Aren't writers supposed to fired/discontinued for this nonsense? It's no surprise to see that lefties have no original thoughts, but if you're this blatant about ripping off some one else's work, it's time to go.

josh is right. I didn't read his blog last week, and didn't have any idea he had made that point until you informed me just now.
i was talking to a friend of mine Friday about what I was writing who suggested I make this point, expressing it in a cogent and I assumed spontaneous way and I wanted to weave the idea into my column.
but, clearly, my friend must have read josh marshall without mentioning that to me.
we're fixing it on the web, to give josh credit, and will include a note, as well as a formal correction tomorrow.

Hmm. Well, it a student handed in a paper with a comment that was so similar to a comment someone else had made previously in print, I'd cite him/her for plagiarism. Sorry, Maureen, I enjoy reading your columns, but your explanation of "My friend must have read Josh Marshall without mentioning that to me" ranks right up there with the infamous "the dog ate my homework" excuse.

How will this line-stealing hack now have the nerve to criticize ANYONE about dishonesty/unethical behavior/stupidity? I will never read her crap again.

Uh huh. Her "friend" must have just read it, and with his super duper photographic memory he repeated it verbatim. Then Dowd, with her super duper memory recall, was able to write down exactly what her friend said, verbatim.

Joe Biden's old Law School may accept this intellectual dishonesty, but the NYTs...Nevermind.

Correction: May 18, 2009
Maureen Dowd's column on Sunday, about torture, failed to attribute a paragraph about the timeline for prisoner abuse to Josh Marshall's blog at Talking Points Memo.

Translation: Caught red-handed.

I think Dowd is one of the best in the business at putting words together, particularly when she digs in her claws, which is often (including taking on Obama). She can be very persuasive.

But her explanation does sound a little suspect. I guess it's possible she was talking (on the phone?) to her friend, who happened to be reading this at the time but made it sound conversational. But I'm skeptical.

Dude, the commas are in the exact same places.

Skip the middle-woman and check out the source:

I am sure maureen and joe biden have a lot to talk about.

this seems extremely weird. Why would dowd do this? She obviously would have known she would get caught. obviously she did it and I agree her excuse is lame. She is intelligent enough to know that people who read TPM.com are likely to read her column as well and it will come out.

just bizarre.

Maybe this will cause others with a lot of time on their hands to go through a lot of her other pieces, and running them through search engines. Which is a shame, considering how tiresome her writing is.

Naaaaa.. libs don't take someone elses work and claim it as their own.

#12 | Posted by Sniper

Neither do conservatives.

Why would dowd do this?

1. She thought she could get away with it.

2. She pasted the paragraph into the draft and forgot to revise it and thus use the ideas as if they were her own.

More to the point though is that she actually contrived an excuse that falls flat and now becomes part of her portfolio.

Not to worry. The Times has forgiven many a liar.

If she's guilty, she's guilty and she deserves censure or whatever the hell they do to plagiarists.

#13 | Posted by ProudLiberal

Never happen, remember Big Joe's little case of plagiarism?

Joseph Robinette "Joe" Biden, Jr., a Democratic United States Senator from Delaware at the time, was a candidate for President of the United States in the 1988 United States presidential election.

Biden announced his candidacy in June 1987, and was considered one of the potentially strongest candidates in the field. However, in September 1987, newspaper stories stated he had plagiarized a speech by British politician Neil Kinnock. Other allegations of past law school plagiarism and exaggerating his academic record soon followed. Biden withdrew from the race later that month

By August 1987, Biden's campaign, whose messaging was confused due to staff rivalries,[117] had begun to lag behind those of Michael Dukakis and Richard Gephardt,[114] although he had still raised more funds than all candidates but Dukakis, and was seeing an upturn in Iowa polls.[115][118] In September 1987, the campaign ran into trouble when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party.[119] Kinnock's speech included the lines:

"Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? [Then pointing to his wife in the audience] Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because all our predecessors were thick?"

