Discussion of the ''DCP / plagiarism'' thread

[_I have a question]

OK. We can continue this discussion in another thread if you would like. I haven’t read this yet.

No thanks.

The point about DCP’s behaviour towards Runnells is directly relevant in rebutting what you think is your defence of him in this thread. Read it, or don’t.

[_Jesse Pinkman]

For what it’s worth, I just PM’d Shades the following:

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?

Thanks. I appreciate it.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=47236&p=1101912#p1101912

Liz

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.

Then why were you the one that suggested a split to begin with? Who did you expect to do it? Lemmie doesn’t have admin rights. Neither do I.

[_Lemmie]

For what it’s worth, I just PM’d Shades the following:

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?

Thanks. I appreciate it.

http://www.mormondiscussions.com/phpBB3 ... 2#p1101912

Liz

Let Shades decide what is on topic and what isn’t.

Hi Jesse Pinkman, with all due respect, this is actually a thread started by me, not you.

In my opinion, although i am sure this was not her intent, some of JP's posts and the responses to her posts demonstrate quite clearly the thoroughly untenable nature of Peterson's excuses for his plagiarism. Even her attack on me where she stated that what she has really wanted to do for a long time was to say "F*** you" came in response to a detailed post about plagiarism that she clearly could not respond to. In my opinion, her attack on me is evidence that she had no way to argue Peterson's plagiarism is unintentional, and so she lashed out with a personal attack.

After this dies down, I'll summarize and pull together the facts of the ongoing case so that the thread can get back on track, but I have no problem suggesting a few posts I really do think are derails to Dr. Shades and then letting the thread stand as it is. My main goal is to communicate clearly my findings.

[_Jersey Girl]

Then why were you the one that suggested a split to begin with? Who did you expect to do it? Lemmie doesn’t have admin rights. Neither do I.

Do yourself and this thread a favor and READ the posts before you reply to them. You're only contributing to a more lengthy reply and for that matter, so am I in responding to your failure to read and respond to what you has been posted to you.

Here is what I enlarged in a response to you when I questioned why you volunteered to request the split.

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.

Why does anyone have to do your thinking for you? Lemmie doesn't have admin rights? What has that got to do with anything that I stated?

Absolutely nothing.

In one sentence I described the process and you act as if that weren't posted as part of a response to you.

[_Jersey Girl]

Hi Jesse Pinkman, with all due respect, this is actually a thread started by me, not you.

In my opinion, although i am sure this was not her intent, some of JP's posts and the responses to her posts demonstrate quite clearly the thoroughly untenable nature of Peterson's excuses for his plagiarism. Even her attack on me where she stated that what she has really wanted to do for a long time was to say "F*** you" came in response to a detailed post about plagiarism that she clearly could not respond to. In my opinion, her attack on me is evidence that she had no way to argue Peterson's plagiarism is unintentional, and so she lashed out with a personal attack.

After this dies down, I'll summarize and pull together the facts of the ongoing case so that the thread can get back on track, but I have no problem suggesting a few posts I really do think are derails to Dr. Shades and then letting the thread stand as it is. My main goal is to communicate clearly my findings.

Considering your above, I'm unsure if I need to apologize for suggesting a split. I can only say that it was my best suggestion in order to preserve your content. I didn't fully considered the evidences that you listed above.

Apologies!

[_Lemmie]

Hi Jesse Pinkman, with all due respect, this is actually a thread started by me, not you.

In my opinion, although i am sure this was not her intent, some of JP's posts and the responses to her posts demonstrate quite clearly the thoroughly untenable nature of Peterson's excuses for his plagiarism. Even her attack on me where she stated that what she has really wanted to do for a long time was to say "F*** you" came in response to a detailed post about plagiarism that she clearly could not respond to. In my opinion, her attack on me is evidence that she had no way to argue Peterson's plagiarism is unintentional, and so she lashed out with a personal attack.

After this dies down, I'll summarize and pull together the facts of the ongoing case so that the thread can get back on track, but I have no problem suggesting a few posts I really do think are derails to Dr. Shades and then letting the thread stand as it is. My main goal is to communicate clearly my findings.

Considering your above, I'm unsure if I need to apologize for suggesting a split. I can only say that it was my best suggestion in order to preserve your content. I didn't fully considered the evidences that you listed above.

Apologies!

No apologies necessary at all, Jersey Girl! Thanks for keeping the focus on the content.

I took your suggestion about splitting the thread exactly as you stated above, a suggestion that was based on attempting to preserve the content. I do agree that my documentation has gotten a little buried, which is why I'll probably pull that content back together in a summarizing post, like Tom did earlier.

It remains a mystery why Jesse Pinkman considers saying "F*** you" to be an explanation as to how Peterson's plagiarism is unintentional, but under the circumstances i think it's appropriate to leave it standing as a testament to Mopologetic tactics!

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

[_Jesse Pinkman]

Just so you don’t have to continue to wonder, the F*** you comment was simply offered due to my frustration of your treatment and Doc’s treatment of me in this thread. I obviously don’t have thick enough skin to post here at times and frankly I should know better than to attempt to offer any type of defense to Dan on anything that is said here. It always becomes a pile on and I end up getting my feelings hurt.

I didn’t make any further comment on what you had documented because it was my understanding that you and others did not appreciate my continued participation here and I had been trying to exit the thread for several pages. If people hadn’t kept twisting my words, I would have stopped posting here a long time ago.

Good luck with recompiling your information. As long as I am no longer maligned, I’ll stay out of everyone’s hair.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

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.

Oh, my. What I want from you is a good faith effort to back up the claim of "unintentional plagiarism" because it boggles my mind how someone like Mr. Pasterson can do that.

You might as well tell me that I unintentionally drank a fifth of vodka and unintentionally got into my car and then I claim ignorance of the law when I get nailed by an asshole cop who dared pull me over. In fact I should be indignant, no?

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Just so you don’t have to continue to wonder, the F*** you comment was simply offered due to my frustration of your treatment and Doc’s treatment of me in this thread. I obviously don’t have thick enough skin to post here at times and frankly I should know better than to attempt to offer any type of defense to Dan on anything that is said here. It always becomes a pile on and I end up getting my feelings hurt.

I didn’t make any further comment on what you had documented because it was my understanding that you and others did not appreciate my continued participation here and I had been trying to exit the thread for several pages. If people hadn’t kept twisting my words, I would have stopped posting here a long time ago.

Good luck with recompiling your information. As long as I am no longer maligned, I’ll stay out of everyone’s hair.

You're really not the victim here, JP. Does this routine normally work for you?

- Doc

[_mentalgymnast]

I didn’t make any further comment on what you had documented because it was my understanding that you and others did not appreciate my continued participation here and I had been trying to exit the thread for several pages. If people hadn’t kept twisting my words, I would have stopped posting here a long time ago.

Deja Vu.

Regards,
MG