On 7/3/23 3:36 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> anim8rfsk@cox.net wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> writes:
>
>>>> Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg attacked the Christian web designer
>>>> who the Supreme Court sided with last week in striking down a Colorado law
>>>> that would have required her to design a website for a same-sex wedding.
>>>>
>>>> In a 6-3 decision in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Court cited
>>>> the First Amendment in ruling that Lorie Smith could not be forced by state
>>>> civil rights law to design websites that run counter to her sincerely-held
>>>> religious beliefs.
>>>>
>>>> Buttigieg made the remarks during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union”
>>>> with host Dana Bash when asked if there was any merit to the majority opinion
>>>> written by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
>>>>
>>>> “No, there isn’t,” Buttigieg, who has no background or education in law,
>>>> claimed. “And I think it’s very revealing that there’s no evidence that this
>>>> web designer was ever even approached by anyone asking for a Web site for a
>>>> same-sex wedding.”
>>>>
>>>> “Matter of fact, it appears this Web designer only went into the wedding
>>>> business for the purpose of provoking a case like this,” he claimed. “And, in
>>>> that sense, I think there’s something in common between this Supreme Court
>>>> ruling and what we’re seeing happening in state legislatures across the
>>>> country, which is kind of a solution looking for problem, in other words,
>>>> sending these kinds of things to the courts and sending these kinds of things
>>>> to state legislatures for the clear purpose of chipping away at the equality
>>>> and the rights that have so recently been won in the LGBTQ+ community.”
>>>>
>>>> WATCH:
>>>>
>>>> When asked for his thoughts on SCOTUS decision in 303 Creative LLC v.
>>>> Elenis, Pete Buttigieg claims without evidence that Lorie Smith "only
>>>> went into the wedding business for the purpose of provoking a case
>>>> like this." pic.twitter.com/Ln6KTqsfbe
>>>>
>>>> — Kevin Tober (@KevinTober94) July 2, 2023
>>>
>>> It's plagarized, yes.
>>
>> How is it plagiarized? Isn't the definition of plagiarism passing off
>> someone else's work under your own name? Isn't Ubi posting the other
>> person's work under the correct name?
>
> It's not. Do keep in mind that Kerman has a few newsfroups named after him:
>
> alt.troll.adam-h-kerman
> alt.adam-h-kerman.config
> alt.scumbag.adam-kerman
>
> Take anything he has to say with a healthy amount of skepticsm.

I love it when the RATs turn on each other!

> --
> Let's go Brandon!
>
>

On 7/3/23 3:46 PM, FPP wrote:
>> On 7/3/23 2:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <U7unlk$3nnmm$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>   Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggested over the weekend that
>>>> there are no checks on the U.S. Supreme Court and that there was
>>>> nothing balancing out their power, despite the fact that those things
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>> And despite the fact that if the Court was weighted 6-3 to the Left and
>>> issuing rulings she agreed with and liked, she'd have no problem with
>>> the lack of checks on the Court and she sure wouldn't be calling for a
>>> more balanced Court. She'd have it be 9-0 leftist jurists if she could.
>
> Nice strawman argument.  Was it particularly hard to knock down?
>
> Why don't you explain now how it's OK to take bribes and rule in favor
> of the briber now?
>
> And then explain how it's OK to lie under oath at a confirmation hearing.
>
> And then tell us how Roberts made up his new "major questions" doctrine
> to apply to a law duly passed by congress that was crystal clear in it's
> wording?
>
> Now tell us what checks and balances are in place to prevent this.
>
> You can then go on to explain how Supreme Court Justices don't
> understand how to fill out a financial disclosure form.

Prediction: OKT won't have the necessary genitalia to respond.

On 7/3/23 4:41 PM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> writes:
>
>>>> [snip of more delusional, hate filled, off topic, oh,
>>>> and plagiarized, garbage]
>
>>> It's plagarized, yes.
>
>> How is it plagiarized? Isn't the definition of plagiarism passing off
>> someone else's work under your own name? Isn't Ubi posting the other
>> person's work under the correct name?
>
> Ubi put his name on From. Ubi does not provide a proper citation in the
> body of the article in which it can be found. He hides a URL in his
> headers to piss everybody off. That is in no way a citation of any kind.
>
> If Ubi weren't plagarizing, he'd put the author's name on it and provide
> a proper citation.
>
> I read it only because Danny complained about it.

Several assholes in play here but I have to agree with Verman on this one.

On 7/3/23 7:28 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> writes:
>>
>>>>> [snip of more delusional, hate filled, off topic, oh,
>>>>> and plagiarized, garbage]
>>
>>>> It's plagarized, yes.
>>
>>> How is it plagiarized? Isn't the definition of plagiarism passing off
>>> someone else's work under your own name? Isn't Ubi posting the other
>>> person's work under the correct name?
>>
>> Ubi put his name on From. Ubi does not provide a proper citation in the
>> body of the article in which it can be found. He hides a URL in his
>> headers to piss everybody off. That is in no way a citation of any kind.
>>
>> If Ubi weren't plagarizing, he'd put the author's name on it and provide
>> a proper citation.
>>
>> I read it only because Danny complained about it.
>>
>
> I still don’t follow you.

That goes without saying.

If I repost something you wrote and put your
> name, not mine, in the from line, which is what Ubi generally does, how am
> I plagiarizing?

Poor "guy" (or whatever "his" pronoun is) has trouble with the
difference between apples and oranges.

> He is impersonating, certainly, but is impersonation plagiarism?

The sky is blue, obviously, but is it Cerulean blue?

On 7/3/23 8:29 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <u7vqrj$24832$1@solani.org>, suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 7/3/2023 5:28 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>>> [snip of more delusional, hate filled, off topic, oh,
>>>>>>> and plagiarized, garbage]
>>>>
>>>>>> It's plagarized, yes.
>>>>
>>>>> How is it plagiarized? Isn't the definition of plagiarism passing off
>>>>> someone else's work under your own name? Isn't Ubi posting the other
>>>>> person's work under the correct name?
>>>>
>>>> Ubi put his name on From. Ubi does not provide a proper citation in the
>>>> body of the article in which it can be found. He hides a URL in his
>>>> headers to piss everybody off. That is in no way a citation of any kind.
>>>>
>>>> If Ubi weren't plagarizing, he'd put the author's name on it and provide
>>>> a proper citation.
>>>>
>>>> I read it only because Danny complained about it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I still don’t follow you. If I repost something you wrote and put your
>>> name, not mine, in the from line, which is what Ubi generally does, how am
>>> I plagiarizing?
>>
>> Because you've put your name on the from line. Though if you acknowledge
>> it was a repost from someone else, it wouldn't be. Ubi doesn't
>> acknowledge someone else wrote what he posted.
>
> Well, he does, just not in a way that's easy to see.

Wow that's a strong argument. "Strong" as in "strongly stinky."
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On 7/3/23 10:24 PM, FPP wrote:
> On 7/3/23 10:55 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> writes:
>>>
>>>>>>>> [snip of more delusional, hate filled, off topic, oh,
>>>>>>>> and plagiarized, garbage]
>>>
>>>>>>> It's plagarized, yes.
>>>
>>>>>> How is it plagiarized? Isn't the definition of plagiarism passing off
>>>>>> someone else's work under your own name? Isn't Ubi posting the other
>>>>>> person's work under the correct name?
>>>
>>>>> Ubi put his name on From. Ubi does not provide a proper citation in
>>>>> the
>>>>> body of the article in which it can be found. He hides a URL in his
>>>>> headers to piss everybody off. That is in no way a citation of any
>>>>> kind.
>>>
>>>>> If Ubi weren't plagarizing, he'd put the author's name on it and
>>>>> provide
>>>>> a proper citation.
>>>
>>>>> I read it only because Danny complained about it.
>>>
>>>> I still don't follow you. If I repost something you wrote and put your
>>>> name, not mine, in the from line, which is what Ubi generally does,
>>>> how am
>>>> I plagiarizing?
>>>
>>> Ubi put his own email address on From. He did a full-text quote of the
>>> article. He did not cite the article's title nor author nor publisher.
>>>
>>> That's unequivocably plagarizing.
>>
>> All right I apparently did not see that post. And.
>
>
> So you're saying except for the part where it’s not in any possible,
> way, shape or form, sure?

I'm amazed that anyone can show gay boy any credence.

