Originally posted by FMFReligious extremism also manifests itself in this way. Followers lack social skills and norms particularly those which involve showing respect and regard for others not of the same faith.
Plagiarism, in a word. Or do you have a personal definition of it that absolves galveston75?
Originally posted by FMFActually, when I saw the OP, I assumed, from the spacing and heading, that it was a quote. Perhaps SwissGambit thought the same which is why he tried to find the original.
Plagiarism, in a word. Or do you have a personal definition of it that absolves galveston75?
However, I assumed it was a quote from a JW source, as galveston75 had said it was an example to show how JWs do not always preach doom and gloom.
Unless galveston75 is able to show that the original poster of this material is a JW, then it is difficult to see how this is an example of what he stated it was. If the original poster is clearly a JW, then I think what the OP proves is only a case of poor form/posting practice than intentional dishonesty.
If not, then we could spend hours arguing about intent, but really galveston75 you should have simply cited the source, said you wholeheartedly endorse it and that you wanted to give it a wider audience, in part to dispel the view that JWs only focus on doom and gloom.
Better to admit this now, and agree to be more careful in the future, than to spend the rest of this thread arguing about what you intended.
Originally posted by Rank outsiderBoth galveston and robbie has already been called out on this half a doxen times. Its their modus operandi to plagiarize.
Actually, when I saw the OP, I assumed, from the spacing and heading, that it was a quote. Perhaps SwissGambit thought the same which is why he tried to find the original.
However, I assumed it was a quote from a JW source, as galveston75 had said it was an example to show how JWs do not always preach doom and gloom.
Unless galveston75 is ...[text shortened]... re careful in the future, than to spend the rest of this thread arguing about what you intended.
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999squabble squabble, trundle trundle, the caravan trundles on. At least we read articles
Both galveston and robbie has already been called out on this half a doxen times. Its their modus operandi to plagiarize.
before we post them, unlike you when you were caught plagiarising third part excepts
from articles you hadn't even read!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieHere is an example of how NOT TO PLAGAIRIZE instead of being shamelessly dishonest.
squabble squabble, trundle trundle, the caravan trundles on. At least we read articles
before we post them, unlike you when you were caught plagiarising third part excepts
from articles you hadn't even read!
" One prominent American religion confidently predicted that the world would end in 1914. Well, 1914 has come and gone, and -- while the events of that year were certainly of some importance -- the world does not, at least so far as I can see, seem to have ended.
There are at least three responses that an organized religion can make in the face of such a failed and fundamental prophecy.
They could have said, "Oh, did we say '1914'? So sorry, we meant '2014.' A slight error in calculation. Hope you weren't inconvenienced in any way." But they did not.
They could have said, "Well, the world would have ended, except we prayed very hard and interceded with God so He spared the Earth." But they did not. Instead, they did something much more ingenious.
They announced that the world had in fact ended in 1914, and if the rest of us hadn't noticed, that was our lookout. It is astonishing in the face of such transparent evasions that this religion has any adherents at all. But religions are tough. Either they make no contentions which are subject to disproof or they quickly redesign doctrine after disproof.
The fact that religions can be so shamelessly dishonest, so contemptuous of the intelligence of their adherents, and still flourish does not speak very well for the tough-mindedness of the believers. But it does indicate, if a demonstration were needed, that near the core of the religious experience is something remarkably resistant to rational inquiry."
Broca's Brain, Carl Sagan (New York: Ballantine Books, 1979, pp. 332-33)
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWhy not just agree to attribute your posts and provide the link? It takes no time and saves any misunderstanding. It's also polite to acknowledge the work of others. You always give Biblical references, so it's just following the same basic principle.
squabble squabble, trundle trundle, the caravan trundles on. At least we read articles
before we post them, unlike you when you were caught plagiarising third part excepts
from articles you hadn't even read!
Originally posted by Rank outsiderI generally do, on the one or two occasions that I have forgotten, then the squabbling
Why not just agree to attribute your posts and provide the link? It takes no time and saves any misunderstanding. It's also polite to acknowledge the work of others. You always give Biblical references, so it's just following the same basic principle.
squabblers used it as some kind of pretence to avoid actually addressing the content of
the post, at one point, I even had a disclaimer!
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs has been pointed out, galveston75's behaviour provides an insight into his integrity. Perhaps he should bear that in mind when he wants to be taken seriously as he tells us all that the end of the world is near. Maybe it's just his vanity,like with passing off others writing as his own, that makes him pontificate about doomsday, rather than any kind of analysis or thinking process that involves integrity. Maybe he's just effectively plagiarizing everything he ever offers here. Maybe little of what he says is original. Incidents like this make one wonder.
I generally do, on the one or two occasions that I have forgotten, then the squabbling
squabblers used it as some kind of pretence to avoid actually addressing the content of
the post, at one point, I even had a disclaimer!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieOk - so we both agree that it is the correct thing to do. If galveston75 accepts this, then I think we can resolve this matter pretty easily for all our benefit.
I generally do, on the one or two occasions that I have forgotten, then the squabbling
squabblers used it as some kind of pretence to avoid actually addressing the content of
the post, at one point, I even had a disclaimer!
galveston75 - are you prepared to agree with this?
Originally posted by Rank outsidergalveston75 has been called out - and had this explained to him numerous times. You make it seem like it's the first time it's happened or that it was done unwittingly.
Ok - so we both agree that it is the correct thing to do. If galveston75 accepts this, then I think we can resolve this matter pretty easily for all our benefit.
galveston75 - are you prepared to agree with this?
Originally posted by Rank outsiderGalveston generally does as well, indeed, it was perfectly clear to me that his post was
Ok - so we both agree that it is the correct thing to do. If galveston75 accepts this, then I think we can resolve this matter pretty easily for all our benefit.
galveston75 - are you prepared to agree with this?
not his own words and that it mattered very little as i am interested in the content, not
so much where it originated from. If it keeps the sticklers for rules and forum etiquette
at bay then it can only be a good thing, i have no doubt that he never intended to
deceive anyone and as you can see, as is per usual with the squabblers, it has
deflected the thread towards his personality rather than the content of what he had to
say, same old jive with them.