While Biden's speech included the lines:

"I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? [Then pointing to his wife in the audience] Why is it that my wife who is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I'm the first Biden in a thousand generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest?"

Though Biden had cited Kinnock as the source for the formulation many times before, he made no reference to the original source at the August 23 Iowa State Fair debate in question or in another appearance

Outrageous! I'll never read her column again!

...oh, wait, I don't read it anyway.

It's no surprise to see that lefties have no original thoughts...
#1 | Posted by cookfish at 2009-05-18 12:28 AM | Reply | Flag: so said the Pot to the Kettle

#1 | Posted by cookfish at 2009-05-18 12:28 AM | Reply | Flag

All i have to say is Ditto Head and Male Prostitute for White House Correspondant.
Pot Kettle, Kettle Pot.

Now that we have that out of the way.

Should Dowd get the hammer?
Hell yeah!
I personally think she is a really shitty writer, and will not miss her.

Fired is exactly what she should be.

#18 | Posted by SamBarber at 2009-05-18 11:06 AM | Reply | Flag (X)Proves My Point

I've never understood why plagiarism is such a big deal when (a) the copying is minor, and (b) it could have been an accident. Obviously Dowd shouldn't have cut and pasted from someone else without quoting and/or crediting them, but aside from a slap on the wrist and a correction I don't think it's a major issue.

(b) it could have been an accident.

How does one accidentally steal somebody else's material, verbatim? I'd love to hear a plausible option.

The reason it's a big deal is because we aren't taking about the Fayettville Bee. It's "The Newspaper of Record", and she's a featured and prominent writer.

...big who cares here...this crap happens all the time when writing under deadlines. You take a paragraph from another work because of the good point it makes with good wording. You intend to re-word it later, forget it isn't yours, and don't attribute...And for all the yelling from idiots on here...its one damn small paragraph. Not exactly big intellectual dishonesty. It wasn't even an original thought!

I've never understood why plagiarism is such a big deal

It's dishonest. It's a violation of copyright. And it tends to be a habit.

I'm with you, RCade. Why bother plagiarizing a relatively benign paragraph of opinion? At best, it was accidental (though I doubt that). At worst, it's laziness, with no harm done, other than to Mo's credibility. What difference does it really make? It's not like Dowd was incapable of expressing the same sentiment herself - which she does, elsewhere in the article.

Plagiarizing facts is a different matter. Taking the meat of a news story from another writer's work - direct quotes, obscure names and places, observations, etc. - and presenting them as original work is a dismissible offense.

In this case, I'd just want to know, WTF, Mo?

Not exactly big intellectual dishonesty.

By your own words you've described my 2nd point in #14.

But what's the excuse for lying about how that paragraph got into the column.

If she had admitted to a cut-paste-forgot to revise it then she might have gotten a pass. But now she tells this story about her "friend" who is probably her alter ego, and it's that bullshit that amplifies her dishonesty.

I'd send her on a sabbatical and instruct her not to come back until she acquires a moral compass. Same advice for anyone who defends her.

How does one accidentally steal somebody else's material, verbatim? I'd love to hear a plausible option.

She saw the paragraph in Marshall's blog (or was sent it by a friend), cut and pasted it into an early draft of her column, and was sloppy in not marking it as something that needs to be rewritten.

When I was reporting, I would put stuff like that inside << and >> marks so I'd know to rewrite it (and to check the factuality).

I did that a few times at Blogcritics, but their editors caught them before publishing them. Does Dowd not have editors?

But now she tells this story about her "friend" who is probably her alter ego, and it's that bullshit that amplifies her dishonesty.

Maybe her friend sent it to her without attribution, and she cut and pasted it from her friend.

Even if she amplified the dishonesty, it's a paragraph. I don't think it should be a hanging offense.

