Originally posted by Grampy BobbyGood form and care to wiki was not given; at the very best one would reasonably infer, had they the endurance to read "your" OP deprived of context, that you were attributing only your final paragraph to a wiki author who wrote that bit referencing C.S. Lewis.
Would my esteemed fellow RHP Member and respected adversary please refer to the factual reply provided for Sir H. Andy on this very page only a few days and moments ago: "Became enthralled in the [b]wiki presentation, both because of its scope of inadvertent contributors and its comprehensive coverage of illustrative highlights spanning the p reality or the public record, for your own amusement at another RHP Member's expense.
gb[/b]
If you had no intention of deceiving us you might have tried something along the lines of
<your introductory comments>
"...wikipedia stuff..." - wikipedia
<your commentary or questions>
"...wikipedia stuff..." - wikipedia
.
.
.
"...wikipedia stuff..." - wikipedia
<your commentary or closing remarks/questions or nothing>
Making it absolutely and unambiguously clear what is not your own work
07 Oct 11
Originally posted by AgergNine (9) paragraphs with nine (9) prefixed quotation marks and a final closed quotation at the conclusion of this comprehensive wiki study was the best academic form I knew to use. Apologies if this was taken as offensive by yourself or any other posters.
Good form and care to wiki was not given; at the very best one would reasonably infer, had they the endurance to read "your" OP deprived of context, that you were attributing only your final paragraph to a wiki author who wrote that bit referencing C.S. Lewis.
If you had no intention of deceiving us you might have tried something along the lines of
<your i ...[text shortened]... ns or nothing>
Making it absolutely and unambiguously clear what is not your own work
gb
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyLets have a look eh?
Nine (9) paragraphs with nine (9) prefixed quotation marks and a final closed quotation at the conclusion of this comprehensive wiki study was the best academic form I knew to use. Apologies if this was taken as offensive by yourself or any other posters.
gb
This block seems to be your own writing
*edit* actually you've concatenated a label under an image with the block following this
"... men without chests."
Ever notice the contemporary disregard for protocols of magnanimity and the historic manhood codes:
"The magnanimity of Alexander towards the captive Porus.
The block which follows shows no opening quotation mark or attribution to the original author, moreover it wasn't even separated in any way so to hint it was someone else's work.
*edit* given your wierd concatenation there is now at least separation from your own *only one line of text*
Magnanimity (derived from the Latin roots magn- great, and animus, mind, literally means greatly generous) is the virtue of being great of mind and heart. It encompasses, usually, a refusal to be petty, a willingness to face danger, and actions for noble purposes. Its antithesis is pusillanimity.
The lack of closing quote marks, for each paragraph in the following block implies, for a fast and not necessarily hawkish/clairvoyant reader, they are closed within (somewhere) and hence contains some of your own work as commentary. Disregarding the fact that you do not provide the full text that was provided by the author there has yet been no suggestion that your sole source was wikipedia.
"Magnanimity is a latinization of the Greek word megalopsuchia which means greatness of soul and was identified by Aristotle as "the crowning virtue". Although the word magnanimity has a traditional connection to Aristotelian philosophy, it also has its own tradition in English which now causes some confusion.
"Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the American Language defines Magnanimity as such: MAGNANIMITY, n. [L. magnanimitas; magnus, great, and animus, mind.] Greatness of mind; that elevation or dignity of soul, which encounters danger and trouble with tranquility and firmness, which raises the possessor above revenge, and makes him delight in acts of benevolence, which makes him disdain injustice and meanness, and prompts him to sacrifice personal ease, interest and safety for the accomplishment of useful and noble objects. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle considered it the suitable virtue for a great man, arising from his other virtues.
"Edmund Spenser, in The Faerie Queen, had each knight allegorically represent a virtue; Prince Arthur represented "magnificence", which is generally taken to mean Aristotelian magnificence. The uncompleted work does not include Prince Arthur's book, and the significance is not clear.
"Democritus states that "magnanimity consists in enduring tactlessness with mildness".
