Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 20:02:11 GMT -5
"It was a plagiarism of ideas and not copying text."
I know that - and according to your definition of "plagiarism" I have pointed out previously that you have with apparent impunity plagiarized the ideas of many who likewise plagiarized each other in the founding process of the religion you hold to - avoid that fact as you please, and bust your backside all you like trying to waste my time on this matter any further - your choice.
As shown over and over and over ad nauseum, The evidence that Dr. Lisle shares similar/same ideas with myself, Duane Gish and Terry Mortenson is a happy fellowship for me AND apprently an unhappy strong rebuttal of your religion which is impossible for you to refute - nothing more and nothing less.
To me you have shown yourself as nothing better that a gossip spreading false gossip against your imaginary 'enemies' come hell or high water -- i.e., one of the marks of a religion that is very similar to 2x2ism in that its fanatics do nothing better than gossip false tales against its 'enemies.'
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 5, 2019 22:22:33 GMT -5
"It was a plagiarism of ideas and not copying text." I know that - and according to your definition of "plagiarism" I have pointed out previously that you have with apparent impunity plagiarized the ideas of many who likewise plagiarized each other in the founding process of the religion you hold to - avoid that fact as you please, and bust your backside all you like trying to waste my time on this matter any further - your choice. If you are making a claim that I have plagiarized, and I believe you are, please provide an example to support your claim. You can easily prove that I am in error simply with an explanation of how you, based on what you have posted, formulated a theory as complex as Lisle's without taking any of his ideas.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2019 23:13:23 GMT -5
"It was a plagiarism of ideas and not copying text." I know that - and according to your definition of "plagiarism" I have pointed out previously that you have with apparent impunity plagiarized the ideas of many who likewise plagiarized each other in the founding process of the religion you hold to - avoid that fact as you please, and bust your backside all you like trying to waste my time on this matter any further - your choice. If you are making a claim that I have plagiarized, and I believe you are, please provide an example to support your claim. You can easily prove that I am in error simply with an explanation of how you, based on what you have posted, formulated a theory as complex as Lisle's without taking any of his ideas. "If you are making a claim that I have plagiarized, and I believe you are, please provide an example to support your claim" Na -You show that you have not plagiarized (by your own def) all of the tenets of your religion. You either don't read or just try again to waste my time some more - so I Repeat - As shown over and over and over ad nauseum, The evidence that Dr. Lisle shares similar/same ideas with myself, Duane Gish and Terry Mortenson is a happy fellowship for me
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 5, 2019 23:50:45 GMT -5
"It was a plagiarism of ideas and not copying text." I know that - and according to your definition of "plagiarism" I have pointed out previously that you have with apparent impunity plagiarized the ideas of many who likewise plagiarized each other in the founding process of the religion you hold to - avoid that fact as you please, and bust your backside all you like trying to waste my time on this matter any further - your choice. As shown over and over and over ad nauseum, The evidence that Dr. Lisle shares similar/same ideas with myself, Duane Gish and Terry Mortenson is a happy fellowship for me AND apprently an unhappy strong rebuttal of your religion which is impossible for you to refute - nothing more and nothing less. To me you have shown yourself as nothing better that a gossip spreading false gossip against your imaginary 'enemies' come hell or high water -- i.e., one of the marks of a religion that is very similar to 2x2ism in that its fanatics do nothing better than gossip false tales against its 'enemies.' I realize that this post wasn't address to me but do you really think that I am going to believe that you came up with those same ideas without your having first read them in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson writings?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2019 0:33:26 GMT -5
"It was a plagiarism of ideas and not copying text." I know that - and according to your definition of "plagiarism" I have pointed out previously that you have with apparent impunity plagiarized the ideas of many who likewise plagiarized each other in the founding process of the religion you hold to - avoid that fact as you please, and bust your backside all you like trying to waste my time on this matter any further - your choice. As shown over and over and over ad nauseum, The evidence that Dr. Lisle shares similar/same ideas with myself, Duane Gish and Terry Mortenson is a happy fellowship for me AND apprently an unhappy strong rebuttal of your religion which is impossible for you to refute - nothing more and nothing less. To me you have shown yourself as nothing better that a gossip spreading false gossip against your imaginary 'enemies' come hell or high water -- i.e., one of the marks of a religion that is very similar to 2x2ism in that its fanatics do nothing better than gossip false tales against its 'enemies.' I realize that this post wasn't address to me but do you really think that I am going to believe that you came up with those same ideas without your having first read them in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson writings?
Since you are rational's chief angel I fully expect you will believe rational's gossip. And that has nothing to do with anything I believe - but I have NOT read anything written "in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson" - NADA, not one sentence. And the four of us share similar/same ideas in spite of me not knowing of Lisle, Gish or Mortenson until very recently - Gish by introduction of rational, Mortenson just today, and Lisle for but a few months - you figure it out however you like, but you had best not oppose rational or he might dump all over you in false gossip on this board.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 6, 2019 1:05:38 GMT -5
I realize that this post wasn't address to me but do you really think that I am going to believe that you came up with those same ideas without your having first read them in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson writings?