Back in 1991, the paper I worked for fired Katie Sherrod, its best liberal columnist -- and one of the most popular writers -- over an accusation of plagiarism. I thought it was overkill.

She did it because she's lazy, dishonest, and she thought she'd get away with it. Hey, it didn't end the careers of Biden or the Kennedy clan, so why should she think it would end hers?

Jayson Blair, Alexei Barrionuevo, and now Dowd - that old gray lady is going down the crapper, finally, where she belongs.

The New York Times isn't going anywhere, Dinsey. What's with right wingers lately saying things they wish were true as if they actually were true? Did Obama's election send them into the stages of grief and they got stuck on denial?

#16 | Posted by truthhurts

You left out the part about Biden's dad playing football with him after a long day in the coal mines -- events from Kinnock's life that reportedly NEVER happened in Biden's.

While Maureen probably made an honest mistake, she should suffer whatever the typical punishment for such an offense. I do think there are certainly different levels of severity in plagiarism.

What's really amusing here is how Cookfish is absolutely wetting himself with excitement over "lefties" being caught, doing something wrong. What a drone.

A sculptor doesn't take credit for another sculptor's work, a painter wouldn't claim another's work as his own, but it's no big deal for a writer to steal another's words? How strange to see how lefties think, and the value judgments they assign.

I've never understood why plagiarism is such a big deal when (a) the copying is minor,

If I lift only small items from your backpack, I'm not a thief?

Serious writers understand why intellectual property is protected.

(b) it could have been an accident. -- #21 | Posted by rcade

Have you read the sentence in question? It's so tortured that it's a wonder her editor let it go through.

I guess in this Hope and Change era, theft and intellectual dishonesty are foundation stones?

This would have been a misdemeanor for a blogger, but it's a felony for Dowd.

The worst thing is this will be used to undercut a legacy of fine work.

I'm nonplussed. Every journalist knows that plagiarism of any degree will be viewed as a grave offense; it undercuts their integrity and opens them up to precisely the attacks she's receiving now. I never would have expected this from her.

If I lift only small items from your backpack, I'm not a thief?

It's silly to treat intellectual property like it was physical property. If I made an exact copy of an item in your backpack and left the original where it was, it wouldn't harm you in any way. Joshua Marshall was not harmed by the copying of a paragraph by Maureen Dowd.

There are ethical and professional reasons she shouldn't have done it, but if it truly was an accident because of sloppiness on her part, it's a minor offense.

I say this as a person who doesn't like Dowd. I think she's a thimble-deep thinker who substitutes venom for wit and wouldn't miss her in the least if she was fired over this.

I can pretty much guaruntee that those making excuses for Dowd on this thread - had the plagiarist been, say Bill Kristol - would be calling for his head.

had the plagiarist been, say Bill Kristol - would be calling for his head.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ

Well, yeah. He's a dick.

It's silly to treat intellectual property like it was physical property.

No, it isn't. At many universities, plagairism is grounds for expulsion.

If I made an exact copy of an item in your backpack and left the original where it was, it wouldn't harm you in any way.

Apples and oranges, and you know it.

Joshua Marshall was not harmed by the copying of a paragraph by Maureen Dowd.

Jesus.

You call yourself a journalist. Did you not get any kind of formal education in journalism?

I always attributed any particularly pithy material I borrowed. No one thought I was any less brilliant, and a few people got the crazy notion that I actually READ something. herm

At many universities, plagairism is grounds for expulsion.

When plagiarism is an intentional act, it should be grounds for expulsion at a school or termination from a job. But most of the time that a plagiarism accusation is made against a pro journalist, it could easily be an accidental act due to sloppy or careless work.

But if we're going to fire journalists over one incident of being sloppy or careless, who would be left to do the reporting?

You call yourself a journalist. Did you not get any kind of formal education in journalism?

I don't call myself a journalist. I say I'm a former journalist. I graduated with a bachelor of arts in journalism and worked at newspapers for 10 years. I take plagiarism seriously and have never been accused of it.

