Howard Belasco's 10/20 Westergaard column
Joy Haftel
(http://www.y2ktimebomb.com), a site I visit frequently for Y2K-related
news and opinion. I read Howard Belasco's column on personal contingency
planning, a column I was interested in reading because I am (surprise!)
interested in personal contingency planning.
Imagine my surprise to see my own words coming back at me!
Belasco's column reads (in part):
"Remember that Rome wasn't built in a day, and it didn't "fall" in a day
either. It didn't just disappear, it changed. What people considered to be
important, changed."
On October 12, 1998, I posted to comp.software.year-2000
(Subject: Re: AnnTGone) -- Easily available through a Deja News search:
"Rome wasn't built in a day, and it didn't "fall" in a day either. Sure,
the city was sacked more than once, but the "civilization" if you will
changed. It didn't go away; it changed. The empire fell. The things
people considered important changed. Civilization did not disappear. You
can trace our current civilization to its ancient roots. The barbaroi
were interested in becoming civilized (e.g. Theodoric), not in tearing it
down. The Romans tore down the old civic monuments for new building
THEMSELVES."
My dictionary defines "plagiarize" as follows:
"to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use
(a created production) without crediting the source ~ vi: to commit
literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived
from an existing source"
Whether that excerpt from your article constitutes plagiarism is left as
an exercise for the reader.
Mr. Belasco: If you are being paid for your Westergaard column, and even
if you are not--at the very least you owe me an apology.
Robert F
Plagiarism is theft -- I speak with some experience about this. More than
once I've had someone take my work, use it to make money, and claim that
they wrote it. This sort of dishonesty angers me as few things can.
I teach an English class on occasion, and I always give about a five-minute
warning about plagiarism -- the Internet has made it ridiculously easy to
steal someone else's words. I promise students that I'll flunk them for the
whole course if I catch them at it.
Joy, if Mr. Belasco doesn't provide you with one hell of a good explanation,
I'd show the folks at Westergaard exactly what you showed us here in the ng.
Robert Folsom
Dave Eastabrook
>Joy Haftel wrote in message ...
>>
>
>I'd show the folks at Westergaard exactly what you showed us here in the ng.
I've noticed often though, that you can't be sure yourself whether you
made the words up yourself, or whether you're unconsciously requoting
something that made an impact on you, perhaps subconsciously, after
mulling it over for a few days.
Take Ron Kenyon's circus thing (time for that again Ron!). I did a post
here with that sort of stuff last November (I thought it was good:), but
it was Cory talking about Vik beating his breast being the Bengal Tiger
hungry for business (hear me roar!) that set me off.
:Dave
--
Dave Eastabrook; EMEA sales and technical director, TD Tools Year 2000.
Elmbronze Ltd announces the arrival of TD Tools in Europe, ME & Africa.
Rectify Time Dilation - the Crouch Echlin Effect - on the PC post 1999.
GBP30 incl. <URL:http://www.elmbronze.demon.co.uk/products/TDtools.htm>
howard-...@worldnet.att.net
> Today (October 20, 1998) I visited the Westergaard Year 2000 website
> (http://www.y2ktimebomb.com), a site I visit frequently for Y2K-related
> news and opinion. I read Howard Belasco's column on personal contingency
> planning, a column I was interested in reading because I am (surprise!)
> interested in personal contingency planning.
>
>
For the record, I am not paid for any articles I write for Westergaard. I
do it as a public service.
I am an avid reader of comp.2000 and have quoted a number of people from
there, always with their permission in advance. In those cases, I have
saved their message, asked them if I ma quote any or part of it, and then
(and only then) use the material and give attribution.
In this case, your words just stayed with me to the point where, when I
was making the point about change, I thought of the phrase about Rome not
being built in a day and not falling in a day and I put that down and I
guess that enough of the rest of what you had written had associated with
that phrase in my mind that some of that material found its way onto the
screen as well.
I apologize again for using what you had written without checking with
you in advance. I will ask John Yellig to amend the archived document to
reflect your name as author of that part.
John, please adjust the archived document with the following. Thanks.
Civilization will survive Y2K. Whether certain businesses or even
industries survive depends entirely on whether the disruptions caused by
Y2K dislocate enough of our resources and our ability to deal with the
situation. Joy Haftel, in a message in the comp.200 newsgroup reminds us
that “Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it didn’t ‘fall’ in a day either.
It didn’t just disappear it changed. What people considered to be
important, changed.” Each event of our history has changed us. Y2K will
be the mother of all changes.
Flint
Dave Eastabrook wrote in message ...
>I've noticed often though, that you can't be sure yourself whether you
>made the words up yourself, or whether you're unconsciously requoting
>something that made an impact on you, perhaps subconsciously, after
>mulling it over for a few days.
