Jump to content

What improvements would you like to see in this discussion forum?


Greg

Recommended Posts

Anyway...... His, are the kind of unbelievably ignorant, dishonest, and trolling posts that really hurt discussion boards!

no - you were originally asked a question if the reference offered was a possible attribution for your unattributed text; in follow-up, you were again asked, "might the referenced article be a possible attribution for you; if not, where did you source it from?" You've chosen not to answer each time asked.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - you were originally asked a question if the reference offered was a possible attribution for your unattributed text; in follow-up, you were again asked, "might the referenced article be a possible attribution for you; if not, where did you source it from?" You've chosen not to answer each time asked.

.

Those were statements of facts!

No need for citation like you wouldn't have to cite your source when you say, earth is shaped like a sphere.

I don't have to cater to you.

You should go to Question Section about Cross-posting (post #83), and read the explanation given by sources regarding citations and copyright infringements. Read them several times.....seems they're not sinking in there, Waldo. Persevere in reading.

If you insist to continue with your issue, you should make your own thread about it, or post it here on this thread, or in the cross-posting thread.

This was your response to the explanation given by credible sources:

Waldo: you copied it from "somewhere" and you pasted into your MLW thread OP... and I insist upon that! :D

Ignorance doesn't have to be humored. Especially when you're being obtused about it.

If you don't want to accept knowledge.....what more can I say? You may treat it like a joke....that's up to you.

However, that doesn't mean you should go freely pestering and trolling threads - spoiling the discussion for everyone - simply because you want to insist your way.

Obtuseness in the face of something legitimate and factual........is deliberate trolling.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You should go to Question Section and read the explanation given by sources regarding citations and copyright infringements. Read them several times.....seems they're not sinking in there, Waldo. Persevere.

no - I've not said word one about copyright infringement... I've been speaking to unattributed commentary. The latest example focuses on extract commentary from one of your posts, provides a reference article and asks you directly if it might be an attribution source for that commentary... and if not, asks where you did source your commentary from. You've chosen to ignore the multiple asks.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - I've not said word one about copyright infringement... I've been speaking to unattributed commentary. The latest example focuses on extract commentary from one of your posts, provides a reference article and asks you directly if it might be an attribution source for that commentary... and if not, asks where you did source your commentary from. You've chosen to ignore the multiple asks.

.

Read #83 of the Cross-Posting thread. It's explained clearly by credible sources.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/25819-a-question-on-cross-posting/

If it goes over your head, maybe you shouldn't be participating in this kind of discussions. Just saying.....

You can ask a thousand times more.....I'm not obliged to cater to your obtuseness.

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can ask a thousand times more.....I'm not obliged to cater to your obtuseness.

if someone goes to the time/effort to group together a dozen, "facts/common knowledge" (or otherwise), within a written article... and another person copies that same information grouping and presents it, verbatim or minimally changed, as their own writings... without attributing the original 'someone', is that correct/allowed?

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if someone goes to the time/effort to group together a dozen, "facts/common knowledge" (or otherwise), within a written article... and another person copies that same information grouping and presents it, verbatim or minimally changed, as their own writings... without attributing the original 'someone', is that correct/allowed?

.

If I borrowed from a phone book and gave a list from their page - like a group of alphabetical names - it's allowed.

Yep, even if the phone company spent all the time, manpower and money to compile those information in one book.....

I can LIBERALLY borrow from it.

Are all published works copyrighted?

Actually, no. The Copyright Act only protects works that express original ideas or information. For example, you could borrow liberally from the following without fear of plagiarism:

  • Compilations of readily available information, such as the phone book
Do I have to cite sources for every fact I use?

No. You do not have to cite sources for facts that are not the result of unique individual research. Facts that are readily available from numerous sources and generally known to the public are considered "common knowledge," and are not protected by copyright laws. You can use these facts liberally in your paper without citing authors.

http://www.plagiarism.org/ask-the-experts/faq/

As you see, , Plagiarism and Copyright Laws often go together....that's why I gave the info on copyrights!

Works Not Covered By Copyright

You may want to use or incorporate someone else's work into your own. While the works of others may be protected by copyright, there are a class of works that fall outside the scope of copyright law. The following categories of work are not eligible for copyright protection, regardless of when they were created and whether or not they bear a copyright notice.

http://www.dmlp.org/...vered-copyright

Just so to be clear, here's what I've posted:

betsy:

Fact: the universe, in its current state is deteriorating.

