My Sympathies go out to Scotland.

Originally posted by Absynthe: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Plagerism is when you don't accredit the work of others and claim it as your own....I didn't see him do that. No where did he take credit for the source....However *I* might be liable to be called some kind of name since I didn't post proper credits for the material. Edit: It might also be mentioned that I did say that I had edited the material too to remove certain TOS violations so that I could post it.

Gee Magik, you're always liable to be called some kind of name... [img]smile.gif[/img]
If anyone uses someone elses material and does not credit the source, it's plagiarism. Publishing anything under your own byline, such as in a blog, is a claim of authorship unless specifically noted otherwise.
If he did credit the sources in his blog then it's not plagiarism, and perhaps you edited that out also.
Actually, since you said up front that you had pulled the info from a blog, you avoided plagiarism, but if the blog author failed to credit the source or at least acknowledge that he didn't originate the material then he is a plagiarist.

The reason I posted the original article is that the blog segment you posted mixes information from one place with other figures without citing where they are from, or what context they are presented in.
I assumed that you, MagiK, had enough integrity not to pull a cut and paste of that type without noting the fact. [/QUOTE]*sigh*

Why are you tring to start a fight? I didn't post his blog...I posted PART of his blog and then edited. IN his ACATUAL blog (if it is a he) It was quite apparent that he was commenting on someone elses article and I believe he had links to the source...so I ask again...why are you pokeing at me? If you want to get really agumentative as in that other thread.....forget about it..I'll just mark you to be ignored and move on...if however you wish to exchange ideas....Im game.

Wellard [img]smile.gif[/img] While never one to be associated witht he "Green" party....I am living proof that it is a lie that Conservatives want dirty air and water. I just happen to support a more (and this is personal value judgement and not a litteral claim) "rational" approach to less polluton and better efficiencies. I don't really know anyone who wants dirty air or water and I know many people who run their business to be as efficient and clean as they can economicaly and feasably be.

Originally posted by MagiK: quote: Originally posted by Absynthe: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Plagerism is when you don't accredit the work of others and claim it as your own....I didn't see him do that. No where did he take credit for the source....However *I* might be liable to be called some kind of name since I didn't post proper credits for the material. Edit: It might also be mentioned that I did say that I had edited the material too to remove certain TOS violations so that I could post it.

Gee Magik, you're always liable to be called some kind of name... [img]smile.gif[/img]
If anyone uses someone elses material and does not credit the source, it's plagiarism. Publishing anything under your own byline, such as in a blog, is a claim of authorship unless specifically noted otherwise.
If he did credit the sources in his blog then it's not plagiarism, and perhaps you edited that out also.
Actually, since you said up front that you had pulled the info from a blog, you avoided plagiarism, but if the blog author failed to credit the source or at least acknowledge that he didn't originate the material then he is a plagiarist.

The reason I posted the original article is that the blog segment you posted mixes information from one place with other figures without citing where they are from, or what context they are presented in.
I assumed that you, MagiK, had enough integrity not to pull a cut and paste of that type without noting the fact. [/QUOTE]*sigh*

Why are you tring to start a fight? I didn't post his blog...I posted PART of his blog and then edited. IN his ACATUAL blog (if it is a he) It was quite apparent that he was commenting on someone elses article and I believe he had links to the source...so I ask again...why are you pokeing at me? If you want to get really agumentative as in that other thread.....forget about it..I'll just mark you to be ignored and move on...if however you wish to exchange ideas....Im game.
[/QUOTE]Don't take everything so personally. From what you originally posted, it looked like your blogger may have plagiarized another article. I made one small unimportant comment about it, as an aside. As usual, anything that looks like criticism of or disagreement with something you say sends you up a wall, and I guess I really have a weakness for watching you get spun up about things. It's kind of a sport, and if you look at your posts, I'm not the only player.

The important part was the content of the article, which shows just how insanely out of control beuracracies can get. I posted additional information about the same story because I thought it was a subject worthy of discussion. If the EU doesn't pull their collective heads out of the clouds in regard to interpreting the rulings, they're going to cripple the very things that they want to promote.

[Dreamer128]

I don't think this is an example of an 'out of control bureaucraty'. First, because the EU doesn't really qualify as one. The entire European Commission actually employs less civil servants then most medium sized Dutch cities. Second, the problem seems to be with SEPA, rather then the European Parliament. If the Scottisch believe the European Court of Justice has ruled that sewage pellets are not waste, then they should appeal to the European Court of Justice. Or they can write their MP's in the European Parliament.

[ 12-30-2004, 05:36 PM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

Originally posted by Dreamer128: I don't think this is an example of an 'out of control bureaucraty'. First, because the EU doesn't really qualify as one. The entire European Commission actually employs less civil servants then most medium sized Dutch cities. Second, the problem seems to be with SEPA, rather then the European Parliament. If the Scottisch believe the European Court of Justice has ruled that sewage pellets are not waste, then they should appeal to the European Court of Justice. Or they can write their MP's in the European Parliament.

And thus my ignorance is exposed... [img]smile.gif[/img]
The beuracracy I meant is SEPA, as they seem to be the rule-making body in this case.
I was under the impression that the EU parliament had to ratify or approve the rules made by SEPA, thereby making it the responsibility of the EU to reign in SEPA if it's making bad rulings.
Apparently the EU parliament stays out of it completely, leaving it to each member nation to contest SEPA rulings on their own?
Who has initial oversight of the rules made by SEPA?
It seems that that is the point where the problem originated, for if the rules were sensible to start with, or applied sensibly, this particular issue with Scotlands waste wouldn't have occured.
It's becoming ever more obvious that I need to learn more about who does what to whom in the EU...
Thanks for the clarification Dreamer.

[Dreamer128]

Heh.. I doubt even Manuel Barroso himself knows all the ins and outs of the European Union. It's a rather complicated organisation, although that will be somewhat lessened when (more like: if) the European Constitution is ratified. Back on topic: I don't think the European Parliament has to approve rulings made by the Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, which is a national institution. It's more likely that the SEPA (as any national agency) has to interpret European rules rather then the other way around. (See: article 1-5-1 of the European Constitution) Most commonly, decisions are made like this: The European Commission agrees on a set of rules, these are ratified by the European Parliament and/or The Counsil of Ministers (not to be confused with the Counsil of Europe or the European Counsil). After being passed, it's up to the memberstates to implement the laws. If there is any doubt concerning certain details (as there is here), it is up the European Court of Justice to interpret the new law. Most people don't know this, but the vast majority of new laws implented comes from the EU. This works out quite well for the people on top. If EU-decisions turn out right, the credit goes to the national politicians. If something like this happens (*points to the top of the thread)*).. well, the EU makes an excellent scapegoat, since it doesn't really defend itself.

[ 12-31-2004, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

Okay, now I get it... at least I think I do... [img]smile.gif[/img]
I had the chain of decision making running backwards. It seems to still work out that SEPA have their heads up their butts in either case. I hope that some common sense is applied to this situation soon. Unfortunately this isn't the only problem; in the rest of the article from Christopher Booker, he addresses some other problems in re: garbage disposal rules leading to fly tipping (not to be confused with cow tipping) and issues with junk car disposal.
Thanks again for the info/explanation Dreamer... I be smarter now.

In the end does anyone here seriously have the point of view that this is NOT a total screw up by all the agencies involved? Or does this make some kind of twisted logical sense?

Originally posted by MagiK: In the end does anyone here seriously have the point of view that this is NOT a total screw up by all the agencies involved? Or does this make some kind of twisted logical sense?

I think only a career politician would try to defend this mess. There is a certain amount of error in any system, but this is pretty extreme considering how simple the situation is.

LOL one would think. But then...I suppose it's not too funny since there are going to be people impacted negatively by this.