|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 7, 2019 19:30:27 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.' Gratu, Something that I can't understand is why you keep referring to yourself as "alias" as if it were someone other yourself, -someone out side of yourself. Also something else I can't understand is why you keep comparing some of us to "workers" or as if we are still a member of the 2x2 way!
I left the 2x2's decades ago and have been an atheist for many years.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 7, 2019 19:33:09 GMT -5
Im surprised Rational apologized. He was pretty dug in. If it had of been me, -instead of Rational, -I would have been just too tired of trying to get someone to understand some sense.
As well as sick of someone's deplorable innuendoes. PS
BTW, did you read Ratonal's post carefully, Lee?
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 7, 2019 19:47:26 GMT -5
Was it tongue in cheek?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 7, 2019 20:02:16 GMT -5
Im surprised Rational apologized. He was pretty dug in. It is a matter of taking someone at their word. @gratu agreed to the statements I posted stating that if s/he stated that s/he developed a version of the theory that Lisle published in 2010 and which he presented in the video, one that @gratu said had been viewed multiple times, on her/his own that I was incorrect in my conclusion that the facts s/he presented as her/his own were taken from the Lisle video. Although @gratu stated that the level of education he/she had would not enable the understanding/development of a theory as complex as the one proposed by Lisle and felt that even the explanation I provided used words that were too long/complex and seemed like gibberish, s/he still agreed to the statement that s/he had developed the concept in question independent of Lisle and the explanation she provided was from her own research. I, frankly, was also surprised since my interaction with @gratu led me to believe that, as I mentioned, the development of such a theory was "above his/her paygrade", a comment to which the response was: 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. So, although @gratu did admit that at least some of the concepts were beyond her/his understanding s/he stood by the claim that the the supporting ideas, "getting one way speed of light", the problem with synchronous atomic clocks, etc. were developed independent of Lisle, the other person to develop the theory. @gratu seems to be a Christian and I don't think s/he would prevaricate on a public message board regarding the theory, or theories, s/he has developed. In light of her/his statement claiming what s/he presented was completly her/his own work led to the conclusion that there was no possibility that anything had been taken from Lisle so there was no possibility of plagiarism. It seems it was my error and I apologize.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 7, 2019 20:15:05 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. It was not an attempt to pin anything on anyone. I truthfully did not believe you had the physics background education to develop a theory that is dealing with such a complex subject. Jason has not been able to complete his work on the topic during the last 10 years. Do you feel you will be successful in reaching a conclusion? Yeah. It should have been a state secret because it was so difficult to find. Sometimes you have to let the chips fall where they may. Speaking of Awe - I am still in awe of your ability to develop such a complex theory. Is it possible you have been hiding your light under a bushel? You were skillful in setting your trap.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 7, 2019 20:23:58 GMT -5
Im surprised Rational apologized. He was pretty dug in. The words "I apologize" may be throwing you off. I may be wrong, but I think Rational just tricked gratu into contradicting himself.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 7, 2019 20:55:08 GMT -5
You mean he didn't really apologize? I believe that means he continues to be disposed and prepared to fight and contend with him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2019 21:12:31 GMT -5
Encyclopedia Britannica www.britannica.com/biography/Albert-EinsteinExcerpt Childhood And Education Einstein would write that two “wonders” deeply affected his early years. The first was his encounter with a compass at age five. He was mystified that invisible forces could deflect the needle. This would lead to a lifelong fascination with invisible forces. The second wonder came at age 12 when he discovered a book of geometry, which he devoured, calling it his “sacred little geometry book.” Einstein became deeply religious at age 12, even composing several songs in praise of God and chanting religious songs on the way to school. This began to change, however, after he read science books that contradicted his religious beliefs. This challenge to established authority left a deep and lasting impression. At the Luitpold Gymnasium, Einstein often felt out of place and victimized by a Prussian-style educational system that seemed to stifle originality and creativity. One teacher even told him that he would never amount to anything. gratu's footnote - Just as it is today it was in Einstein's youth -- unfortunately many church leaders rejected science then and now - thereby forcing any young members interested in science to choose between their interest in science or their beliefs in God. This is very similar to the leading 2x2s' practice of shunning young 2x2s who choose higher education, as well as their total rejection/demonization of Bible education. That dichotomy is completely unnecessary because science is only possible in a created universe - and a created universe requires a Creator. For example, the present theory named the "Big Bang" could only occur if its "singularity" already existed prior to the 'explosion' of it - even for an explosion to exist requires a cause - nothing 'exploding' produces nothing - and even "nothing" is something that requires a cause in a material universe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2019 21:31:40 GMT -5
Oh the nausea of it all -
rational claims I agreed to some other stuff he wrote – I did no such thing – especially to avoid wasting more of my time on what I disagreed with in his post, I quoted just what I agreed with of his post - - i.e., his apology.
