Ron Borges - Plagiarist?

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument.


easy to attack henryhecht instead of addressing the merits of the issue, right? any nitwit can make an ad hominem attack. it's the most common device on this board when reason is challenged.

i'm asking for a definition of plagiarism and all i get is squirming and evasion and bullshit.

how many words have to be changed? how much structure has to be changed?
who owns facts? who owns commonplace opinions?

c'mon, all you smart smug citizens of Peyton Place, who's going to step up to the plate?

 

henry,

He was attacking your constant need to parse a definition of plagiarism. That's hardly failing to address the substance of the argument.

Unless you agree that your arguing really has no substance at all.

(I bet you could look up plagiarism in a dictionary or something, FWIW)

 

plagarism is like pornography: i know it when i see it. ;D

 

ace

this is from wikipedia:
Plagiarism is the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.

this is from merriam-webster:
transitive verb : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting the source
intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source

neither is definitive. nobody actually knows where the line is drawn. yes, word for word is obvious. but anything less than word for word, where is the line?

and the whole thing about an "original" idea - where exactly does an idea originate? did sando originate that stuff borges used? no - it was all commonplace fact.

can you see why i'm frustrated? nobody takes this seriously - and people like borges get trashed - and i barely know the guy - but it's the principle. plagiarism, in my opinion, is more of a political concept than a legal one.

 

I will agree that there is some gray area. For example, one person may agree that changing a few words in a passage if fine. Others may not.

However, you want to cut it, it's easy to avoid. Don't ever cut and paste (even slightly changing words). Or if you do, attribute it (as you did your dictionary definitions above).

Problem solved.

 

solved, except for borges.

makes me wonder - cutting-and-pasting is infinitely easier in the digital age - easier than copying by longhand or typing

shouldn't the relative ease of the act be considered in the definition

it used to take much effort to copy - thus the intent was clear - premeditated
now it's done in a nanosecond - an impulsive act

the difference between first-degree and second-degree murder

there ought to be a different name for what borges did - something less than first-degree plagiarism - particularly in cases of generic information