Since you are rational's chief angel I fully expect you will believe rational's gossip. And that has nothing to do with anything I believe - but I have NOT read anything written "in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson" - NADA, not one sentence. And the four of us share similar/same ideas in spite of me not knowing of Lisle, Gish or Mortenson until very recently - Gish by introduction of rational, Mortenson just today, and Lisle for but a few months - you figure it out however you like, but you had best not oppose rational or he might dump all over you in false gossip on this board. Your tendency to deflect from answering about the subject by such tactics as the above tend to make one wonder how versed you in the subject under discussion.
People who are more familiar with a subject under discussion are more apt to discuss the subject rather than using derogatory comments against the presenters.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2019 1:29:59 GMT -5
Since you are rational's chief angel I fully expect you will believe rational's gossip. And that has nothing to do with anything I believe - but I have NOT read anything written "in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson" - NADA, not one sentence. And the four of us share similar/same ideas in spite of me not knowing of Lisle, Gish or Mortenson until very recently - Gish by introduction of rational, Mortenson just today, and Lisle for but a few months - you figure it out however you like, but you had best not oppose rational or he might dump all over you in false gossip on this board. Your tendency to deflect from answering about the subject by such tactics as the above tend to make one wonder how versed you in the subject under discussion.
People who are more familiar with a subject under discussion are more apt to discuss the subject rather than using derogatory comments against the presenters.“People who are more familiar with a subject under discussion are more apt to discuss the subject rather than using derogatory comments against the presenters. “ Ah huh, and people who have discussed that subject months ago ad nauseum, then again just recently ALL in futility might well mimic my decision to stop wasting his/her time – long before now. And people like rational and yourself who continue to ignore such as decision to stop wasting time are NOT discussing anything more than discussed previously obviously to try forcing one to continue wasting his/her time. It seems like a TMB illness of epidemic proportion. Maybe there is a Vaccine for it. "...using derogatory comments against the presenters." I have not used any "derogatory comments" so yours reveals your own twist on what I wrote, and THAT is not only typical of the rational-team on here, but quite fitting in this case, it would seem. I was done discussing the same subject months ago and have been done repeating the exercise AGAIN in futility AGAIN just recently with the same 'discussers' ad naueum. But you and rational and any others who were aboard until a short time ago are welcome to waste your time Ad infinitum if that pleases you.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 6, 2019 1:33:25 GMT -5
I realize that this post wasn't address to me but do you really think that I am going to believe that you came up with those same ideas without your having first read them in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson writings?
Since you are rational's chief angel I fully expect you will believe rational's gossip. And that has nothing to do with anything I believe - but I have NOT read anything written "in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson" - NADA, not one sentence. And the four of us share similar/same ideas in spite of me not knowing of Lisle, Gish or Mortenson until very recently - Gish by introduction of rational, Mortenson just today, and Lisle for but a few months - you figure it out however you like, but you had best not oppose rational or he might dump all over you in false gossip on this board. Now wait a minute!
You say that, " has nothing to do with anything I believe - but I have NOT read anything written "in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson" - NADA, not one sentence. Yet you say that "the four of us share the four of us share similar/same ideas in spite of me not knowing of Lisle, Gish or Mortenson until very recently. What do you mean? How can you "share similar/same ideas" if you don't read anything they have written?
You surely have watched their videos that you keep posting, - haven't you? Doesn't that tell you what they believe?
What's the difference from looking at their videos different than reading what they have "written?" Or have you talked to them personally?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 6, 2019 1:40:14 GMT -5
Your tendency to deflect from answering about the subject by such tactics as the above tend to make one wonder how versed you in the subject under discussion.
People who are more familiar with a subject under discussion are more apt to discuss the subject rather than using derogatory comments against the presenters. “People who are more familiar with a subject under discussion are more apt to discuss the subject rather than using derogatory comments against the presenters. “
Ah huh, and people who have discussed that subject months ago ad nauseum, then again just recently ALL in futility might well mimic my decision to stop wasting his/her time – long before now. And people like rational and yourself who continue to ignore such as decision to stop wasting time are NOT discussing anything more than discussed previously obviously to try forcing one to continue wasting his/her time. It seems like a TMB illness of epidemic proportion. Maybe there is a Vaccine for it. "...using derogatory comments against the presenters." I have not used any "derogatory comments" so yours reveals your own twist on what I wrote, and THAT is not only typical of the rational-team on here, but quite fitting in this case, it would seem. I was done discussing the same subject months ago and have been done repeating the exercise AGAIN in futility AGAIN just recently with the same 'discussers' ad naueum. But you and rational and any others who were aboard until a short time ago are welcome to waste your time Ad infinitum if that pleases you. Gratu,
You are right in that trying to have a civil discussion with you is a exercise in futility.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2019 1:59:41 GMT -5
“People who are more familiar with a subject under discussion are more apt to discuss the subject rather than using derogatory comments against the presenters. “
Ah huh, and people who have discussed that subject months ago ad nauseum, then again just recently ALL in futility might well mimic my decision to stop wasting his/her time – long before now. And people like rational and yourself who continue to ignore such as decision to stop wasting time are NOT discussing anything more than discussed previously obviously to try forcing one to continue wasting his/her time. It seems like a TMB illness of epidemic proportion. Maybe there is a Vaccine for it. "...using derogatory comments against the presenters." I have not used any "derogatory comments" so yours reveals your own twist on what I wrote, and THAT is not only typical of the rational-team on here, but quite fitting in this case, it would seem. I was done discussing the same subject months ago and have been done repeating the exercise AGAIN in futility AGAIN just recently with the same 'discussers' ad naueum. But you and rational and any others who were aboard until a short time ago are welcome to waste your time Ad infinitum if that pleases you. Gratu,
You are right in that trying to have a civil discussion with you is a exercise in futility.“You are right in that trying to have a civil discussion with you is a exercise in futility. “ “Civil discussion” - certainly not from you, rational and the others. But I am not going to waste my time further gathering just YOUR uncivil discussion(s) for you to see that for yourself., since you can waste your time to gather your own all by your lonesome. So THAT ploy to force me into wasting more of my time has four flat tires right off the factory hoist.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 6, 2019 9:53:35 GMT -5
I realize that this post wasn't address to me but do you really think that I am going to believe that you came up with those same ideas without your having first read them in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson writings?
