Actually Kevin you made a big deal over plagiarism and wanted to argue it with me.
Now you're just lying. You know perfectly well what the issue was. The issue was your persistent defense of JAK's plagiarism. You circumvented any obligation to make an argument for that defense, by trying to shift focus onto me.
Well, nobody is buying your argument. I don't even think you do. This is just a posting marathon for you. You're clearly in defcon 2 now.
I don't like intellectual dishonestly and you are full of it.
But you cannot demonstrate it, and everyone knows it. Even you.
I don't care that you are religious.
No, you only care that I upset your man. Hell, I wasn't even the one who busted him for plagiarism. Gadianton and Moniker did. All I did was raise the issue every time that you tried to blow it off and continue to state that he was a professor and a brilliant man. The guy is a moron.
I actually used to think you were a good critical thinker..boy was I wrong. Hadn't read or followed enough of your posts.
And you think your opinion carries any weight here, especially after this recent nonsense?
Nobody here agrees. Look Kevin while that might be the case, no one has voice that yet.
They have to me. And Moniker and Silentkid have publicly voiced their disagreement with yoru argument. So who agrees?
And again this just shows your intellectual dishonesty. There is a logical fallacy you've just made..don't remember the name but essentially speaking on behalf of others who haven't spoken.
Stop mimicking JAK. He always finds a creative way to call any refutation he can't handle, some kind of fallacy. Neither of you understand fallacies well at all. An appeal to majority is a fallacy but only if you're using it to say one's argument isn't true, because the majority doesn't agree. I'm not saying that. I'm simply noting that your argument isn't convincing anyone. It shoudl be a deterrent since that is the only reason you're here. You're trying to damage my credibility because youa re still pissed off that your man's has been destroyed.
And in addition even if let's say 1- people came to your side ...this is not exactly a forum in which one can automatically assume all participants are objective.
Not one. Two publicly and four privately.
You established that you were dead set against plagiarism
And I am. I am also dead set against anyone pretending to be a professor while plagiarizing the wiki for every argument he makes. You have not shown that I have plagiarized, even by the loosest definition.
yet you commited it worse than anyone on this board that I can recall
?????
Are you forgetting the fact that JAK copied almost an entire paragraph word for word, from a website he was obviously reading during his debate with tarski? He provided zero source.
All you have on me is the baseless assumption that people felt I "implied" that my knowledge on this stuff just appeared in my brain instantly, without having done any reading on my own, despite the fact that I provided three references. Why provided references at all if my intention is to make people think I read or rely on no one else as an authority?
I know JAK's high integrity which I've observed over years of reading his posts
Then how do you explain his blatant plagiarism? Ooooops. You walked right into that one. Time to evade again. We both know you'll never address it.
Well Kevin I do acknowledge than many do like to debate with JAK. In fact I don't. I have in the past and usually he eventually would show me through argumentation that I was wrong.
He got you hooked on all those colors, did he? I guess some kids require little persuasion.
You mention Spencer once and quote him and say something to the effect that he has a point with that one particular quote. Everything else that you paraphrase and quote you don't acknowledge is the same as what Spencer uses.
Nor would I need to. Apparently you are not at all familiar with scholarship, since this is the norm. Once a scholar references another scholar, it is implied that the immediate context is speaking of that scholar's position. But I guess you wouldn't have any idea about this since you're stuck living in internet wiki land.
Sure you gave Aquinas recognition but it was Spencer who used him in the argument and quoted Aquinas.
This is why you're an idiot. It doesn't matter if Spencer used him too. Spencer is his own man and he can use whoever the hell he wants. What you have to do is prove that I used a citation from someone else and claimed it was my own. You haven't even begun to build a case for this.
You know this too. You should have to be able to prove where I said this was my idea and mine alone, but instead you're telling me to show you where I said it wasn't mine alone? ANd then you highlight where I said, "What I am saying" as if this is proof of plagiarism?
What an idiot!
I
am saying it. I never said I was the only one who said it, which is what you'd have to prove inorder to even begin a case for plagiarism. I have been saying it long before Spencer's book was even published. His book just came out last august for crying out loud. Go over to MADB and you can dig for posts about the same topic under my account, long before Spencer wrote about it. The idea that science owes a great deal to Christianity is not a new idea. I've been saying it for many years.
You simply don't understand plagiarism, even when you provide the definition. You have to assume "implication" first, which is why it is important to note that nobody inferred what you think I implied.
Only an idiot would think that someone who wrote so little in that post, who used three different sources, would have been trying to "imply" that those comments were not learned elsewhere. I mean it just boggles the mind that you could even think that.
“All knowledge of reality starts from experience and ends in it...Propositions arrived at by purely logical means are completely empty as regards reality." - Albert Einstein