moved thread

[_richardMdBorn]

Marg,

My discussion with JAK which Kevin mentioned is at

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... jak#118207

[_Scottie]

[This is probably better suited for the off-topic forum]

[_EAllusion]

Anyhow I'm sure JAK given that he was (maybe is) I don't know, a professional teacher from what he has told me, would appreciate that if he taught only one person to raise their critical thinking level, to be more open minded as opposed to closed, more objective, appreciate the limitations in their own thinking, to evaluate all claims given absent evidence then he's made a significant accomplishment. I'm sure you would feel the same if you accomplished that as a teacher as well. Teaching obviously is not about teaching facts but about teaching people how to think.

Unfortunately, you've been bamboozled. JAK has never taught professionally. If he told you that, well, he lied.

Anyone who demonstrates a contempt for accurate information as JAK does, and anyone who resorts to plagiarism and the uncritical acceptance of whatever website tickles his fancy, cannot have been a teacher on any serious level. That alone flies in the face of reason.

Teachers, including professors, have been famously caught doing just that, so I'm not sure that is the best argument. That said, it is highly - highly! - likely Jak is BSing here. I've never known a Jak-like poster not to be a troll, but much like Coggins, I'm aware there are people like that out there and Jak very well could be one.

[_JAK]

Anyhow I'm sure JAK given that he was (maybe is) I don't know, a professional teacher from what he has told me, would appreciate that if he taught only one person to raise their critical thinking level, to be more open minded as opposed to closed, more objective, appreciate the limitations in their own thinking, to evaluate all claims given absent evidence then he's made a significant accomplishment. I'm sure you would feel the same if you accomplished that as a teacher as well. Teaching obviously is not about teaching facts but about teaching people how to think.

Unfortunately, you've been bamboozled. JAK has never taught professionally. If he told you that, well, he lied.

Anyone who demonstrates a contempt for accurate information as JAK does, and anyone who resorts to plagiarism and the uncritical acceptance of whatever website tickles his fancy, cannot have been a teacher on any serious level. That alone flies in the face of reason.

Teachers, including professors, have been famously caught doing just that, so I'm not sure that is the best argument. That said, it is highly - highly! - likely Jak is BSing here. I've never known a Jak-like poster not to be a troll, but much like Coggins, I'm aware there are people like that out there and Jak very well could be one.

Hi EAllusion,

Thank you for your comments. I quite agree with the part of your conclusion that sometimes professionals fall into problematic issues regarding their published works. I'm not sure just what "a troll" is in the context of your accusation that I am a troll.

(While this is a tangent to the topic, even scientists are often reluctant to reveal their findings lest those findings be replicated by someone else, and they lose credit for their research.)

While you may well not have seen my five-fold restatement of my source, I invite you to see each link I have provided which I addressed to Moniker. So the “you” in the reference is to Moniker and another individual which I name. While I post this, I recognize that on this forum it may have been edited or removed before it is read, I’ll post it in the chance that you may review each link in which I state my source. And my source agrees (not verbatim) with the source posted as a claim for plagiarism.

The Post to Moniker:

In a previous thread in which you (Moniker) introduced a tangent on Shintoism as a religion without doctrine, I responded to you (Moniker) with information never contested on Shintoism. I just posted the information which was generally from my own Library edition of World Book Encyclopedia 1985. It paralleled what you found on the Internet. So, you implied I used what you (Moniker) found. You (Moniker) didn’t ask: Where did you (JAK) get your information? I (JAK) didn’t state it initially regarding it as general information. And I (JAK) was being “succinct” in avoiding more words than seemed required for discussion on a bb.

You (MMoniker) found a website which I (JAK) had not seen and posted “JAK – tsk! tsk!”. In that post you said “Cite your sources:” and, by implication, charged plagiarism.

Then, in five separate posts, I (JAK) advised you and all readers where I (JAK) found that information. It was in harmony with your on-line source. Otherwise, you (Moniker) would have attempted to refute the information I (JAK) posted not paralleled to imply plagiarism.

You (Moniker) and Dart continued to attack, not the information but me (JAK) for not citing sources. Too succinct.

As a result of scurrilous, defamatory, vituperative, and repeated ad hominem by Dart, an entire thread was created[b] for persistent attacks titled: [b]“Discussion about JAK’s methods.”

Immediately following your “JAK – tsk! tsk!” I (JAK) posted:
THE FIRST RESPONSE identifying my source: The World Book Encyclopedia

I (JAK) posted it again HERE the source of my information Thu Feb 21, 2008 2:13 pm.

World Book Encyclopedia 1985 Library Edition

I (JAK) AGAIN POSTED the source of my information. 1985 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia Thu Feb 21, 2008 4:27 pm The title: “Sources & Credibility.”

And there, I (JAK) recognized that two different sources said essentially the same thing.

Two times in this post above, I (JAK) identified where I obtained information.

