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.