On 7/4/23 12:01 AM, anim8rfsk wrote:
> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>> On 7/3/2023 5:28 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> writes:
>>
>>>>>>>>> [snip of more delusional, hate filled, off topic, oh,
>>>>>>>>> and plagiarized, garbage]
>>
>>>>>>>> It's plagarized, yes.
>>
>>>>>>> How is it plagiarized? Isn't the definition of plagiarism passing off
>>>>>>> someone else's work under your own name? Isn't Ubi posting the other
>>>>>>> person's work under the correct name?
>>
>>>>>> Ubi put his name on From. Ubi does not provide a proper citation in the
>>>>>> body of the article in which it can be found. He hides a URL in his
>>>>>> headers to piss everybody off. That is in no way a citation of any kind.
>>
>>>>>> If Ubi weren't plagarizing, he'd put the author's name on it and provide
>>>>>> a proper citation.
>>
>>>>>> I read it only because Danny complained about it.
>>
>>>>> I still don't follow you. If I repost something you wrote and put your
>>>>> name, not mine, in the from line, which is what Ubi generally does, how am
>>>>> I plagiarizing?
>>
>>>> Because you've put your name on the from line. Though if you acknowledge
>>>> it was a repost from someone else, it wouldn't be. Ubi doesn't
>>>> acknowledge someone else wrote what he posted.
>>
>>> Of course he does. He puts the name of the original poster right in the
>>> from line.
>>
>> That's forgery, which is abuse of Usenet. And that wasn't what I objected
>> to in this thread.
>>
>>>>> He is impersonating, certainly, but is impersonation plagiarism?
>>
>>>> It's more than that.
>>
>>> Except for the part where it's not in any possible, way, shape or form,
>>> sure.
>>
>> A full-text quote without citing the title, author, and publisher,
>> without citing the URL, is plagarism.
>>
>
> No. It’s not.
>
> The (Oxford) University defines plagiarism as follows:
>
> “Presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without
> consent of the original author”
>
> Webster says:
>
> “: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own”
>
> Cambridge says:
>
> the process or practice of using another person's ideas or work and
> pretending that it is your own
>
> Dictionary says:
>
> “an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts
> of another author without authorization and the representation of that
> author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author”
>
> Plagiarism.org says:
>
> “to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own”
>
> Note the common thread. With one possible exception, I have never seen Ubi
> put his own name on these posts he gets from other people. He puts their
> name on it.
>
> And he puts the original URL in the headers. God knows why. But it is
> there.
>
> You may not like his formatting. He may be guilty of impersonation. But he
> is not plagiarizing.

This is literally one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen on this
"newsfroup" (whatever the fuck that means.)

On 7/4/23 4:27 AM, trotsky wrote:
> On 7/3/23 3:36 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggested over the weekend that
>>>> there are no checks on the U.S. Supreme Court and that there was
>>>> nothing balancing out their power, despite the fact that those things
>>>> exist.
>>>
>>> And despite the fact that if the Court was weighted 6-3 to the Left and
>>> issuing rulings she agreed with and liked, she'd have no problem with
>>> the lack of checks on the Court and she sure wouldn't be calling for a
>>> more balanced Court. She'd have it be 9-0 leftist jurists if she could.
>>
>> Maybe AOC should have worn her "smartie glasses" so she'd be more
>> credible.
>
>
> Which butt plug are you wearing today, Pubie?
>
>
>> Let's go Brandon!
>
>
> Fuck off.
>

Dumb boys are always afraid of smart girls... and here we have one of
the dumbest.

--
"Thou shalt not make a machine in the likeness of a man’s mind." - OC
Bible 25B.G.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ek8kap93bmk0q5w/D%20U%20N%20E%20Part%20II.jpg?dl=0

Gracie, age 6.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/0es3xolxka455iw/BetterThingsToDo.jpg?dl=0

On 7/4/23 4:24 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 7/4/23 4:27 AM, trotsky wrote:
>> On 7/3/23 3:36 PM, Ubiquitous wrote:
>>> atropos@mac.com wrote:
>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) suggested over the weekend that
>>>>> there are no checks on the U.S. Supreme Court and that there was
>>>>> nothing balancing out their power, despite the fact that those things
>>>>> exist.
>>>>
>>>> And despite the fact that if the Court was weighted 6-3 to the Left and
>>>> issuing rulings she agreed with and liked, she'd have no problem with
>>>> the lack of checks on the Court and she sure wouldn't be calling for a
>>>> more balanced Court. She'd have it be 9-0 leftist jurists if she could.
>>>
>>> Maybe AOC should have worn her "smartie glasses" so she'd be more
>>> credible.
>>
>>
>> Which butt plug are you wearing today, Pubie?
>>
>>
>>> Let's go Brandon!
>>
>>
>> Fuck off.
>>
>
> Dumb boys are always afraid of smart girls... and here we have one of
> the dumbest.

