Nobody ducked anybody. They ran pretty much where they had to. I just think looking at it objectively that people would give Griffith the credit where it’s due.
I think where he comes from is exactly why people are loathe to call him the best.
-
00
-
Gay's accusers keep lining up...
26 -
Kobbs Hessler wrote:
Gay's accusers keep lining up...
Where were all these accusers before Bill Ackman went after her?
23 -
When you write a dissertation, which you have never done, you typically undertake years of research and compile hundreds of pages of notes. Let's say, for instance, that you are taking notes on one book. You open the section of notes with the book title. Then you write pages and pages of notes, often taking quotations. As you do so, sometimes you may not type in the quotation marks because your notes are already prefaced with the source. Then what happens is that in transferring the notes to the dissertation, sometimes you fail to reinsert the quotation marks for every quotation in a work that is usually hundreds of pages long and in which it is required that you refer to ALL of the relevant literature to show that you are familiar with it and to show how you position your stance in relationship to it. So, without any intention, these mistakes come up again and again. There will be reference to the authors anyway and most of their quotes will be direct. It is also demanded that you in most cases paraphrase them. The extent of the paraphrase depends on how technical their terminology is. Technical terminology cannot be rephrased. So, this is what is going on within her questioned works. In some places she merely used the technical terminology to avoid mischaracterizing their works. In other places, she simply failed to cite the source at that time or left off the quotation marks, not to make it seem like it was hers--since she was typically citing the authors in that very paragraph--but as a mistake in transferring notes to dissertation. It happens to everyone. You make mistakes dealing with hundreds of sources and quotations over years, and sometimes it is not even you who altered it. Sometimes, you have professors writing comments and even changing some of your text right in the doc the student sent, and so mistakes arise. One example, again innocuous, is removing the quotation marks because a quotation is long enough to be set aside, and set aside quotes do not have quotation marks, only a source reference. Then you may be asked to shorten your dissertation or article because it is too long and you cut out parts of a quotation and put it back into the main text--but fail to reinsert the quotation marks. There is a huge difference between people who are stealing ideas and words and the rare mistake, which she has committed. Her work in almost every single case has the proper attributions to authors and so she is not at all stealing ideas and passing them off as her own.
21 -
xzcvxzcva wrote:
When you write a dissertation, which you have never done, you typically undertake years of research and compile hundreds of pages of notes. Let's say, for instance, that you are taking notes on one book. You open the section of notes with the book title. Then you write pages and pages of notes, often taking quotations. As you do so, sometimes you may not type in the quotation marks because your notes are already prefaced with the source. Then what happens is that in transferring the notes to the dissertation, sometimes you fail to reinsert the quotation marks for every quotation in a work that is usually hundreds of pages long and in which it is required that you refer to ALL of the relevant literature to show that you are familiar with it and to show how you position your stance in relationship to it. So, without any intention, these mistakes come up again and again. There will be reference to the authors anyway and most of their quotes will be direct. It is also demanded that you in most cases paraphrase them. The extent of the paraphrase depends on how technical their terminology is. Technical terminology cannot be rephrased. So, this is what is going on within her questioned works. In some places she merely used the technical terminology to avoid mischaracterizing their works. In other places, she simply failed to cite the source at that time or left off the quotation marks, not to make it seem like it was hers--since she was typically citing the authors in that very paragraph--but as a mistake in transferring notes to dissertation. It happens to everyone. You make mistakes dealing with hundreds of sources and quotations over years, and sometimes it is not even you who altered it. Sometimes, you have professors writing comments and even changing some of your text right in the doc the student sent, and so mistakes arise. One example, again innocuous, is removing the quotation marks because a quotation is long enough to be set aside, and set aside quotes do not have quotation marks, only a source reference. Then you may be asked to shorten your dissertation or article because it is too long and you cut out parts of a quotation and put it back into the main text--but fail to reinsert the quotation marks. There is a huge difference between people who are stealing ideas and words and the rare mistake, which she has committed. Her work in almost every single case has the proper attributions to authors and so she is not at all stealing ideas and passing them off as her own.
Why would you ever write so much with no indentations or anything to make it easier to read?
22 -
Newname wrote:
Kobbs Hessler wrote:
Gay's accusers keep lining up...
Where were all these accusers before Bill Ackman went after her?
