Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

When I first saw the news I thought it was deliberate, to dominate the news cycle

I thought about that too.  Discarded it as a bit too Machiavellian - too convoluted.  And they want their key talking points to be the focus of the news cycle.  They made lots of very bold statements that would occupy the news cycle without the Melania thing which was negative.  You only want to steal a news cycle at the expense of negative coverage if you don't think you will fill it was stuff you like.

Then I thought about it being someone sabotaging Melania - a Hillary supporter on the speech team.  And I discarded that as well.  It was much easier to imagine it as an accident of leaving in a copy-paste from Hillary's speech that they were going to change into different language and forgot.  Or maybe Melania had helped a bit with the speech.  And she found those paragraphs in the speech writers notes, but the weren't identified, and Melania liked them and put them in and then went out and gave the speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4617

  • Peter

    1434

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    884

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

They see suave, debonair Frisco giving a philosophically deep money speech, or John Galt taking over a radio presentation and addressing the audience in the manner of a professor. If they don't see th

Posted Images

56 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

Who said it was?

There are consequences other than legal.

I don't know about you, but I want to see character in political leaders.  Those that use what others have written as if it is their own may not have character. 

Not true.  To become a trite, hackneyed cliché something has to become common usage (like "much ado about nothing," or "drop in the bucket") and then it is no longer an act of plagiarism.    It is different when someone copies whole paragraphs. 

You are right, this is a minor thing, for a number of reasons, but it is interesting.

Plagiarism -> Common Use

Most everything we claim to "know"  we got from somewhere else.  A very small percentage of our ideas are true originals.  Shared material constitutes the bulk of our "knowledge".  One of the benefits of living in society is get a free idea tool kit  from  our parents and teachers.  Almost all original work is incremental, not seminal.  We wee bit of seminal idea creation adds to our tool kit. The took kit grows larger with each new generation. 

Where I really object to plagiarism is profiting from the work of others without at least giving credit.  Pretending someone else's idea is one's own is a form of fraud or deception  and making a profit from it adds to the aggravation.   Stealing glory and/or money is not nice   But using a well turned phrase here and there in a speech is not great wrong.  

The Democrats  are  picking nits and fleas.  

The  pending question:  How much of Michelle's speech was original? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Trump is formally nominated, see here.

:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) 

Michael

I already pardoned the crows and let them out of the aviary. So I'm not going to go back on my word.

See? I'm a nice guy...

But aren't any of the obligated crow-eaters from the bet last year gonna thank me for letting them off the hook? After all, if Trump were not nominated, I have little doubt they would be twisting the screws on me right now.

:)

(Actually, Marc capitulated some time ago, and still does off line--he thinks I'm a genius, so he doesn't count... :) )

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Most everything we claim to "know"  we got from somewhere else.

Come on, Baal.... are you keeping a straight face while you mix plagiarism in with all of the knowledge we got from somewhere else? 

Can you honestly say that you are unable, or unwilling to see any difference between someone knowing, for example, what the Declaration of Independence says, versus using copy-paste and taking a significant part of it and saying they wrote it?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to open a separate thread (or somebody else can do it) for this Fox News mess (the sexual harassment suit against Ailes by Gretchen Carlson with Megyn Kelly pile-on), but I'm putting the following article here in the Trump thread for one reason only.

The top talent (Hannity, O'Reilly, Van Susteren, etc.) is thinking leaving with Roger Ailes if he gets ousted from Fox and, as the news reports are saying, they are considering making a new cable news channel.

And guess who has enough money to start a new cable news channel, hmmmmmm? 

:)

Exclusive — Megyn Against the World at Fox: Anchor Rebellion, Creation of Competitor Network Looms Amid Ailes Ouster Rumors

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the sense of Breitbart news having become a bit too much tabloid since his death.  I'll wait and see what develops.  Fox News has been too isolated from competition for their ideological niche.  I would like to see more of a libertarian slant to the line-up.  They used to be a bit more like that.  I remember seeing Yaron Brooks as a guest now and then.  Maybe a break up would be good... or not.  The progressives must be drooling into their cocktails.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

Come on, Baal.... are you keeping a straight face while you mix plagiarism in with all of the knowledge we got from somewhere else? 

