A guy named Theo Warner has tried to brand William Lane Craig as a Plagiarist. Apparently this guy has a reputation for going after Craig. He has two video's on You tube entitled "William Lane Craig is not a plagiarist, parts 1 and 2."
Even though he says "not a Plagiarist" he actually argues that he is. There is a great deal of increasingly petty bs going on here. One of the major lunacies this guy does is to make a survey where he shows people the passages that he feels is plagerized and then has them say 'do you think this is plagiarism" and they say yea or ney. He tries to use this to show that he plagiarized. Thsi is nto how you do it. You just show that more than seven words are indentical without giving credit where credit is due. Now I'm not sure that the limit is seven, but I think it is or was when I was in Freshman English. The number is academic. You don't conduct a survey to prove plagiarism. You show the material, find the duplication, check how many words are identical without giving credit and that's it. Here's why I think this guys is merely trying to do a Hatchet job on Craig.
He shows the paper on the video but it's too burly and small to tell if it's footnoted. He has certain phrases underlined. He says the underlines are the duplication but you can't if they are foot noted or not. The thing is, it's not really plagiarism to use their phrases if they are footnoted. He's attributing the ideas to them. We can't tell just from watching the video if it's that or not. I'm willing to bet that somewhere earlier in the piece he did footnote it.
As my readers know I was recently accessing of fabricating studies. The reasons the accuser gave were the extremely petty. It's obvious this guy wanted to destory my reputaion. This Werner probably knows he can't prove Craig is a plagiarist. He entitles it as he does to avoid being sued. If he's right it should not be hard to demonstate that he is. It's so hard to demonstrate that he's afraid to go to court then probably has no case. I think this is just another case, like the guy who accessed me, of a character assign.
That is one of the atheists major modes of argument. I find that they use character assignation more than anything else. A site called idioticatheists argues agaisnt it, defends Craig but I don't like them either. They are very ad hom in their approach and it's just a tit for tat thing that I find disgusting. So once again, there are hateful atheists but they do not have monopoly on that.
23 comments:
So ONE atheist does something you don't like - something that you can't prove he's wrong about - and that immediately warrants a slur on all atheists? And you accuse another anti-atheist site of behaving poorly!
You really need to get over your obsession/fear/hatred/whatever it is of atheism. It prevents you from ever discussing the topic in a remotely rational manner.
(1) Read the last sentence.
(2) two atheists,I mentioned one who accused me. I also said I find it all the time.
(3) I did prove the guy can't prove. read it again. atheists have reading comprehension problems.
(1) Read the last sentence.
I did. But it's atheists you are always attacking and criticising, isn't it?
(2) two atheists,I mentioned one who accused me. I also said I find it all the time.
Yes, you claimed that.
(3) I did prove the guy can't prove. read it again. atheists have reading comprehension problems.
No, you didn't prove anything of the kind. And I'm not interested in your blanket insults. Do you really not realise how bad they make you look?
I am, however, interested in what happened to my second post - a rather lengthy one in which I discuss what the guy in question actually said. I submitted it just after I submitted my first post - where has it gone?
Electric said...
(1) Read the last sentence.
I did. But it's atheists you are always attacking and criticising, isn't it?
that's sort of like what the website is about. When I did fundie watch I talked about fundies. The last sentence of this deal I said both sides have those kind of guys. So you should be content with that.
(2) two atheists,I mentioned one who accused me. I also said I find it all the time.
Yes, you claimed that.
what's my motive for being frustrated with them if so wonderful and kind and polite and intelligent they never never never ever say anytin mean. why would I do that.
you are a liar. do you know hwy? beause you are stupid. you bleieve the garbageg your slave owners tell to think and you are too stupid to check it out.
If you want wise up go to a message board, pretend to be a Christian and see how the atheists treat you. I have been giving that challenge for 10 years no one has eve rhad the guts to do it. no one. every single atheist I have met is a coward.
the reason wont do it is you know how they will treat you. your defense of them now is just a childish bit of political theater.
