Gilbert is the best example in Goan cyberfora of someone who should not post inspite of having a keyboard and computer. I am not sure if he is intentionally trying to make a fool of himself here. Even a 5th grader in the USA understands the basic concept of plagiarism which Gilbert fails to grasp after repeated attempts. Santosh clearly identified the link and other references, so where is the issue of plagiarism? It is not even a copyright issue in this case. I think Gilbert got caught with his zipper open once again with Cecil's post on Gilbert's alleged plagiarism. Gilbert should respond to Cecil instead of inventing (yet again) another bogus definition of plagiarism.
Regards, George --- Gilbert Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did Santosh plagiarize information from Indiana University web blog to teach > us the definition > and what constitutes plagiarism? Will he have us believe that he "had their > authorization" to > use the Indiana University web link and paraphrase the information for us? > Or does he not > think, as per Wikipedia definition, this comes close to plagiarization, not > withstanding that > this is his usual MO (modus operandi)? Granted that Santosh did not do this > "cut and paste" for > profit. Contrary to what Santosh writes, merely giving the source of > information / reference > does not constitute "authorized use" or permission to plagerize. While he > does this, (takes > information from the web) he condemns others who use material displayed on > the web. How ironic? > Perhaps as Goans we never see the moat in our own eye.