Explain exactly how Joshua Marshall suffered monetary harm because Maureen Dowd used his paragraph without attribution.

When plagiarism is an intentional act, it should be grounds for expulsion at a school or termination from a job.

How do we determine intent?

But if we're going to fire journalists over one incident of being sloppy or careless, who would be left to do the reporting?

Too bad. Most jobs involve some degree of accountability. Many people are censured, fined, demoted, fired, etc. for careless or sloppy work. I am not saying that she should necessarily be fired over this, but for Pete's sake, some standards and accounability should apply.

I don't call myself a journalist. I say I'm a former journalist. I graduated with a bachelor of arts in journalism and worked at newspapers for 10 years. I take plagiarism seriously and have never been accused of it.

Apparently not.

Explain exactly how Joshua Marshall suffered monetary harm because Maureen Dowd used his paragraph without attribution.

So, as long as stealing someone else's work doesn't result in 'monetary harm' to the victim, it's totally cool to steal their work?

The point is, if Ms. Dowd is being truthful, she had no intention of plagiarizing anyone. Which means she really did nothing worthy of condemnation. I realize that for rightwingers on this site who detest Dowd, this is a less than satisfying conclusion. But it probably is the truth.

How do we determine intent?

If a student turns in an entire paper that was written by somebody else, it's intentional plagiarism.

So, as long as stealing someone else's work doesn't result in 'monetary harm' to the victim, it's totally cool to steal their work?

Discussing this with you seems pointless since you're not reading what I wrote. I've said more than once it was wrong, but I consider what Dowd did a minor offense.

So, as long as stealing someone else's work doesn't result in 'monetary harm' to the victim, it's totally cool to steal their work?

If you can't identify monetary harm, then how exactly was Marshall harmed? You're dodging that question. I was responding to someone who compared plagiarism to stealing items from somebody's backpack.

I can pretty much guaruntee that those making excuses for Dowd on this thread - had the plagiarist been, say Bill Kristol - would be calling for his head.

Bullshit. I don't like Dowd at all. Do you remember all the dumb stuff she wrote during impeachment?

It's silly to treat intellectual property like it was physical property. --#38 | Posted by rcade

Only if you don't want any inventors, artists and writers. Without intellectual property laws, none of them could make a living.

Apart from that, Dowd of all people knows that plagiarism is an especially personal kind of theft.

If you can't identify monetary harm, then how exactly was Marshall harmed? -- #46 | Posted by rcade

Are you kidding? It probably helped him -- who ever heard of him before this?

That's not the point, though. (A) She plagiarized -- a serious violation of journalistic ethics, however small the infraction. (B) She lied about it to cover it up.

Integrity? Credibility? Sorry. I've been a fan for years, but the Times should fire her.

Do you remember all the dumb stuff she wrote during impeachment? -- #46 | Posted by rcade

Can you believe she won a Pulitzer for that?

Only if you don't want any inventors, artists and writers. Without intellectual property laws, none of them could make a living.

I didn't say there should be no intellectual property laws. I said it shouldn't be treated the same as physical property, which is what your backpack comparison was doing.

Intellectual property laws have become ridiculous, with corporations using them to muscle out smaller content creators all the time. Just look at what AP tried to do to the Drudge Retort. They claimed a user here copying under 72 words of text was stealing their work, when it was clearly fair use.

Are you kidding? It probably helped him -- who ever heard of him before this?

Joshua Marshall's probably the best known liberal blogger other than Markos Moulitsas. He does some TV and gets a lot of mainstream press coverage.

Incidentally, he's been silent on this matter. I think he's afraid of making enemies at The Times.

Joshua Marshall's probably the best known liberal blogger other than Markos Moulitsas.

Well, FWIW, if Dowd hadn't stolen from Marshall, I'd never have heard of either of them.