(3) I did prove the guy can't prove. read it again. atheists have reading comprehension problems.
No, you didn't prove anything of the kind. And I'm not interested in your blanket insults. Do you really not realise how bad they make you look?
why would is not proving that he hasn't proved it when you can't produce two identical passages without a foot note? HUU?
it's not hard to prove plagiarism. not at all. teacher like me catch kids doing it all the time. you don't need a stupid little survey to do it.
you can't face the truth. you hate god deeply you hate religious people for some stupid reason and you can't face reality.l you have to believe you are better than religious people even you don't know what's being said.
I am, however, interested in what happened to my second post - a rather lengthy one in which I discuss what the guy in question actually said. I submitted it just after I submitted my first post - where has it gone?
I didn't see it. put it through again.
what's my motive for being frustrated with them if so wonderful and kind and polite and intelligent they never never never ever say anytin mean. why would I do that.
Your obsessional hatred of atheists, of course. We all see it any time you discuss atheism or atheists.
you are a liar. do you know hwy? beause you are stupid. you bleieve the garbageg your slave owners tell to think and you are too stupid to check it out.
...and back to your favourite tactic, insulting. As soon as anyone disagrees with you, you start insulting them. It's part of what makes you such a bad debater.
If you want wise up go to a message board, pretend to be a Christian and see how the atheists treat you. I have been giving that challenge for 10 years no one has eve rhad the guts to do it. no one. every single atheist I have met is a coward.
...and more insults, this time to "every single atheist [you] have met". How boring. It would be really good to see you actually debate for once in a while without attacking and insulting.
the reason wont do it is you know how they will treat you. your defense of them now is just a childish bit of political theater.
And the reason we don't do it is because we know it's a waste of time and would prove nothing at all. Your hatred of atheism and atheists prevents you from realising that.
why would is not proving that he hasn't proved it when you can't produce two identical passages without a foot note? HUU?
You don't seem to realise that plagiarism is far more complex than just producing two identical passages without a footnote. The video explains this - did you even watch it?
it's not hard to prove plagiarism. not at all. teacher like me catch kids doing it all the time. you don't need a stupid little survey to do it.
Unless you are talking literal word-for-word plagiarism, it can indeed be very difficult to prove. And the video isn't talking about literal word-for-word plagiarism (as you should know if you watched it).
And you again demonstrate that you don't understand what the survey was even for. It wasn't to demonstrate plagiarism, so your comments about it not proving plagiarism are pretty pointless - it wasn't supposed to. It was aimed at showing that the paragraph in question was sufficiently badly constructed by Craig that a wide variety of readers couldn't even work out which passages were Craig's and which were Easton's. And it succeeded in doing so.
you can't face the truth. you hate god deeply you hate religious people for some stupid reason and you can't face reality.l you have to believe you are better than religious people even you don't know what's being said.
...and back to more insults, all of them false. I do face the truth. I don't hate god (deeply or otherwise). I don't hate religious people and I face reality. And no, I don't believe I'm better than religious people.
Do you not realise what a bad debater paragraphs like the above make you?
I didn't see it. put it through again.
No, I'm not going to re-write and re-submit a long post in the hopes that it, too, doesn't disappear. This is the second time one of my posts to your blog has just vanished...I hope it's not a trend.
...and now I can't even leave my comment. If I try to post more than a few lines, it throws an error.
So in a few days I've had two posts mysteriously disappear and one not able to go through. Methinks I might be giving this blog a miss until it moves to some better blogging software.
what's my motive for being frustrated with them if so wonderful and kind and polite and intelligent they never never never ever say anytin mean. why would I do that.
Your obsessional hatred of atheists, of course. We all see it any time you discuss atheism or atheists.
you are a liar. do you know hwy? beause you are stupid. you bleieve the garbageg your slave owners tell to think and you are too stupid to check it out.
