Discussion about Kevin's methods re Plagiarism

[_marg]

Hi Kevin you recently made a big deal about plagiarism and in some of my posts I explained plagiarism entailed fraud. It is deliberate dishonest attempt to take credit for the creative ideas and work of others. And I pointed out on message boards that the same requirements are not necessary as would be in cases in which one was expecting to get credit, i.e. a student, a journalist. And that if someone presents facts publically available in discussion on a message board discussion for which no credit is to be had, and they are not presenting creative ideas, nor do they indicate it is their thesis being presented, and nor do they claim it is their own personal knowledge ..then that wouldn't be fraudulent.

Now shift focus off your arch enemy Kevin and onto yourself. I'd like you to take a look at a thread you began, in which you presented ideas as if your own, in which you didn't acknowledge your source, in which you used same words as elsewhere, same phrases...and you tell me if you didn't commit plagiarism fraud. Where in that thread do you acknowledge where you ideas come from and where sentences were copied essentially from elsewhere?
Here is the thread: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=4446&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Numerous times in that thread you indicate in your posts the ideas are from you. Are they your ideas Kevin? Are the words all yours Kevin?

[_John Larsen]

Copyright law and plagiarism only includes words and not ideas. You cannot copyright an idea, nor can you plagiarize an idea. You can only plagiarize the way in which an idea is expressed.

This, of course, does not include ideas for which you have a patent.

[_marg]

Copyright law and plagiarism only includes words and not ideas. You cannot copyright an idea, nor can you plagiarize an idea. You can only plagiarize the way in which an idea is expressed.

This, of course, does not include ideas for which you have a patent.

Look if you don't like my words then we'll use wiki's : Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement.

[_the road to hana]

Copyright law and plagiarism only includes words and not ideas. You cannot copyright an idea, nor can you plagiarize an idea. You can only plagiarize the way in which an idea is expressed.

This, of course, does not include ideas for which you have a patent.

Look if you don't like my words then we'll use wiki's : Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement.

If that's the case, then O'bama's in trouble, since David Axelrod got nary an acknowledgment in Milwaukee.

[_Chap]

Hi Kevin you recently made a big deal about plagiarism and in some of my posts I explained plagiarism entailed fraud. It is deliberate dishonest attempt to take credit for the creative ideas and work of others. And I pointed out on message boards that the same requirements are not necessary as would be in cases in which one was expecting to get credit, I.e. a student, a journalist. And that if someone presents facts publically available in discussion on a message board discussion for which no credit is to be had, and they are not presenting creative ideas, nor do they indicate it is their thesis being presented, and nor do they claim it is their own personal knowledge ..then that wouldn't be fraudulent.

Now shift focus off your arch enemy Kevin and onto yourself. I'd like you to take a look at a thread you began, in which you presented ideas as if your own, in which you didn't acknowledge your source, in which you used same words as elsewhere, same phrases...and you tell me if you didn't commit plagiarism fraud. Where in that thread do you acknowledge where you ideas come from and where sentences were copied essentially from elsewhere?
Here is the thread: http://www.mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=4446&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

Numerous times in that thread you indicate in your posts the ideas are from you. Are they your ideas Kevin? Are the words all yours Kevin?

At moments like this I begin to see the point of the MAD rule against 'personal threads'. What has this got to do with the CoJCoLDS?

Surely this is another one for the Off-Topic Forum?

[_dartagnan]

So JAK's internet woman decided to spend all night scrolling through all my posts during the past month to cross check to see if any "phrases" match up with something somewhere on the web. You must be truly fatigued marg.

But that's sweet. You're nothing if not dedicated to your man.

Numerous times in that thread you indicate in your posts the ideas are from you.

Oh? I skimmed through that thread and couldn't help but notice obvious references to particular sources, neither of which were culled from the web.

"I agree with Rodney Stark, when he says ...Robert Spencer touches on something significant when he says..."

Where did I say "these ideas are mine and mine alone"?

Just from looking it through again I can already tell I was caling upon knowledge gained from reading other scholars like Lewis and Madden. Knowledge doesn't exist in a vacuum. It comes from somewhere. Applying one's knowledge is not plagiarism unless it originates from one's self. But pretending to debate someone while frequently running in between wiki articles to chisel another intelligent sounding citation- as JAK often does - is plagiarism. The difference between JAK and myself is that I read actual books and I don't limit myself to one side. While JAK is busy borrowing from Dawkins' The God Delusion, I read Dawkins and then read Alister McGrath's masterful decimation of Dawkins' arguments. JAK won't read McGrath because he already has his mind made up. Hate drives him. He hates religionists because it is the trendy thing among atheists today.

