"I'm trying really hard to understand how this kind of appropriation without attribution is *not* a form of plagiarism." - Hallo friend USA IN NEWS, In the article you read this time with the title "I'm trying really hard to understand how this kind of appropriation without attribution is *not* a form of plagiarism.", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article HOT, Article NEWS, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : "I'm trying really hard to understand how this kind of appropriation without attribution is *not* a form of plagiarism."
link : "I'm trying really hard to understand how this kind of appropriation without attribution is *not* a form of plagiarism."

"I'm trying really hard to understand how this kind of appropriation without attribution is *not* a form of plagiarism."

"When you take someone else's ideas, their original work, and pass it off as your own ... yeah, that's what plagiarism is. I'm just ... trying to find a way around this. 'It's just a crossword' is the only defense I can imagine, and as you can imagine, I find that defense fantastically pathetic."

Rages Rex Parker, about the Sunday NYT crossword, which, he finds, lifted a bunch of — SPOILER ALERT — writing rules that break themselves (like "No sentence fragments").

He points us to a William Safire column published in the NYT in 1979:

Not long ago, I advertised for perverse rules of grammar, along the lines of “Remember to never split an infinitive” and “The passive voice should never be used.”

The notion of making a mistake while laying down rules (“Thimk,” “We Never Make Misteaks”) is highly unoriginal, and it turns out that English teachers have been circulating lists of fumblerules for years.

As owner of the world's largest collection, and with thanks to scores of readers, let me pass along a bunch of these never‐say‐neverisms....

So... Safire admitted the idea wasn't at all original, and he didn't write the examples but collected them from readers and passed them on. It was a cornball old English-teacher joke when Safire padded his column with this stuff in 1979. It's silly to think that we need to honor William Safire because he's the one that had the NYT column that became the place where this dusty old junk remained visible after 40 years. In any case, it's all so infra-NYT that I can't feel much outrage, but then I pretty much loathe crossword themes, especially when humor is involved. And I do the NYT crossword every day. I like interesting and unusual words. Themes... bleh. But I can see why Rex gets mad. He's all about demanding that the NYT puzzle live up to its own claims of greatness. And this wasn't great. "Plagiarism" was the least of it. I thought I'd enjoy jumping back into the world of William Safire, but the best I can say about that is that he admitted he was writing a lazy, unoriginal column.

Thus articles "I'm trying really hard to understand how this kind of appropriation without attribution is *not* a form of plagiarism."

that is all articles "I'm trying really hard to understand how this kind of appropriation without attribution is *not* a form of plagiarism." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article "I'm trying really hard to understand how this kind of appropriation without attribution is *not* a form of plagiarism." with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2017/06/im-trying-really-hard-to-understand-how.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: