We are All the Victims Doug
DarwinT...@yahoo.com
>The whole issue of plagiarism is only about whether Paul should have
>put a footnote in his book to show where the passage came from.
>Borrowing the passage was not the problem. The only issue is whether he
>should have noted where it came from.
ME:
Wow, miles of yarn to get to the point. Well, duh. Of course borrowing
passages is not the problem. Passing off the exact hard-earned words of
others as your own has always been the problem. That's why, in school,
the teacher always said about the next essay, "In your *own* words..."
Hello?
DOUG:
>Paul certainly mentioned Walter Russell and his books as great books to
>read, but he didn't mark the exact passages or put footnotes when he
>used them. So, who is the victim?
ME:
We are the victims, all of Paul Twitchell's readers. He misrepresented
himself. He not only plagiarized extensively, he flat-out fabricated
extensively. As in "made things up". Your argument "nobody loses" is
flat out wrong. We all lose. Look how much eckankar has lost because of
Paul's dishonesty and deceptions. Think of the hours of your life and
my life we've given to this sorry subject. Like Sisyphus, you keep
pushing the big rock of plagiarism up the hill just to watch it roll
down again, usually right over the top of you. There is no way to spin,
to mitigate, to excuse Paul's lack of attribution, much less his
putting Julian Johnson's words into "rebazar tarzs" mouth. This is
premediatated deception, plain and simple. I know it, you know it and
every teacher in the world knows it. The NY Times knows it. Only a
deluded and impressionable True Believer could be convinced it was
somehow noble of Paul, in his great rush to deliver the great message
that, in between bouts of chasing women, he had to plagiarize freely
and copiously to beat that devil Kal to the finish line.
That dog doesn't hunt Doug and in your guts I think you know it. You're
right Doug, I do disrespect you. I think you are as least as phony and
duplicitous as Paul was, and Darwin and Harold. You all know Paul's
conduct was unacceptable by any righteous standard yet you all are so
emotionally and monetarily invested that you won't admit it and for
decades have kept up the charade that there is nothing "rotten in
Denmark".
Such a man as Paul Twitchell might have inspired Samuel Johnson's
famous piece of sarcasm: "Your manuscript is both good and original;
but the part that is good is not original, and the part that is
original is not good."
The following quote from an article called *The Unoriginal Sin* By Roy
Peter Clark puts, I think, Paul's copious plagiarims and fabrications
into the proper arena. You assisidously try to keep his transgressions
in the technical field. They belong in the field of human psychology.
Paul appears to have been, as Ford Johnson so eloquently makes the
case, suffering from Mythomania and Delusions of Grandeur, at the very
least.
Quote: (See how easy it is to quote Doug?)
"In the most serious cases, plagiarism is a human problem rather than a
technical one. It is practiced by people under duress, people who act
without grace under pressure. Editors need to be sensitive to those
pressures.
Surely the saddest case was that of Emily Ann Fisher, a reporter/intern
at The Washington Post who was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of Harvard. In
July of 1973, she inserted dialogue from Catcher in the Rye into a
feature story she had written for the Post. She was fired. Friends say
she was a brilliant, deeply troubled woman who had a photographic
memory. No one is sure how intentional her act was or what emotional
pressures led her to borrow from Salinger. But she later took her life.
Ultimately, it is the plagiarist who suffers most from plagiarism. This
self-inflicted pain was well expressed by a veteran reporter from the
St. Petersburg Times, who in July of 1979 kidnapped about one-third of
a magazine article on credit cards from Changing Times. On the day of
her resignation, she pinned a brave letter to the newsroom bulletin
board: "Twelve years of dedicated journalism down the drain because of
a stupid mistake," she wrote. "I am writing this public explanation for
a selfish reason. It will be easier for me to live with myself knowing
that the truth is known. But I hope my mistake will serve as a lesson
to others. I have let the Times down. I have let myself down. But most
of all, I have let the profession down. And for that I am truly sorry."
End Quote.
Do you still think nobody gets hurt by plagiarism Doug?
If eckankar is to survive, much less grow, some ekist of character will
have to come along and set the record straight, admit the truth, close
the astral library, and make whatever amends necessary.
Too bad that doesn't appear to be you Doug.
Doug
they are grading students on their work. Teachers don't care if what
they write is interesting or is worthy of publishing. They only want to
see what the student knows. How else can they tell if the student is
getting it, if they copy someone else's answers?
That's the whole mystery to why it is such an issue in academia. Their
whole world is about who deserves what credit for what. It is a
hierarchy of knowledge, where the only way you can prove what you know
is by what you say that is original.
Each field has its own ethics and this is the world of academia. That's
why their text books are so filled with footnotes and credits that it
interrupts almost every paragraph.
But notice that we don't force symphonies to stop mid-stride to give
information on where musical passages have derived from. Notice artists
aren't required to stick notes and arrows all over paintings to show
where scenes, images and styles came from. Note that TV movies and TV
shows regularly copy blatantly, but rarely credit their sources. I
could go on and on.
The whole issue of what amount of giving credit to others is proper
varies according to the field. And when it comes to spiritual
teachings, what is important is not the source but the way it all fits
together. It is the whole of the teaching, not the pieces that matters.
That's why all religions from all ages are compilations of sacred
writings that have been handed down to us. And in most older cultures,
this is considered the only true wisdsom of value. Originality is not
important.
What I hear you saying is that you think everyone has been taught
plagiarism is bad, therefore it is bad. Is that your whole point?
As for your argument about everyone being the victim, that's obviously
purely opinion and has no reality to it. I certainly don't feel like a
victim. In fact, I'm glad that I ran across Paul Twitchell's books,
since they have been a wellspring of inspiration and wisdom for me.
Or are you saying everyone is a victim even though they don't know it.
Which begs the question of how can you tell if others can't?
This sounds a lot like the arguments that the anti-cultists made to
convince people of the great dangers of brainwashing in cults. Their
argument was that if you could deprogram someone from a cult and get
them to drop out of a cult, this was proof they had been brainwashed in
the first place. On the other hand, if you couldn't deprogram someone,
this showed how powerful the brainwashing was.
In other words, it was just a bunch of empty imaginings, since it
proved nothing. But what did prove something is that well over 90
percent of people in cults left of their own volition after a few
years, while less than a few percent have ever left through
deprogramming. This shows the ideas of brainwashing and deprogramming
are useless.
Anyone can say they are a victim, but this means nothing.
So, all we have is a teacher using an approach that you disagree with.
No victimhood. Just a different approach.
As for everyone knowing that plagiarism is bad, sorry to disagree but
there is a growing realization that the whole teaching of plagiarism
has gone off the tracks. And the more I looked into it the more I
realized how different it was than we have all been taught.
Did you know that the people who write about plagiarism are often
looked down upon more than those criticized for plagiarism? It is not
seen as improving our culture, but only Sunday School ethics that tries
to use guilt to tell people when they should credit others.
Think about this. Do you really think that you should be giving credit
to others according to a set of rules? Don't you think we should be
giving credit to others when WE think they deserve credit? What do you
think of people who would try to publicly make you feel guilty for not
giving credit when you think what you did was fair?
Sometimes we feel like giving someone credit for the smallest of
things. Sometimes it is only for the most significant of things.
Sometimes we thank a person personally, but say nothing about their
contribution in public, because it simply isn't appropriate in the
work, or we say something to give credit through some other form.
In other words, shouldn't giving credit come from the heart when we
think it is appropriate?
Do you honestly believe that the rules of giving credit have been so
perfected in literature and academia that these are tantamount to a sin
not to obey them, yet in no other field are such strict rules applied?
Wake up. The people that victimized you, if you want to see it that
way, are the grade school teachers to put such a feeling of guilt into
students for copying that they stunted the natural and valuable skill
of copying those who we admire, which all artists do. I believe any
real study of the subject of plagiarism will come to the same
conclusion.
So, I can say you are most definitely wrong that this is some kind of
rock of Sysiphus or that everyone knows how bad it is. This is
especially true from my viewpoint, and you can save me the sorry song
of how I must therefore be a brainwashed cultist. That is the dog that
doesn't hunt and never has. Not a single adacemic or psychologist in
the English speaking world has the nerve to support the brainwashing
theory today. It has been soundly proven wrong.
But it had a better chance of fooling people than your idea that
plagiarism is the weapon of victimization harming the readers. As if
the readers were horribly disfigured because they didn't realize a
passage had once been said in a very similar way by someone else.
So, once again, you can stop pretending you represent what I think,
since you invariably mis-represent it. Which begs the question why. Why
are you so incapable of representing what I am saying and how I see it?
I'm not making it any kind of mystery. Anyone only has to read what I'm
saying. Is it really that hard for you to even try to fairly represent
my perspective? Why is that?
It is easy to make what someone else has done look like the sign of
some terrible psychological sickness. This is as old as the hills. In
fact, it would be very easy for me to show how this characterization is
a sickness itself. But this is nothing but foolishness. It is pop
psychology which is worthless. These are not professional psychological
opinions. These are frauds posing as if they could pronounce truths
like an authority on the science of psychology.
Once again, the question comes back, why don't you just say that you
disagree in a respectful way? Why don't you just say what you would do
and explain how you see it? Why all this effort to make someone else
look bad by bringing in fraudulent psychology opinions as if they
represented some kind of scientific opinion? Why twist around the words
and intentions of others so that you can make it look like they have a
problem?
If what you have to say is real and true, why not simply explain the
truth in such a way that you show something real and true?
I mean if you feel that Paul's plagiarism is really and truly the cause
of damage to others, then please just show us the evidence and prove
your point.
For example, show us how students who read The Far Country have been
damaged, but those who read Dialogues With The Master, which has had no
plagiarism in it, have not suffered damage. Surely there are people who
have read one book and not the other. We could compare the statistical
differences of these two groups of people.
Do you really think you have any evidence to prove this? Do you see the
difference between just imagining something and proving it is true?
If you really do have some evidence, then I would love to hear it and
talk with you about it.
And then we wouldn't need comments dripping in sarcasm, because the
evidence would speak for itself.
Otherwise, if we are just discussing opinions and viewpoints, and I
believe that is all that we are really discussing here, then everyone's
perspective is valid and why not speak with respect, and honor the fact
that we all have a right to our own opinions?
As far as I can see, this subject is similar to the topic of divorce.
After two people split apart, it is common for them to feel as if they
had wasted their time with the other person, and then not wanting to
accept their own responsibility they will go on to find all kinds of
ways of blaming the other person.
They will not be able to calmly and rationally explain how they were
taken advantage of. They have to scream it and rant on and on about it.
They fight over it way too hard because they don't want to accept the
idea that they are the ones responsible for their own choices.
It is a real shame, since they will often reject whole parts of their
lives, because of the pains that come from parting.
Doug.
tianyue
"As for everyone knowing that plagiarism is bad, sorry to disagree but
there is a growing realization that the whole teaching of plagiarism
has gone off the tracks. And the more I looked into it the more I
realized how different it was than we have all been taught.
Did you know that the people who write about plagiarism are often
looked down upon more than those criticized for plagiarism? It is not
seen as improving our culture, but only Sunday School ethics that tries
to use guilt to tell people when they should credit others."
Writers beware: Don't show Doug your unpublished manuscripts, folks. He
has given sufficient notice of his ethics in regards to plagiarism. So,
say you worked on a nice novel for five years, giving up all your spare
time while working nine to five, pouring every ounce of creativity you
have into it, working on the plot, painstakingly developing the details
of each character, researching the content, mulling over the dialogue,
getting each sentence, phrase, every word into a harmonized symphony of
written expression that (hopefully) will mesmerize the reader, sweating
over numerous rewrites, submitting to publishers, waiting for answers,
and then, ohmigod.......you see your book in print with good ol' Dougs
name on it. Don't sweat it...in Doug's world, its okay...fair and
square...if you complain, Doug will tell you how much the world will
look down on you.
Ridiculous.
There is no growing consensus that plagiarism is acceptable, or that it
is only Sunday school ethics to consider plagiarism to be wrong. On the
contrary, there have been many instances recently in which authors have
had reputations ruined upon having been discovered plagiaizing. It is a
fiction in Doug's mind that plagiarism is acceptable.
Tianyue
Doug
If you were interested in having me back up my comment to show my
reasons for saying what I said, why not simply ask me what my reasons
were?
Don't you think that would be worth knowing before proclaiming I had no
reason for saying it?
First, the example you give is not an example of plagiarism. That would
be an example of copyright infringement. If the exact book you wrote
showed up under my name, that would be copyright infringement. In fact,
according to copyright laws, if the whole of the work was
"substantially similar" then it would be considered copyright
infringement, and you could us that law to protect you.
Plagiarism, however, is not about ownership. It is not about someone
taking from you what belongs to you. That's why there is no law against
it.
If you would like me to quote from authorities on this subject, please
ask and I'll be glad to supply the quotes.
Also, if you are interested in the quotes showing that plagiarism is
coming under growing review and challenge, just ask and I'll be glad to
quote sources for that as well.
In other words, I have researched this subject and have sources to back
up my points, which explains why I have arrived at the conclusions I
have.
By the way, I've never said that there aren't cases of plagiarism
costing journists and authors there jobs these days. However, back in
the sixties there was no rule against plagiarism in the official code
of journalistic ethics, and in fact a leading textbook on journalism in
those days advised the copying of others and portraying it as something
new. Things have changed.
I can also provide a quote to support that, if you would like.
My position on this is that most people think plagiarism is wrong but
don't even understand what plagiarism is about. Your example of someone
stealing your work is a perfect case.
This should raise our suspicions about the whole subject, that it could
be so misunderstood. People say it is bad, but don't even know why.
But I guess most people just don't care why. And that is indeed
strange.
Doug.
tianyue
> Tianyue,
>
> If you were interested in having me back up my comment to show my
> reasons for saying what I said, why not simply ask me what my reasons
> were?
> Don't you think that would be worth knowing before proclaiming I had no
> reason for saying it?
If you had reasons, I assumed you would have already given them.
Besides, to use a metaphore, I don't need a weatherman to tell me it is
snowing ouside, when I can look out my window. Now, let's look at your
"reasons":
>
> First, the example you give is not an example of plagiarism.
Of course my example is an example of plagiarism. It is an example of
literary theft. My God, Doug, this is ludicrous.
>That would
> be an example of copyright infringement.
News flash: Plagiarism can also be copyright infringement, and often
is.
>If the exact book you wrote
> showed up under my name, that would be copyright infringement. In fact,
> according to copyright laws, if the whole of the work was
> "substantially similar" then it would be considered copyright
> infringement, and you could us that law to protect you.