In my third post I provided a citation from Thomas Aquinas that I typed in from a book I owned. That same citation might also exist somewhere on the internet, but that isn't where I got it, but I gave credit to Aquinas anyway. Other comments I took from my previous notes on Galileo, but nothing from the web that I can recall.

As far as the theme of my thread is concerned, the idea was not borrowed, but I quickly discovered that it was supported by scholarship. This was something I had bounced around my head for years, and in fact I argued the same thing over at MADB about three years ago. The fact that Christianity influenced modern science is a matter of historic fact. All one needs to do is flip through a list of the most important scientific discoveries of our time, and see the Christian connection.

Thanks. I needed this as a wake-me-up this morning.

Now back to work.

[_Moniker]

Just to put this into perspective. Marg says what I'm pasting in below is not plagiarism. She's defended JAK and said he did not plagiarize.

Of historic interest concerning JAK's opening words and accusations.

Within 1 hour of CC posting on Godel, JAK had made his first accusation of assuming conclusions. But that accusation was merely 7 minutes after his analysis of Armstrong. Is it reasonable that JAK familiarized himself with Godel in one hour -- but most likely 7 minutes?

As some of the lurkers may be curious, note JAK's instructive paragraph:

To accept the ontological arguments of Gödel, requires an irrational leap. His ontological argument has often been said to ascertain God's existence by a philosophical sleight of hand or a ruse of words. Gödel’s arguments are flawed, if by nothing else, his assumptions absent evidence. The minutia of his arguments tends to be intimidating. In any case, they are not transparent and philosophers today do not accept (universally) his assumptions and application of those assumptions to agree with Gödel’s conclusion.

Note the bold is plagiarized from here:

http://www.apollos.ws/ontological-argument/

But also note that the "HIS" reads from the article "THE". JAK's original misuse of copyrighted material also betrays that he thinks "the ontological argument" had its origin in Godel. How funny.

The below is where JAK posted these words (a few tweaked) in his post and did not put them in quotes and signed JAK at the end of the post as he always does. See his original post here: http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/vi ... 330#127330

JAK -- tsk! tsk!

http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/Repor ... -38643.htm
Cite your sources:

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word
Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many
gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami are
the basic force in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and
other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic
force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and
healing.

Shinto emphasizes rituals and moral standards. It does not
have an elaborate philosophy, and, unlike many religions,
it does not stress life after death.

Shinto is the oldest surviving religion of Japan. The word Shinto means the way of the gods. Shintoists worship many gods, which are called kami. According to Shinto, kami (plural) are the basic forces in mountains, rivers, rocks, trees, and other parts of nature. Shinto also considers kami the basic force in such processes as creativity, disease, growth and healing.

Shinto emphasized rituals and moral standards. It does not have an elaborate philosophy and does not stress life after death as do some other religions.

[_marg]

Where did I say "these ideas are mine and mine alone"?

Kevin you assume that I must have-- quoting your words-- "decided to spend all night scrolling through all my posts during the past month to cross check to see if any "phrases" match up with something somewhere on the web. You must be truly fatigued marg."

I'm not sure but I think the thread is back in early January. I think it would take more than a night to do what you suggest (given that you've written approx 1,400 posts under the name of dartagnan)…that is taking phrases you write and then doing searches on the net. No actually what happened is that I remembered reading that thread at the time back in early Jan and I remember keying in a phrase then and it being words a pope had said. At the time I thought it no big deal and I didn’t get involved in the thread mainly because I thought it was nonsense and not worth my time. But I decided to go back to the thread and keyed in the same phrase and this time I appreciated you stole a lot more than what I previously appreciated, you stole exact words, exact phrases, exact ideas from others without properly acknowledging doing so, and as well giving every reader of that thread the impression this was mainly all your ideas. For example youresponded to TD with

“No what I am saying is that Christians in history have not been limited…

So not only are you taking credit for the ideas but in the passage you are referring to which TD was questioning, there are virtually direct quotes from others, not your words, and you don’t even mention this.

And to another poster you responded with

“I’m speaking of Western civilization (sometimes called Christian Civilization…”

Again you are taking credit for the words you’ve copied and ideas of others.

To another poster you write:

As I said, less religion is what has allowed science to flourish, not more Christianity.

Again taking credit for the words and ideas of others.

Since you don’t acknowledge taking the words of others without due recognition, or the ideas, I will go through later and quote other peoples and then yours.

by the way Kevin it is the lack of integrity you show me which is consistent. Not having read much of your posts I didn’t appreciate this until only recently. I guess you’ve switched from being a Mormon apologist probably because of your negative experiences with the MAD people and now you’ve become a Catholic Christian one but essentially copying the words and ideas of other apologists.