Can you honestly say that you are unable, or unwilling to see any difference between someone knowing, for example, what the Declaration of Independence says, versus using copy-paste and taking a significant part of it and saying they wrote it?

 

How much do you know first hand discovered all by yourself and using no input from anyone else?  Compare that to what you learned or received from others. Mankind progresses  -incrementally-.  Even our greatest genius contribute small amounts compared to what they have received.  The nice think about receiving knowledge and know-how from others is that it is NOT a zero sum processes.  What you get from others is not taken from them.  Everyone comes out ahead.

Mankind does not improve or prosper by re-inventing the wheel.  Mankind improves, progresses and prospers by value added. One bit at a time.  Leaps are rare.  And we are all players.  Some add more than others, but most of us add a bit here and there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I already pardoned the crows and let them out of the aviary. So I'm not going to go back on my word.

See? I'm a nice guy...

But aren't any of the obligated crow-eaters from the bet last year gonna thank me for letting them off the hook? After all, if Trump were not nominated, I have little doubt they would be twisting the screws on me right now.

:)

(Actually, Marc capitulated some time ago, and still does off line--he thinks I'm a genius, so he doesn't count... :) )

Michael

MSK:  your prescience regarding Trump has only been exceeded by your obeisance regarding Trump.   :evil::lol::evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

How much do you know first hand discovered all by yourself and using no input from anyone else?  Compare that to what you learned or received from others. Mankind progresses  -incrementally-.  Even our greatest genius contribute small amounts compared to what they have received.  The nice think about receiving knowledge and know-how from others is that it is NOT a zero sum processes.  What you get from others is not taken from them.  Everyone comes out ahead.

Mankind does not improve or prosper by re-inventing the wheel.  Mankind improves, progresses and prospers by value added. One bit at a time.  Leaps are rare.  And we are all players.  Some add more than others, but most of us add a bit here and there.

Baal, that totally ignores the question I asked and the issue at hand.  Plagiarism is different from using what we have learned from others - words have meanings.

This is what I wrote, and that you ignored: "Can you honestly say that you are unable, or unwilling to see any difference between someone knowing, for example, what the Declaration of Independence says, versus using copy-paste and taking a significant part of it and saying they wrote it?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Was the rain on the parade Mrs. Trump’s mistake? I am sure she will never, ever, let us down and be more careful now . . . and stay on the sunny side of the street Mrs. “T.”!! What the world needs now is love, sweet love. No, not just for some, but for everyone. Note to self: edit later.

Peter

Melania's Speechwriter Identified; Staying With Campaign by Christine Rousselle Posted: July 20, 2016 12:43 PM: Melania Trump's speechwriter has been identified as in-house staffer Meredith McIver. McIver issued a statement claiming that she did not intend to plagiarize Michelle Obama's speech, and that the copied passages arose from suggestions from Melania that she did not double-check to the original source material.

McIver apologized for the "confusion and hysteria" brought on by the speech. She offered her resignation to Donald Trump and the Trump family, but they rejected it. Earlier on Wednesday, Trump tweeted that Melania's speech "got more publicity than any in the history of politics." end quote

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm only going to mention the following once, then I'm letting it go.

Robert Bidinotto just came out with this gem (see here):

Quote

What is NOT understandable or justifiable, in the light of all the facts so readily apparent about him, is enthusiastic fervor for Trump: treating him as a capitalist icon, holding him up as a lofty champion of "American greatness." That is delusional -- a view based upon breathtaking ignorance or willful blindness, either likely due to being captive of the Trump Narrative. I cannot respect such individuals.

Fine. 

What is Bidinotto trying to be, KASS? It ain't working. He's entered the same league in my mind now as Lindsay Perigo, Randroids, Holy Rollers and Scientologists. 

Sad...

At least he can spin a half-decent yarn about a sadistic vigilante. May he live long and prosper.

I'm done...

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

Baal, that totally ignores the question I asked and the issue at hand.  Plagiarism is different from using what we have learned from others - words have meanings.

This is what I wrote, and that you ignored: "Can you honestly say that you are unable, or unwilling to see any difference between someone knowing, for example, what the Declaration of Independence says, versus using copy-paste and taking a significant part of it and saying they wrote it?"