Yes, yes, Doug. Don't be so simplistic. This is insultingly stupid and
incredibly twisted. To not say so would make me an idiot as well. By
the way, all of the works Twitchell plagiarized were copyrighted,
though that hardly makes any difference to me. Let's say you found my
laptop on an airplane and made a copy of my material, and published it.
How would I prove its mine? Its wrong, Doug, plain and simple.
> Plagiarism, however, is not about ownership. It is not about someone
> taking from you what belongs to you. That's why there is no law against
> it.
>
There may be no criminal law against it, but there are civil laws
against it. If you stole my material, I could haul your pathetic,
unethical self into court and sue you for punitive and actual damages
till the cows come home, and you'd lose, so long as I could prove I was
the originator of the stolen literary works. And if you refused to pay
the money judgement entered against you by the court, I could have your
assets seized by marshals to make payment. How's that for laws against
plagiarism?
> If you would like me to quote from authorities on this subject, please
> ask and I'll be glad to supply the quotes.
>
No need for quotes, since I've already addressed that in explaining the
civil penalties. Doug, you surely aren't so naive to be unaware that
many things are wrong and highly unethical, yet not illegal, and many
things are illegal, yet not unethical. But the civil laws address the
issues that are not expressly criminal. O.J. Simson wasn't convicted of
the criminal act of murder in the criminal justice system, but he was
found liable for murder in civil court. Some issues are left to the
plaintiff in a case to prove his/her case against a defendant, whether
it is murder in some cases, or plagiarism. The bottom line is there is
a legal remedy available from the justice system to penalize
plagiarists.
> Also, if you are interested in the quotes showing that plagiarism is
> coming under growing review and challenge, just ask and I'll be glad to
> quote sources for that as well.
>
By all means, quote them, although I am certain such opinions don't
constitute a majority. Can you prove there is a majority consensus that
plagiasism is acceptable? Simply quoting a few people who you've found
to agree with you won't fly. When the courts refuse to take cases of
plagiarism, and the civil laws are actually changed, which will never
happen, I'll believe you.
> In other words, I have researched this subject and have sources to back
> up my points, which explains why I have arrived at the conclusions I
> have.
Sources which prove that plagiarism is becoming acceptable? Prove it.
But I warn you, a few quotes by people with merely a point of view
won't be acceptable. You'll need hard evidence (not a speculative
whitewash) of a clear trend provable by hard data. Opinions by pundits
aren't very significant in such issues. One can find pundits to back up
any position. The web is full of such drivel.
>
> By the way, I've never said that there aren't cases of plagiarism
> costing journists and authors there jobs these days.
No, Doug, you certainly didn't say anything about journalists losing
their jobs over plagiarism. That was something I raised in my own
statements. You were silent on that issue.
>However, back in
> the sixties there was no rule against plagiarism in the official code
> of journalistic ethics, and in fact a leading textbook on journalism in
> those days advised the copying of others and portraying it as something
> new. Things have changed.
Back in the early sixties, Jim Crow laws still existed that separated
blacks from whites, and abortion was illegal. Go back a few years more,
and blacks were not allowed to vote. A few years before that, women
weren't allowed to own property, much less vote. And many years before
that, Roman emperors were allowed to rape anything that walked, and
then feed them to lions. Just because you can find tolerance of
unethical practices in earlier historical times, doesn't make the
practices just. (By the way, would you provide evidence of this claim?
I don't think its all that relevant, but so long as you're throwing
around assertions, maybe backing them up would make you, at the least,
more credible, considering you are prone to making some seriously
outlandish comments.)
>
> I can also provide a quote to support that, if you would like.
Mere quotes and opinions that are unsubstantiated won't do, so don't
bother, if this is all you have. One deluded fellow quoting another
won't be acceptable. You'll have to find a complete, unedited copy of
the actual code. Often when one sees the actual evidence, things are
much less clear than represented. But this hardly makes much
difference, since the code of ethics obviously is now amended, as
indicated by your own remarks.
>
> My position on this is that most people think plagiarism is wrong but
> don't even understand what plagiarism is about. Your example of someone
> stealing your work is a perfect case.
I've explained your own misunderstanding of my example above.
>
> This should raise our suspicions about the whole subject, that it could
> be so misunderstood. People say it is bad, but don't even know why.
>
People do know why it is unethical, and the courts of the US civil
legal system know why it is unethical. It is you, Doug, who is sadly in
the dark on this subject.
> But I guess most people just don't care why. And that is indeed
> strange.
>
Strange indeed. People do care about the issue, Doug. That's why
plagiarists can be litigated in the civil court system.
Tian yue.
cher
on black and white thinking and greed. In copyright law, the fair usage
clause is based on how much not whose work. Odd that people who take a
black and white view of all or nothing expect others to take this rigid
viewpoint as if it were a given. People use phrases and clauses all the
time that become common usage, without being expected to recall who it
was that said what. In fact, I no doubt could go through this post and
pull out and site instances of plagiarism if I had the right software
and datamining tools available. It's not as if originality is a given in
this world of group consciousness. Our verbal ability to pick up on
these phrases and cues from one another is part of what creates the
illusion of continuity and inclusion in the human race. The ability to
take ideas and formulate new uses for them, leading to new discoveries
is what makes it possible for us to appear to grow and learn. The
ability to take others ideas and use them in our own complex
comprehension process used to the gold standard of education on this
planet! There was a time when what we asked our educators to teach was
the ability to learn, not spout quotes and citations. What good is
memorization if you can't use what you memorized in life application?
See... black and white thinking leads to a very narrow understanding of
the thing at hand. A product of instant gratification, it solves one
issue by alienating the entire subject. And that makes for a very small
ignorant world view. <sigh>
cher
> Doug wrote:
>
>>Tianyue,
>>
>>If you were interested in having me back up my comment to show my
>>reasons for saying what I said, why not simply ask me what my reasons
>>were?
>
>
>>Don't you think that would be worth knowing before proclaiming I had no
>>reason for saying it?
>
>
> If you had reasons, I assumed you would have already given them.
> Besides, to use a metaphore, I don't need a weatherman to tell me it is
> snowing ouside, when I can look out my window. Now, let's look at your
> "reasons":
And in your black and white world view, Bob Dylan could bring charges
against you for this statement! <smile>
And for the record, plagiarism isn't litigated in court, it defaults to
copyright law in the case of civil liability, which is the law. Cpyright
law is the only place in which property rights of an inclusive work can
be established. In this instance, it's the value of the credit of work
and not the words themselves that is used to make this evaluation. In
fact, the law clearly states that a loss to the original author has to
be proven in direct association to the situation to prove intent. This
is why copyrtight law was established in the first place... because the
moral outrage of man is seldom correct in its viewpoint.
DarwinT...@yahoo.com
> Unfortunately this hysteria over intellectual property rights is based
> on black and white thinking and greed. In copyright law, the fair usage
> clause is based on how much not whose work. Odd that people who take a
> black and white view of all or nothing expect others to take this rigid
> viewpoint as if it were a given. People use phrases and clauses all the
> time that become common usage, without being expected to recall who it
> was that said what. In fact, I no doubt could go through this post and
> pull out and site instances of plagiarism if I had the right software
> and datamining tools available. It's not as if originality is a given in
> this world of group consciousness. Our verbal ability to pick up on
> these phrases and cues from one another is part of what creates the
> illusion of continuity and inclusion in the human race. The ability to
> take ideas and formulate new uses for them, leading to new discoveries
> is what makes it possible for us to appear to grow and learn. The
> ability to take others ideas and use them in our own complex
> comprehension process used to the gold standard of education on this
> planet! There was a time when what we asked our educators to teach was
> the ability to learn, not spout quotes and citations. What good is
> memorization if you can't use what you memorized in life application?
>
> See... black and white thinking leads to a very narrow understanding of
> the thing at hand. A product of instant gratification, it solves one
> issue by alienating the entire subject. And that makes for a very small
> ignorant world view. <sigh>
1. DarwinTwitch...@yahoo.com
Dec 18, 11:09 am show options
<Snip>
Such a man as Paul Twitchell might have inspired Samuel Johnson's
famous piece of sarcasm: "Your manuscript is both good and original;but
the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is
not good."
The following quote from an article called *The Unoriginal Sin* By Roy
Peter Clark puts, I think, Paul's copious plagiarims and fabrications
into the proper arena. You assisidously try to keep his transgressions
in the technical field. They belong in the field of human psychology.
Paul appears to have been, as Ford Johnson so eloquently makes the
case, suffering from Mythomania and Delusions of Grandeur, at the very
least.
Quote: (See how easy it is to quote Doug?)
"In the most serious cases, plagiarism is a human problem rather than
atechnical one. It is practiced by people under duress, people who act
End Quote.
Of course, Cher has proved long ago that she renounced any morals or
ethics she may have once had in defense of her chosen ekankult.
While the likes of Doug, Rich and Cher root around like pigs in the
muck of plagiarism, the rest of civilized society recognizes there is
something very wrong with a public person who would use the exact words
of others as their own, much less place those words in the mouth of a
fictional "rebazar tarzs". Reasonable people don't need a delusional
explanation of why plagiarism and fabrication is OK, they intuitively
and rationally know it is not. Those that live in the real world know
plagiarism can get you fired or thrown out of school in disgrace. That
is enough for most people. People like Doug, Rich and Cher have
malleable ethics that they must stretch to the point of breaking in
silly and ridiculous defense of their enkankult. So delusional are
they, they can't recognize how foolish and outrageous they appear in
their bizarre and preposterous defense of plagiarism.
It's behavior like this that keeps me coming back to a.r.e. It's like
passing a good train wreck everyday...
cher
> cher wrote:
<snip>
Yeah gary.... your moral outrage is duly noted. So now what? <smile>
tianyue
First, take the quiz:
http://plagiarism.umf.maine.edu/copyright/copy_infrin.html
Hmmm. A check on the web reveals the following: Literary works,
artistic works, photos, etc, are automatically protected by copyright
laws the moment such works are generated (put on paper, film, canvas),
and remain in effect for 70 years after the creator's death.
So, to get a better idea about how this works, take the quiz.
It doesn't matter if the legal term in the court system is "copyright"
or "plagiary," just as the legal term for murder is, not murder, but
rather, homicide, and the legal term for beating the bejeezus out of
someone in a bar is not "beating one's brain's out" but rather,
"assault and battery." The law exists to recognize and protect the
individual against such theft, commonly termed plagiarism, legally
termed copyright violation, and otherwise known as theft.
My wife, who is an artist, has often remarked that she is not allowed
to paint from a photo taken by another, without permission.
My God, folks. What is it about this that you don't understand?
DarwinT...@yahoo.com
It's fascinating, is it not? The cultic mind (religious addiction) is
every bit the match for the denial and delusion which characterizes
your run-of-the-mill drug addict. I used to think they were just being
stubborn. Now I think their perceptions have become so skewed "under
the influence" of enkankult that they truly believe the nonsense that
they spout. (one eyebrow raised, ala Spock....)
cher
Which is exactly what I said. It's about copyright law, stupid... or
that's how the joke goes in political circles. <smile>
> It doesn't matter if the legal term in the court system is "copyright"
> or "plagiary," just as the legal term for murder is, not murder, but
> rather, homicide, and the legal term for beating the bejeezus out of
> someone in a bar is not "beating one's brain's out" but rather,
> "assault and battery." The law exists to recognize and protect the
> individual against such theft, commonly termed plagiarism, legally
> termed copyright violation, and otherwise known as theft.
I'm sorry, but this dance of sematics is relevant, actually. And it's
the sort of blind eyed viewpoint that dismisses the point of copyright
law that is causing this to be stain on the topic and is leading to many
professionals to step back from the issue of plagiarism. If you want
abject absolute moral convictions from others, then might I suggest you
try an ethical check list on yourself for a change? Because I generally
don't trust the ethics of a man who has one set of rigid rules for the
world and another set of laxed rules for himself. <wink>
> My wife, who is an artist, has often remarked that she is not allowed
> to paint from a photo taken by another, without permission.
I am an artist as well... and happen to know about such things as
copyright free photos, which are used all the time! And it's legal to
use anyone's photo's for reference in a work without attribution, if the
photo is not copied as the whole of the work. See... it's easy in
today's world to bury parts of the truth in order to spin a rigid policy
in propaganda around fragments of reality! Just read the headlines if
you think I'm joking. <grin>
> My God, folks. What is it about this that you don't understand?
>
How what seems like intelligent people can become so confused by areas
of life that are complex! I guess maybe this shows us the nature of what
passes as intelligence, hey?
cher
Gary.... to you the whole world represents an addiction. <sigh> Maybe
someday you'll get over your mental illness and leave us alone. tsk.....
tianyue
You've added nothing, despite all the verbiage, that changes the fact
that plagiarism can be held to a legal standard, and legal remedies are
available to those whose works have been thieved. Of course, there are
always necessary limitations in the law, to provide fairness. Your
points are much like the person who says he's not guilty of murder,
since his crime was committed more than twenty years before, thus
rendering him unprosecutable due to statutes of limitation. Yet, such a
person committed murder, no matter how you slice it. In other words,
there are always technicalities and exceptions built into the system to
protect potentially innocent people from unfair application of law, but
ethical misconduct is still unethical. You folks are out of the loop on
this one. What is legal is often very unethical, and what is ethical
isn't always legal. You're pinning your argument on the wrong donkey.
Tianyue
cher
http://faculty.law.lsu.edu/stuartgreen/j-green2.pdf As to the emotional
exaggeration you project on what I wrote.... well, that just shows how
angry you get when someone points out you're wrong. That tells me that
you're too attached to this point to debate it intelligently. <sigh>
> person committed murder, no matter how you slice it. In other words,
> there are always technicalities and exceptions built into the system to
> protect potentially innocent people from unfair application of law, but
> ethical misconduct is still unethical. You folks are out of the loop on
> this one. What is legal is often very unethical, and what is ethical
> isn't always legal. You're pinning your argument on the wrong donkey.
By what peer review panel can we establish this then? Can you give me
the url to this peer review group who set this ethical standard by which
you've decided to judge this issue? Because I frankly haven't seen one
in my investigations of this issue to date. I love how you guys pull
these ideas out of context from different disciplines and have no
concept of the constructs they come from. <smile>
As to what you perceive as am ethical code of conduct.... yeah...
whatever. <shrug> I know you won't understand this, but truly comments
like that are a dime a dozen on usenet. By what standards? By what
disciplines? What peer review group if any? See.... it's just an empty
weapon of mental manipulation. <sigh>
> Tianyue
>
tianyue
You're blithly ignoring everything I've said. I'm not stepping into the
quicksand of your sophistry. You may be able to confuse yourself, but
I'm not joining in. (chuckle)
> >
cher
I didn't ignore it, I disproved it. Too bad, you might have learned
something in the process. I can see by this response how you manage to
hang on so tightly to your precious beliefs though. <shrug> Whatever......
