NOW vs. Maher
Ubiquitous
criticizing HBO for obscene comments that aired on "Real Time With Bill
Maher":
While discussing Marcus Bachmann's controversial anti-gay
Christian therapy clinic, the topic skewed toward his sexuality
and marriage with Michele. After quickly determining Marcus
to be a closeted gay man, Marc Maron states that he hopes
Marcus "takes all that rage that comes from repression and
denial and brings it into the bedroom with her . . . I hope
he f--s her angrily, because that's how I would, and I've
thought about it."
To avoid "charges of sexism," and demonstrate that "it's not
just women we're talking about f---ing," Dan Savage admits,
"I sometimes think about f--ing the sh*t out of Rick Santorum."
As Savage and Maron try to top each other, panelist and Dallas
Mavericks owner Mark Cuban laughs as if it is the funniest
thing he's heard all week. The lone woman panelist, Chrystia
Freeland, looks vaguely uncomfortable while maintaining a
polite smile. . . .
Political topics and satirical humor have always gone
hand-in-hand, but joking about the sexual assault of anyone
is in no way amusing.
We have to say, we agree with NOW that the comments in question were
stupid and unfunny. On the other hand, it gives us a chuckle to see
feminists playing to type by proclaiming them "in no way amusing."
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."
trotsky
> The National Organization for Women
Plagiarism alert.
gangle
> On 7/22/11 4:52 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> The National Organization for Women
>
>
> Plagiarism alert.
Since the OP's posts identifies the National Organization
for Women as the source of the text that followed, there
is no plagiarism in this case. (Plagiarism = "taking someone's
words or ideas as if they were your own." (Source for that
definition is WordWeb 5.51.)
Mason Barge
>"trotsky" wrote
>> On 7/22/11 4:52 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> The National Organization for Women
>>
>>
>> Plagiarism alert.
>
>Since the OP's posts identifies the National Organization
>for Women as the source of the text that followed, there
>is no plagiarism in this case. (Plagiarism = "taking someone's
>words or ideas as if they were your own." (Source for that
>definition is WordWeb 5.51.)
Except for the fact that the entire article was written by Lamb Chopra,
who is the person who identified the NOW quote :)
David Johnston
wrote:
>"trotsky" wrote
>> On 7/22/11 4:52 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> The National Organization for Women
>>
>>
>> Plagiarism alert.
>
>Since the OP's posts identifies the National Organization
>for Women as the source of the text that followed, there
>is no plagiarism in this case. (Plagiarism = "taking someone's
>words or ideas as if they were your own." (Source for that
>definition is WordWeb 5.51.)
No, it was a total cut and past job. The framing paragraphs were from
someone else as well.
ralph
dictionary/thesaurus. As for NOW, why is it such a persistently
humourless organization?
Barb May
> "trotsky" wrote
>> On 7/22/11 4:52 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> The National Organization for Women
>>
>>
>> Plagiarism alert.
>
> Since the OP's posts identifies the National Organization
> for Women as the source of the text that followed, there
> is no plagiarism in this case. (Plagiarism = "taking someone's
> words or ideas as if they were your own." (Source for that
> definition is WordWeb 5.51.)
NOW was the source of the complaint but not the source of all of the
text that followed.
Take a look at the first line of the last paragraph:
"We have to say, we agree with NOW..."
Ubi lifted the entire article from the Wall Street Journal:
http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html
Ubi is a serial plagarist who routinely posts without attribution
articles taken from right-wing sources.
--
Barb
trotsky
Thank you.
Ubiquitous
>"trotsky" wrote
>> On 7/22/11 4:52 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> The National Organization for Women
>>
>> Plagiarism alert.
>
>Since the OP's posts identifies the National Organization
>for Women as the source of the text that followed, there
>is no plagiarism in this case. (Plagiarism = "taking someone's
>words or ideas as if they were your own." (Source for that
>definition is WordWeb 5.51.)
You are correct; "trotsky" has a long history of making baseless
accusations when unable to offre a rebuttal, something which occurs
with alarming frequency.
Ubiquitous
>Why should these two nutjobs be cut any slack just because they're
>women. And a lot of it *was* funny.
I seem to recall you thought his jokes about Roman Polansky raping
that young girl were funny, too.
Ubiquitous
>On 7/22/11 4:52 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> The National Organization for Women
>
>Plagiarism alert.
Strawman noted. Get back to us when you have a real argument to make.
--
"Admittedly, conservatives give as good as they get. The difference
between us and [leftists] is that we can argue as well as inveigh.
