政治文抄公- Political Plagiarizing

[Debonerman]

That's right! Tin Pei Ling can do no wrong some more got police report made against her. Now we have PAP'S representative in the Opposion Goh Meng Seng jumping on the WP MPs who are still finding their feet in Parliament. Should David Goh had died for such a brother?
One more thing. Scroobal is in glee again. Chen SM, you trip, come over to sammyboy to see scroobal twist the knife that had been plunged into your back.

 

[HTOLAS]

Mr Goh

Instead of plagiarizing other people's accusations, could you please (2nd request) post the 'offending' speech and the allegedly plagiarized source? You could then demonstrate your original skills at pointing out how exactly it is plagiarized. Right now, you are benefitting from our ignorance and your detractors from your stupidity.

 

[SNAblog]

double post deleted

 

[SNAblog]

If someone had offered suggestions to csm/pritam and permitted them to use without the need of attribution, that is perfectly fine. But those works were previously published, you cannot reproduce the work without proper citation.

However, if I reproduced the work with the author's blessing that no citation is necessary, is that plagiarism? The option has been offered to Pritam and he had opted not to make any citiation. It is perfectly alright for anyone to opine that it is better to do than not, or that his idea is unoriginal, but to lay charges of plagiarism on Pritam is totally unwarranted.

 

[jixiaolan]

It is still a plagiarised piece of work because the original writers had published the articles before, you cannot reproduce them with making proper attribution.

However, if I reproduced the work with the author's blessing that no citation is necessary, is that plagiarism? The option has been offered to Pritam and he had opted not to make any citiation. It is perfectly alright for anyone to opine that it is better to do than not, but to lay charges of plagiarism on Pritam is totally unwarranted.

 

[SNAblog]

It is still a plagiarised piece of work because the original writers had published the articles before, you cannot reproduce them with making proper attribution.

In this case, the rights remain with the author. If he permits reproduction of his work and waive the need for attribution, does the charge of plagiarism still stand? If it does, then are we stating that the author's right is limited, and he has no power to waive citation?

 

[Perspective]

It is still a plagiarised piece of work because the original writers had published the articles before, you cannot reproduce them with making proper attribution.

Actually, this time, compared to the FVI, you have done worse.

FVI's long-known integrity and agenda in even raising the issue in the first place has always been questionable, given it cannot decide whether its point was that 1) CSM/PS did not give proper citation/attribution/credit or 2) should not be quoting word-by-word. If one raises #1 as an issue and also #2 as an issue it is illogically incoherent and obviously not human, as the logic applies to humans. But it is entitled to its views.

But for you, your facts were totally messed up. CSM copied wholesale but put as a Facebook article, Pritam did not copy wholesale and used it for a speech. You seem to be lumping the two together and make it into "WP MP copied wholesale and recited it as a speech". None tried to pass it as their work. CSM's beginning statement lacked clarity and Pritam gave credit to the writer in his speech on the website but not too obviously. You are still talking about absence of citation, but none took it as their work which is the key definition of plagarising. In addition, you even pyro-ed Locke for siding with YSL, which was totally opposite from the facts.

 

[I_Hate_Pappies]

Well put it simply, I don't really care what you call me.

But the fact is, I also whack PAP MPs as hard when they made silly mistakes or say silly things. eg. Vikram Nair.

Goh Meng Seng

So sad hor, you boh chance to whack them in Parliament. :p

 

[jixiaolan]

Pls show me where I have made these assertions, then we can have some proper discussion. Will that be fair, Senior?

But for you, your facts were totally messed up. CSM copied wholesale but put as a Facebook article, Pritam did not copy wholesale and used it for a speech. You seem to be lumping the two together and make it into "WP MP copied wholesale and recited it as a speech".

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Actually not.

It is not just solely between the original writer and Pritam because this is expressed as a speech in parliament. He has created the impression to the parliament and voters at large that it is his own speech because he didn't put proper credits. It becomes a problem in the public sphere.

Just apologize for the mistake made of not putting proper credits which created that misleading impression, QED.

Goh Meng Seng

In this case, the rights remain with the author. If he permits reproduction of his work and waive the need for attribution, does the charge of plagiarism still stand? If it does, then are we stating that the author's right is limited, and he has no power to waive citation?

 

[Perspective]

Pls show me where I have made these assertions, then we can have some proper discussion. Will that be fair, Senior?

