For Marg

[_JAK]

Here is an example of a statement made by the President of the US. In the US, what person is more authoritative than the president? See Here

Politics and religion have much in common. Truth by assertion. And, by the way, no one has attacked that criticism of religion and that it is a danger of religion.

No. But we attack the person who makes the observation.

This is all "Off Topic" right?

JAK

[_JAK]

I didn't post the above reply to debate anything. I responded to your inquiry. In the above post, you ask another question:

How many times have you seen me provide links to the specific source.

It would be no exaggeration to say that I've seen you provide several thousands of links in several thousands of posts. Perhaps 15,000 posts by now.

Jersey Girl,

I understand that. Do you understand that after being away for a week, I find that it puzzling that I continue to be the target of attack?

JAK

[_Gadianton]

I'm not trying to tell you not to like JAK or not to respect him, Marg, I'm just answering your questions. I appreciate that you can at least see the other side of the story.

An anonymous tip in PM can't go ignored, how about another example?

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 019#126019

Most of this is predictable JAK, rote "evidence and reason talk".

But then at the end:

Broad social and cultural changes can be traced to Johannes Gutenberg’s invention of the printing press. With time, the print revolution broke up the stagnant medieval disinformation monopoly and led to an explosion of knowledge that was disseminated to masses of people who had previously had no access to knowledge that was not transmitted from above by some hierarchy of power, either religious or secular.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2005/1 ... ed_out.php

Note how awkward the transition is between bold and italicized...

But I call my informant to take a look at the paragraph just above this one,

We also have evidence in the above dialogue (C7 & charity) that many prefer the irrational over reason and reject request for evidence of claims. When dogma and blind faith rush in to fill the vacuum left by reason's departure, they allow for the exercise of new forms of power more arbitrary and less derived from evidence.

It's easy to read JAK into this one due to the redundant "evidence and reason" talk, but, that sure is a slick turn of phrase there at the end? C'mon, he couldn't of!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/users/profile/thedirtman

Apparently, straight from page 48 of none other than Al Gore's book, "Assult on Reason"!

Notice again how the italicized and the bold do not flow together. Nope, didn't even cross my mind to Google the italicized portion.

[_marg]

When I quoted from the World Book Encyclopedia (1985), someone found a very similar statement from a web source which I had never seen and charged I copied from that web source. The charge was repeated multiple times after I stated exactly where I got the information. On the Nicene Creed, it can be found many places on the Internet and in print.

The issue is or should be whether the information is reliable or accurate. What is discussion about if it’s not about information and its credibility?

I don’t recall the specifics of reference in posts long past. However, I do know that multiple sources may have the same author or publishers of informational data.

Having been gone for a week, I find it odd that I remain a target of attack or the subject of discussion about anything.

It is odd that you are a target JAK, maybe I'm partially to blame for that. It looks to other people that we work as a team and that I'm always writing in support of you..according to Scratch because I'm emotionally infatuated. Not so, but that's besides the point. This thread, developed from a thread by Scratch in Terrestial accusing a Kerry (Mormon apologist who doesn't post here) (actually he was damndope on 2 think) of plagiarizing. Gad wrote a post making a comment and incidentally mentioned you plagiarized and I called him on it for singling you out. Gad then set up this thread to respond to that. I've never noticed previously that you will use portions of web sites, sentences, partial sentences from various authors and not cite. Factual information I can understand, but I have a difficult time accepting it when it's the creative ideas and creative wording from others. On the one hand I can appreciate that discussions on message boards are exchange of ideas, and most messages are written anonymously, few people read them, they invariably end up in cyber oblivion. However over and above the notion of exchange of ideas for discussion, there is by many people a feeling that using the creatively expressed words of others exactly without attribution is stealing, it's just not done. One either expresses themselves using their own words or it not their own words they cite...even on a message board. Obviously you don't see it the same. I really don't know your specific reasoning on this. I know you aren't reliant on the words and ideas of others, that you are knowledgable so I don't understand why you do plagiarize occasionally.

marg pointed out close wording of others or the same wording in which time was not taken to document the specific source. How many times have you seen me provide links to the specific source. Consider all the ignored sources on “Dangers of Religion” which no one addressed. They were direct links to specific information on that specific topic.

I guess you reason that if people on message boards don't bother to go to links and discuss them, they are even less likely to bother recognizing any cites you might make?

Someone or many individuals do not like issues or points of positions. The cheap attack is ad hominem. Don’t address issues, attack people for raising them. Make persons the issue not a topic of discussion. It’s quite clear.