Two things about Pubie: he's been doing this schtick since the last
century, and I can't fucking fathom how people even give this anonyshit
the time of day. He might not be a true anonyshit however, since I've
heard it said his name is really Mike Weber as his email would indicate,
but he's such screwy Louie who can say for sure.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>On 7/3/2023 5:28 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> writes:

>>>>>>>>>[snip of more delusional, hate filled, off topic, oh,
>>>>>>>>>and plagiarized, garbage]

>>>>>>>>It's plagarized, yes.

>>>>>>>How is it plagiarized? Isn't the definition of plagiarism passing off
>>>>>>>someone else's work under your own name? Isn't Ubi posting the other
>>>>>>>person's work under the correct name?

>>>>>>Ubi put his name on From. Ubi does not provide a proper citation in the
>>>>>>body of the article in which it can be found. He hides a URL in his
>>>>>>headers to piss everybody off. That is in no way a citation of any kind.

>>>>>>If Ubi weren't plagarizing, he'd put the author's name on it and provide
>>>>>>a proper citation.

>>>>>>I read it only because Danny complained about it.

>>>>>I still don't follow you. If I repost something you wrote and put
>>>>>your name, not mine, in the from line, which is what Ubi generally
>>>>>does, how am I plagiarizing?

>>>>Because you've put your name on the from line. Though if you acknowledge
>>>>it was a repost from someone else, it wouldn't be. Ubi doesn't
>>>>acknowledge someone else wrote what he posted.

>>>Of course he does. He puts the name of the original poster right in the
>>>from line.

>>That's forgery, which is abuse of Usenet. And that wasn't what I objected
>>to in this thread.

>>>>>He is impersonating, certainly, but is impersonation plagiarism?

>>>>It's more than that.

>>>Except for the part where it's not in any possible, way, shape or form,
>>>sure.

>>A full-text quote without citing the title, author, and publisher,
>>without citing the URL, is plagarism.

>No. It's not.

anim, I have no idea why you are trying to convince me that Ubi's
constant plagiarism isn't exactly what it is. HE DOES NOT CITE. In a
Usenet article, a citation appears near the quote so the reader knows
who the author is. A citation includes the title, author, publication at
very minimum. If the article was found on the Web, then it also includes
the URL.

Ubi does none of this.

>The (Oxford) University defines plagiarism as follows:

>"Presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without
>consent of the original author"

Ubi does this.

>Webster says:

>": to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own"

Ubi does this.

>Cambridge says:

>the process or practice of using another person's ideas or work and
>pretending that it is your own

Ubi is portraying himself as the author.

>Dictionary says:

>"an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts
>of another author without authorization and the representation of that
>author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author"

Sigh

>Plagiarism.org says:

>"to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own"

>Note the common thread. With one possible exception, I have never seen Ubi
>put his own name on these posts he gets from other people.

Ubi's name and email address are on From. The full-text quote is the
entirety of the body of the article he's posted to Usenet, with one of
his insulting .sigfiles appended. The title, author, publication, and
URL of the Web page never there.

>He puts their name on it.

That's flat-out wrong.

Ubi has never put the author's name on an article he has plagiarized
from the Web as a full-text quote. He puts his own name and email
address on From. That presents somebody else's words as his own. That
meets every definition of plagiarism you just cited.

anim, you keep insisting that Ubi is doing exactly the opposite of what
he's actually doing. Just stop it at this point.

>And he puts the original URL in the headers. God knows why. But it is
>there.

Putting the URL in the headers is not a citation. The citation must
appear with the text being quoted.

God knows why? He's trolling. He's always trolled. He always will troll.
If he gets quoted in followup, then the quote is falsely attributed to
Ubi because of the way Usenet quoting in followup works. That's why he
does it.

>You may not like his formatting.

No, anim, hiding a URL in header is not a matter of formatting. It's not
a citation of any kind because the citation does not appear with the
quoted text.

>He may be guilty of impersonation.

His forgeries of other Usenet posters are not at issue here. And it's
flat-out wrong to say "may be". He actually forges other Usenet posters
and he has done so for decades. Plenty of people have caught him doing
it. This is an established fact that Ubi forges other people.