They can only hurl invectives." -- Don Feder
trotsky
> "trotsky" wrote
>> On 7/22/11 4:52 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> The National Organization for Women
>>
>>
>> Plagiarism alert.
>
> Since the OP's posts identifies the National Organization
> for Women as the source of the text that followed, there
> is no plagiarism in this case. (Plagiarism = "taking someone's
> words or ideas as if they were your own." (Source for that
> definition is WordWeb 5.51.)
Troll alert.
trotsky
Not TV related.
gangle
> gangle wrote:
>> "trotsky" wrote
>>> On 7/22/11 4:52 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> The National Organization for Women
>>>
>>>
>>> Plagiarism alert.
>>
>> Since the OP's posts identifies the National Organization
>> for Women as the source of the text that followed, there
>> is no plagiarism in this case. (Plagiarism = "taking someone's
>> words or ideas as if they were your own." (Source for that
>> definition is WordWeb 5.51.)
>
> NOW was the source of the complaint but not the source of all of the
> text that followed.
>
> Take a look at the first line of the last paragraph:
> "We have to say, we agree with NOW..."
>
> Ubi lifted the entire article from the Wall Street Journal:
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/best_of_the_web_today.html
>
> Ubi is a serial plagarist who routinely posts without attribution
> articles taken from right-wing sources.
Since I accussed him of blatant plagiarism in another thread, I have
no trouble believing you that he is capable of doing it on a serial
basis.
But, in this case, although he didn't fully explain the full context
of all the info (as you have pointed out), he was not guilty of
plagiarism since he did not try to make it appear that the words
in his post were originated by him. You can be a sloppy poster,
a biased poster, and even a deceptive poster without necessarily
being a plagiarist. (While plagiarism is always bad form, not
all bad form is plagiarism.)
gangle
My apologies for not picking up on all of that, but, in this case,
although a sneaky presentation by Ubiquitos, his structure
did not imply to the reader that he was the original author
of all of the words (as he did in the post that prompted me to
accurately call him a plagiarist, as well as unethical for using
another tactic -- news:ivp8j0$26q$1...@dont-email.me),
therefore the specific-in-meaning word "plagiarist" just didn't
apply in this case.
gangle
> On 7/22/2011 11:29 AM, "gangle" wrote:
>> "trotsky" wrote
>>> On 7/22/11 4:52 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>> The National Organization for Women
>>>
>>>
>>> Plagiarism alert.
>>
>> Since the OP's posts identifies the National Organization
>> for Women as the source of the text that followed, there
>> is no plagiarism in this case. (Plagiarism = "taking someone's
>> words or ideas as if they were your own." (Source for that
>> definition is WordWeb 5.51.)
>
> Troll alert.
My simply pointing out that your screaming "Plagiarist"
when it didn't really apply can in no way fit the definition
of trolling. Your saying "troll alert" suggests that you
might want to think a bit more before hitting SEND.
By the way, I was not trying to make Ubiquitos "look good,"
just trying to be fair -- I recently pointed out in another thread
that Ubiquitos appeared blatantly guilty of plagiarism -- and
used that word accurately: (news:ivp8j0$26q$1...@dont-email.me)
trotsky
> In article<j0c51h$25k$1...@dont-email.me>, gangle@mustard...yum wrote:
>> "trotsky" wrote
>>> On 7/22/11 4:52 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>
>>>> The National Organization for Women
>>>
>>> Plagiarism alert.
>>
>> Since the OP's posts identifies the National Organization
>> for Women as the source of the text that followed, there
>> is no plagiarism in this case. (Plagiarism = "taking someone's
>> words or ideas as if they were your own." (Source for that
>> definition is WordWeb 5.51.)
>
> You are correct; "trotsky" has a long history of making baseless
> accusations when unable to offre a rebuttal, something which occurs
> with alarming frequency.
False claim/strawman/not TV related/troll alert/more evidence of a
marked lack of intelligence/sockpuppet alert.
trotsky
> Newpor...@webtv.net wrote:
>
>> Why should these two nutjobs be cut any slack just because they're
>> women. And a lot of it *was* funny.
>
> I seem to recall you thought his jokes about Roman Polansky
Who?
trotsky
> "trotsky" wrote
>> On 7/22/2011 11:29 AM, "gangle" wrote:
>>> "trotsky" wrote
>>>> On 7/22/11 4:52 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>>>> The National Organization for Women
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Plagiarism alert.
