Biden: "BFD. Who cares?"
Posted on 07/02/2006 5:26:36 AM PDT by publius1
Conservative scribe Ann Coulter cribbed liberally in her latest book, "Godless," according to a plagiarism expert.
John Barrie, the creator of a leading plagiarism-recognition system, claimed he found at least three instances of what he calls "textbook plagiarism" in the leggy blond pundit's "Godless: the Church of Liberalism" after he ran the book's text through the company's digital iThenticate program.
He also says he discovered verbatim lifts in Coulter's weekly column, which is syndicated to more than 100 newspapers, including the Fort Lauderdale (Fla.) Sun-Sentinel and Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle.
Barrie, CEO of iParadigms, told The Post that one 25-word passage from the "Godless" chapter titled "The Holiest Sacrament: Abortion" appears to have been lifted nearly word for word from Planned Parenthood literature published at least 18 months before Coulter's 281-page book was released.
A separate, 24-word string from the chapter "The Creation Myth" appeared about a year earlier in the San Francisco Chronicle with just one word change-"stacked" was changed to "piled."
Another 33-word passage that appears five pages into "Godless" allegedly comes from a 1999 article in the Portland (Maine) Press Herald.
Coulter did not respond to requests for comment.
(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...
So the author is positing that Ann is not an original thinker. She's been called many things before, but 'not an original thinker' sure as hell isn't one of 'em.
Methinks Ms. Coulter has gotten lazy of late.
Biden: "BFD. Who cares?"
This article makes the claim but doesn't identify any of the passages so that it can be verified.
So Ann Coulter has her very own 82-wordgate. Hey, Hey!! Don't be checking my math. I see you out there with the calculator.
And John Barrie had better hope she doesn't respond--she'll tear him a new a.....
The democrat and MSM talking points are lifted directly from Al Qaeda and NAMBLA.
What a bunch of bull.
Coulter presents some of the most original thoughts in the advance of the cause of any person ever born. To taint her with such crap is designed soley to insult.
There are several web sites and articles out there that make similar allegations about Coulter.
But when you read the "examples", they turn out to be recitations of certain fact sequences relating to news events. Not word-for-word copies, mind you, but a listing of facts. How many ways can you summarize a news event in one paragraph? Is it supposed to be creative writing?
So I am extremely dubious of Barrie's charges until I see the actual text comparisons, which are mysteriously absent here.
In any case, pulling only 3 alleged examples from a 300+ page book is pretty thin evidence. Similarly with the weak charge of "misleading" against a 300 citation index.
Pathetic.
No, that would be actual information. Actual information is not required for journalism; facts are oppressive.
What smarmy drivel. Coulter's entire book is one long attribution. As an author and researcher she is extraordinary careful about sources and credits. Writing "Margaret Sanger said that..." followed by Sanger's words is proper attribution.
This criticism is nothing more than the stench from another fetid carcass left on the field of battle to rot.
If these ignoramuses are so hostile to what she is saying why is it that they absolutely never counter her arguments with anything other than the politics of personal destruction? Is it, perhaps, because they have been defeated but cannot face the truth?
All in all what difference does it make? It won't make those who love Coulter love her any less. And it won't make those who loath her loath her any less.
From your posts on this thread, it appears that you have tried and convicted Coulter based on this story. Have you verified it? I'm saying that this is a tempest in a teapot stirred up to discredit Ann.
If plagerist = liberal then ignore else lie
I have used the saying "nuttier than a squirrel turd" several times on FR. When Ann described the Rat King of NY as "nuttier than squirrel droppings", I wondered with pleasure if she saw it here. I didn't wonder if she plagirized it. This doofus is asserting a quasi copyright on sentence structure.
I haven't read the book, but those three passages seem to be quotes. I wonder if they were published as "blockquotes" which do not need quotation marks. Also, were they attributed? Citing a source is not plagerism, but it must be attributed. There must be more to this story.
Coulter's "real" crime is using Planned Parenthood's own words against them. /sarcasm
There has actually been a judicial decision on this. Rocker John Fogarty (remember Creedence Clearwater Revival?) was accused of copying, in a new song, the style and content of one of his older songs for Creedence. The case came to trial because copyright on the older work was now owned by a different media conglomerate from the one owning the new work.
The jury decided that no such concept of self-plagiarism existed.
I never really understood that concept--plagerizing ones own work. But, I hear tell it can be done. Guess you forget to quote yourself.
This is really stupid--I stopped reading the article after the accusation of plagerism from a document in the public domain--eg--the Planned Parenthood brochure.
This organization that provided the analysis for the story is affiliated with Moveon.org...
BERGER, STEVEN
BERKELEY,CA 94705
IPARADIGMS LLC/MANAGER
8/5/2004
$1,000
Moveon.org
http://www.iparadigms.com/about_us/contact_us.html
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.