Fact: the rotation of the earth is slowing.

Fact: the magnetic field of the earth is fading.

Fact: Erosion constantly wear out the features of the earth.

Fact: Stars, including our sun, burns billions of tons of fuel everyday, and will eventually exhaust their fuel.

Fact: Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to dust.

Fact: Our houses, and machines wear out.

Fact: atoms decay to simpler products.

And here's what's written in the referenced site, I highlighted the relevant statements:

That is not what most people believed when this Scripture was recorded. According to human observations, the universe was unchangeable. The statement that the universe is constantly becoming more random, less orderly, is a scientifically testable statement. The fact that the universe, in its present state is deteriorating, has been fully verified by modern science. Everywhere we look, from the scale of the galaxies down to the scale of the atom, we find a universal, natural tendency of all systems to go from order to disorder; from complexity to simplicity. Thus, clusters of galaxies are dispersing as the galaxies move away from one another.

The rotation of the earth is slowing; the magnetic field of the earth is decaying. Erosion constantly wears down the features of the earth. Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to a pile of dust. Our houses, our machines wear out and are finally abandoned and replaced. Many atoms decay to simpler products and it is even being postulated that sub-atomic particles, such as the proton, decay, though ever so slowly, into energy.

Each star, including our own sun, is constantly burning up billions of tons of fuel every second. Eventually, every star in the universe, unless God intervenes (which we are certain He will), will exhaust its fuel and become dark and cold. The universe would then be cold and dead, and, of course, all life would have ceased long before the last death throes of the universe. Even now, every so often a nova or supernova occurs, and a star very rapidly becomes less orderly, in a gigantic explosion.

http://www.icr.org/article/modern-scientific-discoveries-verify-scriptures/

I still stand by what I said, that no citation is needed for statement of facts (and I gave something to support my stance).

If I happened to be wrong about this (which I'm not)......there is reason to be confused about it.

But I'm right about this, Waldo .....so don't get your hopes high. :D

However..........you deliberately changed the format of ICR (to make them look like my statements of facts), and you also did some editing. Imagine that! You spent time and effort to edit and re-format your reference.

What you did was DELIBERATE!

Your intention was to discredit me....and you deliberately were dishonest about it.

Given that you deliberately committed a dishonest act.....I don't think you have any weight at all to be wagging your finger

in my face. In fact, you're laughable, since obviously, you can't even tell what's dishonest or not! :lol:

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that you deliberately committed a dishonest act.....

no - I did no such thing. I initially presented a reference link to an article, a graphic image from that article with highlighted text, and asked you if it might be a possible attribution for that same unattributed text of yours; again: http://www.icr.org/a...ify-scriptures/-------- might this be a possible attribution for you - yes? --- in follow-up, you were again asked, "might the referenced article be a possible attribution for you; if not, where did you source it from?" You refuse to acknowledge whether the provided linked reference site is your source, or if not, what source you copied your unattributed text from.

your whining over the 'format' extension is simply a deflection; that extension was provided to clearly show a direct correlation in text and order of text between your unattributed commentary and the example reference site provided. Again, where did you source your commentary; these following statements presented in this exact order?

Fact: the universe, in its current state is deteriorating.

Fact: the rotation of the earth is slowing.

Fact: the magnetic field of the earth is fading.

Fact: Erosion constantly wear out the features of the earth.

Fact: Stars, including our sun, burns billions of tons of fuel everyday, and will eventually exhaust their fuel.

Fact: Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to dust.

Fact: Our houses, and machines wear out.

Fact: atoms decay to simpler products.

.

Edited by waldo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

no - I did no such thing. I initially presented a reference link to an article, a graphic image from that article with highlighted text, and asked you if it might be a possible attribution for that same unattributed text of yours; again: http://www.icr.org/a...ify-scriptures/-------- might this be a possible attribution for you - yes? --- in follow-up, you were again asked, "might the referenced article be a possible attribution for you; if not, where did you source it from?" You refuse to acknowledge whether the provided linked reference site is your source, or if not, what source you copied your unattributed text from.

your whining over the 'format' extension is simply a deflection; that extension was provided to clearly show a direct correlation in text and order of text between your unattributed commentary and the example reference site provided. Again, where did you source your commentary; these following statements presented in this exact order?

