Re: More about me


Rich wrote:
"PeterB" <pkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1143821668.239105.162240@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

cathyb wrote:
Yup. Yet again, PeteyB is guilty of plagiarism. Something he inevitably
turns to when his is out of his depth, since he's demonstrated before
that he doesn't know the meaning of what he's plagiarised. Unattributed
as usual, most of this is available from here:

http://www.lef.org/protocols/prtcl-026.shtml

I subscribe to their publication, so what. You apparently don't know
what a reference is. When referencing a study, further credit is not
required. If you mean the minor verbage from LEF, it was soley
referential and I included it. I always reference articles or other
material where appropriate.

Bull***, Petey. Not only did you not properly attribute the material, you
reworded it slightly . . . the strategy of a typical high-school plagiarist.
Leaving in the referrences to "Page et al." and "Ben-Eliyahu et al." makes
the offense worse, not better, in that it implies the lie that you yourself
gleaned the information from those sources. Stealing the words of others is
not "reference," it is plagiarism, and is not only a lie, it is a crime.

Could you grunts be any more obvious? The "material" you are talking
about (not the studies, obviously) is purely referential. I provided
the researchers' names for the studies noted, as was appropriate. If
you had asked for a link to more information, I would gladly have
provided the link to LEF (a reputable publisher of natural medicine
research.) The fact I rephrased part of the adjunctive comments is just
evidence that I'm not a lazy bum like you.

PeterB

.

Quantcast