Since you are rational's chief angel I fully expect you will believe rational's gossip. And that has nothing to do with anything I believe - but I have NOT read anything written "in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson" - NADA, not one sentence. And the four of us share similar/same ideas in spite of me not knowing of Lisle, Gish or Mortenson until very recently - Gish by introduction of rational, Mortenson just today, and Lisle for but a few months - you figure it out however you like, but you had best not oppose rational or he might dump all over you in false gossip on this board. Plagiarism is not a crime. In an academic field it is viewed as dishonesty. On a message board it is viewed mainly as an ethical issue. In some cases the writer may not be aware that ideas they are presenting have been plagiarized. Helen Keller wrote a short story which contained elements of a story that had been read to her earlier. And the four of us share similar/same ideas in spite of me not knowing of Lisle, Gish or Mortenson until very recently - Gish by introduction of rational, Mortenson just today, and Lisle for but a few months - you figure it out however you like, but you had best not oppose rational or he might dump all over you in false gossip on this board. There is little point of bringing Gish or Mortenson into the picture since they had nothing to do with the theory of Lisle that you presented. Check the transcript I posted and see if there is anything regarding a non-constant speed of light. And that has nothing to do with anything I believe - but I have NOT read anything written "in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson" - NADA, not one sentence. I don't think anyone specifically said you had read anything. You posted that you had listened to the Lisle presentation at least two times and all of the ideas you presented were in that video. Claiming you "...have NOT read anything written "in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson" - NADA, not one sentence." is a way to imply you had no prior knowledge of Lisle"s theory prior to posting about the various aspects of that theory because you had not read about it. On another note - You are posting links to all sorts of creationist material, many videos but some are non-video links. Do you not read the material to which you provide links? Or are you that certain, because of the source, that they support your point of view?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2019 11:38:08 GMT -5
Since you are rational's chief angel I fully expect you will believe rational's gossip. And that has nothing to do with anything I believe - but I have NOT read anything written "in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson" - NADA, not one sentence. And the four of us share similar/same ideas in spite of me not knowing of Lisle, Gish or Mortenson until very recently - Gish by introduction of rational, Mortenson just today, and Lisle for but a few months - you figure it out however you like, but you had best not oppose rational or he might dump all over you in false gossip on this board. Plagiarism is not a crime. In an academic field it is viewed as dishonesty. On a message board it is viewed mainly as an ethical issue. In some cases the writer may not be aware that ideas they are presenting have been plagiarized. Helen Keller wrote a short story which contained elements of a story that had been read to her earlier. And the four of us share similar/same ideas in spite of me not knowing of Lisle, Gish or Mortenson until very recently - Gish by introduction of rational, Mortenson just today, and Lisle for but a few months - you figure it out however you like, but you had best not oppose rational or he might dump all over you in false gossip on this board. There is little point of bringing Gish or Mortenson into the picture since they had nothing to do with the theory of Lisle that you presented. Check the transcript I posted and see if there is anything regarding a non-constant speed of light. And that has nothing to do with anything I believe - but I have NOT read anything written "in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson" - NADA, not one sentence. I don't think anyone specifically said you had read anything. You posted that you had listened to the Lisle presentation at least two times and all of the ideas you presented were in that video. Claiming you "...have NOT read anything written "in Lisle, Gish and Mortenson" - NADA, not one sentence." is a way to imply you had no prior knowledge of Lisle"s theory prior to posting about the various aspects of that theory because you had not read about it. On another note - You are posting links to all sorts of creationist material, many videos but some are non-video links. Do you not read the material to which you provide links? Or are you that certain, because of the source, that they support your point of view? By your def, you have plagiarized all the tenets of your religion, not to mention your school teachers who by your def plagiarized their teachers. In fact, drawn to its logical conclusion you cannot use even the word "plagiarism" without plagiarizing your def. And now you tell us that you should be viewed on this "message board" as "dishonest" by your own def. I disagree. In my opinion you are guilty of using ambiguity, probably plagiarized (by your def) from the workers who use ambiguity to deceive and if caught at it, act like proud smartasses about it, especially in their gossip sessions. On another note - "Lisle"s theory" - the ideas were not only Lisle's ideas, and you have already shown that you know that by TRYING to set me up so you could blame me for your OBVIOUS pending accusation of plagiarism (by your def) against Dr. Lisle too. PLEASE, stop wasting my time and just wear your false gossip against an alias.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 6, 2019 14:20:31 GMT -5
