DiscussMormonism.com

The first time he got caught I laughed my ass off, it wasn't me who caught him and it was just amazing the degree to which he was doing it. When was the last time I mentioned JAK, by the way? He probably only entered my mind because now I have limited time I do searches on my name to find who's responding me since often I can't even remember the threads I posted on. I think I keep running into these complaints, "Gad said this and that in the Celestial forum to JAK, Gad" and I just thought it was funny so couldn't help but throw out the comment. I take pride in my foul behavior.

I'm not going to spend my whole day gathering these as it's common knpwledge for everyone else, one will suffice, from the expert on the Far East,

Hi John,

Of course you are correct.

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami (plural) are the basic forces in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and healing.

Shinto emphasized rituals and moral standards. It does not have an elaborate philosophy and does not stress life after death as do some other religions.

There is not a specific date for the evolution of Shinto. Beginning about the 500s A.D., the Chinese philosophies of Buddhism and Confucianism influenced Shinto. Shintoists identified Buddhists gods as kami, and shrines adopted Buddhist images to represent the kami.

During the 1800s, as religions evolve, many Shintoists began to reject the Buddhist influence. In the mid-1800s, a movement called State Shinto stressed patriotism and divine origins of the Japanese emperor.

Later movements of Shinto attracted many followers in Japan during the 1800s and 1900s. Some of them encouraged group worship.

JAK

Moniker called him out on it.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... k&start=84

Gadianton wrote:JAK has been doing this since I posted as Fer-de-lance at 2think years ago.

Oh you were fer de lance, I even know your real first name, yes I remember it. Martin was upset with you, I can't remember the details, I think you posted in one thread as different people, something like that and I stuck up for you. What a crap you've been!

The first time he got caught I laughed my ass off, it wasn't me who caught him and it was just amazing the degree to which he was doing it.

I think you are coming from a competitive point of view, maybe it's a guy thing. What I think is that JAK gets to the basics of where critical thinking is faulty or poor. He isn't interested in the minutia. He will link to web sites with information on detail if someone else is interested but he stays away from discussing detail which would be time consuming and likely a waste of time with strangers on message boards. I think I remember that example you are talking about but vaguely, but that is one example a long time ago. It's similar to the example here where Moniker and Kevin made a big deal because he didn't cite he was quoting from his home encyclopedia. I just read forward and see you are bringing that example up so I will address it there.

When was the last time I mentioned JAK, by the way? He probably only entered my mind because now I have limited time I do searches on my name to find who's responding me since often I can't even remember the threads I posted on.

Well I hardly post on this board and take little interest myself lately, I just happened to open up a thread yesterday with you having just posted and saw you take an uncalled for jab at JAK. Kevin made it a concerted effort to attack. Shades has in some ways been supportive of Kevin in this endeavour and I'm referring to the sticky post.

I think I keep running into these complaints, "Gad said this and that in the Celestial forum to JAK, Gad" and I just thought it was funny so couldn't help but throw out the comment. I take pride in my foul behavior.

Right well that's because of the sticky thread in the Celestial. It's a long story but it stems from that thread on logic in theology which you were a part of. Be honest, your whole focus in that thread was attacking not on discussing the topic. Anyhow I don't feel like going into it and repeating stuff I've written elsewhere.

I'm not going to spend my whole day gathering these as it's common knpwledge for everyone else, one will suffice, from the expert on the Far East,

Hi John,

Of course you are correct.

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami (plural) are the basic forces in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and healing.

Shinto emphasized rituals and moral standards. It does not have an elaborate philosophy and does not stress life after death as do some other religions.

There is not a specific date for the evolution of Shinto. Beginning about the 500s A.D., the Chinese philosophies of Buddhism and Confucianism influenced Shinto. Shintoists identified Buddhists gods as kami, and shrines adopted Buddhist images to represent the kami.

During the 1800s, as religions evolve, many Shintoists began to reject the Buddhist influence. In the mid-1800s, a movement called State Shinto stressed patriotism and divine origins of the Japanese emperor.

Later movements of Shinto attracted many followers in Japan during the 1800s and 1900s. Some of them encouraged group worship.

JAK

Moniker called him out on it.

