marg wrote:Frankly this the first I’ve seen of what Gad is talking about from that thread and that paragraph. I wasn’t able to find where or what sentence was plagiarized. Is this enough to label it plagiarism..one sentence a duplicate other than one word taken from another site? Yes.
Good, marg. This demonstrates that you have integrity. I would imagine that it took a great deal of gumption for you to admit that your lover-boy JAK has engaged in plagiarism.
Is it enough to use this as being a major issue of JAK's and indicative that he frequently plagiarizes and hence is a poor critical thinker, no it’s not.
No, it merely shows that he is intellectually dishonest. A thief, as it were.
And given all that I’ve read over the years from JAK I know he didn’t need to use that line.
Then why did he? Laziness? Dishonesty? What?
It is to the point of pettiness that on a message board one is supposed to be concerned about attributing facts to an encyclopedia, facts obviously readily available to the public.
None of this really explains why JAK, a fellow who, in your view, is the
creme de la creme of critical thinkers, needed to rely upon verbatim text from another writer. I mean, why couldn't he have rephrased these "facts obviously readily available to the public"? He's such a "great writer" and "critical thinker." Why this apparent sloppiness/carelessness?
If JAK was being deceptive, he easily could have changed some of the words, the fact that he didn’t indicates his motive was not deceit. So I'm sorry but this is a non-issue to me, and I think it reveals your petty mindedness or lack of critical thinking than it does his.
What kind of "critical thinker" plagiarizes verbatim text sans attribution?
Now with the second example, one might consider deliberate deceit. The problem I have with that though, is I’ve seen JAK’s posts over 8 years and he’s written many much more profound ideas which were also either equally or better articulated than that one sentence.
Translation: You are in love with JAK, and with to continue lapping at the great found of his "critical thinking" skills, and thus you are willing to do whatever it takes to gloss over the plagiarism.
The concepts in that paragraph are essentially concepts JAK has expressed many times previously and in his own words.
Which raises the obvious question: If he was capable in the past of phrasing things in his own words, why didn't he do so this time? Laziness? Carelessness? General dishonesty? There are some, my dear marg (not me per se) who seem to think that JAK's "erudition" is merely the result of copious Google searches---rather like our dear associate Coggins7.
marg: And of course when mentioned that the information was on the internet, JAK had no problem pointing out his actual source, his home encyclopedia.
Well, then, that makes it even worse, because it means he sat there and typed out the verbatim quote.
I don’t know about you but I don’t look upon this message board as being very formal, nor a place one can get recognition from people who matter when recognition is important I.e. teachers, employers etc.
That's a pretty poor excuse for what JAK did, marg. If this board is so "informal" and "pointless," etc., then why bother to haul out an encyclopedia, and sit there poring over it in order to
type up an entry verbatim???
Quite frankly there are very few people on this board who haven’t gotten their ideas elsewhere, very few have taken information and synthesized their own creative thoughts.
Ah, okay. The old "there's nothing new under the sun" excuse.
I think JAK’s approach was more unique
Well, it certainly was *distinctive.*
Good for you ...2 examples. They are poor, but at least you've got 2 out of over a 1,000 lengthy posts. The issue is not a matter of need. JAK doesn't need to do anything. Someone who is really not concerned about getting credit wouldn’t worry about where the information came from, nor would they worry about changing words to make it their own. Ya students worry about that in school work, big deal.
As you have readily pointed out, JAK is not a "student." This is a person who (according to you) is a "professor." Apparently, this is the kind of professor who throws standards of academic integrity to the wind.
But in addition, do you not appreciate just how low a requirement it is to cite on a board which is filled with anonymous posters and the poster you are accusing of plagiarizing, is himself anonymous? What sort of credit or benefit can he possible get?
I don't think it's so much a matter of trying to get "credit or benefit" as it is a matter of basic honesty and integrity. If JAK (and you, for that matter), see no problem with getting "outed" as a plagiarist, then more power to you.
Quite frankly using some words from other people to relay common knowledge in my opinion is not an indication of poor critical thinking.
You're right. Instead, it's in indication of intellectual dishonesty.
In the context of this message board, it's really kind of ridiculous to be concerned about citing a sentence ..especially when we are all anonymous.
Well then, I urge you to support JAK in his continued plagiarism.
Marg previously: What exactly do you want? That example is not indicative of a deceptive individual attempting to pass off a post, as if their own creative work and thinking process.
Scratch: Well, what is it, then? Do you think JAK lifted the material just because he thought it "sounded cool"?
No I think he liked the way the sentence was worded, [/quote]
And decided to steal it? I rest my case.