After repeated attacks, again in still another post on “Sources & Credibility” I stated:

“You (Moniker) wanted to leap to a conclusion for personal attack rather than address the substance of the information which likely appears in virtually all encyclopedias of academic substance.”

Rather than address the issues, Dart joined in with ad hominem.

And here FOR A FIFTH TIME in a post titled “False Charge” I stated:

“But for the record, once again, my (JAK) source for information on Shintoism came from a 1985 edition of the World Book Encyclopedia which is in my home.

Not once, not one time did you or Dart acknowledge a five times posted source of information. I (JAK) invited you and Dart to look up the source. I could hardly send you my encyclopedia book. And we do have a library at home.

So the answer to your question above is NO. When I was succinct, I was charged with plagiarism. Even after providing all the statements regarding my source, only continued charges were made.

I (JAK) provided a large multiplicity of websites which were not addressed nor recognized on the topic “Dangers of Religion.” NONE were addressed.

On Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:04 pm, you post the following:

Restating your “JAK – tsk! tsk! So days after you had multiple posts from me, you continued to repost your original implication that I had plagiarized your Internet source.

Moniker states:
I don't need a whole page full of type to talk to you. It's a lot of repetitions.

JAK:
Five times I tell you my source, and you never acknowledge it.

My source was The World Book Encyclopedia Library Edition 1985. THE SIXTH TIME.

Did you (Moniker) ever say to Dart in effect: JAK said he found information on Shintoism from the World Book Encyclopedia Library Edition 1985?? You (Moniker) did not.

Did either of you ever recognize the two sources said essentially the same thing? Otherwise, there would have been no charge of plagiarism. There would have been a controversy regarding source reliability if they had contradicted. You admitted they said the same thing or you would not have charged plagiarism.

So NO, I’ll not be succinct. We see what happened when I (JAK) was.

And you, Moniker, (at this typing) are still disregarding, my statement HERE.
Mon Mar 03, 2008 9:12 am

So you need a lot of repetition. Even then, you do not, and I think clearly intend not, to understand.

JAK

[_Moniker]

JAK -- you're a dofus.

Is that succinct enough? I hope so.

I never had an issue with WHERE you got it. You put something up without crediting it, outside quotes, and put it into a post of yours with your name at the bottom.

Please go irritate someone else now. You are so completely annoying to me that I want you to know that I have done nothing but stick my tongue out at you for the last week or so. Please see my signature to more adequately experience my entire reaction to everything about JAK. Thanks. ;P

[_Ren]

Woah - that was an interesting reaction to a 'baseless' claim...
I like the amount of times you made the source clear afterwards. That's a cool little detail...

[_JAK]

JAK -- you're a dofus.

Is that succinct enough? I hope so.

I never had an issue with WHERE you got it. You put something up without crediting it, outside quotes, and put it into a post of yours with your name at the bottom.

Please go irritate someone else now. You are so completely annoying to me that I want you to know that I have done nothing but stick my tongue out at you for the last week or so. Please see my signature to more adequately experience my entire reaction to everything about JAK. Thanks. ;P

Moniker,

Thank you for your reply.

You did have an issue “with WHERE you (I) got it.” Otherwise, you would not have made that post: “JAK – tsk! tsk!”. You also would have acknowledged my very next post.

You made an issue and implied that what you found on the Internet was what I had also found and failed to credit. In my very next post to you, I clarified source. I did not have a direct quote but the information relevant to your comment about Shintoism.

From that post of yours, Dart began a long series of ad hominem posts none of which had the slightest connection with the topic I originally posted “Dangers of Religion.”

Your post triggered and initiated a topic thread in one section of the bb. And you, as I have documented never once acknowledged my repeated statements regarding my source of information.

I documented five times where I attempted to clarify exactly my source.

At the very first time, you might have acknowledged that I had identified my source. Even if you thought me to be lying, I stated for you my source. I originally felt the information was of general knowledge. But I looked it up to confirm that I was correct regarding the age and beliefs of a religion.

So, when you charge that I should be brief and have within a day charged me with being too brief, I don’t intend to be brief. It’s why I said “No” to your question about being brief.

When I didn’t fully identify an encyclopedia, you charge me with failure to post source. Then you ask me to be brief.

I don’t expect that you can see the contradiction in that, simple as it is.

I would like to close in a compliment to you for the places in our discussion where you attempted to address what I stated. It was always my intent to focus primarily on the issues in discussion.

I also appreciate that it was not you who created a thread “Discussion about JAK’s methods.” Someone else did that.

You did not do that. However, you participated in it, and never once acknowledged that upon my response to your “JAK Tsk! tsk” did you ever say what you had opportunity to say: that the source you found on the Internet paralleled The World Book Encyclopedia 1985 from which I gathered the same information.

You have made no challenge to the numerous posts I gave easy access to read. I understand that one’s posts may be removed or changed or made to look different than the original. I hope that was not the case where I gave you links.

JAK