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... k&start=84

Right, and when Moniker mentioned it was from an internet source JAK immediately explained his source was the home encyclopedia. He wasn't trying to hide that information, he didn't think it was particularly important given this is a message board and that information is commonly available knowledge. What he presented Gad, is factual information, commonly available to all. He's not presenting anything as if it's his creative ideas. As a professor I'm sure he appreciates the difference between common factual data versus specialized data and/or creative ideas. I'm interested in how someone critically thinks about an issue, I'm not interested or impressed by presentation of common factual information. If someone questions the facts sure then the source would be of relevant interest. And that's the difference Gad..between how you view it and how I do. I want to know how someone reasons to their positionon an issue. I give them credit or acknowledgement of having intelligence if they reason well, not if they present factual information. And that would be the case with professors in university when they mark students. The factual stuff is the no-brainer stuff. When you find JAK presenting creative thoughts which are plagiarized from others then you will have a legitimate beef and reason to criticize him on quoting without citing.

And by the way, that was exactly what kevin did, quote people's creative ideas, from a book he read of which he said he took notes and was just using his notes. If he was using notes he should have written on the notes his source and cited them as his source. Instead he made it all sound as if he was coming up with the creative thoughts. He even ended up quoting the pope as if his own words as the author Spencer had quoted the pope. Now that's plagiarizing.

Martin was upset with you,

That rings a bell you know, considering, he was upset with nearly everyone 24/7...

What a s*** you've been!

You mean, what a total "bad ass" I've been.

The first time he got caught I laughed my ass off, it wasn't me who caught him and it was just amazing the degree to which he was doing it.

I think you are coming from a competitive point of view...

I'm looking at it from the point of view of someone who thinks it funny when people copy materials online as if it were their own words and get called on it.

Right, and when Moniker mentioned it was from an internet source JAK immediately explained his source

LOL! Yes, so you agree that he does exactly what Kerry did (even more so) and what my mission president did. Follow-up question: what else could he have done? "OH MY! What a coincidence!"

I want to know how someone reasons to their positionon an issue.

And the fact that JAK copies and pastes without attribution and would never mention it if he weren't called on it, gives you an excellent idea of how he reasons? Remember Marg, what he gets called on are the only ones you know about. For all you know, the most stunning feats of JAK argumentation could just be copies and pastes, you have no idea, right?

His “if/then” construction is flawed as well.

To accept the ontological arguments of Gödel, requires an irrational leap. His ontological argument has often been said to ascertain God's existence by a philosophical sleight of hand or a ruse of words. Gödel’s arguments are flawed, if by nothing else, his assumptions absent evidence. The minutia of his arguments tends to be intimidating. In any case, they are not transparent and philosophers today do not accept (universally) his assumptions and application of those assumptions to agree with Gödel’s conclusion.

Did the plaigerized portion of this paragraph help you understand how JAK reasoned to his position?

(what should frustrate you as it does others is that because he so freely cuts and pastes without attribution, it's clear he isn't digesting the material at all and has no idea what he's talking about. At least Coggins, when he virtually copies wikipedia entries on John Sanders (not LDS) without attribution as his own presentation of Mormon theology, mixes it up enough that he shows understanding of what he's regurgitating)


p.s.

I don't know what Kevin does, I like the guy well enough but the topics he's interested in usually aren't the ones I'm interested in so I don't read too many of his posts, especially the long ones.

Gadianton wrote: LOL! Yes, so you agree that he does exactly what Kerry did (even more so) and what my mission president did. Follow-up question: what else could he have done? "OH MY! What a coincidence!"

I don't really know what Kerry did exactly, I just got the gist of it. But once again as I explained in my previous post, presenting factual information takes no thinking. There's nothing to take credit for, especially on the Internet where one can easily google for facts. It is petty mindedness to argue it is important that factual data presented on a MB discussion board should be cited.

I want to know how someone reasons to their positionon an issue.

And the fact that JAK copies and pastes without attribution and would never mention it if he weren't called on it, gives you an excellent idea of how he reasons? Remember Marg, what he gets called on are the only ones you know about. For all you know, the most stunning feats of JAK argumentation could just be copies and pastes, you have no idea, right?