"As an adjective, the concept is expressed as "magnanimous", e.g. "He is a magnanimous man." An example of referring to one as magnanimous can be seen in Hrólfs saga kraka where King Hrólfr Kraki changes the name of a court servant from Hott to Hjalti for his new-found strength and courage, after which Hjalti refuses to taunt or kill those who previously mocked him. Because of his noble actions, the king then bestows the title Magnanimous upon Hjalti.
"One form of magnanimity is the generosity of the victor to the defeated. For example, magnanimity has been codified between societies by the Geneva Conventions. Magnanimous relief efforts can serve to offset the collateral damage of war.
The following block is out of order, and as mentioned the previous block has had some of it's text cut out - contradicting any suggestion the OP, with the exception of your intro, is a straight quote (nor any courteous indication you have suppressed some of the author's writing)...We still have no way to know where these are coming from at this stage btw
"Winston Churchill is famously quoted as saying "In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Goodwill."
The last block is double space separated from the rest, it contains an attribution to wiki. The final quote mark closes the quote mark next to "men" two words away from "chests" The best inference is you cite wiki only for this block
"C. S. Lewis, in his book The Abolition of Man, refers to the chest of man as the seat of magnanimity, or sentiment, with this magnanimity working as the liaison between visceral and cerebral man. Lewis asserts that in his time, the denial of the emotions that are found in the eternal, the sublime, that which is humbling as an objective reality, had led to "men without chests." -wiki
Even if you didn't mean to deliberately deceive (and I am highly skeptical) this is pathetic academic form for someone who presents himself as such a scholar.
Originally posted by Agerg02 Oct '11 10:07 :: 6 edits
Lets have a look eh?
This block seems to be your own writing
*edit* actually you've concatenated a label under an image with the block following this"... men without chests."
Ever notice the contemporary disregard for protocols of magnanimity and the historic manhood codes:
"The magnanimity of Alexander towards the captive Porus.
cademic form for someone who presents himself as such a scholar.
"... men without chests." <--- phrase attributed to C.S. Lewis and duly noted at the conclusion of the wiki study.
Ever notice the contemporary disregard for protocols of magnanimity and the historic manhood codes: <--- my introductory op wording, hence no quotation marks.
The entire body of the wiki quote:---> "The magnanimity of Alexander towards the captive Porus. Magnanimity (derived from the Latin roots magn- great, and animus, mind, literally means greatly generous) is the virtue of being great of mind and heart. It encompasses, usually, a refusal to be petty, a willingness to face danger, and actions for noble purposes. Its antithesis is pusillanimity.
"Magnanimity is a latinization of the Greek word megalopsuchia which means greatness of soul and was identified by Aristotle as "the crowning virtue". Although the word magnanimity has a traditional connection to Aristotelian philosophy, it also has its own tradition in English which now causes some confusion.
"Noah Webster's 1828 Dictionary of the American Language defines Magnanimity as such: MAGNANIMITY, n. [L. magnanimitas; magnus, great, and animus, mind.] Greatness of mind; that elevation or dignity of soul, which encounters danger and trouble with tranquility and firmness, which raises the possessor above revenge, and makes him delight in acts of benevolence, which makes him disdain injustice and meanness, and prompts him to sacrifice personal ease, interest and safety for the accomplishment of useful and noble objects. In his Nicomachean Ethics, Aristotle considered it the suitable virtue for a great man, arising from his other virtues.
"Edmund Spenser, in The Faerie Queen, had each knight allegorically represent a virtue; Prince Arthur represented "magnificence", which is generally taken to mean Aristotelian magnificence. The uncompleted work does not include Prince Arthur's book, and the significance is not clear.
"Democritus states that "magnanimity consists in enduring tactlessness with mildness".
"As an adjective, the concept is expressed as "magnanimous", e.g. "He is a magnanimous man." An example of referring to one as magnanimous can be seen in Hrólfs saga kraka where King Hrólfr Kraki changes the name of a court servant from Hott to Hjalti for his new-found strength and courage, after which Hjalti refuses to taunt or kill those who previously mocked him. Because of his noble actions, the king then bestows the title Magnanimous upon Hjalti.