>>>
>>> Since the OP's posts identifies the National Organization
>>> for Women as the source of the text that followed, there
>>> is no plagiarism in this case. (Plagiarism = "taking someone's
>>> words or ideas as if they were your own." (Source for that
>>> definition is WordWeb 5.51.)
>>
>> Troll alert.
>
> My simply pointing out that your screaming "Plagiarist"
> when it didn't really apply can in no way fit the definition
> of trolling. Your saying "troll alert" suggests that you
> might want to think a bit more before hitting SEND.
Ubi *constantly* pulls articles from right wing websites, not properly
attributing them so that they come of as something he's written himself.
You've have had at least three other people point that out to you.
Moreover, the only people that come to the defense of a worthless troll
like Ubi are likely to be trolls themselves. If you lie down with dogs
you get up with fleas.
> By the way, I was not trying to make Ubiquitos "look good,"
> just trying to be fair -- I recently pointed out in another thread
> that Ubiquitos appeared blatantly guilty of plagiarism -- and
> used that word accurately: (news:ivp8j0$26q$1...@dont-email.me)
You need more data points then.
gangle
You need to calm down and stop name-calling simply because
you are uneasy about admitting you used a word inaccurately.
I am convinced at this point that Ubiquitos is a Usenet slimebag.
However, you are coming off like you can't understand the
difference between *being a dishonest asshole* = (in this thread)
Ubiquitous not attributing quotes properly to try to convince readers
that his whacko point-of-view is intelligent....vs....*plagiarism* = his
stealing other people's words (as in the
news:ivp8j0$26q$1...@dont-email.me thread), pasting
them into a post in an attempt to make readers believe he
is the author of those exact words.
All plagiarists are, ipso facto, always dishonest assholes --
but dishonest assholes are not always plagiarists. There is
an important distinction. You would have to be an idiot not
to understand what I just wrote -- but, I don't think you are
an idiot -- just someone who pounds his keyboard while too
upset; you are letting your emotions overrule your sense
of logic and perspective. I am happy to apologize if my
correcting you upset you so badly -- I was attempting to
advise you of your misuse of a word, not to attack you.
HTH
trotsky
False claim. I'm pretty sure you're a sockpuppet and a troll, sorry.
Thanatos
"gangle" <gangle@mustard...yum> wrote:
Stop trying to have a rational conversation with the douche-bag.
All he does it sit behind his computer all day and call people names and
issue his moronic 'alerts'. It's what he does. You're not going to talk
him out of it by appealing to logic, reason, or any kind of high-level
brain function whatsoever.
gangle
"trotsky" wrote in message
> False claim. I'm pretty sure you're a sockpuppet and a troll, sorry.
False claim? Huh.............................?
I am NONE of what you just wrote. You have no proof of
the nonsense you just wrote beacuse THERE ISN"T ANY.
You are guilty of post-editing: "conveniently," in your response,
leaving out all of these heartfelt important words I spoke:
THE PART YOU LEFT OUT..............
"I am convinced at this point that Ubiquitos is a Usenet slimebag.
However, you are coming off like you can't understand the
difference between *being a dishonest asshole* = (in this thread)
Ubiquitous not attributing quotes properly to try to convince readers
that his whacko point-of-view is intelligent....vs....*plagiarism* =
his
stealing other people's words (as in the
news:ivp8j0$26q$1...@dont-email.me thread), pasting
them into a post in an attempt to make readers believe he
is the author of those exact words.
All plagiarists are, ipso facto, always dishonest assholes --
but dishonest assholes are not always plagiarists. There is
an important distinction. You would have to be an idiot not
to understand what I just wrote -- but, I don't think you are
an idiot -- just someone who pounds his keyboard while too
upset; you are letting your emotions overrule your sense
of logic and perspective. I am happy to apologize if my
correcting you upset you so badly -- I was attempting to
advise you of your misuse of a word, not to attack you."
........END THE PART YOU UNFAIRLY LEFT OUT.
You are not responding to the quality and totality of
what and how I responded to you, a sneaky ploy
to try to fuel your ridiculous and unprovable assertations.
YOU are now being troll-like and dishonest with your
post-editing and unfair accusations that lack even a shred
of evidence. (There IS NO EVIDENCE because it simply
isn't true.)
What, are you 13 years old? You don't seem mature
enough to understand how lacking common sense you
appear at this moment.
Now, up until this moment, I was apologetic about hurt
feelings and willing to get a fresh start with you, but unless
you get wise soon and grow up really fast, and you finally
respond and admit that you have been conversing with a
knowledgable, balanced ,honest person, I will waste no more
time with someone who has so little judgment with regard to
human behavior.
