On Aug 19, 12:44 am, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
wrote:> On Aug 19, 4:48 pm, Cormagh
yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 18, 8:15 am, "bigflet...@
gmail.com"
gmail.com>
>> wrote:>
>>> run out of people who need to compare.
>
>> I'm not talking about comparison, I'm talking about plagiarization:
>
> Really? I was wondering why you used that word. You suggest Im being a
> fraud, so it is to be expected you will look for something to back
> that up.
>
> A common response from those here who 'get personal' is "is this what
> you meant to say ?".
>
> Plaigerism, as I understand it, is breaching copyright, not expressing
> similar views, regardless of who developed the view first.It will be
> interesting for you when you have an insight that you havnt heard
> before, only to find out somebody had it previously.
Naivety is not an good excuse.
"Ideas and discoveries are not protected by the copyright law,
although the way in which they are expressed may be."
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#protect
When you quoted another writer directly, I called you on it. It is not
this, but your tendency to use a string of ideas from classical
psychologists and psychoanalysts, a tendency that I assume you
inherited from L. Ron Hubbard, and attribute them all to your own
work, that I find particularly offensive. Notice the copyright office
and Meriam-Webster's don't completely agree.
transitive verb : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of
another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting
the source intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as
new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
— pla·gia·riz·er noun
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizing
fraud
Pronunciation:
\ˈfrȯd\
Function:
noun
Etymology:
Middle English fraude, from Anglo-French, from Latin fraud-, fraus
Date:
14th century
1 a: deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth
in order to induce another to part with something of value or to
surrender a legal right b: an act of deceiving or misrepresenting :
trick
2 a: a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor;
also : one who defrauds : cheat b: one that is not what it seems or is
represented to be
synonyms
see deception, imposture
I think these two definitions should be turned around. Study number 2,
then number 1.
> "There Is Nothing New Under The Sky Horatio" Shakespere..."and there
> are only 26 letters in the alphabet to express 'everything'." BOfL
Were you thinking of this? "There are more things in heaven and earth,
Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I'm not sure from
this if you have a friend named "Shakespere", or you just love to
dream up old stuff, such as from Ecclesiastes, and re attribute them.
My purpose here is to show what defects may exist in methods, I can't
really affect what people think. You show yourself to have an active
mind and I have merely sought to bring attention to certain mistakes
we make when we mix purpose with method, and some glaring
inconsistencies in statements you made during the debate, probably for
that reason.
Cormagh
>> Main Entry:
>> pla·gia·rize Listen to the pronunciation of plagiarize
>> Pronunciation:
>> \ˈplā-jə-ˌrīz also -jē-ə-\
>> Function:
>> verb
>> Inflected Form(s):
>> pla·gia·rized; pla·gia·riz·ing
>> Etymology:
>> plagiary
>> Date:
>> 1716
>
>> transitive verb : to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of
>> another) as one's own : use (another's production) without crediting
>> the source intransitive verb : to commit literary theft : present as
>> new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source
>> — pla·gia·riz·er
nounhttp://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plagiarizing> > > This phenomena has recently been discovered with brain studies at
>>>>> Harvard.
>
>>>> You mean that Harvard has agreed to study your brain?
>
>>> No, but I was invited to join their business summer schoolback in
>>> 2000.
>>> Does that suffice?
>
>>>>>> what we think about what we remember, it's still doing.
>
>>>>> When you see the difference between "I think therefor I am" and "I am
>>>>> therefor I think", you wil see beyond ontological as well as
>>>>> epistemological laws.
>
>>>> Well, your paradox is based on your epistemology. Thinking creates
>>>> being, vs. Being creates Thinking. Anyone can see the difference.
>
>>> Except for the fact I didnt say one creates the other.Parallel
>>> realities are a better description.
>
>>>>In
>>>> my opinion, the difference is will. If being were to ever create
>>>> thinking there would have to be a will to do it. Probably Thinking
>>>> creating Being is even more difficult, because it's hard to imagine a
>>>> brain that powerful - which is why I never liked Descartes, and why
>>>> you are an even bigger fraud, because you said you never read a
>>>> philosophy book except for the excerpt from Plato's Apology, but here
>>>> you are quoting Meditations. I know the answer - you read it on a
>>>> cereal box, right?
>
>>> So hurling insults is a way you choose to communicate.My interest is
>>> relating my experiences to to others who have had similar insights. A
>>> level of communicating that include such mentality
>>> as yours become pointless.> Now please educate us on what lies beyond the epistemological and
>>>> ontological laws, which you, Decartes, and your holographic monkey
>>>> have drummed up for us.> You mentoned earlier that what I was describing was science, so in
>>>>> that sense we are all 'doing science' but only as one small pat of our
>>>>> existance.
>>>>> BOfL
