re: CNN: Gay Didn't Steal Ideas, Was Simply 'Copying Other People's Writings'

quote:

---

I understand what they're trying to say, but they communicate the idea like a moldy pair of clown shoes

---

What are they trying to say?

She copied someone's else's work. Around 50 times at least

But please defend her.

I tried convincing my chemistry teacher of this once. He didn’t buy it either.

quote:

---

I understand what they're trying to say

---

That she plagiarized without actually using the word plagiarize? Because that makes it sound less bad?

Anything other than "She plagiarized" is simply a lie.

quote:

---

Then she needs a job with Xerox, not Harvard.

---

quote:

---

I learned in Advanced Comp, senior year of high school: sloppy attribution is plagiarism.

---

There’s your problem. Gay didn’t go to an elite high school which offered advanced comp. She just took comp.

We must remedy this tragedy by offering her and others reparations for this injustice.

She would have known what constitutes plagiarism.

quote:

---

'I didn't commit forgery. I just copies someone else's signature.'

---

Progressives win by reframing their argument, because they cant win on fact.

cyguhlijkl

quote:

---

Where did I defend her?

---

You didn't defend her.

However, I also found your initial post odd:

quote:

---

I understand what they're trying to say, but they communicate the idea like a moldy pair of clown shoes

---

Upon first reading it, you seem to suggest that there may have been an idea that CNN could have "communicated" better (than a moldy pair of clown shoes). I only see two things this might refer to:

1) CNN could have better defended Gay's work as not being plagiarism... since they were equivocating on her behalf that she did not steal ideas.

2) CNN could have better painted how unfair it was that Gay was forced to resign... since the end of the CNN quote in the OP is:

quote:

---

So it's been more sloppy attribution than stealing anyone’s ideas, but nonetheless, you put all that together and you throw on top the political pressure and also the pressure from donors.

---

This reads as: poor Gay did not steal ideas, but was just sloppy, and thus became a victim of political/donor pressure. And, however subtle, this is an unambiguous defense of Gay that de-emphasizes her own unethical activity and makes her the poor victim of an unfair system (insert patriarchy, white, etc.).

Considering that there were no other concepts/ideas in the OP that could have explained better, it isn't completely unreasonable to think you were defending one or the other.

Regarding #1 (her sloppiness), this is where I was initially going to try to pin you before you clarified on pg 2. Per the first definition of plagiarism I found:

quote:

---

plagiarism: the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

---

So, even if she didn't steal ideas, she did steal work/words-- according to Carol Swain and others. So, I don't see how CNN (or you) could have explained Gay's actions out of that one any better than they did either.

Regarding your clarification on pg 2:

quote:

---

What they are apparently trying to do is separate the arguments/ideas she allegedly created from the research/citations that create the backbone of the defense of the arguments/ideas.

This standard isn't applied to any students across the US, obviously.

---

Because you noted that students don't get away with what Gay was getting away with, I wasn't going to bother pressing you on what you might've been defending. But your "wut? ... "Where did I defend her?" on page 3, as if you didn't do anything at all, is a bit silly.

The sad part about this. The bulk of public accepts the opinion from a group of people with the most useless, worthless degrees in a University system.