Intellectual property laws have become ridiculous, with corporations using them to muscle out smaller content creators all the time.

Yes, but in this case, a prominent, well-paid NYT writer is stealing from a blogger.

Just look at what AP tried to do to the Drudge Retort. They claimed a user here copying under 72 words of text was stealing their work, when it was clearly fair use. -- #50 | Posted by rcade

Right. And they didn't get away with it, did they?

Right. And they didn't get away with it, did they?

I like to think that we gave them an ass-kicking, but if they had taken the matter to court who knows? I have a childhood friend who grew up to be a lawyer. They have a massive legal arsenal of IP attorneys who eat childhood lawyer friends for breakfast.

Well, FWIW, if Dowd hadn't stolen from Marshall, I'd never have heard of either of them.

If you can't identify monetary harm, then how exactly was Marshall harmed?

I would think that a citation in the nation's most influential newspaper by a very popular writer might just increase traffic on Marshall's blog. Increased traffic would result in his ability to generate more advertising revenue.

The point is, if Ms. Dowd is being truthful, she had no intention of plagiarizing anyone.

So, Moder8 is clairavoyant?

Which means she really did nothing worthy of condemnation.
#45 | Posted by moder8

Uh huh. You are excusing this because she's a liberal.

They have a massive legal arsenal of IP attorneys who eat childhood lawyer friends for breakfast. -- #53 | Posted by rcade

Yeah, I know how that goes. Which is why I have to take David's side on this one. Especially when Goliath is supposed to be one of the most respectable newspapers in the world.

How do we determine intent?

#44 | Posted by JeffJ

This was probably a capital crime!

We should have a congressional investigation immediately!

I would think that a citation in the nation's most influential newspaper by a very popular writer might just increase traffic on Marshall's blog. Increased traffic would result in his ability to generate more advertising revenue.

True, but if she rewrote the thought in her own words, he would have earned bupkiss.

Uh huh. You are excusing this because she's a liberal.

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2009-05-18 01:59 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

Speaking of clairavoyant

Larry

if she rewrote the thought in her own words

I believe that was her intent. She wasn't going to 'cite' a blogger, but she obviously thought he raised a good point. I think she intended to rewrite his thought, got hasty, and forgot.

Shit happens and I am not calling for her head over this. Nevertheless, to me, it seems that in this field she just committed a cardinal sin.

You should read him at Talking Points Memo. -- #54 | Posted by rcade

Just scanned the site. Good advice; thanks!

Speaking of clairavoyant

Fair enough.

Having said that, Moder8 is on record, on several occasions, of basically saying that 90% of liberals are good and pure and 90% of conservatives are vile pieces of shit.

Nevertheless, I cede your point - I called him clairavoyant and then, almost immediately was able to magically divine HIS intent.

Dowd, like Nixon, just had the misfortune of being caught doing what they all do. How often do we see things in the blogs that somehow, magically, become mainstream news without any credit to the blogs? They (the MSM) hate us, we are checking their work, and they will never, NEVER credit us for an idea if they can help it.

Dowd, like Nixon, just had the misfortune of being caught doing what they all do.

Don't know about that, but there are undoubtedly people looking for past acts of plagiarism in Dowd's columns. If they find some, she'll be in real trouble professionally.

RCade,
I doubt they plagiarize the words. I think you are right that she intended to revisit that part and rewrite it in her own words, but I do believe they monitor the blogs and take what they want without giving proper credit to the source.

I am sure maureen and joe biden have a lot to talk about.

#9 | Posted by chickenrancher at 2009

as well as the darling of the left...presidential so called schor...doris kerns goodwin..

but I just dont understand this...ARE YOU telling me that a WRITE FOR THE TIMEs STOLE someone elses words??

NNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
OO

I still would only kick her out of bed only because there is more room on the floor........but thats just me......

How do we determine intent?

If a student turns in an entire paper that was written by somebody else, it's intentional plagiarism.