(Maybe there's someone reading this who cares enough
about "Trotsky" to try to tell him how ridiculous, chlidish,
and unfair he is coming off.)
I despise PLONKING people, but that's what I'm going to
do with you if you can't start to see the forest through
the trees (or if someone you know can't point out how
dunder-headed you are coming off).
I don't like dishonest people, in Usenet and away from Usenet.
I've done nothing dishonest in this thread, but, alas, with your
post-editing crap and proofless accusations, you are coming off
as dishonest. Take this moment to rethink what you are doing;
I don't WANT to killfile you -- it's up to you whether you convince
me to do so. You don't care if I killfile you? Fine, as I don't
*need* you, but what a shame if you had some future things to say
I'd enjoy and I had some things to say you'd enjoy and that
will never happen because you were too stubborn to get your
shit together and just say: "Oops, my bad...fergettaboudit!"
so we can move on.
Barb May
> (Maybe there's someone reading this who cares enough
> about "Trotsky" to try to tell him how ridiculous, chlidish,
> and unfair he is coming off.)
Either killfile him or not, but do it quietly and don't whine about
being treated unfairly or appeal to others to help you out. It makes you
look weak and childish.
If you're expecting to participate in debates according to "Robert's
Rules of Order" then you are in the wrong place. If you don't want what
you say to be edited or taken out of context then don't get involved in
a contentious debate with anyone, because that's what always happens.
You should either ignore it, learn to deal with it effectively, or don't
argue with anyone.
--
Barb
trotsky
You just pegged the hypocrisy meter, Thanny. Honestly, how can you be
*that* motherfucking stupid as to call me a "douche bag" after the other
anonymous accuses me of name calling? I mean, you are a really stupid
piece of crap, but this is beyond the pale even for you. Kudos!
trotsky
> Thanatos<atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> Stop trying to have a rational conversation with the douche-bag.
>>
>> All he does it sit behind his computer all day and call people names and
>> issue his moronic 'alerts'. It's what he does. You're not going to talk
>> him out of it by appealing to logic, reason, or any kind of high-level
>> brain function whatsoever.
>
Troll alert.
trotsky
> trotsky<gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>> All he does it sit behind his computer all day and call people names and
>>>> issue his moronic 'alerts'. It's what he does. You're not going to talk
>>>> him out of it by appealing to logic, reason, or any kind of high-level
>>>> brain function whatsoever.
>>
>
> Way to refute the point, nutcase.
Thanks for that, "Ronnie". Why is it that you don't use "S. Porty" anymore?
gangle
Thanks for your input, Barb. At this point, you're making sense.
This NG (rat) seems to be crawling with goofy infighting and
troll-inspired
cross-posting. I'm going to continue the cross-posting on this one,
since I don't know what NG you're coming from, but in the future,
I'm going you try to remember to clean my TO: line of extraneous NGs.
What NG ARE you "originating" from?
trotsky
> Greg Singh of Jupiter Audio<gms...@email.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> All he does it sit behind his computer all day and call people names and
>>>>>> issue his moronic 'alerts'. It's what he does. You're not going to talk
>>>>>> him out of it by appealing to logic, reason, or any kind of high-level
>>>>>> brain function whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> Troll alert.
>>>
>>> Way to refute the point, nutcase.
>>
>> Thanks for that, "Ronnie". Why is it that you don't use "S. Porty" anymore?
>
> Way to refute the point, nutcase.
So you're unable to answer the question? This is too easy!
Mason Barge
>The National Organization for Women has issued a press release
>criticizing HBO for obscene comments that aired on "Real Time With Bill
>Maher":
If only there was some way they could both lose.
A rights organization with no sense of humor vs. a humorist with no sense
of right.
Barb May
Stay Away
> gangle wrote:
> > (Maybe there's someone reading this who cares enough
> > about "Trotsky" to try to tell him how ridiculous, chlidish,
> > and unfair he is coming off.)
>
> Either killfile him or not, but do it quietly and don't whine about
> being treated unfairly or appeal to others to help you out. It makes you
> look weak and childish.
ROFL, the fat fuck Clouddipshit just can't help coming to the whore's
defense, no matter how limply? Best get back to your fourth dessert,
lardass :)
Ubiquitous
Thanks for so kindly making Thanatos' point.
--
"If Barack Obama isn't careful, he will become the Jimmy Carter of the
21st century."