>But he is not plagiarizing.

For whatever reason, by incorrectly stating that Ubi isn't doing
exactly what he has been doing for decades has thoroughly pissed me off.

You win.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 7/3/2023 5:28 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> danny burstein <dannyb@panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> writes:
>
>>>>>>>>>> [snip of more delusional, hate filled, off topic, oh,
>>>>>>>>>> and plagiarized, garbage]
>
>>>>>>>>> It's plagarized, yes.
>
>>>>>>>> How is it plagiarized? Isn't the definition of plagiarism passing off
>>>>>>>> someone else's work under your own name? Isn't Ubi posting the other
>>>>>>>> person's work under the correct name?
>
>>>>>>> Ubi put his name on From. Ubi does not provide a proper citation in the
>>>>>>> body of the article in which it can be found. He hides a URL in his
>>>>>>> headers to piss everybody off. That is in no way a citation of any kind.
>
>>>>>>> If Ubi weren't plagarizing, he'd put the author's name on it and provide
>>>>>>> a proper citation.
>
>>>>>>> I read it only because Danny complained about it.
>
>>>>>> I still don't follow you. If I repost something you wrote and put
>>>>>> your name, not mine, in the from line, which is what Ubi generally
>>>>>> does, how am I plagiarizing?
>
>>>>> Because you've put your name on the from line. Though if you acknowledge
>>>>> it was a repost from someone else, it wouldn't be. Ubi doesn't
>>>>> acknowledge someone else wrote what he posted.
>
>>>> Of course he does. He puts the name of the original poster right in the
>>>> from line.
>
>>> That's forgery, which is abuse of Usenet. And that wasn't what I objected
>>> to in this thread.
>
>>>>>> He is impersonating, certainly, but is impersonation plagiarism?
>
>>>>> It's more than that.
>
>>>> Except for the part where it's not in any possible, way, shape or form,
>>>> sure.
>
>>> A full-text quote without citing the title, author, and publisher,
>>> without citing the URL, is plagarism.
>
>> No. It's not.
>
> anim, I have no idea why you are trying to convince me that Ubi's
> constant plagiarism isn't exactly what it is. HE DOES NOT CITE. In a
> Usenet article, a citation appears near the quote so the reader knows
> who the author is. A citation includes the title, author, publication at
> very minimum. If the article was found on the Web, then it also includes
> the URL.

Every part of that is the opposite of true. It’s like you’re writing from
the antimatter universe.

>
> Ubi does none of this.
>
>> The (Oxford) University defines plagiarism as follows:
>
>> "Presenting work or ideas from another source as your own, with or without
>> consent of the original author"
>
> Ubi does this.

Nope.

>
>> Webster says:
>
>> ": to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own"
>
> Ubi does this.

Never once that I have seen.

>
>> Cambridge says:
>
>> the process or practice of using another person's ideas or work and
>> pretending that it is your own
>
> Ubi is portraying himself as the author.

Not now, not ever.

>
>> Dictionary says:
>
>> "an act or instance of using or closely imitating the language and thoughts
>> of another author without authorization and the representation of that
>> author's work as one's own, as by not crediting the original author"
>
> Sigh
>
>> Plagiarism.org says:
>
>> "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own"
>
>> Note the common thread. With one possible exception, I have never seen Ubi
>> put his own name on these posts he gets from other people.
>
> Ubi's name and email address are on From.

Not in this or any accessible alternate reality. Ubi’s name and email
address don’t appear anywhere.

The full-text quote is the
> entirety of the body of the article he's posted to Usenet, with one of
> his insulting .sigfiles appended. The title, author, publication, and
> URL of the Web page never there.
>
>> He puts their name on it.
>
> That's flat-out wrong.

No, it’s the opposite of wrong. It’s 100% correct.

>
> Ubi has never put the author's name on an article he has plagiarized
> from the Web as a full-text quote. He puts his own name and email
> address on From.

No

That presents somebody else's words as his own. That
> meets every definition of plagiarism you just cited.

That’s absolutely not what I get here.

>
> anim, you keep insisting that Ubi is doing exactly the opposite of what
> he's actually doing. Just stop it at this point.