If do not have the slightest idea of what anyone (besides myself) intends.  I only can discern public acts knowable in the usual  empirical manner.  So the answer to your question is -unable-.  I am -unable- to know intentions (except my own).  And because I am unable I also do not even attempt to discern intention (other than my own). I am totally mind blind (except to my own "mind").  I do not confuse my estimations of what others are doing with what they actually are doing.  

Being mind blind  has been the source of many of my difficulties growing up.  It seems my blindness produces in others actions and body language that I associate with my own annoyance.  My best guess is that my being mind blind  often makes other folks nervous which is too bad, because I do not really wish to make other people nervous  but I cannot see what I cannot see.  Blind is blind.  It is a state. It is a fact. Nowadays I avoid the problem by not expressing to many opinions of other peoples "mental states"  or intentions  publicly.  Most of the time I am mum on the matter. 

If a person says or indicates  publicly (in my hearing) that he/she wrote X  and  that person did not write X,  then I presume they are mistaken, forgetful or they committed an act of attempted deception.  I will assume the latter only if something I value is at stake (I assume the worst case if I have to defend myself).  I, personally, am careful  about claiming what is mine and what is not.  I do not wish other to be mistaken about that. It is an Aspie trait -- dotting the (i)  and crossing the (t).

You Normals  (NTs) appear to think you understand each other's intentions.  Neat trick.  And beyond my capacity. 

Once again: I am unable therefore unwilling to see.  Blind folks cannot see.  Do you hold that against them?  

Link to post
Share on other sites

To catch up on some Trump tweets:

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/20/politics/trump-aide-offers-resignation-in-melania-trump-plagiarism-incident/index.html

McIver explained that she included the passages from Michelle Obama's speech after listening to Melania Trump read passages from the 2008 address.

"Over the phone, she read me some passages from Mrs. Obama's speech as examples. I wrote them down and later included some of the phrasing in the draft that ultimately became the final speech. I did not check Mrs. Obama's speeches. This was my mistake, and I feel terrible for the chaos I have caused Melania and the Trumps, as well as to Mrs. Obama. No harm was meant."

-----

J

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, SteveWolfer said:

Fox News has been too isolated from competition for their ideological niche.  I would like to see more of a libertarian slant to the line-up.  They used to be a bit more like that.

Steve,

They still have John Stossel, who has his own show, and Andrew Napolitano as a regular guest. But I'm not too sure Roger Ailes's fundamental value and approach all along has been to sell a party line. I think it was to take advantage of a neglected market niche where he sympathized with the ideology. The market was there but nobody was serving it. That may not seem like a huge difference, but it is the difference between massive success and little or no audience. (I've listened to enough Rush Limbaugh, who also appeared early to serve this neglected niche, to know he gets this, too.)

For instance, here's a quote from The Loudest Voice in the Room: How the Brilliant, Bombastic Roger Ailes Built Fox News--and Divided a Country by Gabriel Sherman (pg. 95-96).

Quote

Years later at Fox News, Ailes would talk fondly about his theatrical experience. "Whenever he can, he gets into the conversation that he produced Hot l Baltimore," a senior Fox executive said.

Creating the Fox News afternoon show The Five, Ailes found his inspiration on the stage. "He said, 'I've always wanted to do an ensemble concept,'" a close friend said. "He said, 'I wanted a Falstaff, and that's Bob Beckel. I need a leading man, and it's Eric Bolling. I need a serious lead and that's Dana Perino. I need a court jester and it's Greg [Gutfeld], and I need the leg. That's Andrea Tantaros."

This use of distinct archetypes and using them for different emotional appeals (buffoonish vanity for the audience to deride, masculine mystique to admire, down-to-earth reasonableness, light comedy and female sex appeal) is the thought process of an artist and marketer, an entertainment businessman, not so much an ideologue.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I think it was to take advantage of a neglected market niche where he sympathized with the ideology.

I agree with that.  I'd add that he wanted not just a Christian slant, but a Catholic slant... not strong, overt, or explicit... but always there.

They don't turn a light on the inner workings so we don't know why they discontinued Beck and Napolitano's shows.  Maybe ratings?  And we have been kept in the dark about the progressive apparatuses attacks on advertisers.  And we have to look elsewhere to find out what, if any, ideological change will come with Ailes leaving.

