figured out something was wrong (and this is true you can go check) is because you're too stupid to have written it yourself.

Your just wrong Shane.

Also I noticed you've suddenly got nothing to say on how "Agnostic Agnostic" makes no fucking sense. Why is that?

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
12-03-2016, 09:56 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
The phrase "whatever you say dear" was used by me as "an exasperated spouse" might use it, (as I have done many times in the past, sarcastically) to put an end to a useless argument, male or female. (Surprise ... I alone get to say how it is I intend something, not our stereotyping "girlfriend"). Apparently girlfriend *is* certain what OTHERS intend and know, despite claiming to be agnostic about just about everything.

"Women tend to be able to recognize and process the negative emotions of others better than men do (Babchuck et al., 1985; Hampson et al., 2006; McClure, 2000)
Girlfrind has FAILED to define "feminine tendencies", or plagiarize offer any references. In context, that study refutes his position. A MAN would be more apt to respond to the situation by lashing out. Women actually are LESS prone to that, and "process'' better.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/sex...tional-men

You lose.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
12-03-2016, 10:04 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 08:59 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Actually you can look at the timeline, your biases blurr your vision.
The responses with dear and sweetie occurred just before I made the above statement.
Irrelevant as you do not claim them at the time as the basis of your view. So ya, doubling down on your bigotry and lies are not gonna help you.


(12-03-2016 08:59 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  At this point I reviewed his responses and realized there was a linear correlation to attacks on his character and the level of emotions expressed in each response.
A trait which is more common amongst the feminine gender.
Both sexist and false. The links you offered in post #134 talk EXCLUSIVELY about women's emotional responses to VIEWING NEGATIVE IMAGES, not attacks on their character, and your other sources doesn't mention anything about personal attacks either.

So once again you are lying about content, this is why I call you a pseudo-intellectual.

(12-03-2016 08:59 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  At this point I would like to point out to the crowd that Whiskey will not directly rebut anything I have just said in his next reply.
Looks like you are wrong again.

(12-03-2016 08:59 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  To date Whiskey continues to call me consistently dishonest yet has never once won an argument to show an example of my dishonesty.
I've given DOZENS, you just ignore them. Where is that citation for example?

(12-03-2016 08:59 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I challenge him to show just one example of a directly dishonest claim I have made without the use of some implied dishonesty.
You claimed that you had asked a legal professional about the laws governing plagiarism and that they all agree that it has to be "official" to count, this was a lie because there ARE no laws, there are no statutes, and it's not even a legal matter and when asked for you to cite that you failed and have never used that argument again because you KNOW you were caught lying. you put as much distance between you and the lie you possibly could.

Just because you ignore demonstrations of your dishonesty doesn't mean they don't exist. Stop being a cunt Shane.

(12-03-2016 08:59 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's not the first time such a challenge was made to him. I did it in the "What am I?" thread and when he accepted it, he was proven wrong and couldn't/didn't deny it.
At no point in that thread did I accuse you of lying, did you ever respond to anything I said while in that thread, and at no point to you issue any challenge of any kind. In fact I make a great many points and rebuttals to your posts but you never once respond to my posts in that thread.
I asked you before what the fuck you were talking about and I'll ask you again what the fuck are you talking about?
How about you show a single one of those things happening in that thread. You actually just lied 4 times in that one sentence.

(12-03-2016 08:59 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  When asked to provide another example of dishonesty, he ran and said he didn't have time to waste.
Completely false since then and now I have written more then one post with your lies clearly labeled and demonstrated why, repeatedly, they are lies. I can add a whole bunch more from this post alone.


(12-03-2016 08:59 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Whiskey you don't have time to waste proving that people are dishonest, but you obviously have enough time to waste to call them dishonest.
Proved it multiple times and did so again above. The fact you ignore the demonstrations of your dishonesty does not mean they have not happened. There is a reason your rep continues to get lower and lower, your dishonest.


(12-03-2016 08:59 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  It's very common amongst theist to look for an unclear meaning in a claim and twist it to suit their personal biases. I didn't expect the same from an Atheist.
Fabricating a legal professional and an entire set of laws that don't exist to try and win a debate is not a "unclear meaning" it's a deliberate and malicious lie. Eat a dick.


(12-03-2016 08:59 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Are you sure it's not you that is being dishonest? I mean so many times you have been proven wrong and ran from the debate it begins to raise questions of either you having a mental block or a chronic disorder for fabricating stories & twisting the truth.
That's just a further pile of dishonesty, I've fucking spent entire posts cataloging your lies only for you to completely ignore them pretend they don't exist. I'm still waiting on your response to the posts I made in "what am I?" that entirely dismantles your OP which you are still ignoring, and continued to ignore even after I restated them AT YOUR REQUEST.
You haven't stated a single thing here that was even remotely honest or an accurate representation of reality and you are perfectly aware of that.

