-Removed-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.
Originally posted by twhiteheadStill, it is just perpetuating the big scam.
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.
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.
Originally posted by josephwThat is a very narrow view of plagiarism.
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.
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?