> > ok, you say this is so, well I have no reason to doubt it other then
your
> > track record on other things<s>  I would however like to ask this.  Why
is
> > it then when I was told of my mistake of leaving off the quotes from one
of
> > my articles and I promptly corrected it, the paper promptly printed a
> > retraction, I promptly contacted the original author and apologized
(which
> > btw, he said no harm no foul and also said that seeing as how I was only
> > quoting something from a UseNet debate I wasn't even required to quote
him
> > any way and could have afahwc just use it without quoting him) the you,
> > *especially* you seeing as how you claim to be a professional in the
field.
> > Raised such a belie hou when I did everything that was suppose to be
done
> > and did so in a timely fashion? and why you (and a few others) still
bring
> > it up and harp on it?

> We all know that you are congenitally unable to comprehend the reason
> Sooooog, as no matter how many times it is pointed out to you, and no
> matter how carefully it is explained using very short, simple words,
> you have shown over and over that you cannot or will not comprehend.

> But just in case this is the proverbial "first time"...

> It is an issue of scale.  Just as speeding five miles per hour over the
> posted limit and running a red light and side swiping another vehicle
> are all traffic violations, what Laura is talking about Rob doing and
> your plagiarism are (arguably) "journalism violations".

> Sticking with the analogy, it should be clear for the traffic violation
> cases that they are arranged in order of "magnitude" or "seriousness".
> Now, what Rob did is pretty minor -- perhaps the journalistic equivalent
> of speeding 5 mph over the limit -- whereas what you did is the
> journalistic equivalent of deliberately running down a line of
> pedestrians waiting at a bus stop then backing up over the bodies and
> having another go just to make sure you got them all.

> Plagiarism, as what you did is correctly know, is an enormously taboo
> act among real journalists.  Saying "I forgot to include the quotes"
> (and any other indication that it was actually said by soemone else!)
> is just a typical Sooooog worm-wriggling weasel-like attempt to get of
> a whole bunch of trouble you were too stupid to even realize you could
> get in before you did it.  Aside from being a clear lie, the old legal
> adage "ignorance is no defense" applies in spades here.

> Yes, but you had a reputation as an accomplished liar and code-ripper
> well before that, so I'd suggest that it was almost to be expected of
> you, at least by those that knew your true nature.  Unfortunately for
> your editor, s/he was not one of those people...

> ...though that doesn't seem to _stop_ you from telling us over and
> over again!

> --
> Nick FitzGerald