Ken
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
Wallowing around in the muck of social consciousness
must be it's own reward, because I can't think of any other.
cher
That's about it, yeah? <sigh>
tianyue
Yes...addictions leading to denial must be the explanation. I've often
wondered about their basic reasoning skills. Yet, most of them do seem
bright enough to reason things out, but there is the ingrained distrust
of basic reasoning that short circuits the critical thinking. So,
providing they have suficient intellectual ability, what else can be
concluded other than that they are "under the influence" of the cultic
grip?
cher
Gee... could it be a flaw in your so called "critical thinking"? No, of
course not... it has to be everyone elses fault. Oh.. and that's
sufficient, oh master of others intellect and reason. <grinning>
Doug
You do sound like an intelligent person, but like you also pointed out,
seemingly intelligent people can get attached to ideas and become
fanatical about them.
This is most often true about things we know the least about, so it is
good to promote discussion rather than acting as if it is stupid.
Otherwise we fall into seeing things as black and white.
Here is a quote to show that plagiarism is not and has never been a
legal term, nor does it have a legal equivalent. Copyright protection
is about ownership. Plagiarism is purely a matter of ethics, and being
a matter of ethics it varies widely to the area it is applied.
Here's the quote:
Laurie Stearns, in her essay, Copy Wrong: Plagiarism, Process,
Property, and the Law, from the book, Perspectives on Plagiarism,
writes:
<People commonly think of plagiarism as being "against the law." But
with respect to plagiarism, the law and literary ethics intersect only
imperfectly. Plagiarism is not a legal term...
<The law...has had a difficult time understanding plagiarism...Hardly a
single modern lawbook contains an entry for plagiarism in its
index...One bewildered jury, uncertain exactly what the attorneys and
the judge meant by "plagiarism" and other terminology used in a trial,
sent the bailiff out for a dictionary during its deliberations.>
In other words, plagiarism is not a crime. In fact, it has never been
considered a crime at any time in mankind's history. It is a matter
of ethics, not law.
Copyrights are what define the intellectual property that an author,
artist or musician can rightfully own. Plagiarism is concerned only
with the ethics of giving credit. In other words, plagiarism is about
the practice of properly recognizing our sources. Even if you steal,
copy or borrow from others, if you acknowledge your sources, you are
not plagiarizing. However, you might be infringing someone's
copyrights.
Another thing that often surprises people is the fact that copyright
law intentionally limits the rights of the author. For example,
copyright law does not grant ownership to words, phrases or paragraphs,
because this would unfairly restrict new and original creations. It
would turn our common language into a form of private property. In
other words, those who originally drafted up the copyright laws
specifically made sure that people were free to copy and transform
previous works to produce something new. For this reason, no one is
allowed to copyright ideas, titles, themes or plots.
In fact, copyright law is mainly designed to protect against using the
whole of an artistic work without permission.
Thomas Mallon writes in Stolen Words:
<In Litchfield v. Spielberg (9th Circuit 1984), the court ruled: "To
constitute infringement of expression, the total concept and feel of
the works must be substantially similar."
<...The history of copyright actually has more to do with piracy than
plagiarism. Laws are far more useful in protecting authors against
wholesale printings of their books by publishers with no rights to them
than they are in stopping the dead-of-night authorial theft of a
passage here and a paragraph there.>
I've got plenty more quotes to fill in this subject, as I mentioned
before. If you are interested, just ask.
Doug.
Ken
"cher" <gruen...@worldnet.att.net> wrote ...
>
> tianyue wrote:
Oh, with some people it's never about their own reasoning
skills or unseen biases, it's always and forever the other
guy.
"Cultic" has become such a catchall, along with
"reactionary"
and few others. I've come to the point that whenever I hear
one of these terms I automatically assume the user is simply
not able to see very far past the end of their own nose.
It's all about a person's inability to see things from any
pov
other than their own. Always, the extreme critic is quite
convinced there's nothing lacking in their own perspective
as
it certainly includes all of the relevant and useful
information
to be found on the subject.
cher
Yep... those buzz words that automatically tell us to turn off our brain
and just accept the persons opinion as a god given fact. <sigh> I sure
get tired of those. Recently I discovered that when I disagree with the
policies of the administration of this nation, I'm automatically deemed
a "leftist liberal". Anyone who knows me realizes that's about as far
from the truth as one could get. But that doesn't matter.. cause a label
is so effective when one doesn't have an argument. <sigh> Just pigeon
hole a person and then you argue to the script running in your head. <sigh>
>
> It's all about a person's inability to see things from any
> pov
> other than their own. Always, the extreme critic is quite
> convinced there's nothing lacking in their own perspective
> as
> it certainly includes all of the relevant and useful
> information
> to be found on the subject.
Exactly.... and the world is as narrow and tiny as their little world.
<sigh> Maybe some Souls are just maxed out with that much alone? A
strange lifetime, but it's a possibility. Some people just have to
experience what it's like to live in a little box. Oh well... it's all
about experience. <smile>
>
>
>
>
Doug
tianyue wrote:
> Doug wrote:
> > Tianyue,
> >
> > If you were interested in having me back up my comment to show my
> > reasons for saying what I said, why not simply ask me what my reasons
> > were?
>
> > Don't you think that would be worth knowing before proclaiming I had no
> > reason for saying it?
>
> If you had reasons, I assumed you would have already given them.
> Besides, to use a metaphore, I don't need a weatherman to tell me it is
> snowing ouside, when I can look out my window. Now, let's look at your
> "reasons":
Actually, Tianyue, my reason for not posting them is because we have
been all through this before on this newsgroup, and I have a book
online that most people here know about.
Since people come here under different names, some of them have been
here before and seen all this. I didn't want to presume. But like I
said, if you are interested I would be glad to offer the quotes.
>
> >
> > First, the example you give is not an example of plagiarism.
>
>
> Of course my example is an example of plagiarism. It is an example of
> literary theft. My God, Doug, this is ludicrous.
>
>
> >That would
> > be an example of copyright infringement.
>
>
> News flash: Plagiarism can also be copyright infringement, and often
> is.
Sorry, Tianyue, the two are very different. People can plagiarize
someone and never infringe their copyrights. People can also infringe
copyrights and never plagiarize.
In most cases, plagiarism is not copyright infringement, since
copyright law is quite restrictive on what intellectual property can be
owned. Copyright law is most often used to prevent piracy of materials,
not copying passages. I supplied a quote on this in the email I just
posted, so I won't repeat it here.
Yes, there are indeed cases where it can be called both plagiarism and
copyright infringement, but this turns out to be less often than you
might think.
By the way, these are common misconceptions. Few people understand the
complexities because it has been so misrepresented when it is taught.
>
>
> >If the exact book you wrote
> > showed up under my name, that would be copyright infringement. In fact,
> > according to copyright laws, if the whole of the work was
> > "substantially similar" then it would be considered copyright
> > infringement, and you could us that law to protect you.
>
>
> Yes, yes, Doug. Don't be so simplistic. This is insultingly stupid and
> incredibly twisted. To not say so would make me an idiot as well. By
> the way, all of the works Twitchell plagiarized were copyrighted,
> though that hardly makes any difference to me. Let's say you found my
> laptop on an airplane and made a copy of my material, and published it.
> How would I prove its mine? Its wrong, Doug, plain and simple.
I wasn't getting into proving anything. Proof is another thing
altogether. We are both assuming you wrote it. To publish something you
wrote would be copyright infringement. I don't care if you can prove it
or not, I am agreeing with you that you wrote it. But this is exactly
what copyright law is designed to protect against.
There has never been a single case of copyright infringement filed
against Paul Twitchell's books, because none would hold up in court as
copyright infringement. So, we are not talking about taking something
from anyone else that belonged to them.
>
>
> > Plagiarism, however, is not about ownership. It is not about someone
> > taking from you what belongs to you. That's why there is no law against
> > it.
> >
>
> There may be no criminal law against it, but there are civil laws
> against it. If you stole my material, I could haul your pathetic,
> unethical self into court and sue you for punitive and actual damages
> till the cows come home, and you'd lose, so long as I could prove I was
> the originator of the stolen literary works. And if you refused to pay
> the money judgement entered against you by the court, I could have your
> assets seized by marshals to make payment. How's that for laws against
> plagiarism?
No, there are no civil laws against it either. No you could not get any
punitive or actual damages unless you could prove it was an
infringement of your copyrights.
If you couldn't prove you owned it, which is what copyright law
defines, then you have no case. You are simply wrong on this.
I can see you are having a hard time accepting this, because there is
so much misinformation about what plagiarism is. You are not alone.
These are widely held misunderstandings.
You couldn't claim anything belonging to you had be appropriated,
because that would come back to copyright infringement. You could not
claim you had lost chances at profits or that it hurt the sales of your
products, because all of that requires infringement of copyrights.
So, exactly what would be the grounds for your civil lawsuit? I don't
see what you could claim.
Perhaps emotional harm? That you were so upset by the plagiarism that
you couldn't write anymore? What would be your claim?
>
>
> > If you would like me to quote from authorities on this subject, please
> > ask and I'll be glad to supply the quotes.
> >
>
> No need for quotes, since I've already addressed that in explaining the
> civil penalties. Doug, you surely aren't so naive to be unaware that
> many things are wrong and highly unethical, yet not illegal, and many
> things are illegal, yet not unethical. But the civil laws address the
> issues that are not expressly criminal. O.J. Simson wasn't convicted of
> the criminal act of murder in the criminal justice system, but he was
> found liable for murder in civil court. Some issues are left to the
> plaintiff in a case to prove his/her case against a defendant, whether
> it is murder in some cases, or plagiarism. The bottom line is there is
> a legal remedy available from the justice system to penalize
> plagiarists.
Actually, OJ was not found guilty of murder in the civil court. Only
criminal courty can find a person guilty of murder. The civil court
found OJ responsible for the effects and damages of murder.
But what you are proposing won't fly in civil court unless you can
first prove you legally owned something, and that is defined by
copyrights. You aren't going to get anywhere in court by saying you
felt that it belonged to you, because people can't own the titles to
their books, they can't own themes, they can't own plotlines, and
dozens of other things that lots of people might feel they should be
able to own.
Well, just to be technically accurate, they can't own these things
under copyright law anyway. You can own a title if you register it as a
Trademark. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.
>
>
> > Also, if you are interested in the quotes showing that plagiarism is
> > coming under growing review and challenge, just ask and I'll be glad to
> > quote sources for that as well.
> >
>
>
> By all means, quote them, although I am certain such opinions don't
> constitute a majority. Can you prove there is a majority consensus that
> plagiasism is acceptable? Simply quoting a few people who you've found
> to agree with you won't fly. When the courts refuse to take cases of
> plagiarism, and the civil laws are actually changed, which will never
> happen, I'll believe you.
I already provided the quotes showing that courts do not take cases of
plagiarism in my previous email. If you missed it, let me know and I'll
post it again.
Here are a couple quotes showing how much debate is going on about the
problems over plagiarism and how it is taught in school.
Discussions about plagiarism have mushroomed lately, especially amongst
educators. In the introduction to their book, Perspectives on
Plagiarism, Buranen and Roy point out that the number of articles with
plagiarism in the title at the University of California Library
database "nearly doubled from 1990 to 1992, and almost doubled again
from 1992 to 1994.
Lise Buranen, in her essay, But I Wasn't Cheating: Plagiarism and
Cross-Cultural Mythology, from the book on Perspectives on Plagiarism,
wrote:
<Plagiarism is a vastly more complex issue than we as teachers may
recognize and certainly far more complex than we customarily suggest to
students; too often, we tell students "Don't do it, and perhaps we
give them some mechanical guidelines to follow, telling them where to
put the commas and quotation marks, and maybe how to introduce quotes
or paraphrases with "According to..."
<But as we have no doubt learned from our own writing, and, if we think
about it, from our teaching, it is not always easy to know where to
draw the line: Do we cite our sources in the classroom, giving credit
for the information we use in handouts or other course materials, or
for things we might have borrowed, stolen, or adapted from colleagues,
handbooks, or journal articles? Should we give such credit? How are
these cases different from our students' collaborative efforts? Or are
they? Clearly the answers to these questions depend at least in part on
where we are in the academic hierarchy; whether an act is considered
plagiarism is related to the amount of power we possess.>
So, the whole foundation of plagiarism is a complex mix of paradigms
and cultural practices. Laurie Sterns, in her essay, Plagiarism,
Process, Property, and the Law, from the book Perspectives on
Plagiarism, tries to sort though the many conflicting ideas to
summarize the modern viewpoint:
<Given this interdependence of human creative efforts, the idea of
plagiarism is something of a paradox. Why condemn an author for
borrowing from another if such borrowing is inevitable and even
fundamental to the creative process?
<The answer lies in the kind of borrowing an author does. The only
legitimate borrowing is that which proceeds to transform the original
material by means of the borrower's creative process. The obligation of
the author to make an original contribution parallels Locke's view of
the origin of property:
<"Whatsoever then he removes out of the State that Nature hath
provided, and left it in, he hath mixed his Labour with, and joyned to
it something that is his own, and thereby makes it his Property."
<The essence of the modern understanding of plagiarism is a failure of
the creative process through the author's failure either to transform
the original material or to identify its source...
<People despise plagiarism not because it results in inferior work -
indeed, by drawing from others plagiarists may produce better works
than they could by themselves - but because it is a form of cheating
that allows the plagiarist an unearned benefit...
<Plagiarism is, then, a failure of the creative process, not a flaw in
its result. Although imitation is an inevitable component of creation,
plagiarists pass beyond the boundaries of acceptable imitation by
copying from the work of others without improving on the copied
material or fully assimilating it into their own work...>
By the way no one has questioned that Paul's books come across as
completely new and different, and thus are obviously transformed into
his own works. So, using the above definition it doesn't even fit the
essence of the modern understanding of plagiarism.
But it certainly does raise the question of who is going to decide if
something has been transformed well enough. Has it been effectively
turned into something new or is it a bad copy job? Here are some quotes
that talks about that:
Here's how painter Adam Grosowsky recently put it, in an article that
appeared in the January 22, 2000 edition of the Portland area
newspaper, The Oregonian:
<Copying has so much stigma attached to it, but in the history of art
it's the fastest way to learn information. The history of painting is
based on copying...Every great painter copies in the first 10 years of
his career - Degas, Picasso and down the line. But I try to give my
paintings something of me that makes them my own so that it isn't
slavish imitation.>
In fact, the very origin of art is imitation - the imitation of
nature and life around us. Powerful memories and images we experience
beg to be captured and saved, or recreated and retold. It is through
imitation that we learn. Originality, therefore, is not the opposite of
imitation, but a product of it.
