Discussion of the ''DCP / plagiarism'' thread

[_Tator]

--Genuine clumsiness and stupidity. I.e., he really is this much of a hack and can't figure out how to produce original material, and thus needs to "steal," etc.

I'm voting for "Genuine". After all I am sure the church doesn't pay much for their "bought and paid for" apologists. The church gets the quality it pays for.

[_Lemmie]

Also, Lemmie, since you and others obviously feel this strongly about this, why not have the guts to email Dan directly?

You have asked and I have answered variations on this question three times in this thread already, so getting an actual answer doesn't appear to be your goal. What is your intent with this? Are you continuing this at the behest of Peterson?

ETA: I see Doctor Scratch has already addressed this possibility!

--"Bait." I sort of wonder if this is some kind of Mopologetic "trap." Maybe he's thinking to himself: "Those critics are anonymous cowards! Well, here: I'll give this to them. If they want to ruin me, let them try--here, I'm offering the opportunity right here on a silver platter! But then they'd have to drop the mask of anonymity and report my activities using their real names! And then at last I'll know who they are, and I will at last have my revenge!"

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Also, Lemmie, since you and others obviously feel this strongly about this, why not have the guts to email Dan directly?

You have asked and I have answered variations on this question three times in this thread already, so getting an actual answer doesn't appear to be your goal. What is your intent with this? Are you continuing this at the behest of Peterson?

ETA: I see Doctor Scratch has already addressed this possibility!

--"Bait." I sort of wonder if this is some kind of Mopologetic "trap." Maybe he's thinking to himself: "Those critics are anonymous cowards! Well, here: I'll give this to them. If they want to ruin me, let them try--here, I'm offering the opportunity right here on a silver platter! But then they'd have to drop the mask of anonymity and report my activities using their real names! And then at last I'll know who they are, and I will at last have my revenge!"

Where did you answer my question about emailing him? If you answered that, then I missed it. This thread has run multiple pages as you, yourself have indicated. I’m honestly not trying to ignore you.

As far as Scratch’s comment is concerned, yes, I’m sure that is exactly what he is doing.

No, Dan has not asked me to take up for him. And I’m done. The only reason I have continued to participate in this thread is that my words continue to get conveniently twisted and I have tried to clarify things. So continue your documentation project and as I have said before, let the chips fall where they may.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

JP,

You agreed with YB's erroneous statement, you stated that Pasterson is being maligned, you stated that you don't agree with the evidence of plagiarism (on the 3rd or 4th page, I think), then you shifted to we're going to destroy a man's livelihood because we're assholes for pointing out his plagiarism, then you shifted to it's unintentional plagiarism providing as 'proof' Pasterson's denial, and now you're claiming that you didn't claim it wasn't plagiarism.

What. In. The. Eff. Are. You. Doing?

You stated you didn't have time to fact check. You stated you were done with the thread. And now you're still on here just doing what Pasterson is doing by playing games. This is kind of bull ____ trolling at this point.

- Doc

No, that is NOT what I said, or if it came across that way, it is t what I meant, and I tried to clarify things.

Why the f*** are you so hell bent in twisting my words?

ETA— You are obviously not reading my subsequent posts when I have honestly tried to clarify my stance. So let’s simply agree to disagree and remain friends before I tell you to f*** off.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

JP,

You've stated twice now on this thread that you're done. This is MG-level trolling.

Examples of Pasterson's plagiarism has been given.

That's the bottom line. Do you deny he is a plagiarist?

- Doc

[_Lemmie]

Where did you answer my question about emailing him? If you answered that, then I missed it. This thread has run multiple pages as you, yourself have indicated. I’m honestly not trying to ignore you.

Talk about having your words twisted.

I said:

You have asked and I have answered variations on this question...

No, Dan has not asked me to take up for him. And I’m done.

Again? But you've already been done so many times!

So continue your documentation project and as I have said before, let the chips fall where they may.

Your permission is not necessary, but thank you for the good wishes. What chips are you referring to?

Earlier, you mentioned Peterson having explained his "unintentional" plagiarizing, as per Tom's post. That is incorrect, he has not explained anything for many of the documented cases, including this one dated 8.1.17; it is the Anfinsen piece Tom mentioned:

[Peterson] goes to a lot of work to blend the piece [from which he plagiarized] into his blog entry, so he can't argue he forgot he didn't actually write the words, or that it is just in note form and he forgot the reference. Why not just give proper attribution for what you use?

In Dimitrov's piece, after listing biographical data, there is a break, and then 4 unconnected examples from Anfinsen's life are numbered and listed separately as evidence for the title; two of them use the same quote but in different contexts. In my opinion, DCP lifted ALL 4 directly from the list, errors, references and all, and then tried to weave it into a narrative...

Below are 9 straight paragraphs from DCP's blog entry, with the source he plagiarized from, numbered as 1-4 from the other piece... Dark blue are the parts he took from Dimitrov, light blue are the identical quotes he uses. Note this part of his blog entry is entirely and exactly composed of Dimitrov's full piece.

As additional proof, note in the very first copied piece, I have enlarged two parts where DCP makes the identical error, found in his source, of repeating "the" just before the quote which begins with "the."

[The rest of my documentation can be found at:
http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 9#p1084299 ]

As Kishkumen noted, the source to determine if Peterson has plagiarized is in his writings. It is not possible to plagiarize in the manner in which Peterson does, and for as many times as he has, and still argue it is unintentional.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Where did you answer my question about emailing him? If you answered that, then I missed it. This thread has run multiple pages as you, yourself have indicated. I’m honestly not trying to ignore you.

Talk about having your words twisted.

I said:

You have asked and I have answered variations on this question...

No, Dan has not asked me to take up for him. And I’m done.

Again? But you've already been done so many times!

So continue your documentation project and as I have said before, let the chips fall where they may.

Your permission is not necessary, but thank you for the good wishes. What chips are you referring to?

Earlier, you mentioned Peterson having explained his "unintentional" plagiarizing, as per Tom's post. That is incorrect, he has not explained anything for many of the documented cases, including this one dated 8.1.17; it is the Anfinsen piece Tom mentioned:

[Peterson] goes to a lot of work to blend the piece [from which he plagiarized] into his blog entry, so he can't argue he forgot he didn't actually write the words, or that it is just in note form and he forgot the reference. Why not just give proper attribution for what you use?

In Dimitrov's piece, after listing biographical data, there is a break, and then 4 unconnected examples from Anfinsen's life are numbered and listed separately as evidence for the title; two of them use the same quote but in different contexts. In my opinion, DCP lifted ALL 4 directly from the list, errors, references and all, and then tried to weave it into a narrative...

Below are 9 straight paragraphs from DCP's blog entry, with the source he plagiarized from, numbered as 1-4 from the other piece... Dark blue are the parts he took from Dimitrov, light blue are the identical quotes he uses. Note this part of his blog entry is entirely and exactly composed of Dimitrov's full piece.

As additional proof, note in the very first copied piece, I have enlarged two parts where DCP makes the identical error, found in his source, of repeating "the" just before the quote which begins with "the."

[The rest of my documentation can be found at:
viewtopic.php?p=1084299#p1084299 ]

As Kishkumen noted, the source to determine if Peterson has plagiarized is in his writings. It is not possible to plagiarize in the manner in which Peterson does, and for as many times as he has, and still argue it is unintentional.

The only thing I really have to say to you at this point is what should have said a long time ago. F*** you.

I have tried to clarify my stance on things only to continue to be misunderstood. Obviously, either I’m not communicating things well, or you are purposely trying to twist my words to prove yourself right. If you wish to determine yourself the winner in this debate, by all means, be my guest.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

JP,

You've stated twice now on this thread that you're done. This is MG-level trolling.

Examples of Pasterson's plagiarism has been given.

That's the bottom line. Do you deny he is a plagiarist?

- Doc

Please read my last post to Lemmie. And no, trolling is not simply disagreeing with the popular view on a thread. Sorry to disappoint you. But by all means, if you feel I’m trolling, feel free to report my posts to Shades.

[Guest]

The only thing I really have to say to you at this point is what should have said a long time ago. F*** you.

It took you more than thirty posts in 4 days when all you really wanted to say was that? Come on, woman, be a little more assertive next time!

(On a more serious note, I notice the "____ you" came right after my further description of how Peterson's plagiarism can't be unintentional. Was that in place of commenting on it?)

For Jesse Pinkman, here is Peterson's latest explanation for his plagiarism:

*  It appears that one of my more personally hostile critics is accusing me of plagiarism in these notes.  Well, they’re notes from my reading [is that why he introduces them as "from my manuscript," or simply posts them as his own blog entries??]  I don’t claim anything else for them.  But, I guess, if you want to call note-taking “plagiarism,” they’re plagiarized.  To my taste, my critic seems to have set his plagiarism-detection device at far too high a level of sensitivity in this regard, and that’s yielding false positives.  But anonymous online critics are free to do whatever they choose, I suppose, and this critic is plainly enjoying himself.

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/danpeterso ... truth.html
 

So Peterson's gone from unintentional plagiarism to now calling his blog entries "note-taking" and accusing one of his "more personally hostile critics" of being too sensitive to plagiarism.

I have tried to clarify my stance on things only to continue to be misunderstood. Obviously, either I’m not communicating things well, or you are purposely trying to twist my words to prove yourself right. If you wish to determine yourself the winner in this debate, by all means, be my guest.

??? I wasn't aware that we were debating anything, and I have proved my case with facts and analysis. I'm sure you think your words were twisted by me, but to argue that I have done so to "prove my case" is simply ludicrous.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

JP,

You've stated twice now on this thread that you're done. This is MG-level trolling.

Examples of Pasterson's plagiarism has been given.

That's the bottom line. Do you deny he is a plagiarist?

- Doc

Please read my last post to Lemmie. And no, trolling is not simply disagreeing with the popular view on a thread. Sorry to disappoint you. But by all means, if you feel I’m trolling, feel free to report my posts to Shades.

The popular view on this thread is Pasterson is a plagiarizer. You stated that you didn't disagree with that fact, now you're stating you do.

Please answer my question:

Do you deny he is a plagiarist?

- Doc