Watch: CNN Cuts Tulsi Gabbard Off as She Lays Out the Inconvenient Facts of the Russia Hoax

Hans Blaster · Tuesday at 8:34 PM

Vambram said:
I didn't violate any copyright because I literally included the link of the article. The facts are the facts and the Federalist is not the only website providing the facts of this newly declassified documents and emails.

The copyright is between you, the federalist, and the board mods. My biggest complaint is that you gave no indication it wasn't your work. The only clues was the editing quality with embedded links. Your link at the end was not indicated to be the source. I guessed that it might be and opened it, making your plagiarism obvious.

Vambram · Tuesday at 9:05 PM

Hans Blaster said:
The copyright is between you, the federalist, and the board mods. My biggest complaint is that you gave no indication it wasn't your work. The only clues was the editing quality with embedded links. Your link at the end was not indicated to be the source. I guessed that it might be and opened it, making your plagiarism obvious.

I didn't plagerise. I quoted an article on a website.

RocksInMyHead · Tuesday at 9:37 PM

Vambram said:
I didn't plagerise. I quoted an article on a website.

There is a quote function when posting:

Alternatively, you can use quotation marks, or make it clear at the start that what you're posting is a quote - e.g. "From the Federalist: '...'"

Unless you make it clear that what you're positing is a quote, the default assumption is that the text that you post constitutes your own thoughts.

BPPLEE · Tuesday at 9:53 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
There is a quote function when posting:
View attachment 367850

Alternatively, you can use quotation marks, or make it clear at the start that what you're posting is a quote - e.g. "From the Federalist: '...'"

Unless you make it clear that what you're positing is a quote, the default assumption is that the text that you post constitutes your own thoughts.

I would think that posting a link to the source would be sufficient.
Who can't understand that?
Y'all seemed to have no problem with post #82 where the same thing was done @Hans Blaster

RocksInMyHead · Tuesday at 10:14 PM

BPPLEE said:
Y'all seemed to have no problem with post #82 where the same thing was done

Can you identify the formatting differences between the two posts?

BPPLEE · Tuesday at 10:17 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
Can you identify the formatting differences between the two posts?

The only difference is that the link was given before the excerpt.
Were there any quotation marks?
Was any explanation given that the excerpt was from that source?
It's the same as the one you have a problem with

RocksInMyHead · Tuesday at 10:20 PM

BPPLEE said:
The only difference is that the link was given before the excerpt.
Were there any quotation marks?
Was any explanation given that the excerpt was from that source?
It's the same as the one you have a problem with

The quotation is indented and italicized, which is another acceptable way to indicate a quote.

Additionally, the post makes a claim: "Naw, it's the other way around. Trump hasn't shut up about Biden this time or Obama last time and again since the Epstein debacle."

Then a link to a source is provided. Then a quote from the source, formatted in a way to indicate that it is a quote, is given to back up the claim.

Simply copying and pasting an article does not constitute real "discussion" in a discussion forum. It's good form to at least provide some of your own thoughts, since you are the person participating in the discussion, not the author you're quoting.

BPPLEE · Tuesday at 10:34 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
The quotation is indented and italicized, which is another acceptable way to indicate a quote.

Additionally, the post makes a claim: "Naw, it's the other way around. Trump hasn't shut up about Biden this time or Obama last time and again since the Epstein debacle."

Then a link to a source is provided. Then a quote from the source, formatted in a way to indicate that it is a quote, is given to back up the claim.

Simply copying and pasting an article does not constitute real "discussion" in a discussion forum. It's good form to at least provide some of your own thoughts, since you are the person participating in the discussion, not the author you're quoting.

People often post a link and then a quote from it or vice versa, I have done it myself.
Sometimes the excerpt speaks for itself and there's no need to comment
The only problem I have with the post that you and Hans have singled out is the length of it.

Say it aint so · Tuesday at 11:02 PM

Vambram said:
You appear to be in denial of the facts.

Projection your honor.

