Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Selectric II who wrote (238433)	3/15/2002 5:41:39 PM
From: joseph krinsky	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

LOL! Litle Ritchie! Good Golly Miss Molly!It's funny one of the other posters mentioned plagerism. To me plagerism is such a silly notion to get upset about. All it is is someone taking another's writings and not giving them the proper credit. However almost everyone does it to an extent, there's just not that many original ideas out there. People have been writing things for 1000's of years, and by now, everything is basically just a rehash of what someone else said. People take someone's idea and rewrite it in their own words, but that's really plagerism too, but people just don't want to see it as such. Ideas are correct...or they are incorrect, that's where the issue should be, not that you took it from somewhere else. (Wah Wah, you took my sentences, sniffle sniffle sniffle. In reality........ They should be flattered that someone respected what they wrote enough to steal the idea. LOL LOL.) The book about guns was a total fraud, a fabrication of facts for the express purpose of furthering an agenda. Had the book been written about the inferiority of the black man, or why women don't do as well as men in math, and there were the same glaring discrepancies, inaccurate basis, fabrications of facts, the academic world would have been in nuclear meltdown. The author would have been tarred and feathered, and run out of town on a rail. Since it was about guns and why guns should be outlawed, and it came from the academia that wants this goal of no gun ownership, there is no outcry from them at the level that there should be. To them, it's just a minor incident, they can't do anything else, that would mean they have to reevaluate their positions on the issue, and that's not going to happen. They are intellectually dishonest, morally bankrupt. (btw I plagerized that sentence, I just don't know from who. LOL LOL )