Anyhow I will get back with another post on this to support/give evidence. And if anyone is reading who has posted in the thread, my focus is responding Kevin. Having limited resources I probably will not respond to others.

[_skippy the dead]

“I’m speaking of Western civilization (sometimes called Christian Civilization…”

Again you are taking credit for the words you’ve copied and ideas of others.

Admittedly, this is a very silly thread, and I'm reluctant to even post in it. But the above "proof" is especially silly. Kevin isn't copying an idea in the above example. This is an extreme stretch. Are you really saying that because Kevin says "I'm speaking of. . ." that he's ripping somebody off? He's merely referring back to the topic of his discussion. If you take this to mean that he's copying someone's ideas and representing them as his own, then either your reading comprehension is way off or you are just reaching to find a way to impugn Kevin.

If you can show that Kevin has pilfered a source and represented it as his own, then lay the two side by side (Kevin's post and the alleged source). Otherwise, if this is the best you can do, then you've failed.

[_dartagnan]

No actually what happened is that I remembered reading that thread at the time back in early Jan and I remember keying in a phrase then and it being words a pope had said.

And because I quoted the Pope's words, and the same quotation might exist on the internet somewhere, this is proof of plagiarism? Which quote? You don't even say.

At the time I thought it no big deal and I didn’t get involved in the thread mainly because I thought it was nonsense and not worth my time.

But recently you've been smitten by the sight of your man's credibility suffering a terrible fate, and you thought you would take up the gauntlet and do something about it since he apparently can't defend himself.

But I decided to go back to the thread and keyed in the same phrase and this time I appreciated you stole a lot more than what I previously appreciated, you stole exact words, exact phrases, exact ideas from others without properly acknowledging doing so, and as well giving every reader of that thread the impression this was mainly all your ideas.

Stole! Let's see the evidence. In the post you're referring I listed three different sources and citations and for you this means I was "giving every reader of that thread the impression this was mainly all [my] ideas"?

I sure hope you and JAK never have kids.

For example youresponded to TD with

“No what [bI am saying[/b] is that Christians in history have not been limited…

I just checked it myself and, that sentence exists nowhere else on the world wide web.

So not only are you taking credit for the ideas

You can't possibly be this daft. I stated facts I had learned from reading books.

I never said these things are true ever since I first conceived of them. Of course I'm relaying facts as I learned them from other sources. When I tell my kids that X-1 = 3, therefore X = 4, am I telling them I invented algebra? No, I'm just passing on knowledge I have already learned.

but in the passage you are referring to which TD was questioning, there are virtually direct quotes from others, not your words, and you don’t even mention this.

Then you're dumb and blind. The post you are referring to, I'm looking at it right now, and I see three sources mentioned: Thomas Aquinas, Robert Price, and Rodney Stark. I made it perfectly clear I was relaying arguments presented by these three individuals. Never did I hint or suggest that all of this was something I developed in my own head with no outside influence. Hell if I had done that, it wouldn't be considered information worth hearing anyway.

The only portion of that post where you could possibly have a case is in the section regarding Galileo. I believe I pasted some of that from notes I had taken down a while back - I often do this to cut time when speaking on the same topic all the time - and I see one sentence can be found on several websites, including an Encyclopedia. I suppose it is possible that I took this down from somwehere else, but the citation also is found in Spencer's book, so that is probably where I got it from. And since I had already made it clear Spencer was one of the scholars I had in mind, you can hardly accuse me of trying to "take credit" for a well-known historic fact.

And to another poster you responded with

“I’m speaking of Western civilization (sometimes called Christian Civilization…”

Again you are taking credit for the words you’ve copied and ideas of others.

From where? You don't say. This exact phrase doesn't exist on the internet either.
Strike two.

I've said the above probably dozens of times on discussion forums. It isn't something I claimed to have invented on my own - that would be stupid; it is obviously knowledge I learned and am simply passing on. Bernard Lewis speaks on this in some detail, and he is the person I first learned it from.

To another poster you write:

As I said, less religion is what has allowed science to flourish, not more Christianity.

Again taking credit for the words and ideas of others.

You're not quoting me here. Those words are not from my post, they came from Dr. Shades.

Strike three, you're out.

by the way Kevin it is the lack of integrity you show me which is consistent.

If you cared anything about integrity, you wouldn't have just made an ass of yourself trying to derail attention from your man's blatant plagiarism.