"One form of magnanimity is the generosity of the victor to the defeated. For example, magnanimity has been codified between societies by the Geneva Conventions. Magnanimous relief efforts can serve to offset the collateral damage of war.
"Winston Churchill is famously quoted as saying "In War: Resolution. In Defeat: Defiance. In Victory: Magnanimity. In Peace: Goodwill."
"C. S. Lewis, in his book The Abolition of Man, refers to the chest of man as the seat of magnanimity, or sentiment, with this magnanimity working as the liaison between visceral and cerebral man. Lewis asserts that in his time, the denial of the emotions that are found in the eternal, the sublime, that which is humbling as an objective reality, had led to "men without chests." -wiki
Note: Northeastern University, Boston Campus, professors taught that good form excluded ending quotes with each paragraph as intrusive and unnecessary. Color me an Honors Graduate who has retained some stylistic marks of incorrectness and hasn't changed with the times to include the marks your nitpicking insistence seems to espouse.
gb
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyWell colour me also an honours graduate who is bloody glad he didn't have professors like yours 😞
02 Oct '11 10:07 :: 6 edits
"... men without chests." <--- phrase attributed to C.S. Lewis and duly noted at the conclusion of the wiki study.
Ever notice the contemporary disregard for protocols of magnanimity and the historic manhood codes: <--- my introductory op wording, hence no quotation marks.
The entire body of the wiki nclude the marks your nitpicking insistence seems to espouse.
gb
Q: Why do you think people expect to see closing quotation marks, brackets, braces, and so on... along with citations after every closed quote (unless it is clear from the outset they form a family of quotes from the same source)?
A: Clarity, conditioning, completeness, and correctness.
Where was the part at the beginning where you warn the reader that all which follows came from a wikipedia page!?
Originally posted by Agerg"Q: Why do you think people expect to see closing quotation marks, brackets, braces, and so on... along with citations after every closed quote (unless it is clear from the outset they form a family of quotes from the same source)?
Well colour me also an honours graduate who is bloody glad he didn't have professors like yours 😞
Q: Why do you think people expect to see closing quotation marks, brackets, braces, and so on... along with citations after every closed quote (unless it is clear from the outset they form a family of quotes from the same source)?
A: Clarity, conditioning, ...[text shortened]... at the beginning where you warn the reader that all which follows came from a wikipedia page!?
A: Clarity, conditioning, completeness, and correctness."
Your Q&A appears to be rhetorical since you've designed it with a built-in answer to the question. In the event it's a genuine question, most people I know read rapidly (straight down the page without diverting eye and head movement back and forth, left and right across, as we did first learning to read in early grade school). Didn't realize there were those such as yourself who "expect to see closing quotation marks, brackets, braces, and so on... along with citations after every closed quote..."
"Where was the part at the beginning where you warn the reader that all which follows came from a wikipedia page!?" Required "warning"? Reading rapidly, the flght from the top to the bottom of the page takes only a New York minute.
gb
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyDamned right I expect to see closing quotes...If I see something of the form
[b]"Q: Why do you think people expect to see closing quotation marks, brackets, braces, and so on... along with citations after every closed quote (unless it is clear from the outset they form a family of quotes from the same source)?
A: Clarity, conditioning, completeness, and correctness."
Your Q&A appears to be rhetorical since you've designe he flght from the top to the bottom of the page takes only a New York minute.
gb[/b]
"blah...blahdeblah
then I expect that somewhere between blah and blahdeblah the quotes have been closed (accepting I might have missed it***), and that at some point up to blahdeblah we have original material. Or worse without attribution your opening quote was a typo and it's all your own stuff!
Furthermore if you don't make it clear in advance that x quote blocks that follow are attributed to some author X then yes, I expect to see citations when and where you're using someone else's material; especially when you're so damned lazy with your grammatical cues. Indeed how the hell am I or anyone else supposed to know where you're going to make a citation? your last block was double space separated so as a special case it is reasonable to suppose the attribution at the end there applied only to something in *that* paragraph (and again your closing quote there closed only three words).
Moreover what the hell was cutting out, rearranging and concatenating distinct text segments in the "entire body of the wiki quote" all about if it were not your intention to pass some of the author's work off as your own!?
