Posted on 01/07/2017 4:24:26 PM PST by usafa92
Show me someone who has coined an original thought and I’ll show you someone who has read and listened a lot more than those who think it’s original. These days, anything one can say has been said many different ways - old adages and other sayings will always show up in the type of work she did.
Klein states Reuters said something, then he explained what Reuters said with interpretation. Crowley copied his paragraph with sentence structure and content, which was unique to Klein. She tweaked a few words and apparently didn't put his book and pages in the bibliography.
That is plagiarism and it shows extreme laziness for profit.
You must have had this perspective while you were in school.
I doubt your grades were legitimate if you did all your work this way. Heck, you probably got homeworks from prior year students and turned them in as yours and credited it as yours because you were the one who wrote it on your pieces of paper. It was original then, wasn’t it?
You are showing extremely poor judgement.
You sir, since you claim you can call me a fraud, YOU ARE A DUPE.
You have fallen for CNN's arugment - Don't pay any attention to Crowley's arguments here, and certainly don't accept an appointment in the whitehouse, because she cribbed her book - she plagiarized, she didn't follow the Harvard guidelines for citations enforceable by the Harvard academic senate. Were she on the Harvard faculty, her tenure could be terminated for this, I suppose, but she isn't.
Since you are an academic expert I will not run through the list of rhetorical swindles you fell for, because I am certain you could list them yourself, but two would be argumentum ad hominem and question begging.
But since this is a political forum and not an academic one I will leave that and remind you that I thought good conservatives followed the dictates of WFB - "I would rather be ruled by the first 500 names in the Boston Telephone Directory than the faculty of Harvard."
But not you. You fell for the swindle and swallowed the hook whole and the left has dragged out not just your guts, but your soul. You are being ruled by the academic senate of Harvard.
In the first place, the citations standards of academia are not the standards for journalistic advocacy. Read any editorials in anything you want from the most conservative to the most liberal and you won't find any adherence to the Harvard standard for citations. It is no different if it is marked opinion in the Slimes of if it is a book that is clearly opinion - You do know that - that Crowley's Book is Crowley's political opinion? You did get that key fact didn't you.
Here is an interesting story on this which I encourage you to read I Stood Accused of Plagiarism by Stephen B. Oates a case arising from his book "With Malice Toward None: The Life of Abraham Lincoln" in it's entirety because it is a rollicking good tale about the damage that your view has caused as well as the abuse of power by individuals that has produces YOUR VIEW. Here is an important point Oates makes:
In fact, there are no guidelines for what is sufficient acknowledgment of sources in popular biographies and histories. Thousands of such works including a great many on Lincoln have been published with no footnotes and no bibliographies at all. In my view, the AHA professional division had no business passing judgment in an area of historical writing devoid of any recognized standard.
And let me close by saying that you have turned a debate into a very personal attack while knowing nothing about me, when in fact I could prove scrupulous citation to published literature in my own publications.
Well, then you are only unscrupulous when it comes to others, it would appear.
Also, you are ignorant about what constitutes plagiarism.
Yes, ignore an extended argument and call names.
It's another rhetorical fallacy, but like I said, you like to swindle yourself by falling for such fallacies.
Now, I suppose I am question begging here. I am presuming without proof that you actually know what a rhetorical fallacy is, and there is no evidence of that whatsoever.
There is no such thing, actually, as "stealing someone else's intellectual property." The legal standard is violation of the copyright laws and to prove a violation of copyright, the accuser must first prove that he owned the copyright. second, it must be proven that there was no fair use exemption.
Now, as VRWC has shown, in the Reuters case, the copyright claim belonged to Reuters, and Klein is copying, with amendment Reuters. Klein has no claim. Now does Reuters have a claim. First, is it Reuters original idea of information. Apparently not, because it can be further traced to Kalle Lasn of Adbusters. Is it Kalle's? I don't know, because it might just be a fact commonly known to anyone looking at the issue.
But second, to what use did Crowely use the information. She did not pass it off as her information. She said it was Reuters. And she used it for the purpose of criticism which means that there is a fair use exemption to the copyright which only Kalle Lasn in any case could assert.
we can go on - the recitation of pork in the stimulus bill. Well, the stimulus bill is a public document. A google search will turn up many such lists, that contain the same items state verbatim. Moreover Crowley includes not just items on the allegedly copied list but other items as well. And again fair use applies. But more to the point, the IP belongs to no one because it is all in a congressional bill that anyone can go and read.
Good point. Still, I’d like to see the alledged “plagiarized parts” before believing anything from any source.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.