9 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

This use of distinct archetypes and using them for different emotional appeals (buffoonish vanity for the audience to deride, masculine mystique to admire, down-to-earth reasonableness, light comedy and female sex appeal) is the thought process of an artist and marketer, an entertainment businessman, not so much an ideologue.

I'd say that he is a complex man (artist, entertainer, marketer, business man... and who is also ideological).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael,

I have to say, Cruz was in a unique position.  When you think of where Reagan was in 1976 it was similar, except that Gerald Ford wasn't someone that Reagan totally disagreed with on political principle, wasn't someone that he considered to be amoral, wasn't someone who had insulted his wife and accused his father of playing a part in the Kennedy assassination, and called him a liar again and again.

Cruz hasn't changed his personal ambitions.  He wants to be president.  Nothing wrong with that.  Trump supporters are upset that Cruz might run in 2020 EVEN if Trump is president and wants another term.  I say that he would be a better president knowing that he will be accountable to Cruz people at the end of the first four years.

There is no way Cruz could give a warm, loving endorsement of Trump.  My guess is that Cruz does not believe that his pledge requires hugs, kisses or accolades.  It requires that he not run against Trump as an independent or third party candidate.  It requires that he not campaign against him.  He said nothing against Trump.  I think he is meeting the minimum standards. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, SteveWolfer said:

My guess is that Cruz does not believe that his pledge requires hugs, kisses or accolades.  It requires that he not run against Trump as an independent or third party candidate.  It requires that he not campaign against him.  He said nothing against Trump.  I think he is meeting the minimum standards.

Steve,

That's a lot of parsing. 

Sorry, Charlie. Only the best tuna for Starkist.

Here's a copy of the Republican Party's pledge that the candidates signed, including Lyin' Ted, Bush, Kasich, and Fiorina. You can get your own copy here.

07.20.2016-23.52.png

 

Since when does "I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is" mean what you said as minimum requirements of fulfillment? Endorse means endorse, not political yawp.

The truth is these people have no problem lying about something like this in front of the entire world. They even put their signatures to it. But no matter. It's only their word.

I don't expect any of them to have much of a future with the Republican Party anymore in terms of elections. That pledge was to the Republican party, not to Trump. At least Bush, Kasich and Fiorina stayed out of the convention, but Lyin' Ted went there and did the equivalent of spitting in the faces of Trump's voters and the Republican Party itself. He reneged on his promise to endorse the winner in front of the whole world, in front of at least 10 million viewers. 

I guarantee, except for a small group of die-hard Cruz supporters, there is a crapload of Republicans who will not forget this.

Ever.

I don't even expect Cruz to get reelected to his Senate seat. We'll have to wait and see, but I bet my crows on this one. The guy committed political suicide even if Trump loses (which is what he is counting on). 

EDIT: Sorry. I can't resist. In my quote of you above, you also wrote: "There is no way Cruz could give a warm, loving endorsement of Trump." The pledge did not say anything about warmth and love. But it did say something about endorse... :) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I don't expect any of them to have much of a future with the Republican party

I don't expect there to be a Republican party for that much longer.  It has become the divided, makes no sense, populist party with strange hangers-on that are neo-cons, evangelicals, establishment cronies, nut cases, and shows almost zero political principles. 

Trump is a con man.  Sorry, but I can't see that any other way.  I will vote for him over Hillary, but only if on the day before the election I believe that he will actually select Supreme Court nominees from that list.  If I don't believe him, I'll throw my vote away on Gary Johnson.  Mr. Art of the Deal might decide to let the democrats have a liberal for the court, but only if they'll promise to give him something he wants more.  Is there any Trump supporter who can point to evidence of any kind that that isn't a reasonable fear?

I've never seen such a lack of civility or principle or commonsense - and I'm not talking about the way Hillary Clinton is being addressed - she deserves it.  I'm talking about how anyone who doesn't spout unconditional love for The Donald becomes some kind of piece of shit.  We are witnessing the rise of a new embodiment of Political Correctness in the world of Trump.

 

13 minutes ago, Jon Letendre said:

Ted is a piece of shit.

I can't tell you how disappointing that is as an excuse for discourse from some one I've respected in the past. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now