If a student turned in a paper that consisted of half plagiarized material, it would still be plagiarism in my book. All the student has to do, however, is give the source; problem solved. If a student handed in Dowd's article and gave the flimsy excuse she did, I'd give them an F on the paper but not in the course. In that regard, I do think the offense is minor. It's not like Marshall's idea was so original, Dowd and and tons of other people hadn't reached the same conclusion. Unless she is found to have done this type of thing repeatedly, my guess is Maureen just forgot to rewrite that part of her article. It's a careless mistake, not a hanging offense.

Don't know about that, but there are undoubtedly people looking for past acts of plagiarism in Dowd's columns. If they find some, she'll be in real trouble professionally.

#64 | Posted by rcade at 2009-05-18 02:28

so would they take her putlizer away from her?

the article on foxnation says all sorts of explanations from her but I can understand it a little
right now there is a musical theme RUMBLING ARound my mind that I am not sure if its one I came up with or one that I heard in one of the many film scores that I listen to or have heard at some point in the past...and I would hate to spend days and weeks working with it to find out its someone elses.

OF course my out would be just to call it a variation on that piece or something like that
so I do have some compassion for her.......just not much.

Should Dowd get the hammer?

#19 | Posted by Valisk

Who gives a shit? I don't read what she says. Seems to me that is between her and her publisher.

It's dishonest. It's a violation of copyright. And it tends to be a habit.

#24 | Posted by OzarkAggie at 2009-05-18 11:31 AM

Are bloggers considered journalists now? Are blogs really protected by copyright laws? It may be potentially dishonest but I don't think it is against any law. If they do find more past acts of "plagiarism" then it is habitual and she should be fired.

Much ado about nothing. I bet most bloggers here would give their left nut (or tit) be plagiarized for the publicity. I imagine this blogger was helped more than hurt by this.

Much ado about nothing. I bet most bloggers here would give their left nut (or tit) be plagiarized for the publicity. I imagine this blogger was helped more than hurt by this.

Posted by donnerboy at 2009-05-18 03:55 PM | Reply

You damned straight up I would. I would think it be a vhigh honour to be plagiarized by a big named dude or dudette. Shitballs that would be like totally awesome Ya know.

larry

"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly during the period when we were looking for what was essentially political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."

The words "the Bush crowd was' appears where 'we were' is here."

sorry, this is not original thought (academically speaking), Mr. Marshal has no right to it.

this same "line" is out there abundantly. Dowd apologized because she had to -- a social and business decision -- i imagine, not literary one.

this is not original thought -- #72 | Posted by ichiro

It's original language. Far from Shakespearean, certainly, but plagiarism is plagiarism.

If a student turned in a paper that consisted of half plagiarized material, it would still be plagiarism in my book. All the student has to do, however, is give the source; problem solved.

?? The student still tried to pass off someone else's writing as his or her own. Not kosher, and not fair either to the original writer or to the students who did the work.

..my guess is Maureen just forgot to rewrite that part of her article. It's a careless mistake, not a hanging offense. -- #67 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

That would have been my guess, too, and I would have agreed with you. But then she came up with this implausible "a friend told me this, and I didn't know he took it from someone else."

That sentence is too tortured -- it was obviously copied verbatim. Unless that friend "talked to her" via e-mail she can produce, her cover-up raises serious questions about her integrity and credibility.

I have never read a word from the woman prior - so you cannot accuse me of not liking her.

I think she should be reprimanded.

Aren't writers supposed to fired/discontinued for this nonsense? It's no surprise to see that lefties have no original thoughts, but if you're this blatant about ripping off some one else's work, it's time to go.

#1 | Posted by cookfish at 2009-05-18 12:28 AM | Reply | Flag:

????

So, to a political scholar such as yourself, appropriating a 'PARAGRAPH' and not attributing the source means "lefties have no original thoughts"???

