Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Topic Proposal Issues
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 320 of 517 (588954)
10-29-2010 10:25 AM


Rule 7 (not to be confused with Rule 34)
7. Never include material not your own without attribution to the original source.
I wonder if this rule could do with some clarification or revision. While the intent to remove plagiarism is clear it seems to have caused some confusion such as with Asyncritus posting material which he claims is his own.
What I feel isn't clear is what should someone do when posting material which is their own but which isn't original when they post it to EvC.
At the moment the only standard for accusing someone of plagiarism seems to be that the same words could be found somewhere on the internet with a google search not associated with the same user name.
In some cases, such as Faith4flipper's recent post, this is clearly sufficient because we can trace his post to the abstract of an article by Eugenie Scott and Glenn Branch. Clearly there is very little chance that Scott and Branch lifted text from a pseudonymous internet poster wholesale for their abstract, especially when the 2009 paper predates Faith4flipper's postings by a considerable time.
In Asyncritus case though I don't see any reason to assume plagiarism. And if it is his own material then why should he have expected rule 7 to apply?
I don't know offhand what would be a succinct and unambiguous replacement, 'non-original material' perhaps?
TTFN,
WK

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by Admin, posted 10-29-2010 11:28 AM Wounded King has seen this message but not replied
 Message 322 by Theodoric, posted 10-29-2010 12:03 PM Wounded King has seen this message but not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 366 of 517 (605516)
02-20-2011 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 363 by Dr Adequate
02-20-2011 10:11 AM


Please promote Bolder-dash's latest topic proposal.
Please don't, it seems pretty clear from about 3 posts that BD has his mind made up about what evolution says and evolutionists believe and we all know from bitter experience that no amount of discussion and evidence will change his mind. So while he says he isn't claiming that all evolutionists are liars he seems to be suggesting that any who do as Dawkins does, saying evolution isn't just about random accidents, are.
So basically anyone who has a grasp of actual evolutionary theory, rather than BD's own strawman brand of evolution, is a liar.
This isn't a topic for discussion, its just an invitation for BD and Dr. A to sling more shit at each other until BD takes the huff and complains about the lack of civility on one of the moderation threads. That has happened before on well formed discursive topic threads, I hate to think how much quicker it will happen on this one.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 363 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2011 10:11 AM Dr Adequate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Bolder-dash, posted 02-20-2011 5:33 PM Wounded King has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 373 of 517 (605608)
02-21-2011 5:15 AM


Mea Culpa
Sorry, my bad! My comment seems to have had the effect of precipitating the shit slinging into this thread instead. Clearly this thread isn't the place for these discussions.
TTFN,
WK

Replies to this message:
 Message 374 by Admin, posted 02-21-2011 8:11 AM Wounded King has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 376 of 517 (605821)
02-22-2011 11:09 AM
Reply to: Message 374 by Admin
02-21-2011 8:11 AM


Re: Mea Culpa
I was just reading through some old threads and came across the 'New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet"' thread. In that thread you acknowledged a weak OP but said you hoped it would "provide a thread to discuss Bolder-dash's beliefs about the lack of evidence for evolution that had been intruding into other threads".
It seems to me that this equally bad OP is exactly the sort of thing that could profitably be directed to that thread.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 374 by Admin, posted 02-21-2011 8:11 AM Admin has seen this message but not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 377 of 517 (609543)
03-21-2011 11:29 AM


How many threads does Europa need on Mitochondrial Eve?
Hi Adminy folk,
Just to put in my $0.02, Europa only started his previous 'Mitochondrial Eve' thread, paradoxically called All Human Beings Are Descendants of Adam, at the end of February. Has it really degenerated to such an extent that he needs a whole new thread, misspellingly called Becomming Human, to ask basically the same questions all over again?
The previous thread was only 77 posts long and it seems to have largely been on topic.
TTFN,
WK

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 419 of 517 (639811)
11-04-2011 5:16 AM


Possessor's eye evolution topic
Why not simply direct Possessor to post in the already existing 'Can sense organs like the eye really evolve?' thread? Surely we don't need 2 parallel threads on eye evolution?
TTFN,
WK
*ABE* Kind of a waste of my 4000th post, I forgot to save it up for something special
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 420 by crashfrog, posted 11-04-2011 11:05 AM Wounded King has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024