At one time, Ry Cooder sued Kieth Richards for stealing his guitar licks.
The case was dropped when Richards' lawyer played Cooder a recording of
those same licks, originated and played by Lightnin' Hopkins.
cory hamasaki
Joy Haftel
<howard-...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>My sincere apologies
[snip]
>For the record, I am not paid for any articles I write for Westergaard. I
>do it as a public service.
>I am an avid reader of comp.2000 and have quoted a number of people from
>there, always with their permission in advance. In those cases, I have
>saved their message, asked them if I ma quote any or part of it, and then
>(and only then) use the material and give attribution.
>In this case, your words just stayed with me to the point where, when I
>was making the point about change, I thought of the phrase about Rome not
>being built in a day and not falling in a day and I put that down and I
>guess that enough of the rest of what you had written had associated with
>that phrase in my mind that some of that material found its way onto the
>screen as well.
I find that explanation somewhat ingenuous, considering the following.
Upon looking over your column again, I found some other phrases from the
same article in the column:
A more complete quotation from my article:
"Rome wasn't built in a day, and it didn't "fall" in a day either. Sure,
the city was sacked more than once, but the "civilization" if you will
changed. It didn't go away; it changed. The empire fell. The things
people considered important changed. Civilization did not disappear. You
can trace our current civilization to its ancient roots. The barbaroi
were interested in becoming civilized (e.g. Theodoric), not in tearing it
down. The Romans tore down the old civic monuments for new building
THEMSELVES.
'Western civilization' has been through natural disasters, wars,
disease, and famine...lots of them, in the past century. Each
disaster left its mark, but civilization is still with us.
Civilization will survive Y2K. I do not doubt that for a second. Whether
certain individuals survive depends entirely on how much Y2K disruptions
dislocate our resources and ability to deal with the situation."
Please note that last paragraph; it appears in your column like this:
"Civilization will survive Y2K. Whether certain businesses or even
industries survive depends entirely on whether the disruptions caused by
Y2K dislocate enough of our resources and our ability to deal with the
situation. Remember that Rome wasn't built in a day, and it didn't "fall"
in a day either. It didn't just disappear, it changed. What people
considered to be important, changed. Each event of our history has changed
us. Y2K will be the mother of all changes."
If you think the point about Rome was actually yours, may I ask you:
How did Rome change? To what changes is the author referring? What were
the changes in what people found important?
I had specific things in mind when I wrote that sentence, the indirect
result of actually *studying Roman History*.
>I apologize again for using what you had written without checking with
>you in advance. I will ask John Yellig to amend the archived document to
>reflect your name as author of that part.
Mr. Belasco, that still avoids the point that you haven't *asked* me for
permission, and that I have not given it! And that the first 2 sentences in
that paragraph were also almost entirely mine.
Joy Haftel
Robert F <rob...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>Joy Haftel wrote in message ...
>
>I teach an English class on occasion, and I always give about a five-minute
>warning about plagiarism -- the Internet has made it ridiculously easy to
>steal someone else's words. I promise students that I'll flunk them for the
>whole course if I catch them at it.
Excellent! I appreciate that stance. Many schools actually let the
little cheaters get away with it.
I've always been of the opinion that plagiarism is for those who aren't
able or are too lazy to do quality work. Why steal from someone else if
you have perfectly fine ideas of your own? Your chances of finding
something *worse* than you could do are at least equal to your chances of
finding something as good or better.
>Joy, if Mr. Belasco doesn't provide you with one hell of a good explanation,
>I'd show the folks at Westergaard exactly what you showed us here in the ng.
More plagiarism has been found (see my other post).
The subject has already been brought to Westergaard's attention.
fed...@halifax.com
> > Today (October 20, 1998) I visited the Westergaard Year 2000 website
> > (http://www.y2ktimebomb.com), a site I visit frequently for Y2K-related
> > news and opinion. I read Howard Belasco's column on personal contingency
> > planning, a column I was interested in reading because I am (surprise!)
> > interested in personal contingency planning.
> >
> > Imagine my surprise to see my own words coming back at me!
> >
> > Belasco's column reads (in part):
> >
> > either. It didn't just disappear, it changed. What people considered to be
> > important, changed."
> >
> > (Subject: Re: AnnTGone) -- Easily available through a Deja News search:
> >
> > the city was sacked more than once, but the "civilization" if you will
> > changed. It didn't go away; it changed. The empire fell. The things
> > people considered important changed. Civilization did not disappear. You
> > can trace our current civilization to its ancient roots. The barbaroi
> > were interested in becoming civilized (e.g. Theodoric), not in tearing it
> > down. The Romans tore down the old civic monuments for new building
> > THEMSELVES."