By your def, you have plagiarized all the tenets of your religion, not to mention your school teachers who by your def plagiarized their teachers. In fact, drawn to its logical conclusion you cannot use even the word "plagiarism" without plagiarizing your def. Again, for the n th time, it is not my definition of plagiarism. I am sorry that you do not seem to understand the common concept but here are some things to think about: Common knowledge is information that is accepted and known widely you do not need to cite it. Facts that can be easily verified. As you are conducting your research on a topic, you will see the same facts repeated over and over. Example: You are writing a paper on nuclear power . The heat and light of the sun result from nuclear energy. Although you might not have known this fact before your research, you have seen it multiple times and no one ever argues about it. Facts that you can safely assume your readers know. Examples: Honolulu is the capital of Hawaii. Fish breathe using gills. The earth is composed of tectonic plates. As pointed out by that same site, common sayings or cliches do not need to be cited unless you have discovered something that the common person probably does not know and it is from a source that is not widely known. Examples: Curiosity killed the cat. Ignorance is bliss. Perhaps the other issue is that you do not read the words written and insert your own words, even when referencing something someone else has posted. I posted "On a message board it is viewed mainly as an ethical issue." You digested and it came out as: "And now you tell us that you should be viewed on this "message board" as "dishonest" by your own def." I did not use the word dishonest. I just said it was an ethical issue (as opposed to e legal issue). You will notice that when most people post things that are not common knowledge that they cite their source(s). Again, I stick pretty close to the MLA suggestions. I am not certain what you feel is ambiguous. I have tried to be a open and forthcoming as possible when discussing the various points that I thought should be questioned. Sometimes when trying to protect the feelings of another the discussion does become a little vague when you realize that the education level of the person on the other end is not as high in the field under discussion as it was first assumed. There are people on the other side of the screen and it adds nothing to accuse them of beating someone into submission or excommunicating them if they did not do as told.
|
|
|
Post by Gene on Aug 6, 2019 18:12:14 GMT -5
rational - Here again are the same views as mine, those of Dr. Lisle and Duane Gish that credit historical persons by name whose original ideas you have set yourself up as plagiarizing (by your def) with every expression of their original ideas without crediting those ideas to those people. But I doubt that posting the link will result in you watching the video - as you please - Your religion is a total plagiarism by your own definition of "plagiarism." I.e., The History of YOUR religion - full of plagerizers (by your def) of each other. Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ocjJ8FPR18Show in the transcript where any of the ideas regardig the speed of light, the problems with measurment of the 1-way speed of light, the difficulties imagined with getting synchronized atomic clocks, or even the mention of light years. Transcript of Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences00:04 tonight I want to talk to you about 00:06 millions of years it's unscientific 00:08 origin and catastrophic consequences if <snip> Um... pardon the sidetrack... but, I need to create a transcript of a set of training videos, and I'm at loggerheads to figure out how to do it (other than manually typing and starting and stopping the video repeatedly.)
How did you capture this transcript? Can you do it without the time markers?
|
|
|
Post by joanna on Aug 6, 2019 20:02:38 GMT -5
rational . The Gish Gallop, and other incorrect debating tactics tend to be used as a defence to mask an argument which cannot be substantiated. It is likely that the person, who resorts to flooding their opponent with claims, is aware at some level that they 'don't have a leg to stand on', yet their inability to admit they are wrong prevents them from stopping this practice. Ad hominem; closing the argument or threatening to banish the individual are some of the other tactics used on this forum when confronted with information that the individual cannot truthfully answer and remain consistent with their belief system. When i left a faith based belief behind, my attitude towards learning and accepting new information appeared to gradually change. Simply put, i was no longer trying to make new information conform to the christian framework. This change in attitude after dismissing a faith belief enabled me to learn and accept information based on whether it was validated by facts. It was not until 1862 that the physicist William Thomson calculated the age of the earth to be in millions of years. If you believe in the bible, then the Earth is approx 6,000 years and it was created in six days by the God of Abraham. However those who choose to retain a belief in the bible, either do their best to integrate scientific fact with the bible, or they ignore the science. The endeavour to integrate scientific fact - the age of the Earth in this instance, with the bible results in adapting your interpretation of the Genesis creation account to fit with the science. Previous to scientific research proving the age of the Earth and other vital discoveries, Christians considered the bible a Primary Source for information. However Science has changed this. Yet some, like Gratu, continue to try to fit current scientific knowledge into the bible accounts. Others have adapted the bible to fit with the science. Either approach relies on using tactics like the Gish Gallop; ad hominem; threats or logical inconsistencies etc to shut down or confuse those they debate with. Once a book or text is proven to contain misleading, unverifiable data, how can it be considered a reliable source? Why are individuals prepared to modify the accounts of creation to fit the science, yet continue to believe in the extraordinary claims which frame the Christian belief? What criteria do Christians apply to the bible to determine fact from fiction? The bible is neither a reliable source for knowledge or our spiritual welfare. The dissent; accusations against even those who believe in the same god; the 1,000's of Christian sects/cults who disagree on biblical interpretation, and the wars across the ages are all a testament to the precarious impact of the belief in the bible on spiritual wellbeing. Just as the creation account has evolved so to has the term "Spiritual". We can be spiritual without having any faith. The religious no longer have a monopoly on the term Spiritual. Embracing spirituality with a scientific mind
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 6, 2019 21:13:36 GMT -5
