Wow, that's a pretty strong argument considering that no other story ever has featured people all over the world dropping dead for no apparent reason.

Sorry, I'm not trolling but I don't think it's plagiarism. I think it's a pretty common motif.

"The two politicians are friends - Patrick has accompanied Obama on the campaign trail before and, according to news sources, Patrick has since gone on the record via statement, defending Obama.

“Sen. Obama and I are longtime friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Sen. Clinton, I applaud him [for] responding in just the way he did."

The story then goes on to point out several instances where Hillary Clinton did the exact thing to Obama, taking words from his speeches and using them in her own.

From Faux News no less:
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/18/he-said-he-said-did-obama-plagiarize-mass-gov-deval-patrick/

"The two politicians are friends - Patrick has accompanied Obama on the campaign trail before and, according to news sources, Patrick has since gone on the record via statement, defending Obama.

“Sen. Obama and I are longtime friends and allies. We often share ideas about politics, policy and language. The argument in question, on the value of words in the public square, is one about which he and I have spoken frequently before. Given the recent attacks from Sen. Clinton, I applaud him [for] responding in just the way he did."

The story then goes on to point out several instances where Hillary Clinton did the exact thing to Obama, taking words from his speeches and using them in her own.

From Faux News no less: http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/02/18/he-said-he-said-did-obama-plagiarize-mass-gov-deval-patrick/

>> ^bamdrew:
Daft Punk are sample Gods.

Daft Punk are plagiarizing unoriginal bastards.

Hey - it's not plagiarism if I cite my sources!

Plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery.

"cruise plagiarized goebbels"

reference please.
fuk cruise and all the sick twisted psychotics who'd inflict this insanity on people

cruise plagiarized goebbels

Plagiarism: Presenting the words or ideas of someone else as your own without proper acknowledgement of the source.

It would be plagiarism if qruel was claiming this article as his work. It's obvious that he's not. It might be a copyright violation, but certainly not plagiarism. It's a pretty serious accusation- and I don't think warranted in this case.

It's obvious he's not claiming it now, after I responded and he began posting follow-up comments. If I had not called him out on that, it would not be obvious at all. That in and of itself is pretty clear to me as plagiarism. His presentation of the article without attribution would be plagiarism in an academic setting, and I don't see any reason to treat it differently in this environment.

In either case, plagiarism or not, I don't want to be sidetracked. My main issue with Qruel's rampant copy-pasting still stands. While all other members of the site I have ever had conversations with have put in their own effort and insight to conversations, Qruel floods sifts with whatever he can google up without ever taking the time to read and respond coherently and intelligently to comments. When I take him up for points, he continues to return to his position of "Scientists wrote it, therefore it's science, therefore you're being unscientific if you don't agree and therefore it belongs in the Science channel. And if you disagree, prove all the scientists wrong or you're a bad scientist." No, no, and no. I am not here to prove anything. If I were to go about arguing against conclusions of such studies all day, I'd sure as hell make sure I'd be getting paid for it, and even then the burden of proof lies not on my shoulders, and not on the shoulders of the scientists performing the studies for that matter.

Qruel is the one taking studies and using them to his own ends. It is for this that he is responsible for forming and defending his own arguments. This is a hard and fast principle of ethics and procedure in science, and it is something I have repeatedly tried to explain to Qruel, but he only responds by copying more articles into a thread and trying to get me to go fight an unknown scientist over the internet or some such. I simply will not allow Qruel to bait me into an attack on another scientist as Qruel continues to cling to his viewpoint that "two scientists enter, one scientist leaves" while at the same time knowing that certainly neither of those two scientists are going to be him. I see no reason to change my moderation policy.

I understand about this becoming a personal issue, Dag. As I said, I will be civil as well as I'm able. I have attempted to be so repeatedly and throughout my time on Videosift, even on topics that are even more widely ridiculed and outright laughed at in the scientific community, topics that have no scientific backing of any kind (cell phone towers causing cancer, remote viewing, homeopathy, even perpetual motion machines). Let it be known, to date, I have been called closed-minded, arrogant, a prick, unreasonable, a bad scientist, and many other things in sifts, in profile messages, and in emails, and I have defended myself as I saw fit. I have never been the first to start off the arguments. But I'm putting my foot down now.

I have had enough of Qruel contributing nothing of worth to the Science channel and complaining about how I run the channel and spewing googled articles all over the place, while at the same time laying accusations about my abilities as an academic, as a scientist and as a person. I have laid my challenge to Qruel, and he has a chance to contribute something useful to the Science channel in a scientific manner for once. If not, well, I will no longer waste time on him and his sifts, and I will not feel the need to defend my position on such any further than pointing to this thread.

Qruel, you have 1 day and 15 hours.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Plagiarism: Presenting the words or ideas of someone else as your own without proper acknowledgement of the source.

It would be plagiarism if qruel was claiming this article as his work. It's obvious that he's not. It might be a copyright violation, but certainly not plagiarism. It's a pretty serious accusation- and I don't think warranted in this case. Unless there's something else you're referring to.