Those others on here who now pipe off about his apology being ingenuine and or “a masterful move on rational's part” derogate rational for a change. If his apology was not genuine my grace towards him is doubled, pleasing me greatly. The effects of false gossip USUALLY capture admiring minds, just as is demonstrated by common 2x2 destruction of each other with what is usually false gossip against the failure in their constant popularity contest -- especially when that false gossip is cranked up endlessly by a head worker. So please pardon me for recognizing and speaking out regarding apparent 2x2ism still being practiced by former 2s2 on this board. I think I have observed quite enough rational worship on here to sink the TMB ship twice over.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 7, 2019 23:40:25 GMT -5
What do you YOU think?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 8, 2019 0:08:29 GMT -5
Oh the nausea of it all - rational claims I agreed to some other stuff he wrote – I did no such thing – especially to avoid wasting more of my time on what I disagreed with in his post, I quoted just what I agreed with of his post - - i.e., his apology. I am not claiming anything. I wrote it all out in detail. You accepted the apology after being presented with the conditional statements. The statements were a compliation of what you had been claiming was your position and justification of why what you had presented as your own was indeed yours and had no other source. Others speak for themselves just as I speak for myself and you, I assume, speak for yourself. Based on your acceptance of the apology with the stated conditionals, it was genuine. The apology offered was genuine and, as you noted, was conditional. The conditions were the same as the things you have been claiming. That you developed the same theory that was presented by Lisle. The statement you made regarding some of the aspects such as the 'one way speed of light", the requirement and problems of syncroizing atomic clocks, the explanation of the instantaneous transmission of light, etc. were all ideas that you developed independently. That you and Lisle both developed a theory that was not well supported and even today has not been completed (at least by Lisle). Your agreeing to those conditions removed any possibility of plagairasm. The conclusion is that, although you were never able to present any verifiable support for your claim of independent development, the probability of independent development was non-zero so, to be fair, I accepted your agreement and apologized for saying that you had plagarized material from Lisle. I don't believe you would post false statements.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 8, 2019 1:03:14 GMT -5
Oh the nausea of it all - rational claims I agreed to some other stuff he wrote – I did no such thing – especially to avoid wasting more of my time on what I disagreed with in his post, I quoted just what I agreed with of his post - - i.e., his apology. Those others on here who now pipe off about his apology being ingenuine and or “a masterful move on rational's part.” derogate rational for a change. If his apology was not genuine my grace towards him is doubled, pleasing me greatly. The effects of false gossip USUALLY capture admiring minds, just as is demonstrated by common 2x2 destruction of each other with what is usually false gossip against the failure in their constant popularity contest -- especially when that false gossip is cranked up endlessly by a head worker. So please pardon me for recognizing and speaking out regarding apparent regarding apparent 2x2ism still being practiced by former 2s2 on this board. I think I have observed quite enough rational worship on here to sink the TMB ship twice over. No,you aren't pardoned, Gratu!
I resent your attempt to compare our statements to "apparent 2x2ism still being practiced by former 2s2 on this board."Are you unable to answer my questions?
I asked why you keep compare us to "workers" or as if we are still a member of the 2x2 way.
You state what we are communicating as "gossip."
How do you compare the debate that we are having to "gossip?"
One of the first things I learned on leaving the 2x2's was If I were to attempt to find facts based in reality that was authentic and was unambiguous, I could not depend on any of the myths of religion or "gossip" -however benign that gossip might be.
Also, if what I had to say could be depended on, I also had to write and speak with that same kind of unambiguous manner.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2019 1:21:32 GMT -5
Rational - “The apology offered was genuine and, as you noted, was conditional. “
Oh, so now I 'noted' that your apology was conditional- ah huh, ah huh – I'm not sure you really want to make your apology conditional because a conditional apology is not an apology, no matter how "genuine" you try to make it now, but that is up to you rational. You apology was acceptd at face value all by itself and if you insist on making it conditional now, all you will accomplish is a tripling of my grace towards you, which pleases me even more.
It seems I NEED to say this to you again, “I have nothing more to say to YOU any time soon “ now with a period on it in place of its former comma.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 8, 2019 5:29:17 GMT -5
What do you YOU think? I don't. I try not to because it hurts whenever I do.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 8, 2019 5:33:35 GMT -5
Are not nature worshipers not like the magicians of pharoah?
Creationists present their theories.
Nature worshipers challenge their theories with their own.