Thomas Mallon, in his book on plagiarism, Stolen Words, shares a famous
quote from T. S. Eliot:
<"Immature poets imitate; mature poets steal; bad poets deface what
they take, and good poets make it into something better, or at least
something different. The good poet welds his theft into a whole of
feeling which is unique, utterly different from that from which it was
torn; the bad poet throws it into something which has no cohesion." >
Mallon continues:
<One would be tempted to dismiss paradoxes like these as more clever
than true if one didn't find similar sentiments being so often
expressed by creators in so many different arts. Virgil Thomson's
disciple Ned Rorem has said, "One imitates what one loves. You steal
what you admire, then feel so guilty about it you try to disguise
it." Less penitent is Martha Graham, who in one of her notebooks
declares: "I am a thief - and I am not ashamed. I steal from the
best wherever it happens to me."
<...What's understood, though, is that what's harvested is ploughed
back, used to seed the next step in the cycle of creation. It is not
put unchanged onto the dinner table by someone who pretends he's been
cooking all day.>
In fact, not only are these same sentiments expressed by many other
artists, but apparently even the same words have been used. While
researching this chapter I discovered that according to the Columbia
Dictionary of Quotations, from Columbia University Press, 1995, they
credit not T. S. Eliot, but Lionel Trilling for writing in Esquire
magazine, September 1962:
<Immature artists imitate. Mature artists steal.>
The field of plagiarism is filled with such ironies, and the deeper we
study it the more obvious it becomes why this is so.
>
>
>
> > In other words, I have researched this subject and have sources to back
> > up my points, which explains why I have arrived at the conclusions I
> > have.
>
>
> Sources which prove that plagiarism is becoming acceptable? Prove it.
> But I warn you, a few quotes by people with merely a point of view
> won't be acceptable. You'll need hard evidence (not a speculative
> whitewash) of a clear trend provable by hard data. Opinions by pundits
> aren't very significant in such issues. One can find pundits to back up
> any position. The web is full of such drivel.
You can come to your own conclusion, as we all will. But don't be
fooled by the common opinions about what plagiarism is with what it
really is about. It is far more complex than is taught, and in fact
most people have the completely wrong idea about it.
My main point is not that opinions are changing about plagiarism. They
are, but they've been changing for the last few hundred years when they
started, after the printing press. What I'm trying to get at is the
whole basis and principles of what plagiarism are about and what can
even legitimately be claimed as wrong is a murky subject filled with
subjective criteria, not objective rules.
>
>
>
> >
> > By the way, I've never said that there aren't cases of plagiarism
> > costing journists and authors there jobs these days.
>
>
> No, Doug, you certainly didn't say anything about journalists losing
> their jobs over plagiarism. That was something I raised in my own
> statements. You were silent on that issue.
Dear Tianyue, we have had so many discussion on this subject that you
will have to forgive me. It is really a old topic around here. I have
had numerous discussions on how modern day journalists have lost their
jobs. Some have and some haven't for doing the exact same things. It
largely depends upon the circumstances and the people involved.
But it should also be noted that this is a fairly recent issue in
journalism. Where plagiarism has been severly held as a standard has
been in the world of academia, where it has been treated strictly for
centuries.
>
>
> >However, back in
> > the sixties there was no rule against plagiarism in the official code
> > of journalistic ethics, and in fact a leading textbook on journalism in
> > those days advised the copying of others and portraying it as something
> > new. Things have changed.
>
>
> Back in the early sixties, Jim Crow laws still existed that separated
> blacks from whites, and abortion was illegal. Go back a few years more,
> and blacks were not allowed to vote. A few years before that, women
> weren't allowed to own property, much less vote. And many years before
> that, Roman emperors were allowed to rape anything that walked, and
> then feed them to lions. Just because you can find tolerance of
> unethical practices in earlier historical times, doesn't make the
> practices just. (By the way, would you provide evidence of this claim?
> I don't think its all that relevant, but so long as you're throwing
> around assertions, maybe backing them up would make you, at the least,
> more credible, considering you are prone to making some seriously
> outlandish comments.)
Perhaps you are so eager to prove me wrong that you are missing the
point. The reason the sixties are relevant to this discussion is
because Paul wrote and published his books during that time period. And
hopefully you will agree that it is unfair to condemn people for things
that we feel are wrong today when they were not considered wrong in
their day.
To do so would just show an incredible arrogance and ignorance.
While we can today look back at things like racism and the right for
women to vote and see these things as ethical issues that everyone in
every age should have known, I think it is just as easy to see that
people of all time should also realize that their cultural ethics are
just as likely to be rooted in narrowminded popular thinking. That's
the whole point of this discussion.
There are reasons why plagiarism was never considered wrong in
journalism until the late 1970's. For centuries it was encouraged.
There are reasons for this, and unless you take the time to understand
them, to dismiss such things is merely another sign of how people
believe they are superior to past ages. This is nothing new. It is
simply arrogance, not wisdom.
>
>
> >
> > I can also provide a quote to support that, if you would like.
>
>
>
> Mere quotes and opinions that are unsubstantiated won't do, so don't
> bother, if this is all you have. One deluded fellow quoting another
> won't be acceptable. You'll have to find a complete, unedited copy of
> the actual code. Often when one sees the actual evidence, things are
> much less clear than represented. But this hardly makes much
> difference, since the code of ethics obviously is now amended, as
> indicated by your own remarks.
It is all included in the quote. You can check the references and you
can get the texts and read them for yourself. Here you go, since you
asked so nicely:
An article appeared in USA Today on Monday, May 10, 1999, called, New
era brings new diligence on plagiarism. It was written by Phillip
Meyer, who holds the Knight Chair in Journalism at the University of
North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Here are a few quotes:
<From 1927, when it first adopted a code of ethics, until 1984, the
Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) had no written rule against
plagiarism.
<C.D. MacDougall, whose 1938 book Interpretative Reporting was once the
standard text, advised concealing the source of rewritten material in
order to make it seem original.
<Newspapers don't steal important stories without verifying, he said,
but they "do borrow for rewriting purposes and often without waiting to
verify minor items.">
MacDougall is simply telling it like it is, and showing us that the
ethics of newspaper reporting were not the same as academia or literary
writing. Meyer goes on to explain how things have changed since then,
giving examples that show how inconsistently the idea of plagiarism is
treated today as we are going through a cultural change:
<One of the basic rules of fairness in our culture is that a person
should not be punished for acts that were not against the law at the
time they were committed. But morality is socially defined, society
changes its mind, and we don't all learn about it at the same time.
<Director-screenwriter James L. Brooks expressed it in a line for
William Hurt, playing a reporter in the 1987 movie Broadcast News.
Accused of crossing an ethical line, Hurt says, "It's hard not to
cross it. They keep moving that little sucker, don't they?"
<In MacDougall's day, the line didn't move much. Information was
scarce, and recycling maximized its use. Today, originality is more
important.
<And plagiarism is easier to spot.
<Similarities in the work of different authors get caught because
technology helps information break out of once-closed networks. People
with an interest in a narrow topic are seldom content with a single
source. They use the Internet to search and compare.>
>
>
>
> >
> > My position on this is that most people think plagiarism is wrong but
> > don't even understand what plagiarism is about. Your example of someone
> > stealing your work is a perfect case.
>
>
> I've explained your own misunderstanding of my example above.
I replied to this above.
>
>
> >
> > This should raise our suspicions about the whole subject, that it could
> > be so misunderstood. People say it is bad, but don't even know why.
> >
>
>
> People do know why it is unethical, and the courts of the US civil
> legal system know why it is unethical. It is you, Doug, who is sadly in
> the dark on this subject.
Perhaps you will change your mind after reading the above quotes or
doing your own research.
If so, I'd love to hear an apology. But of course I respect your
opinion whatever it might be. At a minimum I find it hard to believe
that you could imagine I am in the dark on the subject.
>
>
> > But I guess most people just don't care why. And that is indeed
> > strange.
> >
>
>
> Strange indeed. People do care about the issue, Doug. That's why
> plagiarists can be litigated in the civil court system.
Now it is your time to prove your assertions. Show us one case of
plagiarism being litigated in court - any court. I would find it
interesting.
Thank you, Tian Yue.
Doug.
Rich
"Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote
For me that's become the hallmark of the hardcore detractors. 'They'
don't even consider it. It's extremely closed minded and not showing that
they can see outside themselves. While I and I see most Eckists here do
accept their state of consciousness as valid for them, be it atheist,
victim, angry, intolerant, and all the other kinds of combinations of
challenges they exhibit, they look down on us!? Why? Because they only
see us through their eyes. They are assaulting themselves. They attack
only what they can see, never imagining that others viewpoints could have
validity. While they are locked into seeing the problem as 'our'
religion, that is their shortsightedness.
It's taken me a long time to take the longview. That is, that once the
behavior is recognized(and often it's the same suspect with a new
pseudonym) ignoring them for the most part is the prudent thing for me.
Still in all, I am grateful to take the Soul view and wish them what they
need for their spiritual growth. No hard feelings.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rich
its result. Although imitation is an inevitable component of creation,
plagiarists pass beyond the boundaries of acceptable imitation by
copying from the work of others without improving on the copied
material or fully assimilating it into their own work...>
Thanks Doug! All your citing of the 'knowledgeable' makes this a keeper.
It seems to me that this is just another case of the moving line of
political correctness. There oughtta be a law against it! ;-)
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Doug" <d.ma...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote in message
news:1135374715.9...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
cher
Lessons in detachment! <smile> It gives me a good idea of how attachment
works, by seeing it in others. Sure does take a lot of bodies to keep it
up though.... so much work. <sigh>
> It's taken me a long time to take the longview. That is, that once the
> behavior is recognized(and often it's the same suspect with a new
> pseudonym) ignoring them for the most part is the prudent thing for me.
I shamelessly have used this as a lab on human nature. <smile> Better
than a psych class, if you think about it. Easier than living in the
middle east, too. <grin>
> Still in all, I am grateful to take the Soul view and wish them what they
> need for their spiritual growth. No hard feelings.
Absolutely! <smile> I dont' necessarily wish them anything, just know
this is a step that everyone takes at some point on the journey. Nothing
new. <smile>
JerryC
It is a discussion on plagiarism revolving around Herman Melville and his
writing of Moby Dick.
One point in the discussion is how it was common practice to borrow someone
else's work/words and repackage them into a new product. In fact the author
of the source book wrote a review of Moby Dick and never even mentioned that
his own book was the/a source. That's just the way things were back then.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5068747
JerryC
P.S. I am tired of this topic.
P.S.S. Yet I feel compelled to contribute
"Doug" <d.ma...@littleknownpubs.com> wrote in message
news:1135218354....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Actually the reason plagiarism is such an issue in schools is because
> they are grading students on their work. Teachers don't care if what
> they write is interesting or is worthy of publishing. They only want to
> see what the student knows. How else can they tell if the student is
> getting it, if they copy someone else's answers?
>
> That's the whole mystery to why it is such an issue in academia. Their
> whole world is about who deserves what credit for what. It is a
> hierarchy of knowledge, where the only way you can prove what you know
> is by what you say that is original.
>
> Each field has its own ethics and this is the world of academia. That's
> why their text books are so filled with footnotes and credits that it
> interrupts almost every paragraph.
>
> But notice that we don't force symphonies to stop mid-stride to give
> information on where musical passages have derived from. Notice artists
> aren't required to stick notes and arrows all over paintings to show
> where scenes, images and styles came from. Note that TV movies and TV
> shows regularly copy blatantly, but rarely credit their sources. I
> could go on and on.
>
> The whole issue of what amount of giving credit to others is proper
> varies according to the field. And when it comes to spiritual
> teachings, what is important is not the source but the way it all fits
> together. It is the whole of the teaching, not the pieces that matters.
> That's why all religions from all ages are compilations of sacred
> writings that have been handed down to us. And in most older cultures,
> this is considered the only true wisdsom of value. Originality is not
> important.
>
> What I hear you saying is that you think everyone has been taught
> plagiarism is bad, therefore it is bad. Is that your whole point?
>
> As for your argument about everyone being the victim, that's obviously
> purely opinion and has no reality to it. I certainly don't feel like a
> victim. In fact, I'm glad that I ran across Paul Twitchell's books,
> since they have been a wellspring of inspiration and wisdom for me.
>
> Or are you saying everyone is a victim even though they don't know it.
> Which begs the question of how can you tell if others can't?
>
> This sounds a lot like the arguments that the anti-cultists made to
> convince people of the great dangers of brainwashing in cults. Their
> argument was that if you could deprogram someone from a cult and get
> them to drop out of a cult, this was proof they had been brainwashed in
> the first place. On the other hand, if you couldn't deprogram someone,
> this showed how powerful the brainwashing was.
>
> In other words, it was just a bunch of empty imaginings, since it
> proved nothing. But what did prove something is that well over 90
> percent of people in cults left of their own volition after a few
> years, while less than a few percent have ever left through
> deprogramming. This shows the ideas of brainwashing and deprogramming
> are useless.
>
> Anyone can say they are a victim, but this means nothing.
>
> So, all we have is a teacher using an approach that you disagree with.
> No victimhood. Just a different approach.
>
> As for everyone knowing that plagiarism is bad, sorry to disagree but
> there is a growing realization that the whole teaching of plagiarism
> has gone off the tracks. And the more I looked into it the more I
> realized how different it was than we have all been taught.
>
> Did you know that the people who write about plagiarism are often
> looked down upon more than those criticized for plagiarism? It is not
> seen as improving our culture, but only Sunday School ethics that tries
> to use guilt to tell people when they should credit others.
>
> Think about this. Do you really think that you should be giving credit
> to others according to a set of rules? Don't you think we should be
> giving credit to others when WE think they deserve credit? What do you
> think of people who would try to publicly make you feel guilty for not
> giving credit when you think what you did was fair?
>
> Sometimes we feel like giving someone credit for the smallest of
> things. Sometimes it is only for the most significant of things.
> Sometimes we thank a person personally, but say nothing about their
> contribution in public, because it simply isn't appropriate in the
> work, or we say something to give credit through some other form.
>
> In other words, shouldn't giving credit come from the heart when we
> think it is appropriate?
>
> Do you honestly believe that the rules of giving credit have been so
> perfected in literature and academia that these are tantamount to a sin
> not to obey them, yet in no other field are such strict rules applied?
