Biden is Mentally Fit Posted October 15 Posted October 15 Frankish probably got wood over Rand Paul accusation. 1
Tenhigh Posted October 15 Posted October 15 6 hours ago, B-Man said: Come on, @The Frankish Reich, that's pretty funny... its ok to admit it. 1
BillsFanNC Posted October 15 Author Posted October 15 The New York Times is lying about my plagiarism story and I have the receipts to prove it: 1. The Times claims that I only argued that Kamala Harris plagiarized "five sections" involving "about 500 words." But this isn't true. In my story, I wrote that Stefan Weber argued there are "more than a dozen" instances of "'vicious plagiarism.'" This past Saturday, I provided the Times not only with my written analysis, which argues that there are "more than a dozen," but with Weber's full dossier, which included 18 allegations of varying severity. So, the Times deliberately withheld this crucial contextual information from its readers and from the supposed plagiarism expert, who, based on this limited information, called it "not serious." They could have easily confirmed the "more than a dozen" point, but instead, lied by omission. 2. The Times claims that "none of the passages in question took the ideas or thoughts of another writer." This is preposterous. Harris not only copied multiple paragraphs of other people's work verbatim, but she often lifted those ideas directly and at face value. In one case, she came to the wrong conclusion because she copied Wikipedia—i.e., she stole a bad idea, copied the language verbatim, and got the point wrong. This is the Full Monty of plagiarism. The Times's claim doesn't hold up at all; it's just a way of downplaying the transgression of Kamala Harris, as they tried to do initially with Harvard president Claudine Gay. Their claim is not supported by the evidence: 3. The Times provides one example of the plagiarism from my story, which suggests that it was a minor copy-and-paste of two short sentences: But this is supremely misleading. The violation was not two sentences, but, rather, five sentences. Here is the actual extent of this plagiarism instance, which is much more severe than the Times suggests. She copied-and-pasted two paragraphs and simply added the word "additional": 4. The Times suggests that noticing Kamala Harris's plagiarism is somehow "racist," even though the paper has covered plagiarism by many other political figures, including conservative minorities, such as former Milwaukee Sheriff David Clarke, without suggesting that doing so was "racist." This is just a way of laundering in a smear to complement the absurd headline that my reporting on plagiarism by a presidential candidate is "seiz[ing] on" a transgression that is "not serious"—in other words, framing me as the villain of the story, rather than the plagiarism by a presidential candidate. My rule of working with journalists is simple: If you treat me fairly, I treat you fairly. After publication of the Times piece, I called the reporter and editor at the Times to ask politely for a correction. The editor, Mary Suh, had nothing but excuses. And so, we're going to fight this one out. They should issue a correction, but, even if they do not, I will correct the record in public. 2
BillsFanNC Posted October 15 Author Posted October 15 Notice Rufo held some examples back knowing full well the reliable media would dutifully attempt to run cover for comrade Kamala.
The Frankish Reich Posted October 15 Posted October 15 Just now, BillsFanNC said: Notice Rufo held some examples back knowing full well the reliable media would dutifully attempt to run cover for comrade Kamala. Really? You now need a footnote for official government statements in a "popular" (quotes because it was not, in fact, at all popular) campaign book? Maybe the aggrieved "Calfornia government website" should sue her.
The Frankish Reich Posted October 15 Posted October 15 Oh no! Say it isn't so!! People paid good money for Donald J. Trump's personal investment advice only to discover it was plagiarized from standard sources! I mean, they could've just googled it and got the same advice for free. You mean The Trump Institute was neither Trump nor an Institute? It just republished standard advice? This definitely disqualifies him from the presidency. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/30/us/politics/donald-trump-institute-plagiarism.html
BillsFanNC Posted October 15 Author Posted October 15 ⬆️ Don't tell me...Finding is either going with that's not plagiarism or nobody cares right?
BillsFanNC Posted October 15 Author Posted October 15 🎯 People engaged in all this plagiarism because they never thought they would get caught, as they were mostly writing things no one reads so no one would check. Like the German politicians and their PhD dissertations. It was just a credential, and they figured no one would read it outside a handful of professors and then they would be forgotten. Kamala’s book ‘Smart on Crime’ came out in 2009 before people really started looking closely at these things. Whether she or a ghost writer did the plagiarism, they were just lazy and dishonest. No one actually reads this sort of book. They exist to make the candidate look more serious and accomplished than she is. No one anticipated AI tools or the eccentric Austrian plagiarism hunter to ever check into these things. It’s just another example of how Kamala is a synthetic person. A construction who does anything to get ahead without any real accomplishments. This is pretty common in politicians. It’s been seen all over Europe too.
The Frankish Reich Posted October 15 Posted October 15 10 hours ago, Tenhigh said: Come on, @The Frankish Reich, that's pretty funny... its ok to admit it. Sorry, Babylon Bee still batting .000 4 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: ⬆️ Don't tell me...Finding is either going with that's not plagiarism or nobody cares right? If they told you that would kind of negate the ignore function, now wouldn't it? but I guess that's the point. Performative ignorance is thy name, Tarheel. 1
Doc Posted October 15 Posted October 15 4 hours ago, BillsFanNC said: ⬆️ Don't tell me...Finding is either going with that's not plagiarism or nobody cares right? Next comes "OK she plagiarized. But here's why it's a good thing..." 2
The Frankish Reich Posted October 16 Posted October 16 2 hours ago, Doc said: Next comes "OK she plagiarized. But here's why it's a good thing..." No, I'm going to mention that she had a ghostwriter ("with ..."), apparently an editor, and that this wasn't a graded assignment and that apparently the "plagiarized" sources aren't at all bothered. Oh, and that nobody cares. 1
Commsvet11 Posted October 16 Posted October 16 5 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said: No, I'm going to mention that she had a ghostwriter ("with ..."), apparently an editor, and that this wasn't a graded assignment and that apparently the "plagiarized" sources aren't at all bothered. Oh, and that nobody cares. Why do you suppose students are punished sometimes severely for plagiarism?
BillsFanNC Posted October 16 Author Posted October 16 1 minute ago, Commsvet11 said: Why do you suppose students are punished sometimes severely for plagiarism? Finding entirely predictable! Absolutely no need to read its posts.
The Frankish Reich Posted October 16 Posted October 16 5 minutes ago, BillsFanNC said: Finding entirely predictable! Well, then you predicted this: COLLEAGUES WORRY THAT FAILED RESEARCHER/AGING NORTH CAROLINA BIOMEDICAL PRODUCT SALESMAN SPENDS 100+ HOURS PER WEEK READING/REPOSTING RIGHT WING TWITTER FEEDS
The Frankish Reich Posted October 16 Posted October 16 1 minute ago, BillsFanNC said: Because the rules are just a little different for academic plagiarism, because, you know, you are graded. So give Kamala's Smart on Crime an F! From the number of sales it garnered, It appears that the general public agreed.
Recommended Posts