---
How do you get a creation out of nothing?
Isn't the foundation of atheists a case of insisting that alchemy be forever conflated with science?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 8, 2019 8:07:39 GMT -5
Im surprised Rational apologized. He was pretty dug in. The words "I apologize" may be throwing you off. I may be wrong, but I think Rational just tricked gratu into contradicting himself. It wasn't a trick. It was the realization that, because @gratu would not/could not provide verifiable evidence that the facts presented as his own were not from the work of Lisle, there was no satisfactory solution to be gained with further discussion. I decided to take @gratu at his word as long as he could agree to the statements included in the post. @guatu did and, taking him at his word, I apologized for stating that the facts he claimed were plagiarized. I misjudged him and I am sorry.
|
|
|
Post by matisse on Aug 8, 2019 8:37:54 GMT -5
The words "I apologize" may be throwing you off. I may be wrong, but I think Rational just tricked gratu into contradicting himself. It wasn't a trick. It was the realization that, because @gratu would not/could not provide verifiable evidence that the facts presented as his own were not from the work of Lisle, there was no satisfactory solution to be gained with further discussion. I decided to take @gratu at his word as long as he could agree to the statements included in the post. @guatu did and, taking him at his word, I apologized for stating that the facts he claimed were plagiarized. I misjudged him and I am sorry. I am sorry that I mis-characterized your apology! I can accept that although gratu seems unable to "show his work", there remains a vanishingly small, but none-the-less finite chance that gratu developed a practically identical theory using the same supporting ideas ("getting one way speed of light", the problem with synchronous atomic clocks, etc.), and that he developed said theory completely independent of Lisle, the other person to develop the theory. Note: For the record, I lifted large pieces of the second sentence from one of your posts.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 8, 2019 8:54:51 GMT -5
It wasn't a trick. It was the realization that, because @gratu would not/could not provide verifiable evidence that the facts presented as his own were not from the work of Lisle, there was no satisfactory solution to be gained with further discussion. I decided to take @gratu at his word as long as he could agree to the statements included in the post. @guatu did and, taking him at his word, I apologized for stating that the facts he claimed were plagiarized. I misjudged him and I am sorry. I am sorry that I mis-characterized your apology! I can accept that although gratu seems unable to "show his work", there remains a vanishingly small, but none-the-less finite chance that gratu developed a practically identical theory using the same supporting ideas ("getting one way speed of light", the problem with synchronous atomic clocks, etc.), and that he developed said theory completely independent of Lisle, the other person to develop the theory. I took that into account but if @gratu is comfortable stating on this message board that all of the ideas mentioned were original and none came from the Lisle video then I am willing to assume he is telling the truth. I don't recall granting that permission...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2019 11:17:50 GMT -5
REPEAT Oh the nausea of it all -
rational claims I agreed to some other stuff he wrote – I did no such thing – especially to avoid wasting more of my time on what I disagreed with in his post, I quoted just what I agreed with of his post - - i.e., his apology.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2019 12:53:42 GMT -5
In actual fact, I am still in process of developing my own ideas (plural) with regard to the speed of light. And it is doubtful that my development of ideas will ever end at a particular decision. For example, if time stops at the speed of light, the very idea of ANY speed of light is called into logical question – any speed of light involves a passage of time.
Measuring the speed of light is impossible not only if time stops at the speed of light, but any measurement of it REQUIRES knowledge that such a proposed speed be constant, else any speed of light would be hypothesis, not fact. And if light travel/transfer involves ANY passage of time it is reasonable to speculate that source to destination would be faster than reflection – a thrown ball travels faster toward the wall it bounces off than it does away from that wall after 'reflection.' Therefore it is reasonable to speculate that reflected light would be slower than source light.
Since I was taught in grade school that time stops at the speed of light, I have never had a problem with instantaneous arrival of light from the most distant visible star, nor from the sun, nor from my light bulb in my living room. But indeed DOES time stop at the 'speed of light' if not all the other problems created in coming up with any fixed speed of light come into play. And NO ONE needs a scientist to show that ANY speed of light CONTRADICTS the idea of time stopping at the speed of light. So one's presuppositions determine one's theory. And my MAIN presupposition throughout life has been steady that this material universe was created in six days by God – i.e., the word of God Himself. And with THAT presupposition at the basis of my interest in science makes the dilemmas of light and time about as important to me as water flowing uphill – i.e., very interesting but not essential knowledge because God knows the final on any 'speed of light' and I trust HIM, not scientists..
And so far as importance of time in my daily life, my cheap watch takes care of all my needs for measuring it, whether my watch is synchronized with the accepted accurate time within my time zone or not. Clock synchronization (if also governed by the theory of relativity that I was taught in grade school) is logically impossible.