.

No, you presented a list of facts that resembles the formatting of my fact list. Your referenced link is not presented in such manner. And guess what, you're the one who plagiarized.

Yes, you were being dishonest. Why didn't you just copy/paste the referenced article as it is?

Instead.....you went to great lenghts, manually tweaking the article to make it resemble my format!

You purposefully re-formatted to make ICR's to resemble the format of my statement of facts, and did some editing.

You grouped them all together. The statement about the deteriorating universe was originally in another paragraph - and what you'd taken out was only a phrase from within a complete sentence. That's editing...because, there's no doubt you were copying from them!

What you'd given was not a copy/paste of what I posted. You'd given a copy/paste of theirs.

I highlighted the difference. Compare them. Here's what you'd given:

Waldo

http://www.icr.org/a...ify-scriptures/-------- might this be a possible attribution for you - yes?

- The fact that the universe, in its present state is deteriorating,

- The rotation of the earth is slowing;

- the magnetic field of the earth is decaying.

- Erosion constantly wears down the features of the earth.

- Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to a pile of dust.

- Our houses, our machines wear out and are finally abandoned and replaced.

- Many atoms decay to simpler products

betsy

Fact: the universe, in its current state is deteriorating.

Fact: the rotation of the earth is slowing.

Fact: the magnetic field of the earth is fading.

Fact: Erosion constantly wear out the features of the earth.

Fact: Stars, including our sun, burns billions of tons of fuel everyday, and will eventually exhaust their fuel.

Fact: Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to dust.

Fact: Our houses, and machines wear out.

Fact: atoms decay to simpler products.

You took the trouble to copy/paste from your referenced source, and to reconstruct it.

Anyway....do you ever wonder why each of my statement is preceded by FACT?

I didn't just put those for decorations, you know.

There must be a point why each statement is clearly identified as "fact!" DUH.

Also.....don't you get why my statements of facts are quite simply stated and as less descriptive?

BECAUSE, what I stated were the scientific facts!

Let's run this for you....I think everything is sailing over your head. Consider this a freebie "workshop."

Example: Compare these two versions:

Waldo

Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to a pile of dust.

betsy

Fact: Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to dust.

My statement is the ONLY STATEMENT OF FACT! Yours is not necessarily a fact! You don't ALWAYS see piles of dust (from decayed people)!

Here's another one:

Waldo

Our houses, our machines wear out and are finally abandoned and replaced.

That's not a statement of fact! It's only partially fact. Houses and machines that wear out, are not necessarily "abandoned, and replaced!"

My statement - this statement - is the statement of fact!

betsy

Fact: Our houses, and machines wear out.

That's why I gave you the link regarding facts and common knowledge, where-in it also gave an example similar to your version and mine! DOH! Read it again! I enlarged the font that you may see!

For example:

Pterosaurs were the flying reptiles of the dinosaur age

'Everyone' knows this, so no citation is needed.

But...

Even the largest pterosaurs may have been able to take off simply by spreading their wings whilst facing into a moderate breeze. Wilkinson, M.T., Unwin, D.M. and Ellington, C.P. (2005). High lift function of the pteroid bone and forewings of pterosaurs. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B

http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/univ/plagiarism/students/referencing/commonknowledge.html

Btw.......

......did you properly attribute what you copy/pasted and re-formatted from that cite? No you did not!

You have to give a proper citation for that, right? Because what you copy/pasted were not all facts!

What you attributed to that site was their article in its original form! Go ahead, click on the link you gave.

It doesn't show what you borrowed and re-formatted to suit you.

Since you didn't attribute the reformatted version you posted, you plagiarized from them! :lol:

Admit it! You got caught red-handedly being dishonest about your presentation - and actually plagiarized - in your intention to discredit me.

You know when Trump called Ted, "Lyin' Ted?" Can I call you "Lyin' Waldo?"

See how the boomerang hits pretty badly? Right between your eyes! :D

Edited by betsy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

was your unattributed source the article reference link I provided? http://www.icr.org/a...ify-scriptures/-------- might this be a possible attribution for you - yes? --- if not, what source did you copy your unattributed text from?

