|
Post by Citing the site on Jul 30, 2007 16:25:55 GMT -5
Could you please site where I did this? In the thread about cults. The material is copied almost verbatim. The major difference is that you did not have the skill to maintain the outline indentation. One such source: www.carm.org/cults/cultic.htmYou can lie and claim it is your original work but we all know it is plagiarism. Check the use of site vs. cite.
|
|
|
Post by point it out on Jul 30, 2007 17:19:39 GMT -5
The definition of plagiarism has two parts. Plagiarism: - a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else
- and is presented as being your own work.
Source: dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarismJanet did not present the list as being her own work. On the other hand, Nathan not only presents the plagiarized article(s) on his website as his, but he also even goes as far as doctoring it up slightly by changing a word here and there. Then as further insult to our collective intelligence, he refuses to admit to his actions. So, before you accuse someone of plagiarism, at least learn the definition of the word. Otherwise you just make yourself look like an ass.
|
|
|
Post by to the plagiarist on Jul 30, 2007 17:22:14 GMT -5
No.
|
|
|
Post by nutcase on Jul 30, 2007 17:30:20 GMT -5
Ass From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search
Ass may refer to: Look up ass in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
* The most common phonological and spelling variation of arse in American English, a word for the anus or for the buttocks[1] * Ass, from Old English assa, ultimately from Latin asinus, is the older word for donkey. o Wild ass may mean the wild donkey, or it may mean its wild relative the onager, also known as a "half ass" -another animal of the horse genus. o Figuratively, a buffoon (fool, idiot, clown). The ass (donkey) typified clumsiness and stupidity since ancient times; asshead dates to 1550, to make an ass of oneself to 1590 - this has been conflated with "arse".
|
|
|
Post by bottom line on Jul 30, 2007 17:33:39 GMT -5
Poor nathan. Can't admit to plagiarism in the face of glaring evidence....how pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 30, 2007 18:07:37 GMT -5
Poor nathan. Can't admit to plagiarism in the face of glaring evidence....how pathetic. Are you sure this is the bottom line? I think that was said before but it went lower.
|
|
|
Post by wrong on Jul 30, 2007 18:29:08 GMT -5
The definition of plagiarism has two parts. Plagiarism: - a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else
- and is presented as being your own work.
Source: dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarismJanet did not present the list as being her own work. By posting the work without permission or attributing it to the author/owner, she did present it as her own. The only name it was posted under was hers. But honesty has not been shown to be very important to the poster.
|
|
|
Post by janet on Jul 30, 2007 22:42:03 GMT -5
The definition of plagiarism has two parts. Plagiarism: - a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else
- and is presented as being your own work.
Source: dictionary.reference.com/browse/plagiarismJanet did not present the list as being her own work. By posting the work without permission or attributing it to the author/owner, she did present it as her own. The only name it was posted under was hers. But honesty has not been shown to be very important to the poster. Most people get rid of there broken records. Well maybe sometimes they just keep them because they don't have anything else in life.
|
|
|
Post by for nate on Jul 31, 2007 0:32:11 GMT -5
nathan,
I just spoke with our overseer. He really is embarrassed about your website. He asked if there was any way to get it fixed. He really is ashamed of what he calls "all those errors" you've posted.
I asked him about why no worker has endorsed your website and he replied that your "website does not represent our ministry at all."
Hmmmm....
|
|
|
Post by Brad Lewis on Jul 31, 2007 1:09:28 GMT -5
2x2s don't repent. They haven't been taught it by overseers. They believe in coverup and lies.
Brad
|
|
|
Post by tsk tsk on Jul 31, 2007 9:57:13 GMT -5
Sorry nate. You refused to tell us which workers endorse your website. You'll find out who the overseer is when you change your mind.
|
|
|
Post by again on Jul 31, 2007 10:45:41 GMT -5
nathan,
This is another example of how you twist the words of others.
I did not say that the overseer was going to contact you.
|
|
so you dont delete it
Guest
|
Post by so you dont delete it on Jul 31, 2007 10:51:21 GMT -5
This example is being quoted here so that nathan doesn't delete his post and try to wiggle out of this one.
Nathan twisted my words, and this post proves it.
I said: Sorry nate. You refused to tell us which workers endorse your website. You'll find out who the overseer is when you change your mind.
Nate said: Sure he will be the first overseer to contact me in 7 yrs. I Can hardly to find out who this overseer is. He can try but I can tell you this already I don't so he will change my mind.
How long do I have to wait? I hope it doesn't take forever.
Do you have a name? so I can tell him it was you who told me about this.