Show in the transcript where any of the ideas regardig the speed of light, the problems with measurment of the 1-way speed of light, the difficulties imagined with getting synchronized atomic clocks, or even the mention of light years. Transcript of Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences00:04 tonight I want to talk to you about 00:06 millions of years it's unscientific <snip> Um... pardon the sidetrack... but, I need to create a transcript of a set of training videos, and I'm at loggerheads to figure out how to do it (other than manually typing and starting and stopping the video repeatedly.) How did you capture this transcript? By being pure in thought and deed while denying myself all of the comforts of life.Yes, if I put my mind to it....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2019 23:14:39 GMT -5
By your def, you have plagiarized all the tenets of your religion, not to mention your school teachers who by your def plagiarized their teachers. In fact, drawn to its logical conclusion you cannot use even the word "plagiarism" without plagiarizing your def. Again, for the n th time, it is not my definition of plagiarism. I am sorry that you do not seem to understand the common concept but here are some things to think about: Common knowledge is information that is accepted and known widely you do not need to cite it. Facts that can be easily verified. As you are conducting your research on a topic, you will see the same facts repeated over and over. Example: You are writing a paper on nuclear power . The heat and light of the sun result from nuclear energy. Although you might not have known this fact before your research, you have seen it multiple times and no one ever argues about it. Facts that you can safely assume your readers know. Examples: Honolulu is the capital of Hawaii. Fish breathe using gills. The earth is composed of tectonic plates. As pointed out by that same site, common sayings or cliches do not need to be cited unless you have discovered something that the common person probably does not know and it is from a source that is not widely known. Examples: Curiosity killed the cat. Ignorance is bliss. Perhaps the other issue is that you do not read the words written and insert your own words, even when referencing something someone else has posted. I posted "On a message board it is viewed mainly as an ethical issue." You digested and it came out as: "And now you tell us that you should be viewed on this "message board" as "dishonest" by your own def." I did not use the word dishonest. I just said it was an ethical issue (as opposed to e legal issue). You will notice that when most people post things that are not common knowledge that they cite their source(s). Again, I stick pretty close to the MLA suggestions. I am not certain what you feel is ambiguous. I have tried to be a open and forthcoming as possible when discussing the various points that I thought should be questioned. Sometimes when trying to protect the feelings of another the discussion does become a little vague when you realize that the education level of the person on the other end is not as high in the field under discussion as it was first assumed. There are people on the other side of the screen and it adds nothing to accuse them of beating someone into submission or excommunicating them if they did not do as told. Rational - 15 hours ago “Plagiarism is not a crime. In an academic field it is viewed as dishonesty. ....” Rational - 11 hours ago “I did not use the word dishonest. .....” But I get it - on here you are not playing the "academic field" - you could have fooled me. Oooook – your def keeps growing over time apparently being recast by you to to cover your own backside only after it gets exposed. I will not waste more time on you rational – you are just a gossip who has gone to EXTREME lengths to spread your false gossip - very amusingly against an alias. By the way, I hope Terry Mortenson does not see your transcript of his video because if you produced that transcript without his permission that is copyright infringement, not to mention failing to cite it properly can be seen as your claim as your own - i.e., plagiarism. - but no doubt you can stretch out your definition some more to cover your backside for both of those too. Oh, and your quote of 'definition' that is not properly cited could be seen as your claim as your own - that is WHY I view your growing definition as YOUR def.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 7, 2019 1:39:08 GMT -5
Ok – your def keeps growing over time apparently being recast by you to to cover your own backside only after it gets exposed. I will not waste more time on you rational – you are just a gossip who has gone to EXTREME lengths to spread your false gossip - very amusingly against an alias. By the way, I hope Terry Mortenson does not see your uncited transcript of his video because if you produced that transcript without his permission that is copyright infringement - but no doubt you can stretch out your definition some more to cover your backside for that too. Gratu, you are in error once again.
Rational did give credit for the transcript of Mortenson's video.
First: Rational's was just giving an answer to your post where you had already cited Mortenson. Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ocjJ8FPR18
Second: He also gave credit to Mortenson by citing the name of Mortenson's video:Transcript of: Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences
PS: BTW; Gratu, Do you know what comprises the MLA suggestions?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2019 1:48:37 GMT -5
Ok – your def keeps growing over time apparently being recast by you to to cover your own backside only after it gets exposed. I will not waste more time on you rational – you are just a gossip who has gone to EXTREME lengths to spread your false gossip - very amusingly against an alias. By the way, I hope Terry Mortenson does not see your uncited transcript of his video because if you produced that transcript without his permission that is copyright infringement - but no doubt you can stretch out your definition some more to cover your backside for that too. Gratu, you are in error once again.
Rational did give credit for the transcript of Mortenson's video.
First: Rational's was just giving an answer to your post where you had already cited Mortenson. Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ocjJ8FPR18
Second: He also gave credit to Mortenson by citing the name of Mortenson's video:Transcript of: Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences
PS: BTW; Gratu, Do you know what comprises the MLA suggestions?