OK you could not possibly be more wrong. But here’s a question. Could your
client be displaying the information differently than mine? When Ubi posts
something from TJ, it says it’s from TJ. There is no hint anywhere that
it’s from Ubi except maybe something you can dig up from the hidden
headers. so what I get is an article written by TJ credited to TJ. Granted
it’s apparently not actually posted by TJ. But it’s not plagiarism.

>
>> And he puts the original URL in the headers. God knows why. But it is
>> there.
>
> Putting the URL in the headers is not a citation. The citation must
> appear with the text being quoted.
>
> God knows why? He's trolling. He's always trolled. He always will troll.
> If he gets quoted in followup, then the quote is falsely attributed to
> Ubi because of the way Usenet quoting in followup works. That's why he
> does it.

Nope. Absolutely nothing like that happens here. You are as wrong as Ian
multiplied by Susie.

>
>> You may not like his formatting.
>
> No, anim, hiding a URL in header is not a matter of formatting. It's not
> a citation of any kind because the citation does not appear with the
> quoted text.
>
>> He may be guilty of impersonation.
>
> His forgeries of other Usenet posters are not at issue here. And it's
> flat-out wrong to say "may be". He actually forges other Usenet posters
> and he has done so for decades. Plenty of people have caught him doing
> it. This is an established fact that Ubi forges other people.
>

I’ll give you forgery. I will not give you plagiarism because it’s not
plagiarism by any definition

>> But he is not plagiarizing.
>
> For whatever reason, by incorrectly stating that Ubi isn't doing
> exactly what he has been doing for decades has thoroughly pissed me off.
>
> You win.
>

Only because I’m right.

If Ubi’s name is right there in a post from TJ for everybody to see, why
does it anger you?

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On 7/4/2023 8:24 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:

> OK you could not possibly be more wrong. But here’s a question. Could your
> client be displaying the information differently than mine? When Ubi posts
> something from TJ, it says it’s from TJ. There is no hint anywhere that
> it’s from Ubi except maybe something you can dig up from the hidden
> headers. so what I get is an article written by TJ credited to TJ. Granted
> it’s apparently not actually posted by TJ. But it’s not plagiarism.
>

I think maybe *your* client is displaying his posts differently than
what we see. For years I thought these were Ubi's original writing, no
where did someone else's name appear, his name only and email address. I
don't diplay the full headers so I missed the url in them. Which is not
where you put them, they should be in the body of the post.

<snip some more>

> Only because I’m right.
>
> If Ubi’s name is right there in a post from TJ for everybody to see, why
> does it anger you?

Because it doesn't appear as a post from TJ, but Ubi only.

suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
> On 7/4/2023 8:24 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>
>> OK you could not possibly be more wrong. But here’s a question. Could your
>> client be displaying the information differently than mine? When Ubi posts
>> something from TJ, it says it’s from TJ. There is no hint anywhere that
>> it’s from Ubi except maybe something you can dig up from the hidden
>> headers. so what I get is an article written by TJ credited to TJ. Granted
>> it’s apparently not actually posted by TJ. But it’s not plagiarism.
>>
>
> I think maybe *your* client is displaying his posts differently than
> what we see. For years I thought these were Ubi's original writing, no
> where did someone else's name appear, his name only and email address. I
> don't diplay the full headers so I missed the url in them. Which is not
> where you put them, they should be in the body of the post.
>
> <snip some more>
>
>
>> Only because I’m right.
>>
>> If Ubi’s name is right there in a post from TJ for everybody to see, why
>> does it anger you?
>
> Because it doesn't appear as a post from TJ, but Ubi only.
>

And I have the exact opposite experience. It doesn’t appear as a post from
Ubi, but TJ only.

This is why I’ve never understood what Adam is complaining about.

Next time I see one, I’ll put up a screen grab in the Facebook group.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 21:48:08 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
wrote:

>suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>> On 7/4/2023 8:24 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>
>>> OK you could not possibly be more wrong. But here’s a question. Could your
>>> client be displaying the information differently than mine? When Ubi posts
>>> something from TJ, it says it’s from TJ. There is no hint anywhere that
>>> it’s from Ubi except maybe something you can dig up from the hidden
>>> headers. so what I get is an article written by TJ credited to TJ. Granted
>>> it’s apparently not actually posted by TJ. But it’s not plagiarism.
>>>
>>
>> I think maybe *your* client is displaying his posts differently than
>> what we see. For years I thought these were Ubi's original writing, no
>> where did someone else's name appear, his name only and email address. I
>> don't diplay the full headers so I missed the url in them. Which is not
>> where you put them, they should be in the body of the post.
>>
>> <snip some more>
>>
>>
>>> Only because I’m right.
>>>
>>> If Ubi’s name is right there in a post from TJ for everybody to see, why
>>> does it anger you?
>>
>> Because it doesn't appear as a post from TJ, but Ubi only.
>>
>
>And I have the exact opposite experience. It doesn’t appear as a post from
>Ubi, but TJ only.
>
>This is why I’ve never understood what Adam is complaining about.
>
>Next time I see one, I’ll put up a screen grab in the Facebook group.