I did not say that the overseer is going to contact nathan. nathan inserted that in there in order to divert away from what I did say.
|
|
|
Post by to nathan on Jul 31, 2007 11:20:59 GMT -5
nathan, your argument is useless.
In reply #47 you quoted the post that you twisted. So essentially you are now arguing with yourself.
|
|
|
Post by it doesnt matter on Jul 31, 2007 12:08:07 GMT -5
It doesn't matter who I am, nathan. Even if you knew who I am, you would still be a plagiarist.
|
|
|
Post by to nathan on Jul 31, 2007 12:20:12 GMT -5
Obviously not, nathan. If you did care what others thought, you would not be a plagiarist.
|
|
|
Post by give it up nathan on Jul 31, 2007 12:34:35 GMT -5
nathan, if that is the best line of defense you can come up with, you may as well admit that you are a plagiarist. The only person fooled here is you.
|
|
|
Post by the reality on Jul 31, 2007 12:47:10 GMT -5
4,559 posts later, and nathan is still in denial.
|
|
|
Post by twofaced on Jul 31, 2007 14:22:45 GMT -5
4,559 posts later, and nathan is still in denial. right, Mr/Mrs chicken... can't face reality.I've seen two-faced behavior before, but this takes the cake.
|
|
|
Post by not surprising on Jul 31, 2007 17:56:01 GMT -5
It's not surprising really. The evidence clearly demonstrates that nathan plagiarized that article. When confronted with the evidence he lashes out and gets rather nasty about it. There is no honor in nathan.
|
|
|
Post by gloryintruth on Jul 31, 2007 18:14:38 GMT -5
[Someone Wrote] When confronted with the evidence he lashes out and gets rather nasty about it. There is no honor in nathan.
Put yourself in Nathan's position for a moment. He gets attacked, insulted, abused and condemned on a daily basis. Not just once or twice a week. Not just every blue moon. But consistently - every single day.
Imagine being told, constantly, that you are "dishonourable", "a liar", "lost", "going to hell", "a cultist", "plagarist", "hypocrite" and so on. It would become crushing and depressing in very short order. One can forgive Nathan for getting sick and tired of these sorts of antics (although Nathan always manages to keep his cool!).
This kind of behaviour is, of course, a form of psychotic bullying. On this forum professing people are subjected to the rage of the anonymous posters who sieze upon the TMB as an opportunity to get revenge upon the entire fellowship. Nathan (and the rest of us) seem to be used as representatives.
Nathan is routinely insulted for everything he does. On this forum people have attacked his parenting methodologies, attacked him for leaving the work, for joining the work, for his website, attacked him on the basis of sexuality (as if they would know!) and a whole bunch of other stuff. The level of torrid abuse is utterly disgusting.
Nathan deserves to be recognised for being a "good guy", who does not stoop to the antics shown by others, and deserves, like any human being, a fair go.
|
|
|
Post by to GIT on Jul 31, 2007 18:18:41 GMT -5
git,
You have brought up some good points. However, you stretched it a bit too far and resorted to exaggeration in order to make your points.
Nice try. No cookie for you.
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Jul 31, 2007 18:21:56 GMT -5
GIT,
Did you ever think that such labels of being a liar, plagiarist, and dishonorable are a direct response to his own words, actions, website, and posts?
He is not looked down on for being a 2x2 (by rational people that is...), but rather for his lies and dishonesty...
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Jul 31, 2007 18:38:41 GMT -5
Can you imagine this come from a guy who has NO shame in using CUSSING! words and awful foul language in public like his daily speech and think NOTHING wrong with it. You, just a few posts ago, called me an ass... the very same term you claim to be "awful foul language"... You sir are a Hypocrite...
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Jul 31, 2007 18:44:21 GMT -5
I want to use your own word "ASS" which you use so often on here this way you know how others feel when you call people that word or worse. NOT much fun was it? Bryan. You freely admit using the "awful foul language" against me... How then are you not a hypocrite for attacking me for using the very same term?
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Jul 31, 2007 18:50:48 GMT -5
Didn't you say the word ass is not that bad before, Bryan? NOT fun to hear your own word about you was it? How is anything you just said relevant to you calling me an ass, and then attacking me for using the very same word and describing it as "awful foul language"? You are a hypocrite by attacking me for using the very same term you just used...
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Jul 31, 2007 18:55:06 GMT -5
whatever you say... hypocrite...
|
|
_
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by _ on Jul 31, 2007 19:04:42 GMT -5
I say you are the worse hyprocrite on here.... trying to straight people out when you are a BAD example to begin with your foul mouth. That is pathetic. What you say is becoming increasingly irrelevant...
|
|