Fantine · Tuesday at 11:06 PM

Postvieww said:
Just the beginning. This whole house of cards is coming down. The American people have been duped by the deep state establishment. Truth will prevail!

The American people certainly have been duped.
2016 Fool them once, shame on the Heritage Foundation.
2024 Fool them twice, shame on them.

A2SG · Tuesday at 11:49 PM

Postvieww said:
You are in for some truth bombs. Brace yourself.

Consider me braced. Just be careful, some "truth bombs" can throw shrapnel back to the sender.

-- A2SG, but if these "truth bombs" are anything like any of the other "truth bombs" the GOP promised were coming, well, let's just say I'm not heading to a bunker quite yet....

eclipsenow · Wednesday at 6:47 AM

Always in His Presence said:
Watch: CNN Cuts Tulsi Gabbard Off as She Lays Out the Inconvenient Facts of the Russia Hoax
However, on Wednesday, CNN proved it sometimes knows when to stop: namely, when Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard starts listing inconvenient facts.

So, for those of you who missed it, Gabbard was laying out even more of the evidence she had that the outgoing administration of former President Barack Obama, in late 2016 and early 2017, essentially manufactured the Russia hoax out of intelligence that was dodgy at best and invented at worst.

How many threads on the same subject are you going to start?

iluvatar5150 · Wednesday at 8:02 AM

eclipsenow said:
How many threads on the same subject are you going to start?

DaisyDay · Wednesday at 9:13 AM

BPPLEE said:
I would think that posting a link to the source would be sufficient.
Who can't understand that?
Y'all seemed to have no problem with post #82 where the same thing was done @Hans Blaster

Calling me out?

BPPLEE said:
The only difference is that the link was given before the excerpt.
Were there any quotation marks?
Was any explanation given that the excerpt was from that source?
It's the same as the one you have a problem with

The part from the article in post #82 is clearly indented and italicized and follows the link. @Vambram gives no indication that none of his post contains his own words or thoughts.

BPPLEE · Wednesday at 9:22 AM

DaisyDay said:
Calling me out?

The part from the article in post #82 is clearly indented and italicized and follows the link. @Vambram gives no indication that none of his post contains his own words or thoughts.

Without calling him out there is a liberal poster who gives a headline that is also a link and then posts an excerpt with no quotation marks or any indication that it is an excerpt but everyone knows it is and no one says anything about it.

I didn’t call you out I just used your post as an example

DaisyDay · Wednesday at 10:03 AM

BPPLEE said:
I didn’t call you out I just used your post as an example

An example of what? My post contradicted your assertion, ^_^

yet, for some reason, you felt compelled to use it. :doh:

Always in His Presence · Wednesday at 10:15 AM

eclipsenow said:
How many threads on the same subject are you going to start?

However this is the very first and only one I opened about the subject in the OP - which is how CNN is censoring the news by cutting off a live report.

You should have known that by reading the title.

Hans Blaster · Wednesday at 10:37 AM

Vambram said:
I didn't plagerise. I quoted an article on a website.

And as best could be told without checking out a link presented it as if it was your own work. When things are quoted the reader should be informed of the quoted nature (if not the source) *before* reaching the text. If you had just moved the link to the top and then added "Margot wrote:" or something like it before the text there would have been no confusion, or false impression of authorship.

Always in His Presence · Wednesday at 10:51 AM

What is the topic of the thread - it seems to have gotten lost....

Say it aint so · Wednesday at 11:15 AM

What exactly is the Russia hoax in specificity?

Surely can't be Russian didn't interfere in US elections. Because that's true and they did it in the EU as well. Surely can't be Trump et al officials weren't interacting with Russians and weren't willing participants in Russian help. Because that's true as well. So what exactly is the Russia hoax in specificity?

Watch: CNN Cuts Tulsi Gabbard Off as She Lays Out the Inconvenient Facts of the Russia Hoax

On August Recess

Born-again Christian; Constitutional conservative

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Dona Quixote

Gumby

Scripture is God's word, Science is God's works