I won't mete myself into the debate on what should or shouldn't be in a channel. channel managers have the authority to decide that (as long as the posts don't violate site-wide rules). However, I call for civility on this issue, as it's contentious and personal for many people.

Irrespective of the flouride debate- it's kind of condescending to be giving "assignments" to people with an opposing view.

I'm not giving the assignment to Qruel because I oppose his viewpoint on water fluoridation. I'm challenging Qruel to step up, because up until now having a "debate" with him has only resulted in him dropping a deluge of copy-pasted articles, and everything else getting lost in the fold. In the sifts that I have viewed, he has brought down the level of conversation and increased the noise-to-signal ratio significantly. I am challenging Qruel because I want him, for once, to break that habit and rise above. And I know for a fact that I am not alone in that desire.

Also, if these are selected extracts from SciAm to prove a point, I don't think it's plagiarism. It's not like he pasted the whole article.

It is plagiarism. I wasn't accusing him of plagiarising Scientific American, I was accusing him of plagiarising the article summary from this page. If you view the page, you will see that Qruel did just copy and paste everything over. It is, in fact, like he pasted the whole article.

In the years of my education, and in the lines of work I have been in, plagiarism is one of the most serious intellectual crimes that can ever be perpetrated. Plagiarists in top universities have been EXPELLED and in research have had their careers ENDED on their first offense for doing in essence what Qruel just did. I say this so that you will understand that I am not leveling this accusation lightly, nor am I doing it condescendingly. I am very, very much in earnest.

I had expected Qruel to post about the SciAm article, since it has been pretty actively discussed in the public health community since it was published, insofar as any non-peer-reviewed-publication article is, so I began writing a response when I saw he posted about it. I was surprised and angered when I googled a sentence from Qruel's post in order to look for a source for one of his statements, only to discover that he had not actually written those statements, and that I was basically taking a debate up against another person entirely, and that Qruel had yet again not put any thought into a post that I was about to spend much effort arguing against in order to discuss the intricate details hidden in the SciAm article and the studies that lie behind it.

Since you brought it to my attention, I will attempt to not be condescending, as you put it, and I will try to keep a civil tongue as long as I can, but I am not going to sit idly by and let this fly. My challenge, unless you so happen to decide it is against the rules of this site (and I do not believe it is), still stands.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Irrespective of the flouride debate- it's kind of condescending to be giving "assignments" to people with an opposing view.

Also, if these are selected extracts from SciAm to prove a point, I don't think it's plagiarism. It's not like he pasted the whole article.

You are incorrect in assuming that I thought the author listed was the author of the summary. fluoridealert wrote the summary, the authors name at top is that of the sciam author. Perhaps you misunderstood as I was refering to your overexaggeration that I was plagurizing.

I already said that the author's name at the top is the SciAm author, so either you didn't know that, or you don't know what plagiarism is. You were plagiarizing the work of the author of the summary. And stop trying to change the subject into more attacks on me.

From my first comment in this thread, I have said, this is not about fluoride, this is about you and your continued refusal to create your own analysis and commentary rather than taking other peoples'.

1 day, 15 hours.

You over exaggerate by claiming that this post (summary) bordered on plagiarism as at the top of the post lists the author of the article.

In fact, if I hadn't already issued the challenge, I would be tempted to end our discussion right here. You clearly have not even read the article whose summary you have copied and pasted, because you don't even know that the name listed above is the author of the original Scientific American article, not the author of the article summary of the SciAm piece. I'm astounded. For shame.

But alas, I'm being distracted already again. 1 day and 16 hours.

this would have posted early had the page not kept getting hung up in IE.

While rembar would love a pissing match to prove you superior scientific mind, your ego will have to find justification elsewhere. Once again you've shown yourself to be prideful, arrogant and have distorted the issue at hand.

The issue at hand is whether or not posts on the detrimental effects of fluoride should be posted in the science channel.

The only thing I have to "prove" to you is that there have been scientific studies on fluoride (some of them finding detrimental effects) done by scientists. That alone is all I have to prove to be in the science channel, according to the description of your channel.

1. You have equated fluoride research (contrary to your views) with that of creationism and intelligent design. News flash for you, those views are from people with a predefined agenda coming from their religious texts. You even equate it to global warming

2. You have removed another fluoride post from the science channel but never disputed Dr. Phyllis Mullinex's scientific methods for studying the neuotoxicidy of flouride done at the Forsythe Dental Center regarding it's effects on lab animals resembling ADD and hypertension disorders.

3. If you feel the need to "debunk" something feel free to start with the National Research Council. (2006). Neurotoxicity and Neurobehavioral Effects. In: Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards. National Academies Press, Washington D.C.

Thank you for pointing out that I left off the attribution link to the summary that I provided. You over exaggerate by claiming that this post (summary) bordered on plagiarism as at the top of the post lists the author of the article.
I linked to this summary as the whole sciam article is not online, unless one would like to purchase it. http://www.fluoridealert.org/sc.am.jan.2008.html