Ummm...OK. Thanks for playing.

So, to a political scholar such as yourself, appropriating a 'PARAGRAPH' and not attributing the source means "lefties have no original thoughts"???

I'm still waiting for you to show ONE, and I've been here since 2006. Thanks for continually living up to low expectations, slappy.

On this side of the Atlantic, many Presidential campaign strategists of both parties greatly admired the way it portrayed Mr. Kinnock, who subsequently lost to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, as a man of character. Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, a Democratic hopeful, was particularly taken with it.

So taken, in fact, that he lifted Mr. Kinnock's closing speech with phrases, gestures and lyrical Welsh syntax intact for his own closing speech at a debate at the Iowa State Fair on Aug. 23 - without crediting Mr. Kinnock.

But Mr. Biden's borrowing raises questions about how much a candidate can adapt someone else's language and thoughts, whether he remembers to give credit or not.

--Maureen Dowd

C'mon, if Obama can let ex-terrorist Ayer ghostwrite portion of his book, surely Maureen Dowd can receive some forgiveness for plagiarising.

I don't care.
I loved her before,I love her now,I will always love her.

C'mon, if Obama can let ex-terrorist Ayer ghostwrite portion of his book...

#79 | Posted by takitez at 2009-05-18 11:39 PM | Reply | Flag:

Show us the Michelle Obama "Whitey" tape and the proof of that at the same time and impress us all, gullible wingnut.

So, to a political scholar such as yourself, appropriating a 'PARAGRAPH' and not attributing the source means "lefties have no original thoughts"???

I'm still waiting for you to show ONE, and I've been here since 2006. Thanks for continually living up to low expectations, slappy.

#77 | Posted by cookfish at 2009-05-18 10:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Well 'Sloppy' (not a typo)

Can you point to any original ideas from your party?
You know, the one warming the bench.

BTW, I don't think Green Energy is a result of right-wing brain-strain.

as well as the darling of the left...

I seem to remember her kicking the shit out of Clinton

I still would only kick her out of bed only because there is more room on the floor........but thats just me......

#66 | Posted by afkabl2

Well,Afkabl2,I finally agree with you

?? The student still tried to pass off someone else's writing as his or her own. Not kosher, and not fair either to the original writer or to the students who did the work.

If the student had cited the source of the comment, then s/he would not have been trying to take credit for someone else's ideas. Without a citation, I said I would flunk the student on the paper but not the course, because I don't think one paragraph in one paper that is plagiarized warrants an F in the whole course. If the entire paper was plagiarized or if the student had plagiarized parts of papers before, then I would flunk them in the course.

That would have been my guess, too, and I would have agreed with you. But then she came up with this implausible "a friend told me this, and I didn't know he took it from someone else."

That sentence is too tortured -- it was obviously copied verbatim. Unless that friend "talked to her" via e-mail she can produce, her cover-up raises serious questions about her integrity and credibility.

I agree that the coverup was worse than the original mistake. I guess she was embarrassed by the slip up, but she made it worse by her explanation of what had happened.

I agree that the coverup was worse than the original mistake. I guess she was embarrassed by the slip up, but she made it worse by her explanation of what had happened.

#84 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday

Exactly. The truth - an honest mistake - is much more palatable than the bullshit excuse.

I've never understood why plagiarism is such a big deal...

Spud agrees.

A similar paragraph or a mis-attribution do not a big deal make.

Apparently Josh, the wronged writer here, feels much the same.

I generally think we're too quick to pull the trigger with charges of plagiarism. I haven't said anything about this because I really didn't think I had anything to add. Whatever the mechanics of how it happened, I never thought it was intentional. Dowd and the Times quickly corrected it, which I appreciated. And for me, that's pretty much the end of it.

--Josh Micah Marshall

Memes is fer sharing.

Ultimately, all intellectual property is theft at one level or another.

Truly original thought is a rara avis.

Be Well.