Absolutely incredible.
To recap:
P86: "
You called him whiny, or did you forget that?"
DS: "
Nope. To be precise, I once told him to quit whining and answer a question that had been asked three times, and I once characterized part of one of his replies to me as a 'whine.' So sue me."
P86: "
You basicly called him a whiner. Confess it!"
DS: See above. Conclude whatever you like. Anyway I'm calling him a plagiarist, which is heck of a lot worse than calling him a whiner. There are plenty of whiners around here, but probably not too many plagiarists.
P86: "
Who's actually being the more dishonest one here is the question."
DS: "
Okay. Who is it then? Where was I dishonest? Show me please. Did you see the undisputed evidence of s0uljah's blatant plagiarism, to which he has yet to admit? Would you like to see it again?"
P86: "
Going to reply to my 2nd post were I address this or going to run away from the issue?"
DS: Trust me, I am not running away from anything, that is the point. And I won't. But, did
you address this? You asked, "Who's actually being the more dishonest one here is the question." So, who is it? You know my answer already.
P86: "
Oh also plagiarism is when someone doesn't give the source."
DS: "
That definition is far too vague."
P86: "
Don't think I'm going to let you get away from avoiding this issue."
P86 then offers the following definition:
" : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) WITHOUT CREDITING THE SOURCE"
DS: Thank you. That's
precisely what he did. Here's another definition:
"Plagiarism is the improper use, or failure to attribute, another person's writing or ideas (intellectual property). It can be as subtle as the inadvertent neglect to include quotes or references when citing another source or as
blatantly unethical as knowingly copying an entire paper verbatim and claiming it as your own work."
Source:
plagiarism.org FAQs
Emphasis added.
How about the OED:
"
plagiarize
1 take and use (the thoughts, writings, inventions, etc. of another person) as one's own.
2 pass off the thoughts etc. of (another person) as one's own."
Source:
The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Current English, Eighth Edition.
How about Black's Law Dictionary:
"
plagiarism,
n. The act or an instance of copying or stealing another's words or ideas and attributing them as one's own.
"'Plagiarism, which many people commonly think has to do with copyright, is not in fact a legal doctrine. True plagiarism is an ethical, not a legal, offense, and is enforceable by academic authorities, not courts. Plagiarism occurs when someone - a hurried student, a neglectful professor, an unscrupulous writer - falsely claims someone else's words, whether copyrighted or not, as his own. Of course, if the plagiarized work is protected by copyright, the unauthorized reproduction is also a copyright infringement." Paul Goldstein,
Copyright's Highway 12 (1994)."
Source:
Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition.
Still think I'm avoiding the issue?
The dispositive issue is not whether s0uljah provided a range of URLs at the end of his post; the dispositive issue is that the posts for which he claimed authorship contain large blocks of text clearly and uncontrovertibly appropriated from others without attribution. s0uljah conspicuously failed to attribute what he had appropriated to the originating sources. Indeed, s0uljah claimed these words and ideas as his own. "Here, I wrote this up," he claimed. "I wrote that essay," he claimed. But he did not write that essay. That is plagiarism.
So in summary provision of a range of URLs is insufficient as proper attribution and does not change the fact the he ripped these authors off
verbatim and stated "Here I wrote this up" and "I wrote this essay," thereby clearly claiming those words and thoughts as his own in complete accordance with the definitions of plagiarism provided above.
Bibliographies and footnotes and/or endnotes are par for the course in any essay. They do not represent a weasel clause allowing the purported author to escape the fact he clearly and brazenly copied huge blocks of text
verbatim and claimed them as his own.
This is a presentation and statement of fact and not an "attack," despite your best efforts to characterize it as such. The topic is plagiarism and it is thoroughly incorrect to suggest that I have avoided it, as demonstrated above.
So, Project86, perhaps you might answer your own question for me: "Who is being dishonest here"? I have answered it unequivocally.