You have just rung your own knell. The sentence you quoted mentioned "copy wholesale". CSM copied wholesale, Pritam did not. 80% of Pritam's speech contained 25% of the original article and even that was rephrased in several areas. The issue is you tried the lump the two into one - in fact trying to form the worst combi of both - therefore attributed to "blatant plagarism" etc.

And by quoting only one sentence out of many sentences I wrote, I assume you agree with the rest, so case closed.

 

[SNAblog]

Actually not.

It is not just solely between the original writer and Pritam because this is expressed as a speech in parliament. He has created the impression to the parliament and voters at large that it is his own speech because he didn't put proper credits. It becomes a problem in the public sphere.

Just apologize for the mistake made of not putting proper credits which created that misleading impression, QED.

Goh Meng Seng

Did Pritam expressly state that it is his idea? Yes or No? If you are arguing on implication, then I would counter with discretionary interpretation. If it is a matter of judgement call, then your plagiarism charge is not tenable, and your apology to Pritam is warranted, QED.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

It will always be presumed that whatever a MP said in parliament is his or her own views unless stated otherwise. I think you are becoming too lame to give such excuse. Don't try to be as lame as PAP lah!

Save yourself some dignity by admitting such act is really undesirable. Integrity is the most important thing for MPs, especially opposition MPs. That's where YSL failed badly.

Goh Meng Seng

Did Pritam expressly state that it is his idea? Yes or No? If you are arguing on implication, then I would counter with discretionary interpretation. If it is a matter of judgement call, then your plagiarism charge is not tenable, and your apology to Pritam is warranted, QED.

 

[SNAblog]

It will always be presumed that whatever a MP said in parliament is his or her own views unless stated otherwise. I think you are becoming too lame to give such excuse. Don't try to be as lame as PAP lah!

Save yourself some dignity by admitting such act is really undesirable. Integrity is the most important thing for MPs, especially opposition MPs. That's where YSL failed badly.

Goh Meng Seng

Presumed means it is a matter of judgement. You just pwned yourself.

 

[Perspective]

Presumed means it is a matter of judgement. You just pwned yourself.

And don't know why I suddenly have this urge to repeat a statement I made earlier. "What an insult to the word 'integrity'!"

 

[AhFook]

Frankly speaking, it is really very embarrassing to be caught red handed in parliament by your opponents.

Goh Meng Seng

You are one jealous bastard !

 

[Ramseth]

I find this thread funny. If I or anyone go to any auditorium or seminar to read out a whole book written by someone else cover to cover, word by word, without mentioning who wrote the book. Is that plagiarism? This is an abuse of the word plagiarism...may even be a case of defamation!

 

[Perspective]

If I or anyone go to any auditorium or seminar to read out a whole book written by someone else cover to cover, word by word, without mentioning who wrote the book. Is that plagiarism?

Yes, you would be plagiarising Andy Kaufman's act.

 

[jixiaolan]

You cannot kick below the belt and yet be seen running away from the boxing ring. The reason for not wanting to engage with your first posting is because you have made many assertions that I have not make, it is only right for me to seek your clarification. I would, however, give you the benefit of doubt as most likely you have mistakenly mistook some of locke's posting as mine and then put up a feeble attempt to cover up for your blunder.

But for you, your facts were totally messed up. CSM copied wholesale but put as a Facebook article, Pritam did not copy wholesale and used it for a speech. You seem to be lumping the two together and make it into "WP MP copied wholesale and recited it as a speech". None tried to pass it as their work. CSM's beginning statement lacked clarity and Pritam gave credit to the writer in his speech on the website but not too obviously. You are still talking about absence of citation, but none took it as their work which is the key definition of plagarising. In addition, you even pyro-ed Locke for siding with YSL, which was totally opposite from the facts.

You have just rung your own knell. The sentence you quoted mentioned "copy wholesale". CSM copied wholesale, Pritam did not. 80% of Pritam's speech contained 25% of the original article and even that was rephrased in several areas. The issue is you tried the lump the two into one - in fact trying to form the worst combi of both - therefore attributed to "blatant plagarism" etc.

And by quoting only one sentence out of many sentences I wrote, I assume you agree with the rest, so case closed.

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Don't be lame, as lame as Vikram trying to say it is just a joke of using Nigerian Scam to make comparison to what CSM has said. It would look even worse for WP's integrity as a whole.

Goh Meng Seng

P.S. next time whatever is said by any MPs in parliament, we must ask them is that their own ideas/words and whether it is just a joke or in all seriousness!

Presumed means it is a matter of judgement. You just pwned yourself.