>
> Wake up. The people that victimized you, if you want to see it that
> way, are the grade school teachers to put such a feeling of guilt into
> students for copying that they stunted the natural and valuable skill
> of copying those who we admire, which all artists do. I believe any
> real study of the subject of plagiarism will come to the same
> conclusion.
>
> So, I can say you are most definitely wrong that this is some kind of
> rock of Sysiphus or that everyone knows how bad it is. This is
> especially true from my viewpoint, and you can save me the sorry song
> of how I must therefore be a brainwashed cultist. That is the dog that
> doesn't hunt and never has. Not a single adacemic or psychologist in
> the English speaking world has the nerve to support the brainwashing
> theory today. It has been soundly proven wrong.
>
> But it had a better chance of fooling people than your idea that
> plagiarism is the weapon of victimization harming the readers. As if
> the readers were horribly disfigured because they didn't realize a
> passage had once been said in a very similar way by someone else.
>
> So, once again, you can stop pretending you represent what I think,
> since you invariably mis-represent it. Which begs the question why. Why
> are you so incapable of representing what I am saying and how I see it?
> I'm not making it any kind of mystery. Anyone only has to read what I'm
> saying. Is it really that hard for you to even try to fairly represent
> my perspective? Why is that?
>
> It is easy to make what someone else has done look like the sign of
> some terrible psychological sickness. This is as old as the hills. In
> fact, it would be very easy for me to show how this characterization is
> a sickness itself. But this is nothing but foolishness. It is pop
> psychology which is worthless. These are not professional psychological
> opinions. These are frauds posing as if they could pronounce truths
> like an authority on the science of psychology.
>
> Once again, the question comes back, why don't you just say that you
> disagree in a respectful way? Why don't you just say what you would do
> and explain how you see it? Why all this effort to make someone else
> look bad by bringing in fraudulent psychology opinions as if they
> represented some kind of scientific opinion? Why twist around the words
> and intentions of others so that you can make it look like they have a
> problem?
>
> If what you have to say is real and true, why not simply explain the
> truth in such a way that you show something real and true?
>
> I mean if you feel that Paul's plagiarism is really and truly the cause
> of damage to others, then please just show us the evidence and prove
> your point.
>
> For example, show us how students who read The Far Country have been
> damaged, but those who read Dialogues With The Master, which has had no
> plagiarism in it, have not suffered damage. Surely there are people who
> have read one book and not the other. We could compare the statistical
> differences of these two groups of people.
>
> Do you really think you have any evidence to prove this? Do you see the
> difference between just imagining something and proving it is true?
>
> If you really do have some evidence, then I would love to hear it and
> talk with you about it.
>
> And then we wouldn't need comments dripping in sarcasm, because the
> evidence would speak for itself.
>
> Otherwise, if we are just discussing opinions and viewpoints, and I
> believe that is all that we are really discussing here, then everyone's
> perspective is valid and why not speak with respect, and honor the fact
> that we all have a right to our own opinions?
>
> As far as I can see, this subject is similar to the topic of divorce.
> After two people split apart, it is common for them to feel as if they
> had wasted their time with the other person, and then not wanting to
> accept their own responsibility they will go on to find all kinds of
> ways of blaming the other person.
>
> They will not be able to calmly and rationally explain how they were
> taken advantage of. They have to scream it and rant on and on about it.
> They fight over it way too hard because they don't want to accept the
> idea that they are the ones responsible for their own choices.
>
> It is a real shame, since they will often reject whole parts of their
> lives, because of the pains that come from parting.
>
> Doug.
>
>
>
> DarwinT...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> DOUG:
>>
>> >The whole issue of plagiarism is only about whether Paul should have
>> >put a footnote in his book to show where the passage came from.
>> >Borrowing the passage was not the problem. The only issue is whether he
>> >should have noted where it came from.
>>
>> ME:
>>
>> Wow, miles of yarn to get to the point. Well, duh. Of course borrowing
>> passages is not the problem. Passing off the exact hard-earned words of
>> others as your own has always been the problem. That's why, in school,
>> the teacher always said about the next essay, "In your *own* words..."
>>
>> Hello?
>>
>> DOUG:
>>
>> >Paul certainly mentioned Walter Russell and his books as great books to
>> >read, but he didn't mark the exact passages or put footnotes when he
>> >used them. So, who is the victim?
>>
>> ME:
>>
>> We are the victims, all of Paul Twitchell's readers. He misrepresented
>> himself. He not only plagiarized extensively, he flat-out fabricated
>> extensively. As in "made things up". Your argument "nobody loses" is
>> flat out wrong. We all lose. Look how much eckankar has lost because of
>> Paul's dishonesty and deceptions. Think of the hours of your life and
>> my life we've given to this sorry subject. Like Sisyphus, you keep
>> pushing the big rock of plagiarism up the hill just to watch it roll
>> down again, usually right over the top of you. There is no way to spin,
>> to mitigate, to excuse Paul's lack of attribution, much less his
>> putting Julian Johnson's words into "rebazar tarzs" mouth. This is
>> premediatated deception, plain and simple. I know it, you know it and
>> every teacher in the world knows it. The NY Times knows it. Only a
>> deluded and impressionable True Believer could be convinced it was
>> somehow noble of Paul, in his great rush to deliver the great message
>> that, in between bouts of chasing women, he had to plagiarize freely
>> and copiously to beat that devil Kal to the finish line.
>>
>> That dog doesn't hunt Doug and in your guts I think you know it. You're
>> right Doug, I do disrespect you. I think you are as least as phony and
>> duplicitous as Paul was, and Darwin and Harold. You all know Paul's
>> conduct was unacceptable by any righteous standard yet you all are so
>> emotionally and monetarily invested that you won't admit it and for
>> decades have kept up the charade that there is nothing "rotten in
>> Denmark".
Rich
"JerryC" <Jer...@adelphia.net> wrote
>I heard this on the radio today and I found it interesting!
>
> It is a discussion on plagiarism revolving around Herman Melville and
> his writing of Moby Dick.
> One point in the discussion is how it was common practice to borrow
> someone else's work/words and repackage them into a new product. In fact
> the author of the source book wrote a review of Moby Dick and never even
> mentioned that his own book was the/a source. That's just the way things
> were back then.
>
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5068747
Excellent. Yet another example of the insurmountable evidence on this
topic that has been presented here for years.
> JerryC
> P.S. I am tired of this topic.
I'm with you. It's been 'old' for a long time. It's only the uninformed
newbie with a moral outrage that bring it up, and the detractors that for
whatever reason hold tight to their blindness.
> P.S.S. Yet I feel compelled to contribute
Thanks. Every time the subject is regurgitated it brings out more examples
like this and the ones Doug cited. Those at least help assuage the Yawn
stimulious. :-)
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DarwinT...@yahoo.com
inspiration and ideas and copying, verbatim, the words right out of
another book. Not to mention sticking said words right into the mouth
of a fictional "rebazar tarzs".
They think we are as stupid and deluded as they are. That's because
they are cultists and can't think straight.
JerryC
Discovering that Paul T used a great many of the books that he has read as
foundations upon which to generate some of his works, was surprising to me
when I came across it in the mid 70's. But an open mind is cautious to
conclude anything from this.
There is a difference between inductive reasoning vs. deductive logic. So I
was and am as always forced to look at what is before me with objectivity.
For me, I had to reconcile the product as is and not as to what techniques
Paul or whoever used to produce them. There is no rule in logic that states,
If 'A' is derived from 'B' then 'A' is less than 'B'. In fact, just open up
the hood of your car and look at the engine. I would say that the engine you
see is 95% plagiarized (if I may) from predecessor engineers, and 5%
improved upon.
In fact, lets pretend that men like Neville and Johnson in actuality felt
honored that their work was used by Paul T as a basis and developed further.
I would say that most scientists would welcome the event of having their
work being taken to the next level. There is a brotherhood amongst true
conveyors of the divine that bonds them together. Perhaps If Paul, Neville
and Johnson worked for the same company and produced the books, then readers
would not be bothered by the lack of footnotes. It does not bother me that
my engine does not state that my GM engine was a modified ford engine. In
fact patent law does not require it. In fact you can take a patented item
and improve it even slightly and get your own patent for it. And when you
sell it, you don't have to state where the root idea came from. This is how
product is evolved and improved upon. To me it is fascinating the historic
threads that have produced the eckankar writings. Can you say that you will
not buy a GM car because it basically stole the engine design from ford?
The issues and results as they pertain to me with regard to what I have
discovered with the help of Paul T and all those who have come before him,
these issues and results are in a category that makes the plagiarism look
insignificant.
I do not blame in fact I completely expect that many who bump into the
plagiarisms will reject the works as not containing anything of assistance
to them. But that is not the path that I took. To those who are ready for
this kind of life, there is no stopping them. There is nothing I can say not
even the plagiarism facts can stop them. To those I smile and say now you
know. To all others I say follow your path to where it takes you. It would
be wrong to stay.
Jerry
<DarwinT...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1135536333.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
cher
Isn't it amazing how putting people down as mere nothing can make you
almost feel good about yourself? Too bad that feeling doesn't last more
than a few mintues at a time, hey? <chuckle> Believe whatever you
choose, gary.. it's no skin off anyone elses Soul! <grin>
Ken
<DarwinT...@yahoo.com> wrote ...
"A great man quotes bravely and will not rely on his ability to
create when his memory serves him with a word as good. What
he quotes, he fills with his own voice and humor, and the whole
of his talk is believed to be his own."
- Ralph Waldo Emerson
Rich
"Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote
> "A great man quotes bravely and will not rely on his ability to
> create when his memory serves him with a word as good. What
> he quotes, he fills with his own voice and humor, and the whole
> of his talk is believed to be his own."
> - Ralph Waldo Emerson
Thanks Ken. Another one for me to add to my files.
Ken
"Rich" <dead...@inorbit.com> wrote ...
>
> "Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote
>
>> "A great man quotes bravely and will not rely on his ability to
>> create when his memory serves him with a word as good. What
>> he quotes, he fills with his own voice and humor, and the whole
>> of his talk is believed to be his own."
>> - Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
> Thanks Ken. Another one for me to add to my files.
One of the great writers and creative lights of the age clearly
*encouraged* using the words of other writers and appropriating
them as your own. It wouldn't surprise me if Paul knew about
and agreed with RWE's ideas on this subject.
Rich
"Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote
He certainly read him. He was in that long list of books that Paul
referenced throughout his writings.
I'll have to repost that for those that keep insisting that Paul 'stole'
the teachings of Eckankar from one specific path rather than realized the
"Golden Thread" that runs throughout the written works of mankind.
Patrick L
> It's fascinating, is it not? The cultic mind (religious addiction) is
> every bit the match for the denial and delusion which characterizes
> your run-of-the-mill drug addict. I used to think they were just being
> stubborn. Now I think their perceptions have become so skewed "under
> the influence" of enkankult that they truly believe the nonsense that
> they spout. (one eyebrow raised, ala Spock....)
The only thing that can explain the cultiish phenomena of denial of a truth,
which is plain to see for those outside of the cult, is simple:
Hypnosis.
This is why, in Scientology, for example, perfectly intelligent and
rational people believe in Xenu, the Galactic Ruler who is responsible for
all of mankinds woes and will pay tens of thousands of dollars to have their
"body thetans" (extraterrestial demons) excorcized.
Hubbard, Twitchell, via charisma, whatever, hypnotize/mesmorize their
subjects, and when you can do that, whilst faking sincerity along the way,
you are a conman extraordinaire.
It's not so much that only intelligent people avoid cults, it is more like
those who are not easily suggestible, and/or gullible, who avoid them.
Patrick
Patrick L
>
> I am an artist as well... and happen to know about such things as
> copyright free photos, which are used all the time!
You mean "royalty free".
A photo can be in the public domain, as any literary or artistic work,
given the time has passed, and think it is 70 years past the death of the
author of the creative work.
Before that time , one must seek permission from the copyright holder,
unless an agent has royalty free material which he or she is distributing
for free, but in that case, permission to do so was first conveyed by the
creator of the artistic work to the agent.
I'm a professional photographer, and I grant my clients certain
reproduction rights, rights specified in the contract. I keep the
copyright most of the time, conveying it only in certain circumstances.
I shoot digital, and this is one of the big reason I do not give out raw
files, files which prove I'm the creator of the work, or at least it will
be a good reason for a judge or jury to believe me when I claim I'm the
creator of the photograph.
Patrick
Patrick L
Plagiarism, the kind perpetrated by PT, is still wrong. I would call it
infringement. That's a tort.
Patrick
Rich
I know it's an old joke(and there are certainly other perspectives:) but
it still does amuse me that the guy that can't do it, is telling those
that _are_ doing it, that they are crazy, cult brainwashed and/or
hypnotized.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Patrick L" <lovinth...@tickle.com> wrote in message
news:pLZxf.7925$JT.7492@fed1read06...
Ken
"Rich" <dead...@inorbit.com> wrote ...
>
> I know it's an old joke(and there are certainly other perspectives:) but it still does amuse me
> that the guy that can't do it, is telling those that _are_ doing it, that they are crazy, cult
> brainwashed and/or hypnotized.
Patrick is one of many who can only look outward onto the
world and others. He doesn't have (or hasn't developed) the
ability to see things from another's viewpoint. So what looks
weird or strange to him obviously (from his viewpoint) must
*be* strange. For him this appears to be objectively true.
If he were able to look at his own viewpoints from outside
his current perspective I guarantee that he'd find some that
are quite strange.
Ken
"Patrick L" <lovinth...@tickle.com> wrote ...
If that's true then obviously someone somewhere must
have been sued for plagiarism without copyright violation.
Can you find even one example?
Or are you just talking about what you *wish* were true?
Rich
"Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote
> "Rich" <dead...@inorbit.com> wrote ...
>>
>> I know it's an old joke(and there are certainly other perspectives:)
>> but it still does amuse me that the guy that can't do it, is telling
>> those that _are_ doing it, that they are crazy, cult brainwashed and/or
>> hypnotized.
>
>
> Patrick is one of many who can only look outward onto the
> world and others. He doesn't have (or hasn't developed) the
> ability to see things from another's viewpoint. So what looks
> weird or strange to him obviously (from his viewpoint) must
> *be* strange. For him this appears to be objectively true.
>
> If he were able to look at his own viewpoints from outside
> his current perspective I guarantee that he'd find some that
> are quite strange.
No doubt. Personally, I have always enjoyed strange. :-}
However... this guy views Eckankar through his 'illumination' filters of
personal experience. Imagine seeing Eckankar as Scientology, his religious
addiction, "The Making" myth, bewilderment at having surrendered to a
personality, and the suspicion created by thinking that he had been
hypnotized to do things against his will.
