I've already agreed with every statement here,
And these statements do not refer to Uber. He engages. He also seems to be an instructor who is short on time and probably could use every shortcut he can get. He leaves for long stretches and then plays catch-up within a few hours as far as I've noticed.
And the problem is that this is NOT what you did. You instead used plagiarism as a sague [sic] to abandon the topic and just keep calling him a plagiarizer from then on. As a member who was just reading along I probably wouldn't have even commented if you called him a plagiarizer but then resumed the topic.
Probably because you don't get what is behind the act of plagiarism.
Remember Monica Crowley? Fox News darling, Trump lover. Was pegged to be an advisor of some kind for Trump, citing her 'expertise' due to her having received a PhD. Then someone scanned her dissertation and found that she had plagiarized a bunch. tsk tsk tsk. No longer a Trump advisor.
I sit on a college honor committee. Students suspected of cheating or plagiarism come to this committee. If we find them guilty, they go before a student honor committee.
Students plagiarize for 3 main reasons in my experience - they procrastinated to the point that, out of desperation, they copy-paste from the internet or a friend; they start out trying to do the work themselves, they soon discover they are in over their head and copy-paste; they want to try to impress their instructor, but realize that their own writing is falling short of their desires, so they copy-paste.
And if we find the accused guilty, the student honor committee generally fries them - even students realize how sleazy plagiarism is.
That is why it annoys me so much in discussions like this - it is lazy and dishonest and is often used to try to 'impress' those that that the plagiarist suspects will not know any better.
If you instead "Asked him to explain" which you claim is your follow up move, yet it was not. It looked like a red herring to me, topic was abandoned under the guise of outrage towards plagiarism...where was you follow up move to press him for explanations towards the plagiarized material??
Fair enough. But again I wish it wasn't used to end the discussion.
What discussion?
It was presented as a major 'gotcha' - Uber simply assumes that whatever his heroes wrote is 100% true and accurate - did you not see his lead-in posts? Taunting and condescending?
"You could find all major phyla arriving in a period of only 40-50 million years (known as the Cambrian Explosion) utterly destroying the Neo Darwinian gradualism inference.
Did you mean to call attention to the recalcitrant fact of those data, or their knock down capability? Opps. [sic] "
and
"So you are unfamiliar with the findings since the late 1980s and respond with "50 million years seems like a long tme [sic] to me."
30-seconds of research is all I ask. Not even one college class. It's so simple.
Think we are way past opps [sic] here. "
And that one was, in fact, to this comment - from me:
"How so?
Do you not think 50 million years is along time?
Are you ignoring the Precambiran on purpose?
Oops..."
And then out came the plagiarism.
Why waste time with a plagiarizer?
Especially one that should 1. know better and 2. tries to justify it?
Where was his move to explain why the plagiarized material was so important? Why did he ignore the actual citations I provided showing that HIS source was behind the times?
Why the double standards?
