Posts by Rebecca Diaz

Betty Ross6 said:Alright, look, does anyone here actually know what counts as plagiarism? I mean, seriously, can't a person just "plagiarize" themselves? Does anyone here even have a degree or deal with grad school theses? I always cited my sources whenever it made sense, and if I'm following this logic correctly, apparently citing your own previous work is now considered plagiarism... Give me a break. It’s just enough to make a guy lose his mind 😵

This thread is only 10 pages long.
If you actually went to college, reading 10 pages shouldn't be an issue for you.

darksurfer4 said:Could you maybe dive a bit deeper into this referendum business—specifically regarding this alleged rigging? You can always take it over to the forums if you prefer.😉

Here, look for yourselves:

nimblelynx63 said:The whole point of me dropping that link is to prove my case: Barišić didn't just quote it, he published it outright. He didn't offer an apology or anything—he just went ahead and cited it in the next edition

Look, my argument is simple: Barišić read Schlesinger's text and basically copy-pasted a chunk of it into his own article. He made some minor tweaks to the word order and sentence structure, then conveniently "forgot" to credit Schlesinger—even though he cited every other single source in that piece.

For what it's worth, Barišić's article runs seven pages and has six footnotes, one of which is Schlesinger's text. I honestly can't wrap my head around how Barišić managed to miss citing that specific source.

At the end of the day, it's up to you guys to decide whose version of events actually holds water.

nimblelynx63 said:Check this out. This is one of those articles talking about how

Do yourself a favor and read this. I haven't seen this level of mental gymnastics in a long time. 😁

"Well, now that we've peeked at the contents of that footnote, I think any reader can decide for themselves if there's enough scientific weight here to justify plagiarism—or if the alleged plagiarist actually gains anything from it. The reality is, the content of Schlesinger's article isn't strictly scientific; it's political. The data Barišić pulled from it isn't some groundbreaking result of Schlesinger's own research, but rather just his observations regarding the public stances of political figures that were already out there in the public domain."

So, according to the author, it isn't plagiarism simply because Schlesinger's piece is "political" and the info is "public"?
That’s total bullshit. It's a blatant cover-up.

nimblelynx63 said:From what I recall, they used this exact format for local use back when some magazine used to cite it properly...

Please back that up with some actual proof. Don't just say "so she said."