The issue from my perspective is his hiding the URL. I often never
even knew he included the URL in the header because that part is never
displayed in my news reader unless I ask to see all headers. He should
be including the URL in the body of the message but he intentionally
doesn't do that even though the idea has been brought up multiple
times.

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 21:48:08 -0700, anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net>
> wrote:
>
>> suzeeq <suzee@imbris.com> wrote:
>>> On 7/4/2023 8:24 PM, anim8rfsk wrote:
>>>
>>>> OK you could not possibly be more wrong. But here’s a question. Could your
>>>> client be displaying the information differently than mine? When Ubi posts
>>>> something from TJ, it says it’s from TJ. There is no hint anywhere that
>>>> it’s from Ubi except maybe something you can dig up from the hidden
>>>> headers. so what I get is an article written by TJ credited to TJ. Granted
>>>> it’s apparently not actually posted by TJ. But it’s not plagiarism.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think maybe *your* client is displaying his posts differently than
>>> what we see. For years I thought these were Ubi's original writing, no
>>> where did someone else's name appear, his name only and email address. I
>>> don't diplay the full headers so I missed the url in them. Which is not
>>> where you put them, they should be in the body of the post.
>>>
>>> <snip some more>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Only because I’m right.
>>>>
>>>> If Ubi’s name is right there in a post from TJ for everybody to see, why
>>>> does it anger you?
>>>
>>> Because it doesn't appear as a post from TJ, but Ubi only.
>>>
>>
>> And I have the exact opposite experience. It doesn’t appear as a post from
>> Ubi, but TJ only.
>>
>> This is why I’ve never understood what Adam is complaining about.
>>
>> Next time I see one, I’ll put up a screen grab in the Facebook group.
>
> The issue from my perspective is his hiding the URL. I often never
> even knew he included the URL in the header because that part is never
> displayed in my news reader unless I ask to see all headers.

Ditto. And on my client on the iPhone if I do display the headers they’re
too minuscule to be discernible anyway.

He should
> be including the URL in the body of the message but he intentionally
> doesn't do that even though the idea has been brought up multiple
> times.
>

I try to always do that. I used to only do it if I didn’t include the whole
article but now I do it regardless of how much of the article I posted.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>>. . .
>>anim, you keep insisting that Ubi is doing exactly the opposite of what
>>he's actually doing. Just stop it at this point.

>OK you could not possibly be more wrong. But here's a question. Could your
>client be displaying the information differently than mine? When Ubi posts
>something from TJ, it says it's from TJ. There is no hint anywhere that
>it's from Ubi except maybe something you can dig up from the hidden
>headers. so what I get is an article written by TJ credited to TJ. Granted
>it's apparently not actually posted by TJ. But it's not plagiarism.

Terrence Clay, not TJ

Please stop saying it's an impersonation. It's a forgery.

You are the one who keeps bringing up these forgeries which is not the
trolling method he used in this thread. You are unwilling to discuss the
trolling method he actually used in this thread.

>>. . .
>If Ubi's name is right there in a post from TJ for everybody to see, why
>does it anger you?

This doesn't make any sense. Ubi puts Terrence Clay's name and email
address on From of posts he forges of Terrence Clay. He also pre-loads
injection headers copied from Terrence Clay's actual article to
contribute to the illusion that it's Terrence Clay's actual article
injected through Google Groups. That is one massive violation but
Giganews does not prevent Ubi from committing abuse.

Why do you continue to bring up the Terrence Clay forgeries? That's not
the trolling method Ubi used in this thread.

