My Sympathies go out to Scotland.

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Absynthe: quote: Originally posted by John D Harris: quote: Originally posted by Absynthe: Magik, your blogger seems to be a plagiarist.

And just exacttly how does that make anything the blogger wrote incorrect? [/QUOTE]Why do you think it would? [/QUOTE]I don't think it does that is why I asked the question. So what if a blogger didn't or did sight their source and give them proper credit, it's not like there is money or any other tangible asset on the line. But since as it has been writen the blogger mixed it with other figures, thus creating an entirely new thing. Unless one wishes to be nit-picky, in which case I believe the "Bard" wrote the words: "why", "do", "you", "think", "it", "would" just not in that order, without proper credit to Willy S. any use of those words could be considered Plagiarism.

Well put JD [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Dreamer128]

It's not uncommon that there is a bit of unclarity about the way EU-rules should be interpreted. There is always a certain margin of error, which is what you get when you develop laws for 25 different countries. What Scottisch Water should have done straight away is launch an appeal at the European Court of Justice, which is far more qualified for dealing with these issues. They've got all the specialists on European law. [img]smile.gif[/img] Of course, this is also far more dangerous, as you can't appeal against their decisions. That's why most groups/people try the national courts first. Still, since SW does not have the luxery of time, I can't help but wonder if they should have taken the risk. And Magik, it's great that you're taking an interest in European politics, but be careful when using blogs from Eureferendum. They're dedicated to bringing down the EU, so don't expect any kind of positive coverage or objectivity from them.

[ 01-04-2005, 07:49 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

[Davros]

Well that was the blogger defence JD. But you could also have just said - "OK dear Mr Blogger looks to push his agenda by taking a factual article that someone has written and spewing his own verbal bile around and about it. That looks to be pretty low on form and integrity but lets instead look at the article rather than the stupid loony blogger"

I just think that would have been an eminiently more sensible line for one to have taken [img]smile.gif[/img] . No point really to defending the blogger for his actions in placing a few abusive epithets about someone elses work. That sort of childish action should be condemned wherever it is encountered no matter what side of the political spectrum the deviant wordsmith comes from. Let's not defend him because he is right wing please.

And for dear M who will want at least one comment to be "on topic" - why do you always take the drama queen extreme in your interpretation of what events and consequences must be forthcoming from EU legislations. You seem to take the view that people must inevitably be hurt - that the courts and the appeals that Dreamer128 outlined must inevitably fail. That there is absolutely no way that anyone over there could fail to come to any commonsense outcome - no hope - all over red rover.

I appreciate that there is a network of like minded souls amongst the many sources like these blogs and the NRO and the wonderfully outspoken FOX "NEWS" commentaries that delight in unearthing gems like this about the UN and the EU. Sad to say that these sources only look for the bad in things and hardly ever look for anything positive.

Perhaps it is because these information sources perceive these organisations (UN and EU) as misguided and want to help them improve themselves. Perhaps these sources were suffering from a poor news day and needed a humorous filler, or perhaps these sources feel threatened (though I am afraid I can't supply a reason there as to why) and want to lash out in a small minded manner.

Yaaay Davros...way to defend the most ridiculous example of government run amok that I have seen in a decade! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] You certainly proved that it could be done..

[ 01-04-2005, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

In comment to an implication in Davros' post....Just because Information comes by way of a Blog does not in anyway change the accuracy or the validity of the information.

The fact that someone else has an opinion and inserts those opinions into their blog...is kind of the point behind a free and open society....at least thats how I understand it....Altho that bring into question the idea...should established "NEWS" organizations not be held to a more strict and strictly informative standard and leave the opinions to the Bloggers and the Op-Ed pieces?


[ 01-04-2005, 08:42 AM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Davros]

Originally posted by MagiK: Yaaay Davros...way to defend the most ridiculous example of government run amok that I have seen in a decade! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] You certainly proved that it could be done..

Wrong Ray - I didn't defend at all. That just shows you DIDN'T READ anything that I wrote. You assumed if I was talking about something that I must be defending against your attacks. Just so you get it right when you reply next you will note that I :
1) Disparaged the excusing and defence of a plagarist who inserts his own biased and obscene views about a factual article.
2) Disparaged the plagarist himself and called for the defence of better standards.
3) Eschewed the fact that you always take things (when it most suits) in the the worst manner in which they can be taken. I exhorted you to have a tad more faith that the commonsense of the courts would prevail (this, if you read it carefully, is implicit agreement with your all too obvious central thread that something needs to be done to reverse the decision)
4) I mused on those news sources and interest groups that have a purpose in conveying the EU and the UN as the purveyors of all evil.

Now - what precisely are you on about with that last post of yours, because it is evident that you never read anything that I answered with?

EDIT - that last question is posed to the post BEFORE the post above - you slipped another sneaky post in while I was writing my response Ray

[ 01-04-2005, 08:57 AM: Message edited by: Davros ]

[Davros]

Originally posted by MagiK: .Altho that bring into question the idea...should established "NEWS" organizations not be held to a more strict and strictly informative standard and leave the opinions to the Bloggers and the Op-Ed pieces?

Well here is something of a gem that I can agree with you on.

Mind you - we would have to rename one organisation to to the FOX BLOG NETWORK .

[John D Harris]

Originally posted by Davros: Well that was the blogger defence JD. But you could also have just said - "OK dear Mr Blogger looks to push his agenda by taking a factual article that someone has written and spewing his own verbal bile around and about it. That looks to be pretty low on form and integrity but lets instead look at the article rather than the stupid loony blogger" I just think that would have been an eminiently more sensible line for one to have taken [img]smile.gif[/img] . No point really to defending the blogger for his actions in placing a few abusive epithets about someone elses work. That sort of childish action should be condemned wherever it is encountered no matter what side of the political spectrum the deviant wordsmith comes from. Let's not defend him because he is right wing please.

Davros, I could have writen that but that's not my style . Of course the Blogger was pushing his agenda, "hale" everybody has and pushes an agenda. I have an agenda and push it, I admitt it. I don't try to use "they have an agenda" as a viable reason to dismiss their thoughts/reasons/acts because we all have agenda's. ( I'm not saying you do/are, just saying I try not to do that.)

I have seen the term "integrity" thrown around, to that I ask. Why is Not crediting a source, for whatever reason, in an open free arena of ideas, you know a conversation, not having integrity? As far as I can tell the blogger was not getting paid or recieving any other form of compensation for his blog. Granted it may very well be low on form, but as far as I can tell the blogger is human, and by nature prone to errors. So I'll quote, an often mis-used phrase as it is mis-used, "He who is without sin let him cast the first stone".

I'm not defending his placing of epithets, I'm saying his placing of epithets makes it a differant animal, and thus not palagerism, since prehaps the strickest difinition of palagerism is being used.

Originally posted by John D Harris: I'm not defending his placing of epithets, I'm saying his placing of epithets makes it a differant animal, and thus not palagerism, since prehaps the strickest difinition of palagerism is being used. [/QB]

So are you saying that using someone else's words and then adding your own makes it yours?