eccentric?

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 8:14 am

Sher,

We might be assholes, but we don't plagiarize and then deny it.

Personally, I don't hate you, Sher. I think you have a misperception about that. I still considered you a friend until I got here a while back and discovered that you had apparently turned against the whole FP crowd for some reason. I don't mind you calling me an asshole. I understand you are upset about the plagiarism being exposed and you're lashing out. I forgive you.

Why did you do it, though?

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 10:49 am

Waitaminit - all I did was ask why you used the term and say that you and Vic weren't using it the same. Just because Philo busted you on your idiocy doesn't expose you mean I had jack-shit-all to do with it. Indeed, I very intentionally didn't bust you even after I knew what you are doing (despite being tempted to when you decided to insult me rather than support a point you don't even understand) because while I think this plargarism makes you pretty pathetic, I just pity you. (oh, this about the eccentricity... not nearly as bad as a couple of the other threads where you try to sound smart by copy/paste...)

You're upset at the others but it's pretty sad to lump me in for something I didn't do.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:04 pm

Good God, what an incredibly anal dialogue. It was plainly obvious that Sher lifted the formal text of her math analogy from somewhere. Who gives a shit about citing sources in such a case? This is not an academic environment. The quality of the analogy can be argued but I got what she meant. She simply illustrated her idea of eccentricity mathematically (in response to a question about the definitions of eccentricity). I didn't get any impression that she was pretending to have come up with that text herself. Cutting and pasting the content of a formal definition in math hardly constitutes plagiarism. It's more about getting it right and not looking stupid if you ask me.

In the end, eccentricity is not really an especially complicated issue. What is it about storms and tea cups that is so attractive to people?

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 12:52 pm

How did she get to you, Dan? Was it PM or instant messenger?

I guess I didn't expect to see plagiarism so obviously done for the sake of appearing more intellectual dismissed so lightly around here. But it's cool, your call to make. Not a huge deal, as you state, although I doubt others would have gotten this kind of first-rate defense.

Katy · Post by **Katy** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:06 pm

I just want to be clear that I am not involved here, since there seems to be some confusion on the matter.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:09 pm

They would have if it had precipitated an equally anal dialogue. I don't regard the unattributed posting of definitions in math or geometry to be plagiaristic. Had it been accompanied by any intimation of orginalility it would have been entirely inappropriate, but I didn't get any sense of that because of the obviousness of the lifting.

How did she get to you, Dan? Was it PM or instant messenger?

Meaningless gossip. I came to this thread via a source altogether different from that which you presume and suggest.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:27 pm

Dan,

Had it been accompanied by any intimation of orginalility it would have been entirely inappropriate

That's interesting, because I got a totally different sense from Sher's subsequent posts. As Philosophaster pointed out, she was referring to it as "my definition" and such. Although she attempted to explain this away after being confronted, I still came away with the strong impression that she was trying to act as though she had written the definition herself, from her own knowledge.

But if you didn't see it that way, you didn't. Okay.

Dan Rowden · Post by **Dan Rowden** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 1:40 pm

Unidian wrote:
Dan,

Had it been accompanied by any intimation of orginalility it would have been entirely inappropriate
That's interesting, because I got a totally different sense from Sher's subsequent posts.

Yeah, I get that and I can understand it. I would say she could have avoided this current debate with the inclusion of one or two words but I don't think it's that big a deal that she didn't.

As Philosophaster pointed out, she was referring to it as "my definition" and such.

Sure, but there again it's a matter of the sense in which you take it. I took it as "the one I use" rather than the "one I invented" (and did so on my first reading) which is why I had no problem with it.

Although she attempted to explain this away after being confronted, I still came away with the strong impression that she was trying to act as though she had written the definition herself, from her own knowledge.

I can understand that impression (though, if you think about it, it would make Sher look pretty silly), it just wasn't the one I got.

But if you didn't see it that way, you didn't. Okay.

Okay.

Elizabeth Isabelle · Post by **Elizabeth Isabelle** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:10 pm

Something just occurred to me on this that might help us all understand what happened here. I notice that it is only those of us living in America that consider this plagiarism. It could be that in other countries, they don't drill plagiarism into their heads like they do with us. The first time one of my classes got plagiarism explained to us was in the 7th grade, and the science teacher handed out photocopies of an article about a Princeton student who was sent to jail for plagiarism, and she told us that she would not hesitate to call the police if she found any plagiarism in any of our work.

Other countries might not be so strict, which might explain why Dan and Sher don't think this even was plagiarism.
.

Unidian · Post by **Unidian** » Wed Apr 11, 2007 2:18 pm

Maybe so. I do know that it's also heavily discouraged by peer influence among "intellectual" groups. On most of the boards I've participated in, you get made fun of quite a bit if you're caught copy/pasting without attribution. It's usually considered an attempt to appear knowledgeable about something one isn't and therefore gain greater status in the peer group. Status is taken quite seriously in most ego-infested intellectual circles, so attempts to gain it dishonestly are frowned upon.

Dan may not care in part because he's less motivated by that sort of thing to begin with, so it doesn't occur to him to think about it in those terms. I still tend to think along "status" lines pretty reflexively, having spent many years in places where virtually nothing was more important. It's a habituated subconscious pattern.