Gilbert, I will ignore your innuendo, and address only the issue of plagiarism. What is your definition of plagiarism? The standard one that I know is stealing of published material from others and claiming it as your own.
Regarding the rest, I request you to answer a few questions that were raised by it. --- Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I am surprised that you have not heard / read of > this idiom under discussion (see below). > Are you now claiming that the comments in your previous post were some kind of an idiom? Do you agree with what this "idiom" said? > >But I will be nice and not follow your example and >find reasons for your oversight (being polite). > Is purveying "idioms" equating plagiarism with research in public forums being polite to those who are engaged in research, according to you? > > It is only an insecure person with little in > accomplishments that would waste their time looking > for who is doing what to whom. For me I have more > important things to work and write on. > Are you now trying to be polite to people who have not accomplished as much or as little as you have? > >As I have shown on Goanet, many have the wrong facts >or impressions, from their single (or should I say >the plagiarized) source. > If someone has cited a source, regardless of whether it is single or multiple, according to the standard definition, it is not plagiarism. It appears that you have a separate definition of your own. What is it? Cheers, Santosh