First of all Gad I recommend not to use the word "never". I'm sure JAK has cited sources. But I've been reading JAK's post for about 8 years, and rarely does he quote other sources 99% of his posts are his words solely, along with the quotes of the person he is addresssing. I know they are his words, because I see the same concepts over and over. For myself they aren't new to someone else new to a board they are. So while you may wish to exaggerate as if this is a common problem of JAK's, your one example was more than weak, it was pathetic and didn't illustrate plagiarism.

p.s.

I don't know what Kevin does, I like the guy well enough but the topics he's interested in usually aren't the ones I'm interested in so I don't read too many of his posts, especially the long ones.

Yes well I was just pointing out the difference between how Kevin most definitely plagiarized by setting up the discussion as if the creative ideas were his, using exact words and phrases from an author and the pope no less, versus your example of JAK quoting some factual data from an encylopedia.

It appears you added some more to your post which wasn't in the post I replied to. I will have to look at it later, I can't spend my whole day on this.

Lord, I'm letting this suck me in. I don't think that was Fer who posted using two handles on the same thread, I think it was Snowy Shaw.


And what does it matter to this topic? These boards are full of crap(s).

Jersey Girl wrote:Lord, I'm letting this suck me in. I don't think that was Fer who posted using two handles on the same thread, I think it was Snowy Shaw.


And what does it matter to this topic? These boards are full of s***(s).

I believe his handle was The Way and if I remember correctly he posted as a religious fanatic deliberately to get things going. Martin didn't catch on and when it came out that what Fer was doing martin wasn't amused by the game he played.

Quote:
Martin was upset with you,


That rings a bell you know, considering, he was upset with nearly everyone 24/7...

Martin was upset with nearly everyone 24/7... REALLY? (sarcastic question, just incase it wasn't obvious). :o He is clever though. A huge pain in the posterior at times, but VERY clever.

To be honest, I don't really see what the problem is. Does it matter if JAK doesn't reference his sources? It is not like one would be sad enough to have him done for plagerism and copying whole excerpts of someone else's work.

By Jeez I am crapping my pantyhose, some arse wipes ought to get some respect and piss the “F” off away from my door window, the get in I will damned arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. What the crud? Wow

Joseph Smith

marg wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:Lord, I'm letting this suck me in. I don't think that was Fer who posted using two handles on the same thread, I think it was Snowy Shaw.


And what does it matter to this topic? These boards are full of s***(s).

I believe his handle was The Way and if I remember correctly he posted as a religious fanatic deliberately to get things going. Martin didn't catch on and when it came out that what Fer was doing martin wasn't amused by the game he played.

Not amused by the game he played? I'm sorry, marg, but that just drips with irony or somethin'. ;-) Was this on Forum 2? I don't remember it at all.

In any case, I don't think it's relevant to this thread topic.

Jersey Girl wrote:

marg wrote:

Jersey Girl wrote:Lord, I'm letting this suck me in. I don't think that was Fer who posted using two handles on the same thread, I think it was Snowy Shaw.


And what does it matter to this topic? These boards are full of s***(s).

I believe his handle was The Way and if I remember correctly he posted as a religious fanatic deliberately to get things going. Martin didn't catch on and when it came out that what Fer was doing martin wasn't amused by the game he played.

Not amused by the game he played? I'm sorry, marg, but that just drips with irony or somethin'. ;-)

Do you think Martin played games? I think he's always been very serious, and posted always as himself, revealing only whatever he thought necessary of himself. I believe I mentioned on 2think that I was on a board once, in which the person controlling the board was posting as a number of different individuals just to see the legitmate people get angry at his created characters. I caught on, and on one level I found it extremely funny seeing how serious people were at the most absurd statements he/she would make. No matter the extremes to which this person went people seemed to accept it, as if someone could actually be that crazy. But when he/she managed to get 2 people fighting with each other and turning on one another plus with their power to ban, it no longer seemed so funny.

Anyhow Fer de lance did something similar, carried it to the extreme, it didn't bother me, but it bothered others and martin I remember was livid. Ya he gets livid all the time, but this was really really really livid. I'm not saying Martin was right to do so. To some extent one has to appreciate the limitations of the internet and that people do and will play games. They will post as other people, that's just part of the Net. And creative individuals which I'm not, can have lots of fun doing that. Personally I wouldn't get enjoyment out of it, but I can see how others would. It's a little like that "Bednar" poster. Of course in that case it's obvioius.