Simply not attributing it leaves the impression that it is one's own work.
Nice attempt as weaseling out of the charge, which is accurate, but dan owes no one any apology.
If people want to avoid the charge of plagiarism, then they need to attribute the work.
Oh please. If there is one thing that is elemental here on the RF it's that none of what we posit is original. That goes for both sides. It's just that some people get hung up on process over substance.
Nice attempt as weaseling out of the charge, which is accurate, but dan owes no one any apology process over substance
Really? Does not the accusation of plagiarism impute to the individual being accused a motive to deceive, which is a violation of the RF rules? If one wanted to say, "Hey you failed to cite your source" that's one thing, but to cry "Plagiarist!" is another kettle of fish.
If people want to avoid the charge of plagiarism, then they need to attribute the work.
So the default position is that if I, or anyone else for that matter posts something and fails to attribute the source then one is attempting to deceive?