1. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86367
    10 Apr '17 15:32
    I am having a disagreement with sonship over his use of other people's "reworded" ministries in this forum without given the originator the credit. I feel that this is poor forum ettiquete.

    Taking another person's ministry or spiritual teaching and passing it off as your own, no matter how much "rewording" has been done, is intellectual theft and plagiarism.

    Correct or incorrect?
  2. Joined
    27 Sep '06
    Moves
    9651
    10 Apr '17 15:50
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I am having a disagreement with sonship over his use of other people's "reworded" ministries in this forum without given the originator the credit. I feel that this is poor forum ettiquete.

    Taking another person's ministry or spiritual teaching and passing it off as your own, no matter how much "rewording" has been done, is intellectual theft and plagiarism.

    Correct or incorrect?
    That depends.

    Plagiarism is a serious accusation. Borrowing ideas and thoughts from another, and paraphrasing to expound on those ideas and thoughts, isn't plagiarism unless one uses direct quotes and copy/pastes from copyrighted material.

    At least that's how I understand it.
  3. Standard memberRajk999
    Enjoying
    On the Beach
    Joined
    04 Apr '04
    Moves
    170571
    10 Apr '17 16:54
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I am having a disagreement with sonship over his use of other people's "reworded" ministries in this forum without given the originator the credit. I feel that this is poor forum ettiquete.

    Taking another person's ministry or spiritual teaching and passing it off as your own, no matter how much "rewording" has been done, is intellectual theft and plagiarism.

    Correct or incorrect?
    It demonstrate a lack of basic training on the part of the perpetrator. He has been doing that for years. Whats new?
  4. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    10087
    10 Apr '17 17:00
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I am having a disagreement with sonship over his use of other people's "reworded" ministries in this forum without given the originator the credit. I feel that this is poor forum ettiquete.

    Taking another person's ministry or spiritual teaching and passing it off as your own, no matter how much "rewording" has been done, is intellectual theft and plagiarism.

    Correct or incorrect?
    You may as well condemn all religions that sprout from the Bible, JW's., Mormons, etc.
  5. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    10 Apr '17 17:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    You may as well condemn all religions that sprout from the Bible, JW's., Mormons, etc.
    I can live with that.
  6. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86367
    10 Apr '17 18:12
    Originally posted by whodey
    You may as well condemn all religions that sprout from the Bible, JW's., Mormons, etc.
    I think you may be misunderstanding (possibly deliberately) my point here. I have suspected for a long time that the sermons/teachings/lectures which sonship posts in here contain core topic material from another source; he has admitted as much in one of the current threads. I feel these sources, or indeed, source, should be acknowledged. Do you agree?
  7. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86367
    10 Apr '17 18:13
    Originally posted by josephw
    Borrowing ideas and thoughts from another, and paraphrasing to expound on those ideas and thoughts, isn't plagiarism unless one uses direct quotes and copy/pastes from copyrighted material.

    At least that's how I understand it.
    You sure about that?
  8. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Apr '17 18:17
    Originally posted by divegeester
    Taking another person's ministry or spiritual teaching and passing it off as your own, no matter how much "rewording" has been done, is intellectual theft and plagiarism.

    Correct or incorrect?
    It depends on the 'rewording' and the 'credit taking'.
    Do you credit each and every person that influence your current religious beliefs? Have you ever credited Martin Luther in one of your posts?
    If sonship is saying 'I came up with this and its MY ministry' then you may have a case. But if he is merely preaching christianity then he isn't necessarily taking credit at all as it is implicit that the belief system he is promoting is from third parties.
  9. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52618
    10 Apr '17 18:40
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It depends on the 'rewording' and the 'credit taking'.
    Do you credit each and every person that influence your current religious beliefs? Have you ever credited Martin Luther in one of your posts?
    If sonship is saying 'I came up with this and its MY ministry' then you may have a case. But if he is merely preaching christianity then he isn't necessarily ...[text shortened]... ng credit at all as it is implicit that the belief system he is promoting is from third parties.
    Still, it is just perpetuating the big scam.
  10. SubscriberBigDoggProblem
    The Advanced Mind
    bigdogghouse.com/RHP
    Joined
    26 Nov '04
    Moves
    110707
    10 Apr '17 19:29
    I prefer to give a link so as to avoid my thread getting derailed, but that's me. Maybe the willful repeat offenders just like to argue.
  11. Joined
    29 Dec '08
    Moves
    6788
    10 Apr '17 20:37
    The thing I don't like about failure to cite sources is that I would like to be able to go to the source and read the quoted material in context. Who and what is the source, what is the main topic, etc.

    But all I think I want to do is not read excessive unattributed verbiage. And perhaps let them know of my own personal policy on this.
  12. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Infidel
    Dunedin
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    45641
    10 Apr '17 21:29
    Originally posted by josephw
    That depends.

    Plagiarism is a serious accusation. Borrowing ideas and thoughts from another, and paraphrasing to expound on those ideas and thoughts, isn't plagiarism unless one uses direct quotes and copy/pastes from copyrighted material.

    At least that's how I understand it.
    That is a very narrow view of plagiarism.

    You can plagiarise someone's ideas without directly quoting them;
    it is intellectual theft.

    You think re-writing the Harry Potter books would be legal without permission?
  13. Standard memberkaroly aczel
    the Devil himself
    Brisbane,QLD
    Joined
    11 Apr '09
    Moves
    91614
    10 Apr '17 21:40
    Originally posted by divegeester
    I think you may be misunderstanding (possibly deliberately) my point here. I have suspected for a long time that the sermons/teachings/lectures which sonship posts in here contain core topic material from another source; he has admitted as much in one of the current threads. I feel these sources, or indeed, source, should be acknowledged. Do you agree?
    Definitely should acknowledge sources
  14. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86367
    10 Apr '17 22:211 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    It depends on the 'rewording' and the 'credit taking'.
    Do you credit each and every person that influence your current religious beliefs? Have you ever credited Martin Luther in one of your posts?
    If sonship is saying 'I came up with this and its MY ministry' then you may have a case. But if he is merely preaching christianity then he isn't necessarily ...[text shortened]... ng credit at all as it is implicit that the belief system he is promoting is from third parties.
    I agree that historical Christian biblical doctrine and teaching, such as Calvinism or Lutharism is open to generalised discussion, but when something apparently new is presented, which was initially penned by another contemporary minister, then that minister should be acknowledged as the originator in the ministry. It's about (spiritual) intellectual integrity.
  15. Joined
    16 Feb '08
    Moves
    86367
    10 Apr '17 22:22
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Still, it is just perpetuating the big scam.
    Try see the wood with the trees if you can.
Back to Top