> >
> >
> > "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own: use
> > (a created production) without crediting the source ~ vi: to commit
> > literary theft: present as new and original an idea or product derived
> > from an existing source"
> >
> > Whether that excerpt from your article constitutes plagiarism is left as
> > an exercise for the reader.
> >
> > Mr. Belasco: If you are being paid for your Westergaard column, and even
> > if you are not--at the very least you owe me an apology.
> >
> > Joy
> > jkh...@netcom.com
> >
> >
> My sincere apologies, Mrs. Luckabaugh.
>
> do it as a public service.
>
Thank goodness, for then it would be theft.
> I am an avid reader of comp.2000 and have quoted a number of people from
> there, always with their permission in advance.
False. You quoted ME in the text of a comment by Mickey Ben-Tovim and DID NOT
ask my permission in advance.
In those cases, I have
> saved their message, asked them if I ma quote any or part of it, and then
> (and only then) use the material and give attribution.
>
False. Se above.
> In this case, your words just stayed with me to the point where, when I
> was making the point about change, I thought of the phrase about Rome not
> being built in a day and not falling in a day and I put that down and I
> guess that enough of the rest of what you had written had associated with
> that phrase in my mind that some of that material found its way onto the
> screen as well.
>
The excuse of all plagiarists.
> I apologize again for using what you had written without checking with
> you in advance.
First we had Egan the Liar, now Belasco the Plagiarist.
I will ask John Yellig to amend the archived document to
> reflect your name as author of that part.
>
> John, please adjust the archived document with the following. Thanks.
>
> Civilization will survive Y2K.
More rhetoric with no supporting evidence or facts of any kind.
Whether certain businesses or even
> industries survive depends entirely on whether the disruptions caused by
> Y2K dislocate enough of our resources and our ability to deal with the
> situation.
And admittingly NOT KNOWING that, you continue to spew your baseless rhetoric.
Joy Haftel, in a message in the comp.200 newsgroup reminds us
> that “Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it didn’t ‘fall’ in a day either.
More platitudes. Why? Because platitudes are all you have.
> It didn’t just disappear it changed.
How convenient. Rome was not sacked by the Vandals and Visigoths, it was just
'changed' by them. Hiroshima was not destroyed by an atomic blast, it was just
'changed' by it.
What people considered to be
> important, changed.”
'changed' is another 'baelasco-esque word like 'problem'. Never defined.
always intentionally ambiguous.
Each event of our history has changed us. Y2K will
> be the mother of all changes.
>
Laughable. The 'Mother of all changes' will affect us for a week or so with
inconveniences and disturbances. This way Howard can have his cake and eat it
too. He can pretend to be serious without ever being serious.
Egan would not admit his lie. But, Belasco has admitted his plagiarism.
At least we know that howie-babie has the fortitude to apologize. He is still
a plagiarist.
--
Paul Milne
"The road to TEOTWAWKI is paved with good expectations"
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tim Burke
howard-...@worldnet.att.net wrote in message ... [an apology for
plagiarizing someone else's words.]
Howard, I'm sure you're a nice enough gentleman. I'm sure you love animals,
and nature and children and Apple Pie & all that.
But you are, unfortunately, a moronic asshole as well.
Why don't you do everyone (especially those few unfortunates who's first
introduction to y2k is via your Westergaard columns) a favor, and just
sign-off? Let someone write that column who 1) does not plagiarize others
words; 2) understands y2k to *at least* some extent; and 3) does not have
tapioca pudding where there is normally brain matter?
Thanks.
_____
Tim Burke
Nunja Biznec
I don't know you. I don't know most of the people who have
posted here. I have no particular axe to grind where you
are concerned. That said, and applying the " reasonable man"
test,
you sir, are a thief.
hal...@my-dejanews.com
fed...@halifax.com wrote:
> In article <MPG.1096dd008...@netnews.worldnet.att.net>,
> howard-...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
Joy Haftel, in a message in the comp.200 newsgroup reminds us
> > that “Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it didn’t ‘fall’ in a day either.
>
> More platitudes. Why? Because platitudes are all you have.
>
> > It didn’t just disappear it changed.
>
> How convenient. Rome was not sacked by the Vandals and Visigoths, it was just
> 'changed' by them. Hiroshima was not destroyed by an atomic blast, it was just
> 'changed' by it.
>
> What people considered to be
> > important, changed.”
>
> 'changed' is another 'baelasco-esque word like 'problem'. Never defined.
> always intentionally ambiguous.
>
Paul, wake up. You're criticising Ms. Haftel's words as if they were those of
the plagerist Belasco. You didn't criticise her when she first presented that
article. I know all these embedded quotations can be confusing, especially
on this thread, but you're an old pro.
