Quote:
Originally Posted by TGS
I'm not sure there is any need for insults but if that's what you want to do carry on. We disagree - I think it is legitimate to use material that has first appeared somewhere else so long as what is created by that use is something new. I think this because most of the thoughts that I think, sentences that I utter, paragraphs that I write, are derivative of the experiences that I have had - many of which experiences are other people's thoughts, sentences and paragraphs.
You think something else - about which I could throw insults, and would be happy to. You seem to carry on thinking what you think even thought the situation has changed and the author and her publisher have now acknowledged the original sources. What seems to be at the bottom of your criticism (of the author, the publisher, me, I'm not sure), is some kind of guess at the intentionality behind the act. But it is just a guess.
Disagreeing is fine. Being rude is not.
|
No. We are talking about plagiarism. It is well defined and was clearly evident in this case. There is no other conclusion.
If you can't understand that, you are either not understanding (slow) or simply unwilling to accept the facts.
The fact that the publisher is re-publishing with appropriate credit to the original writers is clearly supportive of the fact that it was plagiarism.