Fact: the universe, in its current state is deteriorating.
Fact: the rotation of the earth is slowing.
Fact: the magnetic field of the earth is fading.
Fact: Erosion constantly wear out the features of the earth.
Fact: Stars, including our sun, burns billions of tons of fuel everyday, and will eventually exhaust their fuel.
Fact: Our bodies wear out; we die and decay to dust.
Fact: Our houses, and machines wear out.
Fact: atoms decay to simpler products.


Plagiarism: You Can't Just Change a Few Words

Mosaic plagiarism

If you copy bits and pieces from a source (or several sources), changing a few words here and there without either adequately paraphrasing or quoting directly, the result is mosaic plagiarism.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bold is mine.

if someone goes to the time/effort to group together a dozen, "facts/common knowledge" (or otherwise), within a written article... and another person copies that same information grouping and presents it, verbatim or minimally changed, as their own writings... without attributing the original 'someone', is that correct/allowed?

.

No.... that is NOT permitted here in the MLW forum.

!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bold is mine.

No.... that is NOT permitted here in the MLW forum.

!

Approximately one week ago, I posted a message which stated that another poster was a racist. I stated that he/she was a racist because that individual continually posted statements which were obviously racist by any definition. I subsequently received the following message: “Your account has been temporarily suspended. This suspension is due to end on 21 June 2016 - 11:37 AM.”

I believe that racists and bigots have the right to spout their divisive views but those opposing these views also have a right to call them out on that practice. The uniqueness of Canada lies in her diversity and tolerance. Discrimination and racism are about power and oppression. Those few who hold and practice their prejudicial views must not be allowed to share their attitudes without being challenged lest our young be misled that those views are “mainstream” and acceptable. They are not.

By suspending Big Guy for reacting to racist dialogue, Big Guy assesses 1 warning point to MLW and temporarily suspends it from his Desktop. The suspension is due to end on 24 June 2016 10:31 A.M.

Warning issued by Big Guy for censoring anti-racist dialogue.

Given 1 points.

Content moderated for 2 days

Ability to receive Big Guy content removed for 2 days.

Suspended for 2 days

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that racists and bigots have the right to spout their divisive views but those opposing these views also have a right to call them out on that practice.

Agreed. I find your definition of racists and bigots to be sorely wanting but the only cure for that is argument. Can't argue with you if you're not here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Approximately one week ago, I posted a message which stated that another poster was a racist.

The nature of the poster was not the topic of the thread. Next time, get your message across in a more diplomatic way.

It has been made very clear multiple times that members are to avoid personal attacks.

Objectively, your post would derail the discussion.

Subjectively, your post would inflame the discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The nature of the poster was not the topic of the thread. Next time, get your message across in a more diplomatic way.

It has been made very clear multiple times that members are to avoid personal attacks.

Objectively, your post would derail the discussion.

Subjectively, your post would inflame the discussion.

It is your board and your rules - you have every right to control it to your standards.

The nature of the poster is never the topic of the thread - that would elicit attacks on the poster. I have a number of friends. I have two who are racists and with whom I have major disagreements. Because of their views, I call them racists. They claim they are not racists but nationalists and patriots. We agree to disagree and have other common interests and views on other issues and continue to enjoy civil disagreements with each other.

You have decided that referring to someone as a "racist" on this board deserves sanction. I continue to disagree.

This reminds me of the Harry Potter "HE-WHO-MUST-NOT-BE-NAMED" Lord Voldemort. Perhaps the situation is the same in that once the name was allowed to be used then the credibility of the character was challenged.

I understand that the moderators attempt to maintain some sense of civility and at the same time reflect the standards of our society. In our society, and in our media, people who continually make racist comments are referred to as "racists". What is acceptable in national media should be acceptable here. Donald Trump is a racist.

But - it is your board and you have been given a warning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This forum doesn't allow you to challenge racist, bigots, and trolls without being suspended. They're a protected class here.

You can challenge them all you want, and should. Challenging them does not consist of proclaiming "you're a racist!" That is not an intelligent or meaningful challenge. Instead, challenge the statements they are making with your own reasoned arguments or, if appropriate, references. Unfortunately, too few of the posters here like to simply hurl insults (calling someone a racist/bigot) rather than challenging their statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...