That is the strange brew he's cooked up here.
My recipe with the ECK doesn't have any of those ingredients.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Patrick L
"Rich" <dead...@inorbit.com> wrote in message
news:dqaq7...@news1.newsguy.com...
>
> I know it's an old joke(and there are certainly other perspectives:) but
> it still does amuse me that the guy that can't do it, is telling those
> that _are_ doing it, that they are crazy, cult brainwashed and/or
> hypnotized.
I'm glad that it amuses you, but dont' forget that many jokes need an
assumed premise, and premises, as such, are not important, only the joke
is.
So be alert, for the joke may be on you.
My view is that there is a greater likelihood your statement contains an
assumed premise than mine does.
Let's take a look at the behaviour of two individuals.
Indvidual #1 offers advice based on one dogmatic view.
Individual #2 offers advice based on eclecticly acquired knowledge combined
with personal experiences which occurred outside the parameters of one
ideology.
Though we cannot know for a fact who is, or who is not, hypnotized, but
which indivual is least likely to be hypnotized?
I would place my bet on individual #2.
It's not really about certainty , its about betting strategies. Life is a
gamble, so I do as any good gambler would do.
Let's take two gamblers: the frst is highly intelligent, the second is not
as intelligent, but is extremely wise.
I'll bet on wisdom over intelligence, everytime.
Patrick
Doug
I agree with what you say here. This is covered by copyright law.
However, plagiarism is something different. Some cases overlap in
certain ways, but they are really very different things.
For example, copyright law gives you the right to make money on your
photographs and prevents others from doing so without your permission.
However, others can get an idea from one of your photos and take a
photo that includes many of the same concepts as yours, provided that
the overall photo looks different. One case is copyright infringement,
the other is plagiarism. Only copyright infringement is illegal.
Copyright law is designed to protect outright piracy of the whole work,
not the elements or bits. The lawbooks explain that this was done
intentionally, because otherwise it would impede the whole creation of
art. Otherwise, once the first photographer took a picture of the moon,
no one else would ever be able to do so without permission. Thus the
idea of the moon behind a mountain at sunset cannot be owned, although
one person's actual picture of this can be.
So, copyright law allows everyone the right to take their own picture
of this exact same scene, but if they do it after seeing such a picture
taken by someone else, then this is still called plagiarism (unless
they credit where they first saw it). It is perfectly legal, but it is
also plagiarism. Most people don't care about this when buying photos,
however. They just care about the photo they are buying.
This is why copyright law says that no one owns ideas, themes,
concepts, plotlines or phrases (although people can trademark some
phrases). The Fair Use doctrine of copyright law also grants everyone
the right to use portions or the bits and elements, without permission,
provided that it doesn't capture the whole of the work.
I think most people's ideas of what seems right or wrong when it comes
to plagiarism are based on popular myths and grade-school training at
an age when we didn't question whether it really made sense. That's why
so few people really know what plagiarism is really about, or how
differently it is applied across the different arts and in different
applications. For example, no photographer is expected to note where
every one of his ideas came from or elements that he copied from
others. There is no extreme ethical requirement like this. In fact,
copying is common, as it should be.
As Ken pointed out, there are no cases of people winning lawsuits based
on plagiarism alone. There must be a case of copyright infringement or
there is no case. This might not seem right to some people because they
don't really understand what plagiarism is. I certainly didn't
understand it until I read a couple books about it. It is not at all
what I thought it was.
That's when I realized how easy it was for a culture to form opinions
about right and wrong based on nothing more than popular belief.
Doug.
Patrick L
"Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote in message
news:1n8yf.471896$zb5.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
If you want to split hairs on my lack of legal knowledge, to which I
confess, you are free to do so.
However, that plagiarism is a literary fraud, and morally wrong in the
modern era, is not a wish, it is a fact. Whether or not such plagiarism
deserves sanctions in the literary community would depend on the severity of
it. I don't deny that it is human to plagiarise, occasionally, if done
unwittingly, as long as the act is soon rectified. PT's plagiarism was
deliberate, copious, and methodic. It is not an unreasonable proposition to
assert that criticism and/or condemnation is appropriate.
Patrick
Rich
"Patrick L" <lovinth...@tickle.com> wrote
> "Rich" <dead...@inorbit.com> wrote
>> I know it's an old joke(and there are certainly other perspectives:)
>> but it still does amuse me that the guy that can't do it, is telling
>> those that _are_ doing it, that they are crazy, cult brainwashed and/or
>> hypnotized.
>
>
>
> I'm glad that it amuses you, but dont' forget that many jokes need an
> assumed premise, and premises, as such, are not important, only the
> joke is.
>
>
> So be alert, for the joke may be on you.
>
>
> My view is that there is a greater likelihood your statement contains an
> assumed premise than mine does.
My premise is that even though logical fallacies supporting hypothetical
scenarios have you assuming you do, you most definitely do not know my
experience because you simply have it all wrong.
` o
|
~/|
_/ |\
/ | \
-/ | \
_ /____|___\_
(___________/
Rich~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Sailing the CyberSea~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Let's take a look at the behaviour of two individuals.
Ken
"Patrick L" <lovinth...@tickle.com> wrote ...
>
> "Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote in message
> news:1n8yf.471896$zb5.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>>
>> "Patrick L" <lovinth...@tickle.com> wrote ...
>>>
>>> That's a tort.
>>
>>
>> If that's true then obviously someone somewhere must
>> have been sued for plagiarism without copyright violation.
>> Can you find even one example?
>>
>> Or are you just talking about what you *wish* were true?
>>
>>
>
> If you want to split hairs on my lack of legal knowledge, to which I confess, you are free to do
> so.
Actually, what I'd really like is if you talked about what
you *know* rather than what you believe might be true.
>
> However, that plagiarism is a literary fraud, and morally wrong in the modern era, is not a
> wish, it is a fact. Whether or not such plagiarism deserves sanctions in the literary community
> would depend on the severity of it. I don't deny that it is human to plagiarise, occasionally,
> if done unwittingly, as long as the act is soon rectified. PT's plagiarism was deliberate,
> copious, and methodic. It is not an unreasonable proposition to assert that criticism and/or
> condemnation is appropriate.
What you say here is difficult to disagree with on the face
of it. However, in the long run just how important are the
moral attitudes of society? These things do change, you
know.
Are the shifting attitudes and temporary moral outrages of
the masses what counts in the end? What truly lasts and
passes the test of time? THAT is what I'm interested in.
Mr. Peabody's Buddy
our asses, in the Grand Tradition of one Paul Twitchell. Paul was a
shamelessl reprobate and, likely, so are you all. THAT you (and at one
time, me) would come to defend this silly little con-man at the cost of
your self-respect is what I'm interested in.
Mr. Peabody's Buddy
Rich wrote:
> "Ken" <kah...@att.not> wrote
>
> > "A great man quotes bravely and will not rely on his ability to
> > create when his memory serves him with a word as good. What
> > he quotes, he fills with his own voice and humor, and the whole
> > of his talk is believed to be his own."
> > - Ralph Waldo Emerson
>
> Thanks Ken. Another one for me to add to my files.
Here's another one to add to your treasure chest. Or maybe to your
Enemies List. Paul plagiarzed it to describe his relationship to
ekists. LOL
"Half the world is composed of idiots, the other half of people clever
enough to take indecent advantage of them."
Walter Kerr
We all know Paul was a clever scoundrel, don't we? <GG>
burton_...@yahoo.com
have never seen before, and hope never to see again. Oh, I wasn't
touched. I was fascinated. It was as though a veil had been rent. I saw
on that ivory face the expression of sombre pride, of ruthless power,
of craven terror -- of an intense and hopeless despair. Did he live his
life again in every detail of desire, temptation, and surrender during
that supreme moment of complete knowledge? He cried in a whisper at
some image, at some vision -- he cried out twice, a cry that was no
more than a breath:
"'The horror! The horror!'
Heart of Darkness
Conrad, Joseph, 1857-1924
http://www.rocknclimb.com/cave/Cave02.jpg
Chop it Easy by Gary Fike
Well, I'm a-climbing up the route
a little scared no doubt
I've got seven bolts on my mind
Four put in by pussies
Two put in by wussies
One that I admit is mine
Chop it easy, chop it easy
Don't let the sound of your own drill
Drive you crazy
Pull it out while you still can
Don't even try to understand
Just find a bolt and make your stand
And chop it easy
Well, I'm jamming in the corner on The Mace in Arizona
And such a shit sight to see
It's a bolt, my lord, what a great big turd
would place such a piece crap for me?
Come on Pussie, can you say Wussie?
I gotta know if your small sack is gonna save me
It will pull and I will win
And you'll never climb here again
So twist it out, punch it in
So chop it easy
Well, I'm a-hanging on the pro
Trying to loosen that 'Ho
Got a world of trouble for this fool
Crankin' on that head, turning all those threads
She's so hard to pull
Chop it easy, chop it easy
Don't let the sound of own drill drive you crazy
Come on pussie, don't say it's safety
I already know this pro ain't gonna save me
Oh, we pulled it easy, it came out easy...
Mr. Peabody's Buddy
Dec 18 2005, 11:09 am show options
Newsgroups: alt.religion.eckankar
From: DarwinTwitch...@yahoo.com - Find messages by this author
Date: 18 Dec 2005 11:09:08 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 18 2005 11:09 am
Subject: We are All the Victims Doug
Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show original
| Report Abuse
Doug
It is interesting to see how something can be blown up to make it sound
so incredibly horrible that it must be the greatest crime of the
century. But when you dig down into it, it is in fact no crime at all.
I can see that people come to different conclusions when looking into
these matters. What I think is worth talking about is why a person
arrived at the conclusion they did. That gives us a much better idea of
what is really behind all the strongly felt words.
For example, we can see below that the author feels that plagiarism is
wrong because teachers asked them to put things in their own words when
they went to school. But the teachers said this because they were
grading those students on what they learned, so the teachers needed to
hear them put it in their own words. The teachers didn't care if it was
great literature. They just wanted to see what the students understood.
But if we look at most fields, plagiarism is widely accepted. For
example a recent movie review compared a new movie with two or three
previous movies, saying how it obviously drew from each of those
predecessors, and yet it still contributed something new and was worth
seeing.
This is another way of saying that the new movie plagiarized from the
older movies (since it never gave credit to those sources), but that it
was still something new in the way it presented it and therefore worth
seeing.
That's why plagiarism isn't a crime, and has never been a crime.
But this doesn't mean there aren't some people who act as if it is.
All of those reactions hide the more interesting story, from my
standpoint, which is why a person arrived at the conclusion they did.
Why does it really bother them or not bother them? That person is then
owning their opinion and conclusion and is sharing the study they made
to get there.
That is far more valuable to listen to, in my mind, than people
spouting off platitudes about this being horrible or that being
criminal, as if everyone should be seeing it one way.
Besides, if everyone saw it the same way, everyone would be
plagiarizing...<G>
Doug.
Henosis Sage
No. These EXCUSES and making other people's opinions and WHY they state
them is the "real problem" are getting pretty old too.
Such as claiming: "All of those reactions hide the more interesting story,
a thousand times plus and yet still Marman is as deaf as a door post. And
half as smart.
Re DM: "But if we look at most fields, plagiarism is widely accepted."
Bullshit, it is not, not now and not in the 1960s either. This manipulative
irrational sophistry by a biased incompetent fool.
Paul Twitchell was a liar and a manipulator. His writings are an intentional
fraud on all who read them in the past up to today in 2016.
They are a fraud upon all who still listen to Marman, Klemp or anyone else who
posits that there is any truth to the Eckankar mythologies.
Plagiarizing DMs words:
"Accepting the truth of THAT is far more valuable to listen to, in my mind,
than people like Marman spouting off platitudes about this being of ZERO
importance - as if everyone should be seeing it one way - the MARMAN Way."
The man is a disingenuous insulting creep to everyone who disagrees with his
mindless biased bullshit while THEY produce mountains of evidence and rational
explanations to support their views!
Plus he is an idiot. imho.
Henosis Sage
> Actually the reason plagiarism is such an issue in schools is because
> they are grading students on their work. Teachers don't care if what
> they write is interesting or is worthy of publishing. They only want to
> see what the student knows. How else can they tell if the student is
> getting it, if they copy someone else's answers?
>
Why students are required to do things in school is irrelevant to Twitchell's
plagiarism, copyright infringements, and his lies and mythological creation
of his Eckankar teachings.
> That's the whole mystery to why it is such an issue in academia. Their
> whole world is about who deserves what credit for what. It is a
> hierarchy of knowledge, where the only way you can prove what you know
> is by what you say that is original.
>
> Each field has its own ethics and this is the world of academia. That's
> why their text books are so filled with footnotes and credits that it
> interrupts almost every paragraph.
>
Academia is likewise irrelevant to what Twitchell did, and what Marman says.
That David Lane was/is an academic is also totally beside the point, no matter
how often Marman and others tried to make it so.
To say that "Each field has its own ethics" is a misnomer and false. Different
applications of standards, yes, but Ethics is Ethics is Ethics. How ethical
standards are applied to each individual certainly varies and sometimes these
are institutionalized or manifest as written laws of the land. Yet ethics is
still ethics. Honesty is honesty no matter who is doing the speaking. Different
"standards" due one's position in society is how serious a breach of the
ethics will be treated and punished. You can lie to your neighbour, no worries,
but if a Public Prosecutor lies about the Judge in Court, that is on another
level entirely - but it is still about the same "ethical issue".
> But notice that we don't force symphonies to stop mid-stride to give
> information on where musical passages have derived from. Notice artists
> aren't required to stick notes and arrows all over paintings to show
> where scenes, images and styles came from. Note that TV movies and TV
> shows regularly copy blatantly, but rarely credit their sources. I
> could go on and on.
>
Distractions away from the core issue regarding what Twitchell actually did.
Twitchell didn't write symphonies nor TV sitcoms. He wrote about the ultimate
- above better than all others - path to God and the unique 970 Vairagi Eck
masters of ECKANKAR who came before him and who taught him and raised him to
become the latest Mahanta, the living ECK master - and all that that entails.
Had Twitchell copied others works in his westerns and detective novels - and by
golly he surely did - then no really cares much about that as all it is is pulp
fiction written for 'light entertainment' - all the readers know it's BS from
start to finish anyway.
The only person harmed by this would most likely only be the authors from whom
he copied - and the belief in people's minds that Twitchell was a good pulp
fiction author at a 'penny a word'.
The ethics is the same, the IMPACT the EFFECT upon others is far different
between being a cheap run-o-the-mill pulp fiction author and being GIHF who
speaks on behalf of God in this entire Universe.