Yes that's true. The most important thing for discussion purposes is the ideas presented, and not citing is not indicative as poor critical thinking. I did make a mistake when I thought you didn't understand what the Arian position was with respect to the nature of a God and son..., and thought you had botched that. I'm sorry about that, I was being lazy with research to verify. I do agree with Gad, that you should either be citing the work of others even if it's a phrase not a sentence, or else just put everything in your own words. Some people think it's a big deal. Personally I don't think it's all that big a deal as far as "exchange of ideas, critical thinking" goes and the information is correct, but it's about standard commonly acceptable practices, that one gives credit where credit is due.

[_JAK]

Gadianton engages in pure partisan games. Such game playing obfuscates issues which otherwise would be open for discussion. You, Gadianton, are a threat to open discussion of ideas. Your ad hominems are irrelevant to substantive issues.

You do not discuss issues, you attack me, personally. As some of us say of Bush – “an empty suit.” What issues have you addressed? What ideas have you expressed?

Discussion forms are not publishing houses. They can facilitate discussion of the merits of issues. Instead, you have chosen to make it a place of personal attack on me. What is it that you have to go back a year and four months here for a post to make ad hominem? What is it that you must turn an otherwise substantive discussion of issues into personal attack?

I would have hoped that a level of intellectual advance would graduate you from this boring, childish descending scale of limitation which precludes any academic discussion of issues.

I have been advised that there is a click here and that I am on the outside of that click to be targeted. You certainly provide evidence to that conclusion. Now look for some website that has on it a few of these words and in order to charge plagiarism.

How is your website link to the Huffington Post relevant?

You are like George Bush who today linked Obama to terrorism. source source

After a more than a week of no posts from me, I should think you would have better comments/topics to make on more substantive issues than continued ad hominem against a single poster.

Your attack on “evidence and reason” places you in a different time era. Yet you attempt to use the same in personal attack. That’s a self-contradiction.

Since you make no attack on substance, I assume you agree with it. Have you read The Assult on Reason?
It’s reviewed many places including The New York Times. If you have not, read the entire book. Instead of attacking me, address some of the more eloquent issues raised in that book of which the title is representative.

Of your “anonymous tip in PM,” I am skeptical. PMs are not anonymous here. It’s another diversion from address of issues raised. Can you articulate your opposition to “evidence and reason”? I should like to see that case made by you.

My prediction is that you will continue ad hominem, ignore substance of issue, and work though your PM network to orchestrate further attack of me or the intellectually superior marg.

So we shall see.

JAK

[_marg]

Gadianton engages in pure partisan games.

Jak it's not Gad's fault, it's mine really. He only made a small comment re plagiarism and yourself, I pursued the issue. And he came up with some examples supporting his accusation. Whether or not Gad is a critical thinker is another issue. The particular main critical issue here is plagiarism.

At what point JAK is it wrong to use the exact words of others and not give recognition to the source? Is the amount which is copied critical to whether it is right or wrong, assuming at some point plagiarism is wrong. Is the context critical? Where does one draw the line and accuse someone of "stealing" the work of others, when it is obviously the words of others? Should this be an issue at all on the Internet? If so, then under what context, what criteria, what parameters?

[_Gadianton]

JAK,

It doesn't matter if people read your links. Duh. You don't cite another's work just in hopes your readers will digest the source material. You cite under "fair use" to give proper credit, otherwise, it's basically stealing. You make it worse for yourself when you go beyond citing full passages and intertwain complete sentences stolen from others into your own paragraphs. This proves it goes beyond laziness and clearly into the bounds of intellectual theft.

Why do I have to go back a year and four months to make an "ad hominem"? Because that's just the kind of low-down dirty guy I am. And I'm proud of it, actually. The chicks love it.

More evidence that you can't, or are unwilling to read, is that you accuse me of attacking "reason and evidence". I never did such a thing. I've simply noted that your dry, rote appeals to it aren't interesting.

[_Mister Scratch]

Wow. JAK's credibility has been completely destroyed as far as I am concerned. The only real reason to continue reading his posts at this point, in my opinion, would be the sport of trying to catch him plagiarizing yet again. That said, I'm glad to see marg taking responsibility for opening this can of worms. JAK is right to label her "intellectually superior"---since compared to him, she pretty clearly is. Let's just hope that she wises up to the reality of the situation here, and that she kicks JAK to the curb.

[_Alter Idem]

I should think continued attack on JAK would be rather old by now. It certainly is tiresome.

See Nicene Creed and see “History” as you scroll down on the article in Wikipedia.

Also see further history at this website.

The “Indian Christianity” is a plethora of topics few of which are relevant to Nicene Creed.

Just exactly what is the “botched job” of JAK here?

JAK

Umm...I agree with Ren. Talking about yourself in third person is odd, whether you're a sports star or an internet poster.

[_marg]

Umm...I agree with Ren. Talking about yourself in third person is odd, whether you're a sports star or an internet poster.

I see. That's what Ren was referring to when referring to 3rd person. O.K I can see someone being critical of that, it's a petty issue though.