*** a counter of the form that I should read with greater scrutiny runs in conflict with your closing remark btw.
*edit* Oh and it seems you forgot your prof's advice when you constructed your profile, plenty of "intrusive" closing quotes there I see!
08 Oct 11
Originally posted by AgergPlease type out your grievance in triplicate, then email it to:
Damned right I expect to see closing quotes...If I see something of the form
"blah...blahdeblah
then I expect that somewhere between blah and blahdeblah the quotes have been closed (accepting I might have missed it***), and that at some point up to blahdeblah we have original material. Or worse without attribution your opening quote was a typo and it's a ...[text shortened]... hen you constructed your profile, plenty of "intrusive" closing quotes there I see!
noonegivesaratsass.com
Originally posted by Agerg#108
107 ways for a pretentious loser to look really smart #19
Post a random cut and paste from some site whilst shielding your readers from it's context. Then smile as they try, in vain, to figure out wtf you're on about.
Shame on you Grampy Bobby 😞
Another thumbs up for HandyAndy
Jump on the troll wagon, demand specificity from others while carelessly adding a contraction to a word not requiring the same, or, display a general disposition for douche baggery.
"It's," Mr. Sargent-at-Arms of the Douche Bag Committee, is a contraction of the words 'it' and 'is.' But, by all means, you ought to continue smiling and trying in vain to figure out where the facts are.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHAh yes, I wondered how long it would take for Robin to come along. But yeah, epic fightback for your friend. I made at least one typo, YOU spotted one, and now YOU'RE going to make me pay the price (because typos are totally equivalent to plagiarism!)
#108
Jump on the troll wagon, demand specificity from others while carelessly adding a contraction to a word not requiring the same, or, display a general disposition for douche baggery.
"It's," Mr. Sargent-at-Arms of the Douche Bag Committee, is a contraction of the words 'it' and 'is.' But, by all means, you ought to continue smiling and trying in vain to figure out where the facts are.
Pillock! 😞
Originally posted by AgergDo you hear that distant bell? It is the sound reminding you that it's time to get over yourself. No one misconstrued the OP as GB's magnum opus... except, obviously, you and your like-minded thumb-as-substitute suckers.
Ah yes, I wondered how long it would take for Robin to come along. But yeah, epic fightback for your friend. I made at least one typo, YOU spotted one, and now YOU'RE going to make me pay the price (because typos are totally equivalent to plagiarism!)
Pillock! 😞
Those who were lightning quick to dismiss the ideas put forth and instead latch onto accurate attribution of authorship apparently forgot what those little markings which both precede and follow a passage of words mean. For your convenience, they are called quotation marks and they are meant to denote words taken from previous sources, which are themselves typically employed to support an argument or statement.
When the thoughtful reader sees quotation marks, he is reminded that the author has opted to use these borrowed words in order to convey an underlying sentiment. If the author chooses to present the quotes without attribution, the thoughtful reader assumes there is good reason for doing so, and therefore focuses his attention solely on the concepts illustrated; enjoy the water without questioning the well, so to speak.
You've paid no price for your sloppy use of the English language, other than whatever personal failure you bottle up inside when others point out your occasional small gaffes (thus my suggestion that perhaps it is time to get beyond your pettiness and start living more honestly). If I was demanding anything, it was in the form of calling you up short on account of your wholly misplaced sanctimonious and self-righteous indignation. Your demand for something unnecessary to the conversation (in attempt to sabotage the discussion) involved a petty technicality... and yet you couldn't hold yourself to the same paltry standard with the proper spelling of a simple three-letter word!
The failed return of equating typos with plagiarism does nothing more than underscore your weak position. As no plagiarism occurred--- nor was it intended--- the only thing left is your imprecision.
09 Oct 11
Originally posted by AgergLast twenty one posts to threads in the Spirituality Forum, General Forum zero.
Ah yes, I wondered how long it would take for Robin to come along. But yeah, epic fightback for your friend. I made at least one typo, YOU spotted one, and now YOU'RE going to make me pay the price (because typos are totally equivalent to plagiarism!)
Pillock! 😞
Hmm...