So, if any of my ideas regarding light contradict, so what – the very idea that light has ANY speed is contradicted by the idea that time stops at the speed of light.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 8, 2019 13:43:22 GMT -5
REPEAT Oh the nausea of it all - rational claims I agreed to some other stuff he wrote – I did no such thing – especially to avoid wasting more of my time on what I disagreed with in his post, I quoted just what I agreed with of his post - - i.e., his apology. So you are stating that you thought I would apologize even though you are unwilling to state that none of the ideas you claimed as your own were the ideas of Lisle? Since you either could not or would not produce any verifiable proof that all of the ideas you claimed as your own were not the ideas of another, namely Lisle since he is the only other person who promoted the ASC paradigm, if you were willing to state that was the truth I would apologize for saying that you had plagiarized. Now it seems that you are unwilling to say that all the ideas you presented were your original ideas and not the product of anothers work. I had higher expectations.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 8, 2019 13:56:23 GMT -5
Rational - “The apology offered was genuine and, as you noted, was conditional. “ Oh, so now I 'noted' that your apology was conditional- ah huh, ah huh – I'm not sure you really want to make your apology conditional because a conditional apology is not an apology, no matter how "genuine" you try to make it now, but that is up to you rational. Sounds like you agreed to something before you read all the words. It is not a conditional apology. It is a true apology that was offered without proof based on you giving your word that all the ideas you presented were your original ideas. When the apology was offered the reasoning was included. If you are unable to provide any verifiable data that the ideas were original I would take your word for it. But you seem to have difficulty saying it. That sounds fine.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2019 14:32:11 GMT -5
REPEAT Oh the nausea of it all - rational claims I agreed to some other stuff he wrote – I did no such thing – especially to avoid wasting more of my time on what I disagreed with in his post, I quoted just what I agreed with of his post - - i.e., his apology. So you are stating that you thought I would apologize even though you are unwilling to state that none of the ideas you claimed as your own were the ideas of Lisle? Since you either could not or would not produce any verifiable proof that all of the ideas you claimed as your own were not the ideas of another, namely Lisle since he is the only other person who promoted the ASC paradigm, if you were willing to state that was the truth I would apologize for saying that you had plagiarized. Now it seems that you are unwilling to say that all the ideas you presented were your original ideas and not the product of anothers work. I had higher expectations. REPEAT2 REPEAT Oh the nausea of it all - rational claims I agreed to some other stuff he wrote – I did no such thing – especially to avoid wasting more of my time on what I disagreed with in his post, I quoted just what I agreed with of his post - - i.e., his apology. "I had higher expectations." - I refused to jump through every one of YOUR previous hoops, yet you had "higher expectations" on this hoop. I'm 'impressed.'
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 8, 2019 16:03:37 GMT -5
REPEAT2 REPEAThalf wa Oh the nausea of it all - rational claims I agreed to some other stuff he wrote – I did no such thing – especially to avoid wasting more of my time on what I disagreed with in his post, I quoted just what I agreed with of his post - - i.e., his apology. I made no such claim. I simply stated that without the evidence showing that you developed the ideas you presented as your own I would take your word for it if you stated that all of the ideas were developed by yourself and none were the worl product of someone else, namely Lisle. If you cannot make that claim I will assume that the ideas were not all original claims developed by you and the others were the product of plagiarism. Without the availability of evidence from you I had expectation that this could be easily cleared up by a statement from you. I trusted you would be a man of your word. I did have expectations and thought I could meet you half way but it seems you want a blanket apology without even your personal statement that the claims you presented were all your own ideas. If only you had not accused the worker of 'borrowing' the 'palm tree' sermon...
