[TGS]

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

There is contrast between his work and the underlying work, possibly enough to put someone on notice that they aren't quite the same. I made that same point 5 pages ago about your urinal example. Books don't work the same way.

You claim that books don't work that way, but do not explain why they don't. I claim that using "found" material may be a legitimate artistic activity, and if it is, then it is not (necessarily), plagiarism. You seem to claim otherwise - we disagree.

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

Not only were you wrong about what his assessment would be (you presumed too much, which is rude), you just called him an unsophisticated assessor (albeit, more slyly than he called you slow), and you did so after lecturing him about being rude earlier in the thread. So now you're rude and a hypocrite.

On the contrary, I seem to be right about kennyc's assessment - as he confirms in his response to me. I reject the notion that I "lectured" kennyc about being rude - I mentioned that I found being called "slow" to be rude, how does that constitute lecturing? I'm not sure what you mean by me characterizing kennyc's assessment as being unsophisticated as being rude and sly - I was commenting on his assessment, and I did not do it slyly - what I did not do was comment on him - I did not call him an unsophisticated assessor, as you suggest, I called, what I presumed to be, his assessment unsophisticated - unlike the rhetorical question "are you slow?", it is not an comment on a person.

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

I enjoy having conversations with people I disagree with TGS, what's the point in talking with someone who already agrees with you? One might as well have a conversation with oneself.

So do I - so long as they are conducted with some possibility of finding common ground.

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

You've hijacked this thread when the topic you so desperately wish to discuss is very, very tangentially related to it's stated topic, and when someone dares not to discuss your topic on your terms, you behave as though they're the ones in the wrong thread.

The first post on this thread mentioned this German author's book, and characterized it as plagiarism. My point throughout has been that to reach that judgement may well be too hasty and that the situation, and the proper way to characterize it, may be more complicated than that. You see that as hijacking, I see it as having a different perspective on the topic. I still don't know whether the book constitutes plagiarism, but if it does it may be that sometimes plagiarism is OK - as in the case of the Asger Jorn picture.

Originally Posted by David Marseilles

Conversations between people who disagree only work out positively when everyone is willing to behave honestly. You haven't been willing to do that, while at the same time you seem to think you're on the high ground. You're not. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to unsub this thread and go argue with someone who doesn't think they're better than anyone who disagrees with them.

I simply do not know what you mean by your accusation of dishonesty. Discussions, as distinct from conversations, are about putting your point forward and seeking to persuade others of the validity of your position. As part of that process it is, at some level, necessary to believe that the position one is advocating is right. An implication of this is that it is necessary to believe that someone putting an opposing view is wrong. It does not follow from this that I consider myself to be occupying any "high ground", if that is taken to mean, as it often does, a higher moral position. It does not preclude the possibility that one will be persuaded by the arguments of one's "opponents", nor does it imply that one is attacking the other person - one is challenging the position they are advocating, not the person themselves.