Proof?


Dragonfly

Recommended Posts

*sighing* Please, you guys, leave me out of this shit. I know what Steve is wanting to do in trying to fight and to protect my existence, my name, who I am, etc. and I greatly appreciate that. But you know, this is really unnecessary. I've talked with a number of people on this board over the phone including Rich, Steve, Gary, Mike, as well as one other that is escaping me now which I sincerely apologize for not remembering, and was supposed to give Kori a call a few months back but never got around to it. There's several people here that can attest that I do exist and I am not an invention of Victor.

Edited by CNA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A is A.

As usual "A is A" doesn't prove anything. Aquirst is Aquirst, therefore Aquirst must exist. Yeah, sure.

Not that I doubt that Angie exists, I've had several pleasant email exchanges with her before Victor appeared on the stage, and I've no reason to doubt this was a real person. But I'm protesting against the pretentious notion that you can prove the existence of a person just by publishing a photograph. In that case the existence of flying saucers, aliens, fairies and the Loch Ness monster would also have been proved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This guy speculates on the contrary.

Such things do happen. I'm for example fairly sure that the so-called "Penelope Beach" on Solo was a fake (and IIRC Perigo came to the same conclusion). "Her" contributions were just a bit too much over the top. I seem also to remember a certain Artemis Kerridge on ROR (complete with photo!)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angie,

You're right. You should not have to prove your own existence online, or appeal to others to corroborate your existence. You've become a target of Internet paranoia.

It's possible to create a fake identity online, but most of us aren't prepared for that kind of deception. When we discover it's been happening, a common reaction is paranoia. So when Dan Edge and others revealed the full extent of plagiarism, some Internet paranoia set in.

Those who are in the grip of Internet paranoia are best off taking a long vacation from the discussion board where the objects of their paranoia reside.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

Well, if you really believed that Angie's photo was bogus, I recommend a breather from OL. It will do you some good.

I spent some time on a discussion board where, largely for legitimate reasons (fear of being fired by an out-of-control university administration that boasted about reading employees' email), most of the posters were anonymous. I was one of the few who participated under a real name, but then I had no connection with that university. After a while the discussion board turned into a wilderness of mirrors, where one poster might maliciously pretend to be another, posters from the university administration would pretend to be from the community outside the university, all manner of rumors were being manufactured, etc. etc. etc. Pretty soon my distrust of the genuinely fraudulent posters began spilling over onto others who weren't trying to fool anyone. I learned that I couldn't function sanely in that kind of environment, and left the board.

One of the reasons I will never return to SOLOP is that, until recently, Mr. Perigo and his lieutenants didn't bug posters to reveal their identities--unless the posters were criticizing the Fearless Leader. It took Perigo a remarkably long time to discern that "Penelope Beach" was a bogus identity. To this day, I doubt he suspects that "Lindsay Blair" (who claimed to be the author of a remark that I had criticized in one of my earlier posts) probably was as well.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angie,

You're right. You should not have to prove your own existence online, or appeal to others to corroborate your existence. You've become a target of Internet paranoia.

Robert,

In this instance, all she's "a victim" of is Steve Reed's having over-reacted (see) to a quip Brant made on the "Exposed" thread:

What if Angie doesn't exist? What if she is only an invention of VP?

Brant promptly apologized for the remark, and I think it was obvious in any case that Brant hadn't seriously doubted Angie's existence.

Of course I apologize to Angie for the aforementioned post. I shouldn't have made it. I was wrong to do so.

--Brant

Ellen

EDIT: Robert, I have to recommend that you read the whole background before wading in to this. Dragonfly was only objecting to the idea that a photo constitutes proof of anyone's existence. Of course it doesn't. HE wasn't doubting that Angie actually exists. Nor was Brant, really, in the first place. And I'd venture to say, neither was anyone else here.

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dragonfly,

Sorry--I thought it was clear that you hadn't doubted Angie's existence.

I will admit to wondering why you thought it necessary to remind everyone that photos can be bogus. None of the participants here was born yesterday.

Ellen,

I was aware of Brant Gaede's "quip" and Steve Reed's response to it before I wrote anything here. I would have evaluated said "quip" as pretty awful whether Steve had uttered a word about it or not.

I'm not a supporter of Steve's overall position, because I think that people who plagiarize ought to be blamed for it. I underestimated the extent and severity of Victor's plagiarism because I didn't care for most of his posts about philosophy, literature, etc. in the first place. After a while I quit reading them. Not a sufficient response, as it turned out.

Now that its extent is broadly known, we can all roll up our sleeves and help Michael and Kat clean away the poop. (I'm assuming that we can be of help in that endeavor...)

Such cleanup chores look to be a good deal more productive--indeed, more pleasant--than continued squabbling amongst ourselves.

Robert Campbell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellen,

I was aware of Brant Gaede's "quip" and Steve Reed's response to it before I wrote anything here. I would have evaluated said "quip" as pretty awful whether Steve had uttered a word about it or not.

It was bad all right. "Quip" is not the right word, but to explain this further would compound the offense. And I'm not going to make or seem to make excuses. I can only say that it was out of character for me. I have no complaint about Steve, even if he went "over the top."I missed his post at first which is why I didn't respond until the 29th. I had forgotten my post except for a vague, uneasy memory so I went back over my recent posts until I found it and Steve's.