...and back to your favourite tactic, insulting. As soon as anyone disagrees with you, you start insulting them. It's part of what makes you such a bad debater.
If you want wise up go to a message board, pretend to be a Christian and see how the atheists treat you. I have been giving that challenge for 10 years no one has eve rhad the guts to do it. no one. every single atheist I have met is a coward.
...and more insults, this time to "every single atheist [you] have met". How boring. It would be really good to see you actually debate for once in a while without attacking and insulting.
the reason wont do it is you know how they will treat you. your defense of them now is just a childish bit of political theater.
And the reason we don't do it is because we know it's a waste of time and would prove nothing at all. Your hatred of atheism and atheists prevents you from realising that.
why would is not proving that he hasn't proved it when you can't produce two identical passages without a foot note? HUU?
You don't seem to realise that plagiarism is far more complex than just producing two identical passages without a footnote. The video explains this - did you even watch it?
it's not hard to prove plagiarism. not at all. teacher like me catch kids doing it all the time. you don't need a stupid little survey to do it.
Unless you are talking literal word-for-word plagiarism, it can indeed be very difficult to prove. And the video isn't talking about literal word-for-word plagiarism (as you should know if you watched it).
And you again demonstrate that you don't understand what the survey was even for. It wasn't to demonstrate plagiarism, so your comments about it not proving plagiarism are pretty pointless - it wasn't supposed to. It was aimed at showing that the paragraph in question was sufficiently badly constructed by Craig that a wide variety of readers couldn't even work out which passages were Craig's and which were Easton's. And it succeeded in doing so.
you can't face the truth. you hate god deeply you hate religious people for some stupid reason and you can't face reality.l you have to believe you are better than religious people even you don't know what's being said.
...and back to more insults, all of them false. I do face the truth. I don't hate god (deeply or otherwise). I don't hate religious people and I face reality. And no, I don't believe I'm better than religious people.
Do you not realise what a bad debater paragraphs like the above make you?
I didn't see it. put it through again.
No, I'm not going to re-write and re-submit a long post in the hopes that it, too, doesn't disappear. This is the second time one of my posts to your blog has just vanished...I hope it's not a trend.
that's stupid. that's the ostensible reason. but since the real point often video is to plant the seed in the mind "Craig is bad." It's like the old line "I think you are good guy, I don't care what they all say." Or "everybody loves you" really you mean no one loves you.
If he's saying you can't tell who wrote it hen that is the same as saying it's plagiarized. Can't tel it means right person doesn't' get the credit and that's plagiarism.
by your logic he sets out to prove something in relation to pauperism and winds up proving he was a bad writer. that's not even his stated goal. why would he care about proving that?
why do you find it so hard to accept that I have a reason? you assume I have these attitude you don't even have the curiosity to wonder why?
Of cousre you are not prepared to even consider that it might be because I've seen theism victim people over and voter gain. No of course. because you hate God so deeply you are willing to overlook any crime of atheism.
do you really care if it' true? i doubt it.
atheist don't give a rat's ass about truth.
you find it born well go the hell away. who ask you to be here?
do you think I set it that way? do you really believe I can control the comment page? If there's a way I'd like to know.
It does that error thing to me too and I don't know what to do about it.
but you write a huge amount and say nothing you could say what you say in these seven pages in about half a page of one of them.
you have no idea what debate is. you are a lousy debater. you don't know enough about it to even define it. you never went to a tournament or broke at a tournament you have no idea what a case is.
you tell me I'm a bad debater You don't even know what that means.
If he's saying you can't tell who wrote it hen that is the same as saying it's plagiarized. Can't tel it means right person doesn't' get the credit and that's plagiarism.
That's exactly his point. Did you not actually watch the videos? The first one is concerned with how the paragraph is poorly structured such that you can't tell where Easton's ideas end and Craig's begin. The second examines the paragraph in more detail, picking out individual sentences and comparing them with very similar sentences in Easton's work.
by your logic he sets out to prove something in relation to pauperism and winds up proving he was a bad writer. that's not even his stated goal. why would he care about proving that?