When valour preys on reason, it eats the sword it fights with.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes WhiskeyDebates's post
12-03-2016, 10:42 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 05:46 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  
(11-03-2016 05:19 PM)Paleophyte Wrote:  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.
It's used in conversations by opposing genders.

Also small children of either gender, hence the condescending nature.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
12-03-2016, 11:51 AM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 06:12 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  I'm not quite sure what your stance is at this point. Are you saying I am guilty of plagiarism or not?

I am and you are.

Quote:Please refer to this quotation before you reply:
Paleophyte Wrote:
Agnostic Shane Wrote:In light of this i would like to ask you if there has been any point in my actual replies that i have plagerised the work of others without giving reference or links to the original authors.

If I had thought that you were that dishonest I'd have called you on it.

The worst I can say is that you haven't been as thorough as you could have been in citing your sources but we aren't exactly working on a peer-reviewed article here and that's a long way from plaigiarism.

I felt that getting into this during the debate would have been counterproductive. You'd cross-posted the mess from this thread into that thread and I tried to defuse the resulting cross-thread snarl. As far as I was concerned it was pretty minor in the grand scheme of things and I really didn't give a shit.

Now that you're acting all high and mighty and calling people liars and trolls I'm more than happy to point out your hypocrisy.

Quote:I would like to point out that I always quote the definitions direct from google and Wikipedia without editing it.

And if you do that without citation it is the textbook definition of plagiarism. Here are some helpful guides:

MIT Wrote:Plagiarism occurs when you use another’s words, ideas, assertions, data, or figures and do not acknowledge that you have done so.

CalTech Wrote:Plagiarism occurs when a writer takes language or ideas from another writer without properly attributing them, and this act violates the honor code in a fundamental way.

Harvard Wrote:In academic writing, it is considered plagiarism to draw any idea or any language from someone else without adequately crediting that source in your paper. It doesn't matter whether the source is a published author, another student, a Web site without clear authorship, a Web site that sells academic papers, or any other person: Taking credit for anyone else's work is stealing, and it is unacceptable in all academic situations, whether you do it intentionally or by accident.

Oxford Wrote:Plagiarism is presenting someone else’s work or ideas as your own, with or without their consent, by incorporating it into your work without full acknowledgement.

Yale Wrote:Plagiarism is the use of another’s work, words, or ideas without attribution.

And even Liberty University' Wrote:  Plagiarism is the intentional failure to give sufficient attribution to the words, ideas, or data of others that the student has incorporated into his/her work for the purpose of misleading the reader. In some cases, a student may be careless and fail to give credit to the words, ideas or data of others. In such situations, plagiarism has still occurred, but the professor may choose from an array of sanctions he/she deems appropriate.

I could continue this ad nauseum with any school you care to name. The results will be pretty much identical. Hopefully the guides that I've linked will help you avoid these accusations in the future.

Quote:I've been doing that for years now on many different forums.

Then you're a serial offender.

Quote:It's because the direct contents of these websites are not subject to the laws of copyright infringement as far as I can tell.

Immaterial. Although related, copyright and plagiarism are separate issues.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Paleophyte's post
12-03-2016, 12:32 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(12-03-2016 06:43 AM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  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?

Shane, read the definition that you posted carefully and completely.

"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:"

Emphasis mine. You have represented another author's work as your own by not crediting that author.

By your own definition you are guilty of plagiarism.
By calling your detractors liars and trolls you are guilty of hypocrisy.
By pointlessly focusing on trivial terms that you don't consider gender-appropriate usage you are guilty of deflection (amongst others).
By attempting to redefine the terms that you have been accused of you merely compound your already manifest dishonesty.

But hey, don't let me stop you when you're on a roll. You're obviously enjoying twisting in the wind. Yould you like some more rope?

Tell us, where did your definition of redshift come from?
(01-02-2016 07:51 PM)Agnostic Shane Wrote:  Redshift:
When an object moves away from us, its light waves are stretched into lower frequencies or longer wavelengths, and we say that the light is redshifted. In the visible portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, blue light has the highest frequency and red light has the lowest.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
12-03-2016, 12:36 PM
RE: Commentary on Paleophyte and Agnostic Shane
(11-03-2016 10:28 PM)WhiskeyDebates Wrote:  
(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

You're welcome. Apologies to your dog. Glad you weren't drinking anything at the time. Whiskey up the nose tingles.

---
Flesh and blood of a dead star, slain in the apocalypse of supernova, resurrected by four billion years of continuous autocatalytic reaction and crowned with the emergent property of sentience in the dream that the universe might one day understand itself.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Paleophyte's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: