You can't displace responsibility onto others for your posting behavior. You need to own that ____. That's on you.
Ok. So whether or not we summarize JP or quote her verbatim we're apparently twisting her words. When asked to explain, using examples from this thread, JP instead complains about something.
Like Pasterson she has now attempted to make herself a martyr on this thread, gotten huffy, refused to demonstrate how her assertions vis a vis 'unintentional plagiarism' can happen, and has made the thread about her instead of the topic.
This is Mopologetics 101.
JP, make your case, don't just state your case.
- Doc
Where have I not owned my posts? Show me that, Doc. I have stated and made my case to my satisfaction. And in order to preserve the integrity of Lemmie’s thread, have offered to contact Shades to split my comments out. I don’t know what the f*** else you want from me. So why don’t you just quit addressing me or talking about me on this thread, and contribute to Lemmie’s OP. In other words, stfu.
So you're chasing around a fly and in your world, I'm the idiot?
"Friends don't let friends be Mormon." Sock Puppet, MDB.
Music is my drug of choice.
"And that is precisely why none of us apologize for holding it to the celestial standard it pretends that it possesses." Kerry, MDB _________________
Jesse Pinkman wrote:I would just like to see the man left alone.
Have you defended Runnells in the same manner and asked DCP to leave him alone?
Jesse Pinkman wrote:If there was a similar thread made about Runnels, yes, I would. I have also emailed Runnels directly regarding my support.
But if DCP writes a blog post about Runnells, that’s okay?
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Jersey Girl wrote: Agree. This thread needs a split and here's why. The OP (Lemmie) obviously put a lot of effort into the documentation she's presented here. It's been dragged all over hell's half acre in a derail. It continues to derail. I believe that Shades would accommodate a split in order to preserve the documentation and serious nature of the topic at the request of the OP so long as he has in hand, links to the posts that constitute the derail.
I'm not at all invested in a Peterson related thread, however, I do recognize that the topic is important to others and presumably of importance to the OP herself.
I say save the integrity of the topic via a split.
Fine with me. I’ll even contact Shades myself.
Why? Are you the OP?
It's not your place to determine where the OP thinks the derail began.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb
For what it’s worth, I just PM’d Shades the following:
Jesse Pinkman wrote:Shades, can you do me a favor? This thread has become a runaway train. Could you please split out my comments and/or any other comments that you feel are off topic to a different thread?
Doctor Steuss wrote:I remember the first time I accidently hit “Control+C” and then “Control+V,” and then unintentionally reformatted it, and then unintentionally looked at the footnotes of the thing I accidently copy-pasted, and then unintentionally cited those footnotes as the source for the thing I copied (errors and all), and then unintentionally published it on my blog.
Life is funny that way.
Well done, Doctor. Very appropriate. I certainly can't remember the first time I did all of those things - or any of those things - not even close.
David Hume: "---Mistakes in philosophy are merely ridiculous, those in religion are dangerous."
DrW: "Mistakes in science are learning opportunities and are eventually corrected."
*sorry for the derail Lemmie, but JP’s total unwillingness to address the objective observable evidence about her friend is simply too much.
Last edited by Guest on Fri Dec 29, 2017 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
Jesse Pinkman wrote:For what it’s worth, I just PM’d Shades the following:
Jesse Pinkman wrote:Shades, can you do me a favor? This thread has become a runaway train. Could you please split out my comments and/or any other comments that you feel are off topic to a different thread?
Let Shades decide what is on topic and what isn’t.
Okay, well this is more than I can tolerate in one afternoon of intermittent reading of this thread. Before I fall of my chair and die from it, let's get real here. You are making what you think is some sort of responsibility-taking-conciliatory gesture that you think will rectify the last, oh I dunno, 5 pages or so of derailing inflicted by you on this thread (in which others have taken part) in defense of your so-called friend and his personal life (when the topic is a documentation of plagiarism) where you actually now think that Shades is going to spend his spare time (if he's got any) combing through near on a dozen pages of commentary to sort through a derail when the OP herself can provide him with a series of links wherein he can simply use those links to click off boxes in oh, 5 minutes time and facilitate a split.
What appears to be a gracious move on your part doesn't hold weight in the real world.
Failure is not falling down but refusing to get up.
Chinese Proverb