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 8, 2019 16:23:22 GMT -5
In actual fact, I am still in process of developing my own ideas (plural) with regard to the speed of light. And it is doubtful that my development of ideas will ever end at a particular decision. For example, if time stops at the speed of light, the very idea of ANY speed of light is called into logical question – any speed of light involves a passage of time. Measuring the speed of light is impossible not only if time stops at the speed of light, but any measurement of it REQUIRES knowledge that such a proposed speed be constant, else any speed of light would be hypothesis, not fact. And if light travel/transfer involves ANY passage of time it is reasonable to speculate that source to destination would be faster than reflection – a thrown ball travels faster toward the wall it bounces off than it does away from that wall after 'reflection.' Therefore it is reasonable to speculate that reflected light would be slower than source light. Since I was taught in grade school that time stops at the speed of light, I have never had a problem with instantaneous arrival of light from the most distant visible star, nor from the sun, nor from my light bulb in my living room. But indeed DOES time stop at the 'speed of light' if not all the other problems created in coming up with any fixed speed of light come into play. And NO ONE needs a scientist to show that ANY speed of light CONTRADICTS the idea of time stopping at the speed of light. So one's presuppositions determine one's theory. And my MAIN presupposition throughout life has been steady that this material universe was created in six days by God – i.e., the word of God Himself. And with THAT presupposition at the basis of my interest in science makes the dilemmas of light and time about as important to me as water flowing uphill – i.e., very interesting but not essential knowledge because God knows the final on any 'speed of light' and I trust HIM, not scientists.. And so far as importance of time in my daily life, my cheap watch takes care of all my needs for measuring it, whether my watch is synchronized with the accepted accurate time within my time zone or not. Clock synchronization (if also governed by the theory of relativity that I was taught in grade school) is logically impossible. So, if any of my ideas regarding light contradict, so what – the very idea that light has ANY speed is contradicted by the idea that time stops at the speed of light. Gratu said; Measuring the speed of light is impossible not only if time stops at the speed of light, but any measurement of it REQUIRES knowledge that such a proposed speed be constant, else any speed of light would be hypothesis, not fact. And if light travel/transfer involves ANY passage of time it is reasonable to speculate that source to destination would be faster than reflection – a thrown ball travels faster toward the wall it bounces off than it does away from that wall after 'reflection.'
However, unlike electrons and quarks, photons have no mass, so they can travel at the speed of light (about 186,000 miles per second) – that’s why we call it the speed of light.*
So, by having no mass makes photons totally different than as Gratu said that a "thrown ball travels faster toward the wall it bounces off than it does away from that wall after 'reflection.'
footnote* quatr.us/physics/photon-physics-light.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2019 16:37:15 GMT -5
“If only you had not accused the worker of 'borrowing' the 'palm tree' sermon..”
Oh, good this brings the thread back on topic – the Palm Tree sermon. I heard that sermon from several workers – apparently its almost word for word distribution reveals workers borrowing sermons from other workers, which practice is revealed in more cases than just the Palm Tree sermon. And after seeing numerous examples of similarly shared sermons, rather abruptly I became aware that workers have long distributed printed or hand written copies of choice sermons among them. And it is on written record that Jack Carroll instructed workers on what subject to preach first, second, third etc.
I'm certain that I did not accuse or even suggest that Howard Mooney or any other worker was guilty of “plagiarism” - but I am not going to waste my time to review my posts all over this board to prove it. And that is because workers always taught me that they preached as the 'spirit' (small case) led, not from prepared notes or sermons – i.e., the workers taught me hog wash AT BEST – obviously. In fact it is based on that false teaching on 'spirit led' ministry that many 2x2s read "script" in place of "scrip" in their Bibles, and THUS fail to notice all the suitcases and grips that workers carry in violation of their claimed copying of Jesus and the aposles of Matthew 10.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 8, 2019 17:07:40 GMT -5
“If only you had not accused the worker of 'borrowing' the 'palm tree' sermon..” Oh, good this brings the thread back on topic – the Palm Tree sermon. I heard that sermon from several workers – apparently its almost word for word distribution reveals workers borrowing sermons from other workers, which practice is revealed in more cases than just the Palm Tree sermon. And after seeing numerous examples of similarly shared sermons, rather abruptly I became aware that workers have long distributed printed or hand written copies of choice sermons among them. And it is on written record that Jack Carroll instructed workers on what subject to preach first, second, third etc. I'm certain that I did not accuse or even suggest that Howard Mooney or any other worker was guilty of “plagiarism” - but I am not going waste my time to review my posts all over this board to prove it. And that is because workers always taught me that they preached as the 'spirit' (small case) led, not from prepared notes or sermons – i.e., the workers taught me hog wash AT BEST – obviously. In fact it is based on that false teaching on 'spirit led' ministry that many 2x2s read "script" in place of "scrip" in their Bibles. Gratu,
If you are seriously glad to get back to the topic of the thread – the Palm Tree sermon, -why did you post the long often inaccurate post about the travel of light?
Still not able to answer any of my posts?
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 8, 2019 17:22:42 GMT -5
I'm certain that I did not accuse or even suggest that Howard Mooney or any other worker was guilty of “plagiarism” - but I am not going to waste my time to review my posts all over this board to prove it. You did not have to use the exact word to imply the same meaning. I could say that you borrowed the ideas you claimed as your own from Lisle and it would still mean plagiarism. Claiming original work is not restricted to workers. You will probably not not have to look for past posts. Google does a fairly good search.
|
|