24 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaIn your case, the charge of plagiarism was true, you wrote something down as your writing that actually came from someone else.
Plagiarism can only be attributed to fiction and falsity.
Truth cannot be plagiarised because it belongs to everyone.
The source of truth which belongs to everyone does not have to be submitted.
No single person or group of persons owns the truth so it cannot be plagiarised.
Who out there can say they own the truth......it is solely theirs and they ...[text shortened]... cause it belongs to them and no other.
So no more talk of plagiarism where it does not apply.
If that is not plagiarism, I can say "I have a dream" and quote the whole Martin Luther King speech with no consequences.
We don't bring in supernatural authority here, this is about what you wrote and where you got it. You wrote it as if we were to believe you originated the words.
24 Aug 11
Many points have been raised and they are all valid...
May I expand on my OP.
I do not present anything that is not supported by the authority of the Veda.
The Veda only presents truth hence anything describing that truth cannot be plagiarised.
As Vistest has said correctly that creative writing can be plagiarised so if this was a forum of poetry and prose and fiction through creative writing then plagiarism would be alive and well........but its not.
Its a forum of spirituality and hopefully only principles of truth are discussed leaving aside the trivial pursuit of prose, grammar and enunciation to the academically encumbered writing police.............who are always typically the dishonest ones who support animal killing and life comes from a muddy puddle.
24 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaI think I understand your expansion (and it seems related to my "aside" about two differing uses of that word "truth", because of which, even though each use is valid in itself, confusion can arise).
Many points have been raised and they are all valid...
May I expand on my OP.
I do not present anything that is not supported by the authority of the Veda.
The Veda only presents truth hence anything describing that truth cannot be plagiarised.
As Vistest has said correctly that creative writing can be plagiarised so if this was a forum of poetry an ...[text shortened]... ways typically the dishonest ones who support animal killing and life comes from a muddy puddle.
The Vedas could well be considered in what I called “the public domain”—certainly in India. Even a particular translation of the Vedas, in some contexts—for example, your exchanging talk with your confreres in an ashram, or an internet “ashram” for that matter. As I said, I am not accusing you of plagiarism. Just challenging your definition in the opening post. If you were to quote the Vedas in a scholarly essay, for example, you would be required to give full citation (or at least, depending on context, to put quotation marks around the quotes).
Look, I have failed to give proper citation/attribution a time or two—not for deceit, but just a lapse of discipline. It will likely happen again—and if it does, I really would like to be called on it. That’s all.
Again, I think I undertsand your expansion, and accept it.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaYou have never answered my questions: Do you think God made the
Many points have been raised and they are all valid...
May I expand on my OP.
I do not present anything that is not supported by the authority of the Veda.
The Veda only presents truth hence anything describing that truth cannot be plagiarised.
As Vistest has said correctly that creative writing can be plagiarised so if this was a forum of poetry an ...[text shortened]... ways typically the dishonest ones who support animal killing and life comes from a muddy puddle.
cheetah able to run fast so that he could chase and run down his
prey for his food like he does? Is it wrong for the Cheetah to kill
other animals for his food?
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is no sin for the animals when they hunt.
You have never answered my questions: Do you think God made the
cheetah able to run fast so that he could chase and run down his
prey for his food like he does? Is it wrong for the Cheetah to kill
other animals for his food?
They are controlled by instinct which is intrinsic to their particular body.
Man has the higher consciousness to put aside basic instincts but if he doesn't access this higher consciousness through spiritual discipline then he will be on the level of the animals.
By refusing to embrace spirituality the person suffers the pangs of material existence.
We see in society that mankind is behaving like the animal with no restraint.
Embracing spiritual discipline is a choice made when the person desires to know and love God.
Atheism is a sure way to never embrace spiritual discipline and therefore struggles to rise above his basic instincts.
25 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdYou have explained yourself clearly...... thank you.
I think I understand your expansion (and it seems related to my "aside" about two differing uses of that word "truth", because of which, even though each use is valid in itself, confusion can arise).
The Vedas could well be considered in what I called “the public domain”—certainly in India. Even a particular translation of the Vedas, in some contexts—for ...[text shortened]... be called on it. That’s all.
Again, I think I undertsand your expansion, and accept it.
