Are we to now post references to commonly used words? Besides what you emphasized imputes motive.
And while as an RC you may not see an attempt to take credit for the work of another, the fact is that unless otherwise attributed, then it is assumed to be that of the poster.
My being an "RC" has nothing to do with it. Taken to its logical conclusion I suppose plagiarism is in the eye of the beholder, particularly based on one's confession of faith. Besides it's an assumption on your part.
Nor am i the one that made this The Issue, but my comment about posting of a papal polemic without attribution to the source was merely one sentence out of an over 800 word response, which was ignored in any subsequent responses.
You made it an issue when you imputed a motive to deceive on the part of another poster. Is that not what plagiarism is? Deception? Or must I reference a definition that uses that word? As an aside, by what authority do you appeal that demands that your particular brand of polemic merits a response?
Insolence. Rather, that this is what both of you owe.
in·so·lence noun \ˈin(t)-s(ə-)lən(t)s\[1]
Definition of INSOLENCE
1: the quality or state of being insolent
Definition of INSOLENT
in·so·lent adjective \ˈin(t)-s(ə-)lənt\ [2]
1: rude or impolite : having or showing a lack of respect for other people
Nothing rude or impolite about my response. I trust this meets your level of scholarship, however.
[1] "Insolence." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 28 July 2014. .
[2] "Insolent." Merriam-Webster.com. Merriam-Webster, n.d. Web. 28 July 2014. .
If you want it to be more than your opinion, yes, besides the use of reason. Thus the abundant refs in the NT to the OT.
Besides what you emphasized imputes motive. You made it an issue when you imputed a motive to deceive on the part of another poster.
Is that not what plagiarism is? Deception?
Not necessarily willful. From http://www.plagiarism.org/plagiarism-101/types-of-plagiarism:
#2. CTRL-C Contains significant portions of text from a single source without alterations.
And, as said, posting large portions of someone else's work without any attribution is "posting it as if it were your own" as i originally said . One reading what was posted would normally be deceived into thinking it was original, even if it was not intentional.
Regardless of motive, such an act as lifting 400+ words of a work not even just bits an pieces, without giving credit is wrong.
"Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour." (Romans 13:7)
Or do you think it is right to just lift swaths of material from whoever and past it in our posts, without any attribution and even making it indistinguishable from our own words? Yes or no?
And if this was an oversight, as often is the case (Prots do it also) then an apology is in order.
Do you agree or not?
Nonetheless, while G. Larry has only defended his unattributed use of the material of another, I do apologize for any attribution of willful motive to deceive. If only he would admit it was an unintended error on his part to not do so.
My being an "RC" has nothing to do with it. Taken to its logical conclusion I suppose plagiarism is in the eye of the beholder, particularly based on one's confession of faith. Besides it's an assumption on your part.
Plagiarism is not precisely legally defined, but as said, lifting significant portions of material from whoever and pasting it in our posts, without any attribution and even making it indistinguishable from our own words is not proper in any case.
Those who follow my postings can attest that i often post material from others, and it is my practice to and carefully provide the source, and usually use a different color as well.
Nor was i being picky, as I am not saying reiteration of something in general is plagiarism, and indeed we are all plagiarists to varying degrees, even if unconsciously. Nor is plagiarism is copying mere information, nor would i object to a bit from Wikipedia being copied, but this was 400+ words of material that was not his own, and which i noted in one sentence.
And note what RC apologist John Martignoni, author of Apologetics for The Masses, counsels,
What I would suggest, if you wish to cut down on your response time, is to steal stuff from other folks. Steal things from my newsletters. Go to Catholic.com (Catholic Answers website) and use their search engine to look for articles on whatever topic you’re discussing. Don’t hesitate to lift verbiage from an article here and an article there. If you want to cite your source fine, but if you want to leave that out – I don’t see any problem, as long as you’re doing it in private correspondence.
I’m not talking about borrowing verbiage from folks and then publishing your own book or something, but just using what other people have written in a private conversation where the intent is to save someone’s soul.... However, if you quote from someone without reference, and then give the person a link to the article or newsletter you quote from so that they can “read more” on that particular subject – well, that’s works fine by me. I don’t know of any Catholic apologist who would mind if you quote them without citation...- http://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/detail/119
Here what was sanctioned for private use was done publicly, yet without even a link. And the RM rules are, " When quoting a source, e.g. a website, article or book – be sure to include sufficient source information for the moderators to enforce copyright restrictions." http://www.freerepublic.com/~religionmoderator/
As an aside, by what authority do you appeal that demands that your particular brand of polemic merits a response?
Ultimately I appeal to Scripture as the assured word of God, and reason, and Scripture supports being reasonable. If you do not see this as worthy of response, then there is no compulsion on your part to answer. This is not the Inquisition. But as you have taken to defend an improper (at the least) practice, it is only reasonable for you to respond to reasonable responses.
Definition of INSOLENT 1: rude or impolite : having or showing a lack of respect for other people Nothing rude or impolite about my response. I trust this meets your level of scholarship, however.
: INSOLENT 1. insultingly contemptuous in speech or conduct - http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/insolent
Defending the one who posted 400+ words from another source as if it was his own, but only asking me to apologize is insultingly speech. However, as said, i do apologize for inference of willful deception, which cannot be proved - though it was not denied - and is contrary to RF rules.