Ask him. That's what he set out to prove, and that's what he proved. Again, did you actually watch the video?
why do you find it so hard to accept that I have a reason? you assume I have these attitude you don't even have the curiosity to wonder why?
I've seen enough of your debating to know why. You were once atheist and became a theist. Every time somebody disagrees with you, they are stating that the reasons you found to become a theist are, in fact, not sufficient to warrant such a conversion. So by criticising your arguments and disagreeing with you, they are (to you) saying that your conversion was unwarranted and based on your errors. So you flare up and attack and insult them. You see every disagreement with you as an attack when it is not. You just can't say "Well, I find these reasons sufficient - he doesn't. That's fine." Anybody who doesn't find your reasons sufficient must be wrong, stupid, ignorant, hostile, etc....
Of cousre you are not prepared to even consider that it might be because I've seen theism victim people over and voter gain. No of course.
Oh, I considered it, as soon as I met you and saw your complaints. Then I watched you for a good while and saw what the truth was.
because you hate God so deeply you are willing to overlook any crime of atheism
And there you go again. If I disagree with you, it's because I hate God. And, since I hate God so much, I dont' mind the "crime[]s of atheism". You can't imagine that people could actually, honestly and with integrity disagree with you. I don't hate God. And when atheists act badly I'm quite happy to point it out. The problem is that according to you, all an atheist has to do to act badly is disagree with you.
do you really care if it' true? i doubt it.
Then you are once again wrong.
atheist don't give a rat's ass about truth.
Again, wrong. But by now we all know that it's merely Meta-speak for "atheists continue to disagree with me".
you find it born well go the hell away. who ask you to be here?
I assume you mean "you find it bad" above. And you asked me to be here. You have a couple of times. The last time you did so you threw in quite a few insults, calling me a coward because I didn't come here. Now I have and see you are as rude and insulting to me here as you are on other forums.
you have no idea what debate is. you are a lousy debater. you don't know enough about it to even define it. you never went to a tournament or broke at a tournament you have no idea what a case is.
you tell me I'm a bad debater You don't even know what that means.
And still more hostility. All you can do is insult me. I point out that you are a poor debater because you constantly insult people - even you would agree that doing so makes one a poor debater. But instead of defending yourself, all you can do is attack me.
You have a number of habits which constantly come up - your tendency to attack, insult and belittle anyone who disagrees with you is the major one. And that one alone makes you a bad debater.
You might be able to debate wonderfully. I don't know, and neither does anyone else on any of the forums I've seen you on, because in those forums you always spend so much time attacking and insulting that you look very bad indeed.
nd still more hostility. All you can do is insult me. I point out that you are a poor debater because you constantly insult people - even you would agree that doing so makes one a poor debater. But instead of defending yourself, all you can do is attack me.
you don't know what debate is so you are not judge of debaters. atheists insult people all the time. you are blind to what they do because you are brain washed. take my challenge go on a board pretend a christian and see how they treat you they are horrible they re filthy liars.
You have a number of habits which constantly come up - your tendency to attack, insult and belittle anyone who disagrees with you is the major one. And that one alone makes you a bad debater.
this is a kind of post I don't allow. its not about issues it's about what's wrong with me. I am not confuting this blog so I criticisms on my personalty. so I will not post such comments in the future. this s not therapy for me.
You might be able to debate wonderfully. I don't know, and neither does anyone else on any of the forums I've seen you on, because in those forums you always spend so much time attacking and insulting that you look very bad indeed.
Yes they know. they know what they are doing to divert attention they know the buttons they are pushing they know they are screwing up my hard work they want to do it that's their mission
like you flaming this blog. you know what you are doing.
It just doesn't matter how good my posts are you are blind to anytnig but your little brain washing. I prove i eve damn time.