My situation would be "not always disclosing the source", which would be probably termed (non disclosure of source)......but not termed (plagiarism) because for me to plagiarize I would have to deliberately pass of someone's creative writing as my own which I do not do.
Therefore there are two distinctions.....
1. plagiarism: which is deliberately passing of creative writing as your own.
2. non disclosure of source: which is just a choice made by the person for various reasoning. (lazy, doesn't want to, forgot, cant remember)
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaI believe atheist would agree with you that they are just animals that
There is no sin for the animals when they hunt.
They are controlled by instinct which is intrinsic to their particular body.
Man has the higher consciousness to put aside basic instincts but if he doesn't access this higher consciousness through spiritual discipline then he will be on the level of the animals.
By refusing to embrace spirituality the pe ...[text shortened]... o never embrace spiritual discipline and therefore struggles to rise above his basic instincts.
have evolved over time from their common ancestor, the worm.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaI agree with that definition. Others however, who you call dishonest, want
You have explained yourself clearly...... thank you.
My situation would be "not always disclosing the source", which would be probably termed (non disclosure of source)......but not termed (plagiarism) because for me to plagiarize I would have to deliberately pass of someone's creative writing as my own which I do not do.
Therefore there are two distincti ...[text shortened]... de by the person for various reasoning. (lazy, doesn't want to, forgot, cant remember)
everyone except themselves to give a detailed reference for everything that
is said that one heard or read from another source and did not think of it
originally themselves. Of course, like I said, they do not make this a strict
reguirement for themselves.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by RJHindsyes, I think that's a helpful distinction as well.
I agree with that definition. Others however, who you call dishonest, want
everyone except themselves to give a detailed reference for everything that
is said that one heard or read from another source and did not think of it
originally themselves. Of course, like I said, they do not make this a strict
reguirement for themselves.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by DasaNo.2 is plagiarism too, Dasa. If you cannot remember a source you should acknowledge the fact and make it clear that you are not trying to pass it off as your own writing. Being "lazy" and "not wanting to" avoid passing off others writing as your own is still plagiarism. It is poor etiquette on a forum such as this. You have been reprimanded and reminded numerous times.
Therefore there are two distinctions.....
1. plagiarism: which is deliberately passing of creative writing as your own.
2. non disclosure of source: which is just a choice made by the person for various reasoning. (lazy, doesn't want to, forgot, cant remember)
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by FMFThe amount of times I have not given the source can be counted on one hand.
No.2 is plagiarism too, Dasa. If you cannot remember a source you should acknowledge the fact and make it clear that you are not trying to pass it off as your own writing. Being "lazy" and "not wanting to" avoid passing off others writing as your own is still plagiarism. It is poor etiquette on a forum such as this. You have been reprimanded and reminded numerous times.
Two of those I forgot.
And three times I did not want to.
Why would I not want to?
Because for some persons .......I know full well why they want the source and its not because of interest in spirituality but they want to scavenge the source for something to criticize or slander.
Actually they would not find anything but they would fabricate a fault and then harass me with their nonsense.
25 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by DasaYou are absolutely infamous for copy pasting long extracts from other peoples writing and not acknowledging it. people have exposed this time and time again by using Google. You have done it too many times to count. It is plagiarism pure and simple, Dasa, and an indication of your apparent profound lack of self-respect and respect for other members of this community.
The amount of times I have not given the source can be counted on one hand.
25 Aug 11
Originally posted by FMFAll my post either say S.B. or B.G. and if not I make it clear they are obviously from the Veda.
You are absolutely infamous for copy pasting long extracts from other peoples writing and not acknowledging it. people have exposed this time and time again by using Google. You have done it too many times to count. It is plagiarism pure and simple, Dasa, and an indication of your apparent profound lack of self-respect and respect for other members of this community.
The content also reveals they are from the Vedic source as well by its general layout.
If its not clear where the post comes from then I have genuinely forgot to label it.
In the future I will tag it (from the Veda)
The bottom line is ......persons who complain do so because they are attempting to discredit me because they are not interested in the subject at hand but only in creating a storm in a teacup. (its not really about plagiarism)
They do this in politics all the time by creating disturbance over something disjointed from the topic just to create imaginary faults in the other.
There has been not one person who claimed (plagiarism) who was actually sincere, genuine or even cared about the topic.
And there are times when persons claim plagiarism when they were my own words..... showing persons who do this are only concerned with making conflict.