I changed mine - too bad huh, Before changing it I checked to see if RATIONAL had quoted it though, and seeing no rational quote of mine, I changed it as I pleased. And your butt-in to defend rational once again is very inaccurate indeed, but no doubt rational will give you a cheek-smacker for trying. I used to watch workers pull the same in discussions with people they were on an excommunication mission with - never one worker - and each butting into the discussion with inaccurate reference making out their target had said something 'wrong.' My post contained a video title and Youtube link - the title and link copied off Youtube. It contained no "Terry Mortenson" on Youtube and thus it contained no "Terry Mortenson in my copy and link. So rational did not cite his transcript properly - not even by taking copy of my post to head it up. So rational's transcript can be seen as HIS claim as his own (which I have done) - i.e., plagiarism (by rational's def) AND coipyright infringement as detailed to rational. "PS: BTW; Gratu, Do you know what comprises the MLA suggestions?" yup, nope,yup, nope. I know "PS" means post script, I have no idea what "BTW" means, I know what "gratu" is, I have no idea what "MLA" means -- but I am quite prepared to hear from you and/or rational when that revelation might cover rational's backside again. So I don't need to know, thank you.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 7, 2019 8:28:49 GMT -5
Rational - 15 hours ago “Plagiarism is not a crime. In an academic field it is viewed as dishonesty. ....” Rational - 11 hours ago “I did not use the word dishonest. .....” But I get it - on here you are not playing the "academic field" - you could have fooled me. Plagiarism is not a crime. In an academic field it is viewed as dishonesty. On a message board it is viewed mainly as an ethical issue. Of course you get it. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are not an idiot. First you took one line out of context: Then you took another line out of context: And then you admitted that you did understand the difference by posting: And implied that, while posting on a message board, there was somehow an attempt to trick you into thinking this was somehow an academic space. All that after I quoted you as posting: Wouldn't it have been easier, and much more honest, simply to say you had made an error and misrepresented what you read? No, the definition remains exactly the same. Because it is not my definition, as you have been trying to claim multiple times, you are free to look it up in any one of several places and find out what the common usage is. Perhaps the issue is, as I have suspected for some time, that you have a somewhat limited idea that plagiarism only means that a portion of text has been copied word for word. Support for my suspicion can be found here: rational -"Having read a lot of what you have posted I would say that developing a theory as complex as the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention, even though it has been shown to be incorrect, is somewhat above your pay grade." Good point, although it does carry disparaging implication chracteristic of evolutionists' portrayal of creationists. Now show me 'Anisotropic Synchrony Convention" within full quotation of my post you think is "plagiarised." I don't think you can find any post of mine that contain those words because i am very unlikely to write words that are above my "pay grade." In fact if I even HEARD those words while watching the video, they would be as meaningless to me then as they are presently.(emphasis added) Plagiarism does not rely on only words "...within full quotation..." as you implied. I will not waste more time on you rational – you are just a gossip who has gone to EXTREME lengths to spread your false gossip - very amusingly against an alias. As I have pointed out, the alias/username @gratu represents you and the ideas you post. If you were to post something that was illegal it would be you that would be responsible to answer for the posting. Stop trying to hide behind the idea of an "alias" and take responsibility for what you post. Unless, of course, you feel someone has compromised your account. In that case you should change your password. By the way, I hope Terry Mortenson does not see your transcript of his video because if you produced that transcript without his permission that is copyright infringement, not to mention failing to cite it properly can be seen as your claim as your own - i.e., plagiarism. - but no doubt you can stretch out your definition some more to cover your backside for both of those too. Show in the transcript where any of the ideas regarding the speed of light, the problems with measurement of the 1-way speed of light, the difficulties imagined with getting synchronized atomic clocks, or even the mention of light years. Transcript of Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences00:04 tonight I want to talk to you about... No, there is no need to redefine anything. I am certain that the source is defined well enough by the inclusion of the following text that preceded the actual transcript: Transcript of Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic ConsequencesOh, and your quote of 'definition' that is not properly cited could be seen as your claim as your own - that is WHY I view your growing definition as YOUR def. You really need to read all the words. Again: Common knowledge is information that is accepted and known widely you do not need to cite it. Facts that can be easily verified. As you are conducting your research on a topic, you will see the same facts repeated over and over. Example: You are writing a paper on nuclear power . The heat and light of the sun result from nuclear energy. Although you might not have known this fact before your research, you have seen it multiple times and no one ever argues about it. Facts that you can safely assume your readers know. Examples: Honolulu is the capital of Hawaii. Fish breathe using gills. The earth is composed of tectonic plates. The definition that seems to be troubling you would fall under the above "Common Knowledge" explanation. You seem to be putting a lot of effort into this. I appreciate that effort but wish you could just stick to the facts, especially when addressing others who may have quoted my posts, and not make personal attacks. Civil discussions are possible even what the parties disagree.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2019 11:26:53 GMT -5