Hallyx
"Perplexity is the beginning of understanding" - Kahlil Gibran
Q
<snip rehashed words>
HB,
Heres one you can use for free. I stole this one fair-and-square from
someone who did the same. "Rome wasn't burnt in a day". I added the
following: "Yea, that Nero was fiddling around too much!!!".
--
Q
Anti-spam email address: Q wayoverat qsystems.com
Joy Haftel
> howard-...@worldnet.att.net wrote:
>> For the record, I am not paid for any articles I write for Westergaard. I
>> do it as a public service.
>Thank goodness, for then it would be theft.
It is *still* theft, whether Mr. Belasco profits monetarily from it or not.
Identify that quote!
"He who steals my purse steals trash; 'twas mine, 'tis his, and has been
slave to thousands. But he who steals from my good names steals
something which enriches not him and leaves me poor indeed."
>> I am an avid reader of comp.2000 and have quoted a number of people from
>> there, always with their permission in advance.
>False. You quoted ME in the text of a comment by Mickey Ben-Tovim and DID NOT
>ask my permission in advance.
He didn't credit you by name, either, although in your case he had the
grace to acknowledge that *someone else* originally said it.
> In those cases, I have
>> saved their message, asked them if I ma quote any or part of it, and then
>> (and only then) use the material and give attribution.
>False. Se above.
He still has not asked me for permission, nor have I given it.
>> In this case, your words just stayed with me to the point where, when I
>> was making the point about change, I thought of the phrase about Rome not
>> being built in a day and not falling in a day and I put that down and I
>> guess that enough of the rest of what you had written had associated with
>> that phrase in my mind that some of that material found its way onto the
>> screen as well.
>The excuse of all plagiarists.
The length and words were *so* similar, I find the excuse hard to believe
as well.
> I will ask John Yellig to amend the archived document to
>> reflect your name as author of that part.
>>
>> John, please adjust the archived document with the following. Thanks.
>>
>> Civilization will survive Y2K.
>More rhetoric with no supporting evidence or facts of any kind.
You can't support a prediction with facts, Paul.
> Whether certain businesses or even
>> industries survive depends entirely on whether the disruptions caused by
>> Y2K dislocate enough of our resources and our ability to deal with the
>> situation.
>
>And admittingly NOT KNOWING that, you continue to spew your baseless rhetoric.
?? Confusing me with Belasco? Easy to do, considering he did fiddle with
my original article a little.
> Joy Haftel, in a message in the comp.200 newsgroup reminds us
>> that “Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it didn’t ‘fall’ in a day either.
>
>> It didn’t just disappear it changed.
>How convenient. Rome was not sacked by the Vandals and Visigoths, it was just
>'changed' by them. Hiroshima was not destroyed by an atomic blast, it was just
>'changed' by it.
Rome was not sacked by the Visigoths. It was conquered by the Visigoths
because the Visigoths wanted to be Roman and reinstate the former glory
of the empire. The Visigoths found Rome to be a mess because the Romans
had been ripping up the city themselves.
The Vandal invasion I did not study, but the Gauls sacked Rome in
something-mumble BC and Rome was just a baby city at that time.
> What people considered to be
>> important, changed.”
>
>'changed' is another 'baelasco-esque word like 'problem'. Never defined.
>always intentionally ambiguous.
Do not call MY words belasco-esque, Milne! By "changed" I meant, in part,
that Christianity had become more important than the Classical value
system under, say, Cincinattus. The old ways of scholarship were less
important than the new ways of the Church. For good or ill, Gibbon blames
the fall of Rome a great deal on Christianity.
Also, the reforms of Diocletian split the empire and established a
proto-feudal system. The eastern half of the empire survived until the
13th century.
cory hamasaki
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
> Identify that quote!
>
> "He who steals my purse steals trash; 'twas mine, 'tis his, and has been
> slave to thousands. But he who steals from my good names steals
> something which enriches not him and leaves me poor indeed."
Oh, no! Are we going to start a thread on whether the Bard of Avon was
really Bacon or Marlowe?
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
Reply to host nsf (dot) gov, user smetz
Joy Haftel
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz <nos...@nsf.gov.invalid> wrote:
>Joy Haftel wrote:
>
>> Identify that quote!
>>
>> "He who steals my purse steals trash; 'twas mine, 'tis his, and has been
>> slave to thousands. But he who steals from my good names steals
>> something which enriches not him and leaves me poor indeed."
>Oh, no! Are we going to start a thread on whether the Bard of Avon was
>really Bacon or Marlowe?
Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare; but a more likely contender would be the
Earl of Oxford, and a more ridiculous contender would be Elizabeth I.
sm...@nsf.gov
Um, no, Shakespeare was not recursive and did not write himself, although he
did write Hamlet <shields up>. Also, I did not ask whether Shakespeare wrote
Hamlet, I asked whether we were going to start a thread on the question. It
looks like we did :-(