See comment #310. The plagiarism accusations against Gay were there, but Harvard went out of their way to cover them up. They blew out into the open once she became a household name following her disastrous Congressional testimony.
44 -
Kobbs Hessler wrote:
Newname wrote:
Where were all these accusers before Bill Ackman went after her?
See comment #310. The plagiarism accusations against Gay were there, but Harvard went out of their way to cover them up. They blew out into the open once she became a household name following her disastrous Congressional testimony.
They covered them up before but could not now?
Come on.
A NY Post article date 12/12/23!
This post was edited 1 minute after it was posted.33 -
Kobbs Hessler wrote:
Carol Swain speaking common sense
The racist idiots love to parade the sellout black in an attempt to prove...look I'm not prejudiced, biased and discriminatory...another black person agrees with me. Newsflash....99.9% of African-Americans do not agree with Professor Swain.
65 -
Newname wrote:
Kobbs Hessler wrote:
See comment #310. The plagiarism accusations against Gay were there, but Harvard went out of their way to cover them up. They blew out into the open once she became a household name following her disastrous Congressional testimony.
They covered them up before but could not now?
Come on.
Yeah. Because there is so much more sunlight on her now.
36 -
Kobbs Hessler wrote:
Newname wrote:
They covered them up before but could not now?
Come on.
Yeah. Because there is so much more sunlight on her now.
Sunlight or swamp water?
23 -
fasciz wrote:
I haven’t seen anything other than citations not compliant with style guides?
- - - - -
Kobbs Hessler wrote:
See comment #267
A tweet saying that she quoted without proper attribution? That’s reinforcing my point.
A tweet that fails to fully identify a source (WTF is Rufo?), and provides zero attributions to any of the claims. That single sentence should have at least 24 citations. Four for the four cases, and twenty for the individual claims of "fake plagiarism."
What the right-wing, racist trolls are doing is running an ancient thesis through modern software that finds writing that should have an attribution/citation or needs to be rewritten because is somewhat similar to what someone wrote before. There is no thesis, even current ones, that get a clean review. What they get is a low percentage of similarity that is deemed acceptable for publication.
The right-wing HS GED clowns in a self-made rage have no clue what a thesis is. A thesis is usually something that enhances and builds on prior work.
Step 3: Make future recommendations
You may already have made a few recommendations for future research in your discussion section... Future studies might confirm, build on, or enrich your conclusions.
63 -
Kobbs Hessler wrote:
Newname wrote:
They covered them up before but could not now?
Come on.
Yeah. Because there is so much more sunlight on her now.
Sunlight is dangerous to snowflakes like you.
51 -
Kobbs Hessler wrote:
Gay's accusers keep lining up...
Your reference is in error. The person is not from University of Miami. She is at the Miami University, formerly known as University of Miami in Ohio. There is a difference. Do you know what it is? Other than being over 100 years older than the University of Miami.
51 -
fasciz wrote:
In the Middle wrote:
She plagiarized several papers. No matter which side of the political aisle you are on, that is indisputable.
I haven’t seen anything other than citations not compliant with style guides?
President Diversity, without any quotes or even a citation of the source anywhere in the paper: "the average turnout seems to increase linearly as African Americans become a larger proportion of the population. This is one sign that the data contain little aggregation bias. If racial turnout rates changed depending upon a precinct's racial mix, which is one way to think about bias, a linear form would be unlikely in a simple scatter plot. A linear form would only result if the changes in one race's turnout were compensated by changes in the turnout of the other race across the graph."
Source material: "The average turnout seems to decrease linearly as African Americans become a larger proportion of the population. This is one sign that the data contain little aggregation bias. If racial turnout rates changed depending upon a precinct's racial mix, which is one description of bias, a linear form would be unlikely in a simple scatter plot (resulting only when changes in one race's turnout rate somehow compensated for changes in the other's across the graph.)"
While this is a particularly egregious example due to the lack of quotes or even a citation (!), Harvard's honor code is unambiguous-- "It’s not enough to change a few words here and there and leave the rest... If your own language is too close to the original, then you are plagiarizing, even if you do provide a citation."
34 -
You are illiterate. His tweet starts with “Miami University.”
24 -
Kobbs Hessler wrote:
You are illiterate. His tweet starts with “Miami University.”