Rational - 15 hours ago “Plagiarism is not a crime. In an academic field it is viewed as dishonesty. ....” Rational - 11 hours ago “I did not use the word dishonest. .....” But I get it - on here you are not playing the "academic field" - you could have fooled me. Plagiarism is not a crime. In an academic field it is viewed as dishonesty. On a message board it is viewed mainly as an ethical issue. Of course you get it. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, you are not an idiot. First you took one line out of context: Then you took another line out of context: And then you admitted that you did understand the difference by posting: And implied that, while posting on a message board, there was somehow an attempt to trick you into thinking this was somehow an academic space. All that after I quoted you as posting: Wouldn't it have been easier, and much more honest, simply to say you had made an error and misrepresented what you read? No, the definition remains exactly the same. Because it is not my definition, as you have been trying to claim multiple times, you are free to look it up in any one of several places and find out what the common usage is. Perhaps the issue is, as I have suspected for some time, that you have a somewhat limited idea that plagiarism only means that a portion of text has been copied word for word. Support for my suspicion can be found here: rational -"Having read a lot of what you have posted I would say that developing a theory as complex as the Anisotropic Synchrony Convention, even though it has been shown to be incorrect, is somewhat above your pay grade." Good point, although it does carry disparaging implication chracteristic of evolutionists' portrayal of creationists. Now show me 'Anisotropic Synchrony Convention" within full quotation of my post you think is "plagiarised." I don't think you can find any post of mine that contain those words because i am very unlikely to write words that are above my "pay grade." In fact if I even HEARD those words while watching the video, they would be as meaningless to me then as they are presently.(emphasis added) Plagiarism does not rely on only words "...within full quotation..." as you implied. I will not waste more time on you rational – you are just a gossip who has gone to EXTREME lengths to spread your false gossip - very amusingly against an alias. As I have pointed out, the alias/username @gratu represents you and the ideas you post. If you were to post something that was illegal it would be you that would be responsible to answer for the posting. Stop trying to hide behind the idea of an "alias" and take responsibility for what you post. Unless, of course, you feel someone has compromised your account. In that case you should change your password. By the way, I hope Terry Mortenson does not see your transcript of his video because if you produced that transcript without his permission that is copyright infringement, not to mention failing to cite it properly can be seen as your claim as your own - i.e., plagiarism. - but no doubt you can stretch out your definition some more to cover your backside for both of those too. Show in the transcript where any of the ideas regarding the speed of light, the problems with measurement of the 1-way speed of light, the difficulties imagined with getting synchronized atomic clocks, or even the mention of light years. Transcript of Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences00:04 tonight I want to talk to you about... No, there is no need to redefine anything. I am certain that the source is defined well enough by the inclusion of the following text that preceded the actual transcript: Transcript of Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic ConsequencesOh, and your quote of 'definition' that is not properly cited could be seen as your claim as your own - that is WHY I view your growing definition as YOUR def. You really need to read all the words. Again: Common knowledge is information that is accepted and known widely you do not need to cite it. Facts that can be easily verified. As you are conducting your research on a topic, you will see the same facts repeated over and over. Example: You are writing a paper on nuclear power . The heat and light of the sun result from nuclear energy. Although you might not have known this fact before your research, you have seen it multiple times and no one ever argues about it. Facts that you can safely assume your readers know. Examples: Honolulu is the capital of Hawaii. Fish breathe using gills. The earth is composed of tectonic plates. The definition that seems to be troubling you would fall under the above "Common Knowledge" explanation. You seem to be putting a lot of effort into this. I app reciate that effort but wish you could just stick to the facts, especially when addressing others who may have quoted my posts, and not make personal attacks. Civil discussions are possible even what the parties disagree."I appreciate that effort but wish you could just stick to the facts..." And the bare FACT is that you were and remain WRONG in assessing my posts of months ago as plagiarized from Dr. Lisle's video. I share similar/same ideas with several scientists (apparently for decades,) which was my happy discovery with just Dr. Lisle's video only months ago. And YOU cannot subtract one smile from that happy fellowship. "The definition that seems to be troubling you would fall under the above "Common Knowledge" explanation" Where did you come up with that idea - playing God again perhaps. I am not "troubled" in the least with YOUR definition, again with its recent growth quoted without citation above. "You seem to be putting a lot of effort into this." Oh really - my replies are repetitious - copy/paste in many cases, while yours would be substantial practice for a typist. The rational pot calls the kettle black AGAIN - apparently you have that full blown, and age-old 2x2 hangover intact. But now that you have minimized your own plagiarism (by your def.) your judgment and conviction of gratu only recently has lost its public sting – so wear your false gossip against an alias in public view.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2019 13:33:06 GMT -5
Gene, Since rational has not answered your question online yet - How to get the transcript of Youtube videos ccm.net/faq/40644-how-to-get-the-transcript-of-a-youtube-videoThere are several links returned by Google search for “How to transcribe Youtube videos.” And I have not looked at more than this one and very briefly at that, so other links might instruct you on how to machine-transcribe any video – I would suspect that with software that already exists as part of operating systems that will speak typed text these days, there is likely the ability to transcribe vocal audio into digital text also within operating systems.. But at a glance some of Googles return links look like step by step instruction. As with Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software, you would need to very carefully proof read a machine transcription to spot and correct recognition errors. But certainly the process would be far faster than typing from listening, with fewer errors.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 7, 2019 15:43:53 GMT -5
And the bare FACT is that you were and remain WRONG in assessing my posts of months ago as plagiarized from Dr. Lisle's video. This is such an easy fact for which you can provide proof. I share similar/same ideas with several scientists (apparently for decades,) which was my happy discovery with just Dr. Lisle's video only months ago. I am glad you have some people with which to share your beliefs. And YOU cannot subtract one smile from that happy fellowship. Smile away. Smiling and whatever fellowship you feel is not at all the issue. You are aware that other than Lisle the other people you mention have not addressed the starlight issue. So it sounds like your claim is that you came up with the ideas that Lisle presented to solve the starlight problem for creationists on your own. You developed the theories of an ASC paradigm that resulted in the need for the one-way speed of light to differ from the 2-way speed of light that you mentioned, the need for synchronous atomic clocks that could not be moved, and the timeless transit of light from the stars. None of these concepts were from Lisle, whose video you had recently watched, but were concepts you derived from your own research, reading the bible, and deliberation/discussion with an unknown but well respected scientist. Is your claim that you came up with the same theory as a PhD Astronomer and that your theory has the same issues, by extension, that infinite universes would be required and that all of this is earth centered? If this is what you claim then I was mistaken in my belief that the thoughts regarding the ASC paradigm were not solely derived by you and the source of the ideas that you presented as your own were not yours alone but were from the Lisle video. I apologize for stating that you were presenting as your own ideas the ideas put forth by Lisle in the video you said you watched multiple times. Where did you come up with that idea - playing God again perhaps. - I have not once provided my definition of "plagiarism" - I I am not (troubled" in the least with YOUR definition, again quoted without citation above. Actually, the entire quote I posted was a citation. It was a direct link to the source. "You seem to be putting a lot of effort into this." Oh really - my replies are repetitious - mainly copy/paste, while yours would be substantial practice to a typist. The rational pot calls the kettle black - apparently you have that age-old 2x2 hangover. I think it is evident that your replies are just cut/paste from creationist sites, the majority of which you appear not to have watched/read. But now that you have minimized your own plagiarism (by your def.) your judgment and conviction of gratu only recently has lost its public sting – so wear your false gossip against gratu in public view. As I posted above - if you state that none of the ideas you stated as your own were from Lisle, the only other person who has presented the ASC paradigm, then I have no reason to doubt your claim.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 7, 2019 15:52:39 GMT -5
Gene, Since rational has not answered your question online yet - I guessed you missed my answer above. Not all correspondence takes place on the message board.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 7, 2019 17:01:45 GMT -5
Gratu, you are in error once again.
Rational did give credit for the transcript of Mortenson's video.
First: Rational's was just giving an answer to your post where you had already cited Mortenson. Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences
www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ocjJ8FPR18
Second: He also gave credit to Mortenson by citing the name of Mortenson's video:Transcript of: Millions of Years: The Idea's Unscientific Origin & Catastrophic Consequences
PS: BTW; Gratu, Do you know what comprises the MLA suggestions?
I changed mine - too bad huh, Before changing it I checked to see if RATIONAL had quoted it though, and seeing no rational quote of mine, I changed it as I pleased. And your butt-in to defend rational once again is very inaccurate indeed, but no doubt rational will give you a cheek-smacker for trying. I used to watch workers pull the same in discussions with people they were on an excommunication mission with - never one worker - and each butting into the discussion with inaccurate reference making out their target had said something 'wrong.' My post contained a video title and Youtube link - the title and link copied off Youtube. It contained no "Terry Mortenson" on Youtube and thus it contained no "Terry Mortenson in my copy and link. So rational did not cite his transcript properly - not even by taking copy of my post to head it up. So rational's transcript can be seen as HIS claim as his own (which I have done) - i.e., plagiarism (by rational's def) AND coipyright infringement as detailed to rational. "PS: BTW; Gratu, Do you know what comprises the MLA suggestions?" yup, nope,yup, nope. I know "PS" means post script, I have no idea what "BTW" means, I know what "gratu" is, I have no idea what "MLA" means -- but I am quite prepared to hear from you and/or rational when that revelation might cover rational's backside again. So I don't need to know, thank you. Ok: I also have trouble deciphering these new shortcuts in writing. BTW "means by the way"
MLA: is short for (Modern Language Association) Formatting and Style Guide // Purdue Writing Lab
owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla...
MLA (Modern Language Association) style is most commonly used to write papers and cite sources within the liberal arts and humanities. This resource, updated to reflect the MLA Handbook offers examples for the general format of MLA research papers, in-text citations, endnotes/footnotes, and the Works Cited page.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 7, 2019 17:37:22 GMT -5
My post contained a video title and Youtube link - the title and link copied off Youtube. It contained no "Terry Mortenson" on Youtube and thus it contained no "Terry Mortenson in my copy and link. So rational did not cite his transcript properly - not even by taking copy of my post to head it up. So rational's transcript can be seen as HIS claim as his own (which I have done) - i.e., plagiarism (by rational's def) AND coipyright infringement as detailed to rational. It is so sad that you have not updated your understanding of plagiarism. Most cases of plagiarism can be avoided, however, by citing sources. Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source is usually enough to prevent plagiarism. www.plagiarism.org I provided the title of the video from which the transcript was made. I may have under estimated the skills of one or two readers but I feel certain that most could find the source. That and the fact that I had posted the entire source, not stating it was my work but stating it was a transcript.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2019 18:07:21 GMT -5
“I apologize for stating that you were presenting as your own ideas the ideas put forth by Lisle in the video you said you watched multiple times.”
That's close enough to you were “WRONG” for me. Apology accepted, and you are forgiven, but I will not forget the lengths of your efforts to pin false gossip on my alias any time soon.
I have nothing more to say to YOU any time soon, other than answering your next post regarding my attempt to help gene in place of your smartass remark to his question online for all to see – that's why mine contained the “online” bit within it because I did figure you would want to answer PRIVATELY if at all to protect yourself and keep your 'awesome' technical abilities secret from public view on here. The more I see of your character, the more it reminds me of the common character of some of the head workers I have known. And THAT is not intended as an insult – some of them are very well skilled in maintaining 'awe.'
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 7, 2019 19:21:06 GMT -5
Im surprised Rational apologized. He was pretty dug in.
|
|