Originally posted by sonhouseSure, but attacking someone for plagiarism because you don't like their religion is a also morally wrong. It is entirely possible that sonship is guilty of plagiarism but even if he is blatantly doing it, it is far from the worst behaviour he exhibits.
Still, it is just perpetuating the big scam.
Originally posted by twhiteheadIt is also morally wrong to attack another poster by suggesting he has "worst" behavior, especially when replying to a poster that makes some of the most virulent verbal and hateful attacks against the Christian God and His followers in this forum.
Sure, but attacking someone for plagiarism because you don't like their religion is a also morally wrong. It is entirely possible that sonship is guilty of plagiarism but even if he is blatantly doing it, it is far from the worst behaviour he exhibits.
Originally posted by josephwWho is it you think makes some of the most virulent verbal and hateful attacks against the Christian God and His followers in this forum? Are you referring to the indefatigably anti-religion sonhouse or do you mean the abusive chaney3 (when he's drunk) who called the Bible "man made BS", God worse than Hitler, and his followers evil/insane, or do you mean Eladar when he's referring to fellow Christians as "children of Satan"? Who is it you mean?
It is also morally wrong to attack another poster by suggesting he has "worst" behavior, especially when replying to a poster that makes some of the most virulent verbal and hateful attacks against the Christian God and His followers in this forum.
Originally posted by FMFHe's clearly talking about you, you narcissistic windbag.
Who is it you think makes some of the most virulent verbal and hateful attacks against the Christian God and His followers in this forum? Are you referring to the indefatigably anti-religion sonhouse or do you mean the abusive chaney3 (when he's drunk) who called the Bible "man made BS", God worse than Hitler, and his followers evil/insane, or do you mean Eladar when he's referring to fellow Christians as "children of Satan"? Who is it you mean?
Originally posted by SuzianneBut [1] twhitehead and josephw did not appear to be talking about me, and [2] it surely isn't true to say that I make "the most virulent verbal and hateful attacks against the Christian God and His followers in this forum". If you believe I am wrong about [2] can you cite an example of one of my posts that you think is among the most most "virulent" and "hateful" attacks on this forum?
He's clearly talking about you, you narcissistic windbag.
1 edit
-Removed-But I wouldn't call espousing those ideas as "plagiarizing".
I mean, if you are a student of someone, then naturally you espouse the very same ideas. Plagiarism would be if he presented the text of some of their material here as his own. Just speaking 'off-the-cuff' in the same manner they would, with the same concepts, doesn't seem to rise to the equivalency of plagiarism. You make it sound like he typed out one of their pamphlets in its entirety, claiming it as his work.
For example, there are some on the Debates Forum who accept and agree with the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I do not go so far as to accuse them of plagiarism every time they post. Now if they presented large passages of The Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged as their own writing, I might.
Do you see the difference?
(I'm not saying I do not believe in accreditation, I do. I think that is all he should be accused of, if even that. Plagiarism is the wholesale lifting of another's work. This is why copyright laws exist.)
Originally posted by SuzianneI think that divegeester has taken it slightly too far with the word "plagiarizing" (in terms of how the word is conventionally used) and that he might have simply described sonship's posting style as too often being wholesale regurgitation of someone else's ideas - often almost to the point (or past it) of spamming.
But I wouldn't call espousing those ideas as "plagiarizing".
I would add that this voluminous bulk regurgitation-style lecturing (and frequent refusal to engage dissent or scrutiny) is rather against the spirit of a debate and discussion message board and probably more properly belongs on some other internet facility.