I don't agree with the policy of labelling all of Victor's old posts. The plagiarized articles and plagiarized responses, but not every post and not with those big bright blue words.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will admit to wondering why you thought it necessary to remind everyone that photos can be bogus. None of the participants here was born yesterday.

I'm not so sure, I was in fact reacting to a post in which it was claimed that a photo definitely proved her existence. I merely denied this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the policy of labelling all of Victor's old posts. The plagiarized articles and plagiarized responses, but not every post and not with those big bright blue words.

Brant,

So it's OK for a person to pollute my forum, but I have to turn the other cheek during clean-up?

Just because further identifications of plagiarism stopped for a while does not mean they do not exist. I was on a trip with Kat and did not have the time to examine the posts. Many identified plagiarisms are still in a queue awaiting edits. I have also had a health issue, so this has slowed me down.

But there are over 2,000 posts to look at. Since you have such a strong opinion, I would really appreciate any help you can provide in checking them. If, after examining them, you wish to send me a list of the posts you think should not be labeled as plagiary, I will use it for consultation after clean-up.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't agree with the policy of labelling all of Victor's old posts. The plagiarized articles and plagiarized responses, but not every post and not with those big bright blue words.

Brant,

So it's OK for a person to pollute my forum, but I have to turn the other cheek during clean-up?

Just because further identifications of plagiarism stopped for a while does not mean they do not exist. I was on a trip with Kat and did not have the time to examine the posts. Many identified plagiarisms are still in a queue awaiting edits. I have also had a health issue, so this has slowed me down.

But there are over 2,000 posts to look at. Since you have such a strong opinion, I would really appreciate any help you can provide in checking them. If, after examining them, you wish to send me a list of the posts you think should not be labeled as plagiary, I will use it for consultation after clean-up.

Michael

No it's not okay, Michael. I don't have such a strong opinion. I was merely talking about font size and every post. I certainly think it's so bad that maybe a list of Victor's posts that have been determined not to be plagiarism might be in order if only to find out if there were any and to contrast them with the others, but who has the time for that? If this was my forum I'd have done things only a little differently and if put in the balance I'd have been just as tough as you. Sorry you have a heath issue and hope it gets better soon.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's awfully difficult to determine that a post is NOT plagiarism, particularly if he's used a source that's not yet available online. How do you prove that something wasn't written by someone else? We can't check every book ever written.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Sorry if I am grumpy. This is a major headache to clean up. Just so you know, the font size is mostly advertising. Here is what I wrote about this elsewhere.

As regards font size of the plagiary notice, I like it for now. I will have to go through all of those posts one by one to examine them. Not all the plagiarisms were from online sources; I do not have a photographic memory; there are many books and articles I have not read, so the large font is nothing more than good advertising to enlist the aid of those who know what I do not. This task will take some time since I also have a life. After it is done, I will probably make some changes.

The point is that I have been forced into a position where I have had to make a value choice. I chose to look after the clean-up of my forum. The automatic text insertion is a wonderful manner of asking for help right at the problem points.

Some people (not you) seem to believe that I should take the feelings, conveniences and reputation of the person who made this mess into account over my primary value. How's that for Objectivist? Anyway, I already did that and look at what happened. To be fair, I also had an interest at stake during the time this developed—I was and still am highly interested in studying methods of moral redemption from an Objectivist angle.

The actual reason for the text size is that the posts that have a greater likelihood of containing plagiarized material are often long. The signature line is at the bottom and people usually skip over it. A large font size and different color call attention to the text and hopefully puts a reader into a critical frame of mind as he/she reads.

As added value (but at a distant second place), it also identifies the nature of the culprit in a totally unambiguous manner. It is valuable to run the message like that for a time because the history of this particular case has obeyed an unproductive and evasive sequence: (1) plagiary was made, usually with smart-ass rhetoric to go with it, (2) plagiary was detected and a stink made, (3) a half-assed solution and apology were presented to the public (where I admit my own protective contribution), (4) time passed, and (5) ultimately there was denial and/or pretending that the plagiary never happened. Life went on with no redemption or atonement. Then it started all over again. This sequence ran a few times.

Now, owing to the large number of posts, the large-font request for help in identifying the huge volume of plagiarisms assures that there will be no more denials or pretending. All anyone has to do is look and it is right there and does not go away. No more letting the passage of time be a tool to fake reality. No more memory hole. This time, the true nature of the problem will be well identified in the public mind before moving on.

But like I said, this is valuable, but it is secondary. Later I will study a smaller font-size and other measures. Right now I have a forum to clean. I don't intend to drop everything in order to hurry, either.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's awfully difficult to determine that a post is NOT plagiarism, particularly if he's used a source that's not yet available online. How do you prove that something wasn't written by someone else? We can't check every book ever written.

Laure,

That's a good point. You can't. But I can at least make a reasonable attempt to catch what I can before thinking about any other measure. The sheer volume is what is making me a bit grumpy. It's going to take time.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

~ Well, let me add another 2-cents-worth of a suggestion: Rather than work through E-V-E-R-Y post by a 'problem-poster', why not just change (I presume such is practical) ALL posts (and maybe 'threads-started') by the poster to a differently unusual font (not italics)/color/size/etc as a clear 'flag' that "Here there be Dragons!" --- No need to respond; just consider.

LLAP

J:D

Link to comment
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