OK, Now I'm Impressed

[_MissTish]

I can't wait until my son is old enough for me to start reading things like The Witches and Indian in the Cupboard to him.

*excite*

It's a real joy to introduce children to books, especially those that we loved ourselves.

When the Harry Potter books first began I bought the first to read with my goddaughter. Reading those books together at first, and then on our own and discussing them as she grew older along with the characters was a wonderful experience.

[_Blixa]

Actually you are the liars....

The only thing I've done is imperfect is spelling and grammar.
All of your other claims are false. Duplicating a paper doesn't mean I "illegally" against the rules of the particular assignment did so.

Unless the assignment was to plagiarize an essay, it does mean that.

Actually in that particular case the assignment was to find some "profound" article, to re-write it as a form of memorization technique, and to then "present" the article verbally but doing so in our own words as much as possible retaining the message of the article.

But, I don't expect ignorant liberals to understand such things. It's much easier to falsely acuse an enemy of plagiarism.

Holy Moses!

First, in which particular case? I saw three essays that were plagiarized.

Second, what on earth kind of assignment are you trying to describe? Do you mean an assignment in which you were to find a complex text, summarize it in your own words and present your summary verbally to the class?

If so, then what does "re-write it as a form of memorization technique" mean? Are you trying to claim that copying it (not "re-writing" it) was some suggested aid to memorization? Because that wouldn't make sense if what you were supposed to recite for the class was a summary in your own words.

Furthermore, even if this did make sense, then what you are describing would have been a copy of the text you made for yourself as notes and not a paper formatted like an essay with your name, student ID number, course section and date in the top right hand corner and a formal essay title.

I don't know how you think you can talk yourself out of the blunders you make, but you do this over and over. You dig your hole deeper.

[_Jersey Girl]

(I used to read with my children when they were in elementary. There was one book that I think came from the 3rd grade collection. I can't recall the title but I think it was about a boy tracking a wolf or something. I totally loved it, so I don't mind reading books geared towards a younger audience and I say that as one who read picture books for 30 years!)

It took a while, but I found the book I was thinking about! It's about survival and I still think there was a wolf in the story. :-)

[_Lemmie]

Actually you are the liars....

The only thing I've done is imperfect is spelling and grammar.
All of your other claims are false. Duplicating a paper doesn't mean I "illegally" against the rules of the particular assignment did so.

Unless the assignment was to plagiarize an essay, it does mean that.

Actually in that particular case the assignment was to find some "profound" article, to re-write it as a form of memorization technique, and to then "present" the article verbally but doing so in our own words as much as possible retaining the message of the article.

But, I don't expect ignorant liberals to understand such things. It's much easier to falsely acuse an enemy of plagiarism.

Holy Moses!

First, in which particular case? I saw three essays that were plagiarized.

Second, what on earth kind of assignment are you trying to describe? Do you mean an assignment in which you were to find a complex text, summarize it in your own words and present your summary verbally to the class?

If so, then what does "re-write it as a form of memorization technique" mean? Are you trying to claim that copying it (not "re-writing" it) was some suggested aid to memorization? Because that wouldn't make sense if what you were supposed to recite for the class was a summary in your own words.

Furthermore, even if this did make sense, then what you are describing would have been a copy of the text you made for yourself as notes and not a paper formatted like an essay with your name, student ID number, course section and date in the top right hand corner and a formal essay title.

I don't know how you think you can talk yourself out of the blunders you make, but you do this over and over. You dig your hole deeper.

And, as he digs the hole deeper, he continues to newly plagiarize--just today, multiple sentences lifted from various articles, no citations given, no quotes, nothing.

It's a lifelong event for ldsfuqs- plagiarize, lie, rinse, repeat.

Those liar liar pants earlier in this thread are excellent, MissTish.

[_Gadianton]

Furthermore, even if this did make sense, then what you are describing would have been a copy of the text you made for yourself as notes and not a paper formatted like an essay with your name, student ID number, course section and date in the top right hand corner and a formal essay title.

Yeah, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense. And suppose for a moment that somehow, somewhere, copying and pasting the text of a (famous) paper meets some odd classroom criteria that is perfectly understandable if only you had been in that one classroom in Arrington Kansas, in 1983? Why on earth would you publish online, devoid of all this context, the lifting of the text of a famous paper with your own name on it for the whole world to see? And why would you link to such a demonstration as an example (without any context) of your own formidable scholarship?

OK -- classroom notes, a blatant copy; let's rush out to put them online to show the world how good we are at copying and pasting for the sake of classroom notes?

[_Jersey Girl]

And, as he digs the hole deeper, he continues to newly plagiarize--just today, multiple sentences lifted from various articles, no citations given, no quotes, nothing.

It's a lifelong event for ldsfuqs- plagiarize, lie, rinse, repeat.

Those liar liar pants earlier in this thread are excellent, MissTish.

He did the same thing on that Ding Dong thread he made in the post title. The title was lifted directly from the article that he linked to. Then, he claimed that because HE said "Ding Dong" that people thought he was cruel.