**************Extract Statements from the following Link ************** http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/penrose.html
you posted words without giving credit. you also posted a link. nowhere did you indicate that the words in this thread were not your own. if i chose not to click the link, i would never know. you have plagiarized. you should edit your post, indicate that the words are a quote, and indicate who the author is.
Ugh, lethe, about plagiarizing, would saying only "according to a source" be still considered plagiarism since it's not too specific?
well, this is only a web message board, so i don t expect you to adhere to publication standards. i guess it depends on how much you quote, whether i would consider that OK. so i dunno. but at least, saying "according to a source" indicates that the words are not your own. with MacM, i read his post, and there is no indication that he is using someone elses words. and i usually do not bother to follow links. quotes are nice to support your own case, when you use them in addition to your own point, but if you have nothing to say other than a quote, than maybe you should stop to consider whether its really worth opening your mouth at all.
lethe, So according to you unless one has an opinion or information on a subject he should not raise the issue on the MSB? I found the subject interesting but have no specific input. I posted it for the edification of those that might also find it of interest. Not clicking on links seems sort sighted. The links generally provided the meat of the issue, not the prolog on the MSB. Sort of reminds me of the complaint (wrongfully) lodged at me as reading only the conclusions of papers and not reading the entire paper. hmmmm.
no mac, post whatever the fuck you want, just cite your sources. the message board has a quote tag for a reason. or if you don t like using tags, just use goddamn quotation marks.... but most importantly: GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE you posted a bunch of words that were written by Michael weiss. nowhere in your post does it indicate that the words are not yours. in a formal paper, you put a subscript that points to a bibliography. you don t have to write a bibliography everytime you cut and paste someone elses work, but is it too much to ask that you somehow indicate that michael weiss wrote them? great. thanks. why don t you keep your opinions about my short-sightedness to yourself. thanks. i don t see the comparison. all i ask is that if you want to copy and paste other peoples work into this message board, you just acknowledge the author.
lethe, I do not contend you are wrong in any absolute sense but you are certainly wrong in the manner you posted your request. Your post makes allegations that I had plagerized somebodies work. I did not and do not. You see nowhere that I claimed those words as my own. I believed that posting the extracts of what was in the link would give people some insight as to the links contents. I'll be more careful to insure that I mark such posts as being extracts from the link attached to them but that is a far cry from your false accusations against me. They were not appreciated. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by MacM So according to you unless one has an opinion or information on a subject he should not raise the issue on the MSB? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- no mac, post whatever the fuck you want, just cite your sources. the message board has a quote tag for a reason. or if you don t like using tags, just use goddamn quotation marks.... but most importantly: GIVE CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE you posted a bunch of words that were written by Michael weiss. nowhere in your post does it indicate that the words are not yours. in a formal paper, you put a subscript that points to a bibliography. you don t have to write a bibliography everytime you cut and paste someone elses work, but is it too much to ask that you somehow indicate that michael weiss wrote them? No, nor is it to much to expect that persons not interested at looking at the link should be interested in who wrote the words on the MSB. Anybody following the link would see they were his words and nowhere have I tried to claim or give the impression it was my work. I will however, try to insure that for those that would rather skip over actual papers (links) understand the words are extracts. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I found the subject interesting but have no specific input. I posted it for the edification of those that might also find it of interest. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- great. thanks. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not clicking on links seems sort sighted. The links generally provided the meat of the issue, not the prolog on the MSB. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- why don t you keep your opinions about my short-sightedness to yourself. thanks. And why didn't you keep your criticisim honest and not assert plagerisim on my part. I may have shortcut a technicality in posting but not with any malice or intentions of misleading. I would not have been pissed if you had simply recommended that it be done and had not made the false accusation regarding plagerisim. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sort of reminds me of the complaint (wrongfully) lodged at me as reading only the conclusions of papers and not reading the entire paper. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- i don t see the comparison. all i ask is that if you want to copy and paste other peoples work into this message board, you just acknowledge the author. I'm sure you don't see the comparison. Not a surprise. PS:To also be fair to you, you weren't the one that slung that charge at me.
that is exactly what i did on my first post on this thread. instead of simply editing your post and citing the author, you chose to argue. only then did i start tossing around words like "plagiarism". by the way, i note with interest that the first post still makes no mention of authorship.
it is not whether the words are extracts or not that concerns me. what concerns me is whether you wrote the words. the rule is very simple. if you didn t write the words, say who did. at what point was i dishonest. i don t mean to imply that you were maliciously stealing peoples words. all i want is that when you use words, in your post which bears the name "MacM" next to it, that someone who is not MacM wrote, you indicate who wrote them. anything less is plagiarism.
... and all this because he failed to mention the original author. Lethe, something tells me you have a few things to clean out from your closet. Any passed experience with your own publications ? I am just going out on a limb, here ...
perhaps i overreacted. i just feel that when you use someone elses words, you should simply state outright that they are not your words, and say whose words they are. Mac has posted articles here in the past, and he usually does say who wrote the article.
lethe, Sorry you were upset but I disagree with your broad brush. Plagiarism is the deliberate act of taking somebodyelse's work and claiming it as your own. I personally thought posting the link which contained those words by the author was clear. I accept your comment about those that might not click on the link and will be sure to indicate either the author or that they are extracts from such a link. From your earlier post: I did not (and still do not) consider my response an arguement. I simply wanted to make sure you noticed that I had credited the work to the original author via posting the link to the full paper. I also accept that perhaps that is not quite enough. However, I do believe that simply noting that such are extracts from a link (just to give a general issue overview of what is in the paper) is infact adequate. But I will be guided by a general concensus on that issue.
I'm inclined to agree with lethe. It would have been ok to post just the link, as long as it was accompanied by something like: Above text from this link. In general, if you post something, people assume you wrote it unless you tell them you didn't.
James R., You state that you agree with lethe but then added this: From my above post: Does this also not say what I have also agreed to? I just want to conform to policy. I'm not argueing. I have also added the "Quotes".
This is funny. I jumped into this thread thinking there would be a discussion on the Lorentz-Fitzgerald contraction. But what I got instead is a lengthy debate on plagiarism. May be this thread should be moved to site feedback.
surely it wouldn't be possible to photograph the contraction, seeing as no camera would have a short enough exposure time to capture anything moving at a speed anywhere near c without terrible blurring.
speedingelectron, I would assume this theoretical effort would reqire that the camera be rotated to keep the object centered in the lens. Maintaining focus with such a rapid changing range would pose another problem but it is only theoretical, not an actual proposed test.