The person "quoted" -- Anne Williamson -- is a mid/late 50s associate professor. Never made tenure. Too old to get that now ... she gave up because she was not qualified (usually means failed to publish enough papers, and failed to win research enough grants). She is also a Trump supporter.
10 -
458777 wrote:
Kobbs Hessler wrote:
Carol Swain speaking common sense
The racist idiots love to parade the sellout black in an attempt to prove...look I'm not prejudiced, biased and discriminatory...another black person agrees with me. Newsflash....99.9% of African-Americans do not agree with Professor Swain.
That troll is one of the most racist people on LRC.
53 -
Lol, lmao, nice Miami you’ve got there. Given the state of things it may very well be the last Miami standing.
Thank you for the comic relief, feels awful defending a university administrator who comes out of PoliSci, aaaaaargh!02 -
PurelyNotApplied wrote:
fasciz wrote:
I haven’t seen anything other than citations not compliant with style guides?
President Diversity, without any quotes or even a citation of the source anywhere in the paper: "the average turnout seems to increase linearly as African Americans become a larger proportion of the population. This is one sign that the data contain little aggregation bias. If racial turnout rates changed depending upon a precinct's racial mix, which is one way to think about bias, a linear form would be unlikely in a simple scatter plot. A linear form would only result if the changes in one race's turnout were compensated by changes in the turnout of the other race across the graph."
Source material: "The average turnout seems to decrease linearly as African Americans become a larger proportion of the population. This is one sign that the data contain little aggregation bias. If racial turnout rates changed depending upon a precinct's racial mix, which is one description of bias, a linear form would be unlikely in a simple scatter plot (resulting only when changes in one race's turnout rate somehow compensated for changes in the other's across the graph.)"
While this is a particularly egregious example due to the lack of quotes or even a citation (!), Harvard's honor code is unambiguous-- "It’s not enough to change a few words here and there and leave the rest... If your own language is too close to the original, then you are plagiarizing, even if you do provide a citation."
Who is “President Diversity”?
Where is the source material so that I can confirm no citation? It seems to be referring to some analysis by speaking to data correlation, no? So if you and I explain the results of a dataset the same because the underlying facts are the same, I have plagiarized you?22 -
Sally Vix wrote:
xzcvxzcva wrote:
When you write a dissertation, which you have never done, you typically undertake years of research and compile hundreds of pages of notes. Let's say, for instance, that you are taking notes on one book. You open the section of notes with the book title. Then you write pages and pages of notes, often taking quotations. As you do so, sometimes you may not type in the quotation marks because your notes are already prefaced with the source. Then what happens is that in transferring the notes to the dissertation, sometimes you fail to reinsert the quotation marks for every quotation in a work that is usually hundreds of pages long and in which it is required that you refer to ALL of the relevant literature to show that you are familiar with it and to show how you position your stance in relationship to it. So, without any intention, these mistakes come up again and again. There will be reference to the authors anyway and most of their quotes will be direct. It is also demanded that you in most cases paraphrase them. The extent of the paraphrase depends on how technical their terminology is. Technical terminology cannot be rephrased. So, this is what is going on within her questioned works. In some places she merely used the technical terminology to avoid mischaracterizing their works. In other places, she simply failed to cite the source at that time or left off the quotation marks, not to make it seem like it was hers--since she was typically citing the authors in that very paragraph--but as a mistake in transferring notes to dissertation. It happens to everyone. You make mistakes dealing with hundreds of sources and quotations over years, and sometimes it is not even you who altered it. Sometimes, you have professors writing comments and even changing some of your text right in the doc the student sent, and so mistakes arise. One example, again innocuous, is removing the quotation marks because a quotation is long enough to be set aside, and set aside quotes do not have quotation marks, only a source reference. Then you may be asked to shorten your dissertation or article because it is too long and you cut out parts of a quotation and put it back into the main text--but fail to reinsert the quotation marks. There is a huge difference between people who are stealing ideas and words and the rare mistake, which she has committed. Her work in almost every single case has the proper attributions to authors and so she is not at all stealing ideas and passing them off as her own.
Why would you ever write so much with no indentations or anything to make it easier to read?
Pretty sure that it qualifies as "ironic," or something pretty close to it.
Perhaps next we'll get a lesson from him/her on PARAGRAPHING. But not sure I'd trust it!
01
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun