|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Nov 24, 2008 0:00:04 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by xx - Former Blues-xx on Nov 24, 2008 0:25:03 GMT -5
haha,he mostly copied u
and then added a bit of his own
but when was it posted??? maybe U ripped HIM off....
|
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Nov 24, 2008 0:27:52 GMT -5
it says it was posted tonight...
|
|
|
|
Post by PR's Old Account (DO NOT PM) on Nov 24, 2008 1:18:19 GMT -5
Okay, Leafs, you know I love you, but you need to actually look up the definition of "plagiarized" The similarities int he article are NOT that of style, or "exclusive" information but stuff you yourself call "a world renowned rumor". Sorry to say it, but the article is in no way plagiarized, even if it was written at a later date. Both articles contain stuff that is general knowledge, and both have a slightly different focus.
Moral: No plagiarism, just both lack originality.
|
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Nov 24, 2008 1:20:39 GMT -5
my article contained the major details of his contract extention, the deal that fell through and his point production to date. i even state that once he signed the contract, he was off the market and that's waht the whole article is about. the trade that fell through, his point production to date, and how he's no longer available. he only went further in explaining minor details of the players and provided pictures. it's still plaigirism.
|
|
|
|
Post by PR's Old Account (DO NOT PM) on Nov 24, 2008 1:21:33 GMT -5
The major details you claim he plagiarized are common knowledge. They are not something you have exclusive access to, nor something you conceived on your own, originally.
|
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Nov 24, 2008 1:22:06 GMT -5
Even discusses his faceoff issues... I discussed his face off issues
His faceoff work, long an issue, has started to improve.
|
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Nov 24, 2008 1:22:45 GMT -5
all of hockey is common fucking knowledge, anything anyone writes in hockey is common knowledge, the issues he discusses are everything i discussed in mine EVERYTHING.
|
|
|
|
Post by PR's Old Account (DO NOT PM) on Nov 24, 2008 1:26:08 GMT -5
Not if I say "Kubina should be traded for Sakic for the following reasons". Then its my opinion, and if I list a bunch of reasons to support my "interesting" idea, then it gets wishy washy, cause clearly it was my idea, and no talks between Colorado and Leafs took place. But if it was in the news for a year, then I mention it was in the news and now here are the current stats, thats all common knowledge, and anyone can write it. First person to write it doesn;t get to sue everyone for it.
If there were not talks and I listed 5 reasons why they should do it, then that showed up elsewhere, that is plagiarism. Recapping a trade that was "world renowned rumour" isn't, with all of the widely known stats, isn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Nov 24, 2008 1:28:15 GMT -5
Mike's: His point production has increased from last year’s 53 point effort, and he’s currently on pace for a 50 goal season; and although he has always faired decently in the faceoff circle, his face off wins percentage has progressively increased over his last 5 games.
His: His faceoff work, long an issue, has started to improve. He's on pace for 60 goals as of this writing.
Mike's: Last season, a world renowned rumor had Jeff Carter finding his way to Toronto with Philadelphia’s first round pick in the 2008 entry draft in exchange for Tomas Kaberle.
His: Holmgren and Fletcher discuss terms, and it's reported that a deal has been reached to send center Jeff Carter and a 1st round pick to the Leafs for Kaberle.
|
|
|
|
Post by extreme on Nov 24, 2008 1:28:57 GMT -5
Nope this is not plagiarism. I read both, its two differnet blogs talking about the same topic.
And your argument about the trade. Everyone knew about that. The fact you wrote it, means you got it off some source too.
|
|
|
|
Post by PR's Old Account (DO NOT PM) on Nov 24, 2008 1:30:09 GMT -5
faceoffs - you both say the opposite thing.
You: he was good; got better
Dinkus: He sucked. Now is good
The deal is common knowledge (or you say it is), so neither of you plagiarized it, or both of you plagiarism it. Unless you made up the deal, Mikey, there is no plagiarism there either.
|
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Nov 24, 2008 1:31:34 GMT -5
I'm stating that he read my article and wrote an article on everything that I covered, you don't find it even slightly suspicious that I give one to hockeybuzz, they don't post it, then I post it on mapleleafshotstove, and all of a sudden this gets posted on hockeybuzz? No suspicion at all? Yeah right...
I don't care about your argument of plaigirism, I'm saying he wrote the same fucking article.
|
|
|
|
Post by extreme on Nov 24, 2008 1:32:37 GMT -5
I don't know man. You're calling it Plagiarism, which it is clearly not.
|
|
|
|
Post by PR's Old Account (DO NOT PM) on Nov 24, 2008 1:34:51 GMT -5
I give one to hockeybuzz, they don't post it, then I post it on mapleleafshotstove, and all of a sudden this gets posted on hockeybuzz? No suspicion at all? This you did not mention. If you sent it to them, then they did not publish it, then later it was published on the site by someone else: That is a bit suspicious, and possibly a bitch-fuck, but still TECHNICALLY not plagiarism. |
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Nov 24, 2008 1:35:13 GMT -5
There fixed the fucking title. Wow, sorry I went so far as to call it plaigirism when it was basically just a copy. I apologize! jackass...
Read the top part of the article, my article IS on fucking hockeybuzz!
|
|
|
|
Post by extreme on Nov 24, 2008 1:35:17 GMT -5
But he didn't write the "same" one. He wrote it about the same topic, and just used stuff we all know about Jeff Carter in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Personnel Representative on Nov 24, 2008 1:36:31 GMT -5
He just happened to specifically discuss the toronto trade? the point production? his faceoff skills? how people don't normally watch out for him? yeah, a little close for comfort dude...
|
|
|
|
Post by PR's Old Account (DO NOT PM) on Nov 24, 2008 1:37:25 GMT -5
If it was published on hockeybuzz, why was a second one published? Ask the site-runners... Why publish similar articles within a few days of each other?
|
|
|
|
Post by PR's Old Account (DO NOT PM) on Nov 24, 2008 1:38:19 GMT -5
He just happened to specifically discuss the toronto trade? the point production? his faceoff skills? how people don't normally watch out for him? yeah, a little close for comfort dude... These are common when discussing people. Most people talk about predicted point production, etc. As a center, FOs often come up too. |
|