I how examples over and over and over and over the narrow minded stupid things they say then they keep it coming.
Well, looks like another post of mine has just 'disappeared'. That's 3 lengthy posts that have vanished in the last week. Strange...
this comment page thingy is really strange. sometimes I do lose posts. Also it puts through duplicates sometimes as well. One time you had three identical posts. It could that I accidentally zapped one by mistake thing it was duplication. I don't remember. I have also lost posts I accept them and never see them materialize.
the only one's that just purposely don't publish are those that are just ragging on me or someone else. If you stick to the issues I'll post it.
the only one's that just purposely don't publish are those that are just ragging on me or someone else. If you stick to the issues I'll post it.
I see...we're totally subject to your censorship on here. I can see why you wanted me to come here, rather than another forum where what I post to you actually gets seen.
I see...we're totally subject to your censorship on here. I can see why you wanted me to come here, rather than another forum where what I post to you actually gets seen.
yes, sure are. It's my blog. I don't have to allow any comments at all.
I said the policy is no slander no ragging on a person. You are defending slander is that it? you are angry because I wont allow you to destroy my reputation?
I said the policy is no slander no ragging on a person. You are defending slander is that it?
we have all seen your tendency to imagine slander where none exists. You've shown many times that disagreeing with you is enough for you to decide you've been slandered.
you are angry because I wont allow you to destroy my reputation?
As far as I know, you don't have a reputation to destroy. If you do, then you do more to destroy it with all your insult-filled posts than any of us could ever do.
Electric said...
I said the policy is no slander no ragging on a person. You are defending slander is that it?
we have all seen your tendency to imagine slander where none exists. You've shown many times that disagreeing with you is enough for you to decide you've been slandered.
we have all seen the atheists tendency to think they make something true just by saying it. Besides the atheist reading comprehension track record is so bad I wouldn't imagine you would understand it if you saw it.
you are angry because I wont allow you to destroy my reputation?
As far as I know, you don't have a reputation to destroy.
that's brilliant. that really makes me want to see your comments in a favorable light.
If you do, then you do more to destroy it with all your insult-filled posts than any of us could ever do.
get this through your head rube. It's my blog, I don't give a damn what your brain washing tells you. It's totally reasonable policy. I've seen any sight that doesn't have a policy agianst personal attacks. you are not gonna make them here, agianst me or anyhone.
I get same protection anyone gets. Your lying hypocritical character assassinating stupidity can rage about me all you wish but not on my own blog.
we have all seen the atheists tendency to think they make something true just by saying it. Besides the atheist reading comprehension track record is so bad I wouldn't imagine you would understand it if you saw it.
No, we haven't seen that. You have imagined it - as you continually imagine things about atheists, such as above.
that's brilliant. that really makes me want to see your comments in a favorable light.
Sorry, but it's the truth. I don't know what reputation you believe you have, but as far as I know the only reputation you have is as a poor debater who constantly insults everyone who disagrees with him. If you have a different one, then I don't know with whom it is.
Secondly, you show something of your bias here. When I read comments - yours or anyone else's - I evaluate them based on what they say. I don't see them in a favourable or unfavourable light depending on who says them. You reveal that you do. You are more likely to view the comments of someone who you don't like badly. This betrays your bias, because we all know you hate atheists.
get this through your head rube. It's my blog, I don't give a damn what your brain washing tells you. It's totally reasonable policy. I've seen any sight that doesn't have a policy agianst personal attacks. you are not gonna make them here, agianst me or anyhone.
And here you demonstrate precisely my point. Your calling me a "rube" and talking about my "brain washing" destroys whatever good reputation you might have far more thoroughly than anything I could say.
I get same protection anyone gets. Your lying hypocritical character assassinating stupidity can rage about me all you wish but not on my own blog.
And here you do it again. My "lying character assassinating stupidity", huh? But you never insult and attack, right?
Post a Comment