> The whole issue of what amount of giving credit to others is proper
> varies according to the field. And when it comes to spiritual
> teachings, what is important is not the source but the way it all fits
> together. It is the whole of the teaching, not the pieces that matters.
BULLSHIT SOPHISTRY - "what is important" is what people SAY is important to
them - and not what Marman decides is important to THEM.
BULLSHIT SOPHISTRY - "It is the whole of the teaching, not the pieces that matters."
The TWO are inseparable. That's Logic. That's Reality. That's the truth of it.
> That's why all religions from all ages are compilations of sacred
> writings that have been handed down to us. And in most older cultures,
> this is considered the only true wisdom of value. Originality is not
> important.
>
"Originality" is NOT the issue regarding Twitchell's copying and plagiarisms.
It's a matter of ETHICS, of honesty, of truthfulness, of accuracy, of respect
for the readers who paid their money to BUY his books - from which he and Gail
profited from.
It's a matter of the "whole of the teaching" being FALSE and UNTRUE. In parts,
in sections, and when combined it is FALSE. The "beliefs" and the "faith" that
people place upon the "writings" of Twitchell have been misplaced and accepted
as true when they were false and knowingly false (in part or whole) at the
time of writing.
> What I hear you saying is that you think everyone has been taught
> plagiarism is bad, therefore it is bad. Is that your whole point?
>
NO, more BS sophistry. What DT was saying is that this is so SIMPLE that even a
child at school could or should be able to understand it. It is NOT that
"drawing upon other's ideas or talents or methods or words or beliefs" is BAD
- DT simple point is that what Paul Twitchell DID was "bad" - ie corrupt,
unethical, misleading, dishonest, fraudulent, and so on.
Yet Marman's "sophistry" and woolly thinking tries to twist that and blow it up
falsely into an assertion that "all plagiarism/copying/mimicking" is bad - he
never said that - this is Marman PUTTING WORDS INTO others mouths.
Marman is an expert at this imho and is why I have so little respect for him.
He intentionally twists what others say and mean - he builds "straw-men" and
then burns them down repeatedly. He plays games by nitpicking people's use of
words (like stealing) and then complains and criticizes others for "nitpicking
his words."
> As for your argument about everyone being the victim, that's obviously
> purely opinion and has no reality to it. I certainly don't feel like a
> victim. In fact, I'm glad that I ran across Paul Twitchell's books,
> since they have been a wellspring of inspiration and wisdom for me.
>
And that is obviously AN OPINION of Marman's. Not knowing any different than
his own "experience" of where he found such "wisdom" he makes it ALL, and all OK.
Is it? No it isn't. For decades he has heard others telling him directly their
own experiences and their own opinions, and their own view of being misled, but
these are rejected out of hand because Doug says he has a "different opinion"?
Well, great. Bank robbers also have a different opinion as to what is ok to do
and not ok to do. They have their own life experience and values and ethical
standards. And if a bank robber says others opinions are just opinions, then who
are we to judge them wanting - we should "respect their opinions" yes?
That's all just word games, as is Marman's insulting word games about DT's
view only being an opinion and having "no reality to it."
Well big deal - the same applies to all of Marman's opinions too, then!!!
This is what "sophistry" is and what it looks like. Big claims and assertions
by the sophist that in reality is meaningless and irrational waffle.
> Or are you saying everyone is a victim even though they don't know it.
> Which begs the question of how can you tell if others can't?
>
Marman, how can you tell if they are not "victims" - who made you judge and
jury for others "opinions" or "feelings" or "life experiences"? Twitchell?
Klemp? SUGMAD? Or those "voices you hear"?
RE: "Which begs the question of how can you tell if others can't?"
EASY for some! Which begs the question - how can people work out the unethical
aspects to Twitchell's massive copying of others when they cannot see the
fallacies right in front of their faces such as this "begging the question"
manipulation / cheap debating trick by Marman here?
Marman cannot comprehend that there are many living in North Korea who do not
see themselves as victims but instead as the being members of the greatest nation
on this earth!!! But if they cannot see the truth of it, then how could
anyone else see it? THis is called an appropriate "analogy" to make the point clear.
When such things make no difference to others, like Doug, it proves beyond
doubt how stuck they are inside their own self-delusions and extreme bias and
total lack of rational reasoning and common sense.
> This sounds a lot like the arguments that the anti-cultists made to
> convince people of the great dangers of brainwashing in cults. Their
> argument was that if you could deprogram someone from a cult and get
> them to drop out of a cult, this was proof they had been brainwashed in
> the first place. On the other hand, if you couldn't deprogram someone,
> this showed how powerful the brainwashing was.
>
Using other people's bullshit beliefs and practices and then mis-applying
them to others using cheap STRAW-MAN debating tricks is of no use to sensible
and rational people who are objective. How things "sound to Marman" should
never be the yardstick on which to determine the truth or otherwise of anything
related to Eckankar, imho. The above shows the reasons for this clearly, imho.
> In other words, it was just a bunch of empty imaginings, since it
> proved nothing. But what did prove something is that well over 90
> percent of people in cults left of their own volition after a few
> years, while less than a few percent have ever left through
> deprogramming. This shows the ideas of brainwashing and deprogramming
> are useless.
>
> Anyone can say they are a victim, but this means nothing.
>
As anyone can say they are not a victim, but this means nothing either.
It is only Marman's opinion. He has no right to speak for all others.
> So, all we have is a teacher using an approach that you disagree with.
> No victimhood. Just a different approach.
>
This "different approach" is the conscious misuse of others writings without
permission and lying about it in the process in order to mislead the reader
of who and from where his 'new creation' actually came from.
> As for everyone knowing that plagiarism is bad, sorry to disagree but
> there is a growing realization that the whole teaching of plagiarism
> has gone off the tracks. And the more I looked into it the more I
> realized how different it was than we have all been taught.
>
The issue is way beyond mere "plagiarism". It's copyright infringement and
it is unconscionable misrepresentations and lying.
> Did you know that the people who write about plagiarism are often
> looked down upon more than those criticized for plagiarism? It is not
> seen as improving our culture, but only Sunday School ethics that tries
> to use guilt to tell people when they should credit others.
>
> Think about this. Do you really think that you should be giving credit
> to others according to a set of rules? Don't you think we should be
> giving credit to others when WE think they deserve credit? What do you
> think of people who would try to publicly make you feel guilty for not
> giving credit when you think what you did was fair?
>
Who is "WE"? Marman has no right to speak for others, only himself. And
definitively he has no right to speak for Twitchell nor Klemp. But Marman's
beliefs extend to him being more than only himself but this royal WE, of
everyone else he "imagines" he speaks for. He does not.
I think my grade 1 teacher deserves ALL the credit for 1+1 = 2.
I am so stupid I have no idea that she actually learnt that from someone else.
> Sometimes we feel like giving someone credit for the smallest of
> things. Sometimes it is only for the most significant of things.
> Sometimes we thank a person personally, but say nothing about their
> contribution in public, because it simply isn't appropriate in the
> work, or we say something to give credit through some other form.
>
> In other words, shouldn't giving credit come from the heart when we
> think it is appropriate?
>
Yes. But it should also be based upon Truth and real facts, not delusional
beliefs. If one falsely believes that Twitchell's writings only contain
1-2% of plagiarized content, when in truth it is far closer to 90%, then
giving credit for his lies and misrepresentations that Twitchell was the
great communicator of "truth" and "wisdom" is not appropriate.
Especially when much of what he was communicating was outright false and
untrue - and he knew it was.
> Do you honestly believe that the rules of giving credit have been so
> perfected in literature and academia that these are tantamount to a sin
> not to obey them, yet in no other field are such strict rules applied?
>
More BS sophistry and another distraction away from the real issues.
> Wake up. The people that victimized you, if you want to see it that
> way, are the grade school teachers to put such a feeling of guilt into
> students for copying that they stunted the natural and valuable skill
> of copying those who we admire, which all artists do. I believe any
> real study of the subject of plagiarism will come to the same
> conclusion.
>
Marman's beliefs about this topic are irrelevant, and misguided, and mainly BS.
And the topic is specifically Twitchell's misuse of others writings, and then
how much he lied about his own writings and himself.
> So, I can say you are most definitely wrong that this is some kind of
> rock of Sysiphus or that everyone knows how bad it is. This is
> especially true from my viewpoint, and you can save me the sorry song
> of how I must therefore be a brainwashed cultist. That is the dog that
> doesn't hunt and never has. Not a single adacemic or psychologist in
> the English speaking world has the nerve to support the brainwashing
> theory today. It has been soundly proven wrong.
>
More manipulation by mixing up issues into a whole that doesn't exist, or fly.
Marman's viewpoint has absolutely no value to me, and many others who can see
it totally different and far more clearly than he is ever capable of doing.
> But it had a better chance of fooling people than your idea that
> plagiarism is the weapon of victimization harming the readers. As if
> the readers were horribly disfigured because they didn't realize a
> passage had once been said in a very similar way by someone else.
>
More twisted BS - the issue is about Twitchell LYING and intentionally
manipulating others via his Eckankar teachings and his stories and writings.
> So, once again, you can stop pretending you represent what I think,
> since you invariably mis-represent it. Which begs the question why. Why
> are you so incapable of representing what I am saying and how I see it?
Well I agree with that point. DT and others should not be assuming things
such as:
"... Doug and in your guts I think you know it." or
"You all know Paul's conduct was unacceptable by any righteous standard" or
"...that you won't admit it and for decades have kept up the charade"
Because that is not true. Doug Marman does not think that or believe it.
What eh really believes is that Twitchell did nothing wrong at all. That it is
all fine by Marman (and many others) and there is no "ethical" issues at all
where Twitchell could be criticized about. Marman really does believe that
Twitchell really does deserve all the credit for sharing with Doug the content
that Doug found out about by reading Twitchell's books and discourses etc.
And Doug Marman does not care one bit how or why Twitchell did it. Patti
Simpson-Rivinus sees it exactly they same way. Based on their own repeated
assertions and commentary over the decades. To say otherwise, is not correct,
even if DT might believe that or have come to that conclusions because they
cannot even imagine anyone could be believing such things given all that was
known about in 2005.
> I'm not making it any kind of mystery. Anyone only has to read what I'm
> saying. Is it really that hard for you to even try to fairly represent
> my perspective? Why is that?
>
"Why is that?" Well Doug because I think the guy finds it so unbelievable that
you could still continue to believe what you believe, despite all the evidence
to the contrary - that's why.
> It is easy to make what someone else has done look like the sign of
> some terrible psychological sickness. This is as old as the hills.
Sure is Doug Marman - you and others on a.r.e. have made a mighty mission of
that whenever anyone disagrees with your own opinions and beliefs and
conclusions.
> In fact, it would be very easy for me to show how this characterization is
> a sickness itself. But this is nothing but foolishness. It is pop
> psychology which is worthless. These are not professional psychological
> opinions. These are frauds posing as if they could pronounce truths
> like an authority on the science of psychology.
>
Blah blah blah .... me thinks you are protesting way too much here.
Especially when it is coming out of the mouth of a "fraud posing as if they
could pronounce truths (of Twitchell) like an authority on the" subject.
> Once again, the question comes back, why don't you just say that you
> disagree in a respectful way? Why don't you just say what you would do
> and explain how you see it? Why all this effort to make someone else
> look bad by bringing in fraudulent psychology opinions as if they
> represented some kind of scientific opinion? Why twist around the words
> and intentions of others so that you can make it look like they have a
> problem?
>
YES Doug, why do you and so many others have to do that? And why is it that
you still cannot work out for yourself why it is that so many genuine and
honest people came to the conclusion that they have little to no respect for
you?
> If what you have to say is real and true, why not simply explain the
> truth in such a way that you show something real and true?
>
DT did that already. Marman is the one who cannot handle that personal "truth".
It isn't DTs problem, nor anyone else's except for Doug Marman's who point blank
refuses to see it for what it is, and instead twists what was aid into something
else entirely, never said nor intended. But Doug has these issues with almost
everyone who disagrees with him and who stands up to his illogical and non-fact
based seriously flawed fallacious arguments.
> I mean if you feel that Paul's plagiarism is really and truly the cause
> of damage to others, then please just show us the evidence and prove
> your point.
>
"There are none so blind as those who cannot see."
No one can help another who has refused for decades to see or hear that
"evidence" direct from the mouths of others so "damaged".
> For example, show us how students who read The Far Country have been
> damaged, but those who read Dialogues With The Master, which has had no
> plagiarism in it, have not suffered damage. Surely there are people who
> have read one book and not the other. We could compare the statistical
> differences of these two groups of people.
>
RE "Dialogues With The Master, which has had no plagiarism in it"
There ya go - it's 2005, Marman has had access to Twitchell archive at
Eckankar, has worked under and with TWO Living ECK masters, has been taught
and guided by Patti Simpson Rivinus a 9th Initiate, and has had access to Gail
Twitchell on multiple occasions, has invested over 25 years of his life to 2005
researching Twitchell and his writings and his teachings, has written a book on
finding truth and spiritual inner wisdom (The Silent Questions) and yet STILL
THIS EXPERT AUTHORITY had NO IDEA that DWTM was as heavily plagiarized as the
TFC was along with every other book & Discourse series by Twitchell was.
DWTM includes verbatim copying / plagiarisms from at least 12 known authors.
The text from only one author, Charles Haanel, amounts to over 25% of the entire
text in DWTM.
The other book Marman makes a big song and dance about is Stranger by the River
-- like DWTM Marman's presents the idea repeatedly that these books show HOW
RT gave the teachings of ECKANKAR to Twitchell the "student". That is a totally
false assertion with absolutely no evidence to support bar Marman's own "belief
it is true".
Yet SBTR, DWTM, the SKS 1 & 2, in fact all his writings are as heavily copied
as The Far Country was. All of them are like that. Marman does not have a clue,
has no evidence to support his beliefs at all. What Marman claims for decades
now is a TOTAL FICTION iow.
So, if Marman is the AUTHORITY on this subject, then who on earth are the amateurs?
Marman does not know the truth, nor the facts, nor is he even aware of the
evidence in late 2005, as he began to put his The Whole Truth book together that
was finally published in early 2007 barely a year later.
In 2005 Marman had not even visited Paducah himself, nor had any contact with
the Paducah Library. Unless some hard evidence was handed to him on his lap Marman
never discovered a single thing about Twitchell's life. eg Marman never made an
application for Twitchell's Naval Records, which both he could even without
Gail's help. Marman never chased up Twitchell's school, college, or criminal
history himself. Not once.
Marman's No.1 approach was "an absence of evidence, means no evidence exists"
And yet he presents himself here on a.r.e. as an AUTHORITY on Twitchell and
the copying and plagiarisms in his writings?
