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.

Hmmmm...YardBirdBlogger?

.

Quantcast