Most reasonable people would, imho, label such a person presenting themselves
like that as a "fraud" who was misrepresenting himself as something he is not
and never was.
> Do you really think you have any evidence to prove this? Do you see the
> difference between just imagining something and proving it is true?
>
YES~! But does Doug Marman know the difference? No, it is clear to me that he
does not.
When shown the evidence he ran away. he denied it made any difference at all
to his opinions and beliefs. Facts and evidence do not make a dint on Marman.
This is how powerfully entrenched deluded beliefs can become in a person.
Reality makes absolutely no difference to them. new factual information does
not inform them to review their beliefs nor adjust their prior conclusions.
This describes how fundamentalist ZEALOTS see the world and behave.
> If you really do have some evidence, then I would love to hear it and
> talk with you about it.
>
LIAR~! Experience shows otherwise. he does not want to hear it, except to
refute it outright. And if one does not back down to see it as Marman sees it
then you will discarded as being too nit picky, argumentative and disrespectful
of his "opinions" and himself.
> And then we wouldn't need comments dripping in sarcasm, because the
> evidence would speak for itself.
>
Marman is an expect on soft sounding "sarcasm", belittling and put-downs of
others. Know it, seen it, bought the T-shirt as Cher used to say. When
challenged on his own false accusations of others Marman gets decidedly very
nasty too. When cornered in his own lies and misrepresentations he runs away
and blames the other person for being disrespectful - then he tells the
world about it by playing the VICTIM.
Marman is an unaware duplicitous untrustworthy fraud from my direct experience
I know this and this is my opinion of him. He can also be a extremely
self-opinionated arrogant insulting creep. That and incompetent in his goal
of making up excuses for Twitchell and Doug's high opinion of himself that he
is even able to show others how to find "the whole truth" in Life or spiritual
teachings.
That's merely MY opinion, based on the evidence and direct personal experience.
If I had more respect for him, I would surely be kinder, or say nothing.
But the issue is this - I see Doug Marman as being one of the major "abusers"
that has caused harm and damaged others along the way, as a direct result of
his own actions and words across decades now.
Marman is no "innocent by-stander" here.
> Otherwise, if we are just discussing opinions and viewpoints, and I
> believe that is all that we are really discussing here, then everyone's
> perspective is valid and why not speak with respect, and honor the fact
> that we all have a right to our own opinions?
>
Everyone has a "right to have" their opinions and beliefs.
They do NOT have a right to their own FACTS or REALITY however.
Fact is, some people "opinions" are in fact DISRESPECTFUL, Insulting, and
Abusive in and of themself. Such "opinions" deserve and warrant immeditate
castigation and refutation as not only untrue but as overtly offensive and
a disservice to anyoje who hears those "opinions".
> As far as I can see, this subject is similar to the topic of divorce.
> After two people split apart, it is common for them to feel as if they
> had wasted their time with the other person, and then not wanting to
> accept their own responsibility they will go on to find all kinds of
> ways of blaming the other person.
>
> They will not be able to calmly and rationally explain how they were
> taken advantage of. They have to scream it and rant on and on about it.
> They fight over it way too hard because they don't want to accept the
> idea that they are the ones responsible for their own choices.
>
And so Doug Marman digs deep into his sophistry tool bag and drags out
this irreleavnt piece of unrelated garbage. The issue is twitchell's writings,
his misrepresetnations in those writings, the lies in those writings, the
fraudulent nature of those writings, and the damage to those who have read
those writings and taken them onboiard in good faith. That is those poeple
who say themselves that they were misled, taken advantage of and/or damaged
in some way shape or form.
The people who decide whetehr or not they have been "damaged" or abused by
Twitchell and his Eckanakr teachings are themselves. No one an speak for them.
Just as no one can speak for those children sexually abused and then
re-traumatised by the catholic church and other institutions acorss the world.
Cardinals do not get to decide who and how much children were abused by Priests
and brothers under their leadership and control and RESPONSIBILITY.
eg
George Pell's pledge to survivors during meeting in Rome.
Quote "ONE SUICIDE IS ONE SUICIDE TOO MANY" by Cardinal Pell in the video
-- took him 3 decades to say that! ---
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/george-pells-pledge-to-survivors-during-meeting-in-rome/news-story/57950f2460c55d508eda531816bc7f43
To that I say to Klemp and Marman and everyone else - WAKE Dafuq UP !!!
Cardinal George Pell meets with sex abuse survivors after royal commission testimony
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-03-04/cardinal-george-pell-meets-with-sex-abuse-survivors-in-rome/7219374
It is they (the socalled "victims" of abuse and denials) who have the ONLY
"right to have" their opinions and beliefs pof what they went through. They
are the ONLY ones who have a right to their own FACTS or REALITY.
The same oges for anyone who feels aggrieved by the actions of Twitchell & Gail
and all those in leadership of Eckankar that followed him and mainyained the
lies and the misrepresetnations and the decptions and instigated cover-ups
which INCLUDED THE ABUSE or Ostracisation of anyone asking questions about
the History.
Marman has NO RIGHT to speak for the *Victims* nor against them in any way whatsoever.
That is their freedom of Soul to come to their own conclusions about how much
they have been harmed, damaged abused or manipualtied by their time in ECKANKAR.
No one else. No one!
> It is a real shame, since they will often reject whole parts of their
> lives, because of the pains that come from parting.
>
> Doug.
>
O Bullshit Doug ..... you are NO expert in psychology nor divorce nor other
poeple's lives.
Throwing Marman's own words back at him from above:
"This is nothing but foolishness. It is pop psychology which is worthless.
These are not professional psychological opinions. These are frauds
posing as if they could pronounce truths like an authority on the science
of psychology."
I do not need a degree in Psychology to look at the evidence and the history
and then rightly call you a FRAUD Marman.
This thread goes back to 2005/2006 before Doug Marman turned his DITAOC into
the TWT book in 2006/2007.
The beginning of this thread by 'darwintwitchell' (the post before this one
of Marman's) took a quote from Doug here:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/alt.religion.eckankar/ZRg0pwKu1jQ/V4Q27jV2-zsJ
eg
DOUG RESPONDS:
If you mean the word <steal> to mean taking away from others what
belongs to them, well obviously it is wrong. But plagiarism is nothing
like this for a number of reasons.
---
In other words, there is no victim, because no one has lost anything,
just like the Sufi said.
Besides all this, it is virtually impossible to create anything that
does not copy from others. There are no completely original works.
Everything draws from the ideas of previous creations. Everything
springs from the things we see and learn from. This is natural.
I think you've somehow gotten the wrong idea about what plagiarism is
about.
---
DOUG RESPONDS:
Who do you think is a victim of plagiarism. Perhaps we should start
there and see what they are a victim of or how it has hurt or harmed
them. If we go through it, I think you'll see there are no victims
here.
---
Or is it okay for Shiv Dayal Singh to borrow from the followers of
Kabir, who are the line of teachings known as Kabir Panth? Or to copy
from Guru Nanak who belongs to the line of the Sikhs?
Are you sure this idea you are talking about makes sense? I don't see
how you can draw such lines as if certain truths belong to one line of
teaching. In fact, this is the very idea that both Kabir and Guru Nanak
taught against, since it separated people and created religious wars.
---
DOUG RESPONDS:
Because there is no victim, except in the minds of those who would like
to turn this into something that it is not.
For example, some of the critics of ECKANKAR wanted to turn this
plagiarism issue into a big deal, so they went to the owners of the
copyrights of Walter Russell, who wrote The Secret of Light and some
other wonderful books. Paul borrowed a few passages from Walter Russell
and they reported this to the children of Walter Russell, since Walter
and his wife are no longer alive. The first response they got back was,
they had never heard of this before. So, obviously it hadn't affected
them in anyway. The passages were still there and nothing was taken
from them. They were not victims and didn't feel as if they were.
put a footnote in his book to show where the passage came from.
Borrowing the passage was not the problem. The only issue is whether he
should have noted where it came from.
read, but he didn't mark the exact passages or put footnotes when he
used them. So, who is the victim?
[end quotes]
---
O Semantics! Thy name is sophistry. It should be noted here how often Doug
criticizes others over their 'nitpicking of words' being used - and yet, it
seems to me to be his #1 MO.... as shown in other posts docs presented by
myself in recent years, and in emails to Doug personally.
Returning to DarwinTwitchell's comments in the beginning:
DarwinT...@yahoo.com
19/12/2005
[end quote]
I'm unsure if Doug does know it in his 'guts', I have my doubts about that,
but certainly agree and see things the same way as DT does, and especially in
the last paragraph. Why that is so, well really I do not care. That's their
problem or cross to bear not mine.
The sooner that Klemp, Skelsky, Gail Twitchell, Marman and others end up in the
same position as Cardinal Pell and the Catholic Church recently the better for all.
eg DENIALS and COVER UPS by those in Powerful positions of a religious Institution
PM - Royal Commission: Bishop Philip Newell denies abuse ...
www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2015/s4398045.htm
Feb 1, 2016 - At the child sexual abuse Royal Commission hearings in Hobart the former
... Philip Newell has denied he told two teenage victims of clerical abuse not to
... Royal Commission: Bishop Philip Newell denies abuse cover-up.
Cardinal denies concealing knowledge... - Google News
https://news.google.com.au/news/story?cf=all&hl...h...
2 days ago - Giving evidence to the sex abuse royal commission, the cardinal was
... Cardinal tells commission of extraordinary church 'world of crimes and cover-ups'
... a Vatican official has denied knowledge of child sex abuse cases in ...
George Pell : It was an extraordinary world of crimes and ...
https://au.news.yahoo.com/.../george-pell-resumes-evidence-to-child-abu...
2 days ago - George Pell : 'It was an extraordinary world of crimes and cover ups'
... He has also denied a suggestion by counsel assisting the inquiry,
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_Institutional_Responses_to_Child_Sexual_Abuse
Etznab
IMO, plagiarism is an attempt to minimize the greater issues of pseudo history and religion. Also, the back and forth is very telling about the repercussions following same.
Most of us know how many paths have spun off from those before. Not such a bad thing in the entirety, except when the pseudo history and religion are planted and compounded in the new creations.
Take a look at history for all the religions known to man. How much good they brought and how much war and murder too. If making things up is really all so good then why can ideologies be found not only to engender good, but also bad?
I think the real madness is when people don't know how to tell the difference. Don't know how to differentiate between fact and fiction. Between a literal real event and a teaching myth. And don't know how to admit it.
To put all the blame on a leader is an attempt to escape the whole truth, IMO. Because hundreds, thousands and millions (etc.) of followers have used pseudo man-made invented history and events to justify their causes for overthrowing another country, or people, etc. And even after the truth comes to light the liars are sheltered (in many cases) by the institutions of "authority".
What I think is unprecedented are not the amount of plagiarisms, although they seem to be quite a bit, but rather the plagiarisms and pseudo creations after combined with something else. This is what I really think unprecedented. That so many people can see what happened plain as day, but then refuse to do much to first reveal it to others unaware, and then follow up with clarifying and correcting any false information. IMO it doesn't mean that Eckankar writings need to be removed, but that a little more truth about the actual history is warranted.
I think it crosses the line when fictions are introduced as real events and actual history. Is it always sane to mix the imaginary world with the "real" world that billions of people live in daily? Imaginations can plant awfully bad seeds that can propagate and grow to cause horrendous damage to both the planet and the living forms on it. Historically speaking, organized religion has been probably one of the most liberal to create and propagate imaginary events and imaginary characters. To the extent of one people fighting another people who don't share the same imaginations; or should I say: Followers of religion have?
Where does this bring us to? Perhaps it brings us to an unprecedented time in history when technology and mass communication can help to educate people about not only how pseudo history and religion are created, but also about how it is denied and defended by fundamentalists who don't know how to sacrifice fiction for fact. In other words, the genesis of what feeds terrorism and terrorists. It might seem like a strong thing to say, but what honest loving person who knows the truth is liable to become a terrorist? Who would attack, harm, or kill so many innocent people and justify the actions with their imaginations if it were not for the contributions of some pseudo history and / or religion? Of course one need to also consider the problem compounded and the phenomenon of terrorists fighting other terrorists, or against people living in countries that sponsor it. And after considering all of this, then maybe ask the question "Where did it all begin?" What imagination created the idea that people are evil (for whatever reason, or reasons) and that they need to be punished? And / or need to be taught and guided by individuals inspired by the one true God?; vs. those who are taught and guided by the one true God's nemesis? These types of ideas seem (to me) to echo the imaginations of fearful and warring peoples. Like primitive savages who thought the thunder and lightning, etc. meant that God was angry. The same kind of people(s) who later believed they needed to sacrifice animals and then people to satisfy their personal Gods.
On past threads it was asserted (in so many words) that all religions take from earlier sources and develop the teachings further. My contention, however, is that some of the same old primitive and savage imaginations and fears continue to haunt organized religion today! New Age religion(s) even!
With today's technologies and resources the "path to God" does not have to be like a sleepwalker on automatic pilot, or a patient following the commands of a hypnotist (extreme example, I know) but can be a person questioning & exposing fictions and paranoid delusions to prevent them from infecting others. One very simple way, and I have mentioned this many times before, is by clarification of material. Especially written material. Iow, is something fact, or fiction? And this is what I think causes the real problem. It is not that people write many fictional stories, but that people with their exuberance and pride boast about things to such an extent they choose to bring fictions "as if" to life so to replace something else (be it the actual truth) less attractive. And people throughout history - evidence seems to indicate - competed with one another to see who could come up with the best fictions. Storytellers do this and it is not a new phenomenon. People have probably been doing so ever since assembling around the first campfire. So the problem (the real problem), I suggest, is not the story tellers and the stories so much as the number of people who grow to take fictions for fact (to the exclusion of truth and those who love truth). Fiction as fact to the extent of defending fiction against the truth and defending fiction against anybody who tries to introduce the truth.
I say let the fictional stories and myths stay in the realms of fictions - and maybe be taught to children for a time (children supervised by adults) - but eventually (and where it is kind, loving and necessary) make sure that people know the difference between pseudo history / religion and actual history / religion.
Henosis Sage
> On Thursday, 22 December 2005 13:25:54 UTC+11, Doug wrote:
> > Actually the reason plagiarism is such an issue in schools is because
> > they are grading students on their work. Teachers don't care if what
> > they write is interesting or is worthy of publishing. They only want to
> > see what the student knows. How else can they tell if the student is
> > getting it, if they copy someone else's answers?
> >
There are big changes afoot how matters of 'religion/law' used to be
handled in this world versus now and into the future:
----