On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 08:18:18 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>In article <u7h7vu$1of9c$16@dont-email.me>, Ubiquitous
><weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> ìWe made clear ó they made clear that weíd rather th- ó theyíd rather
>> threaten the default of the U.S. economy than cut or get rid of, for example,
>> $30 billion in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies who made $200 million
>> [sic] last year ó billion. I said ëmillion.í Billion dollars last year Öî
>> (June 14, 2023).
>
>
>Your post was just about unreadable because of the many, many non-ASCII
>characters. (Above is a sample.) This is usenet. It does ASCII.

Really? I'm pretty sure that I could easily read the previous posting
and that all of it was ASCII - what parts did your browser block? (I
use Agent 8)

On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 12:37:51 -0700, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>In article <U7f6dc$1f05e$1@dont-email.me>,
> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, a federal judge nominated to the District Court by former
>> President Bill Clinton blocked the state of Florida from implementing
>> HB 1438, which prohibited an establishment from knowingly admitting
>> minors to "adult live performances", including drag performances.
>>
>> "'Adult live performance’ means any show, exhibition, or other
>> presentation in front of a live audience which, in whole or in part,
>> depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or
>> specific sexual activities," the law states. This includes "lewd
>> conduct, or the lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or
>> breasts when it: Predominantly appeals to a prurient, shameful, or
>> morbid interest; is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the
>> adult community of this state as a whole with respect to what is
>> suitable material or conduct for the age of the child present; taken as
>> a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or
>> scientific value for the age of the child present."
>
>So all this time, when every state in the union has had age restrictions
>on bars and strip clubs, they've been violating the Constitution?
>
>Who knew?

And they DO apply the laws amazingly - I once was showing my kids the
sights on my alma mater campus and since it was 90+F that day I
naturally took the shortcut through the campus pub which I knew would
have the air conditioning working overtime that day.

Boy did we get in trouble! Note that I was walking my kids from
outdoor exit A to outdoor exit B on the opposite end of the bar, did
not slow down or stop (I knew both exits well from my student days 15
years previously) nor attempt to order anything but you would think I
had brought an explosive device into the bar not my then age 11-15
children! (And being a university pub no they did not have exotic
dancers)

On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 19:46:18 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>So all this time, when every state in the union has had age restrictions
>>on bars and strip clubs, they've been violating the Constitution?
>
>>Who knew?
>
>What is a depiction of nudity as opposed to, well, being naked?

Pretty much anything involving full or partial uncovering of breasts
or nipples

On Thu, 29 Jun 2023 15:16:13 -0400, Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net>
wrote:

>During an interrogation session, Ziyawudun said that she was beaten so
>intensely that she passed out. Another time, guards forced her on to a table
>where they “inserted a stun baton” inside her and “twisted and shocked” her
>until she “blacked out” from the pain. A couple of weeks later she was ganged
>raped by several men, an experience she said happened to her multiple times
>while in the camps.

In most jurisdictions using an electric baton in that way would be
called a rape. (who would consent to be penetrated with one of those?)
It's certainly more invasive that being raped with a broom handle

<rot 13> (explicit description of two ways US women can be convicted
of rape)
(juvpu va gur HF vf bar bs gur gjb vafgnaprf jurer n jbzna unf rire
orra pbaivpgrq bs encr, gur bgure orvat bar va juvpu n jbzna betnavmrq
n tebhc bs zra gb tnat encr ure eviny)
</rot13>

On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 03:06:14 -0000 (UTC), "Adam H. Kerman"
<ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>A full-text quote without citing the title, author, and publisher,
>without citing the URL, is plagarism.

So if I leave off the publisher or the URL I've committed plagiarism?

I've previously posted Youtube cites where I didn't include the URL
but did give both the speaker's name, name of the movie and the quote
(Something like "Clint Eastwood", "Go Ahead Make My Day", "Dirty
Harry" and nothing else - which is easily Google-able) - have I
plagiarized? Or said "you can easily listen to the Hallelujah Chorus
online if you choose" even without providing a link?

(Not to say I haven't before provided links but it isn't plagiarism to
do so. I've also urged Lefties to go read Homage to Catalonia to learn
about REAL Fascism without citing the author's name - who I suspect ou
already know)

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Tue, 4 Jul 2023 03:06:14 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

>>A full-text quote without citing the title, author, and publisher,
>>without citing the URL, is plagarism.

>So if I leave off the publisher or the URL I've committed plagiarism?

Listen to me and stop trying to change the meaning of what I've written.

A citation includes title, author, and publisher. If it's from the Web,
then include the URL.

If you quote, you are obligated to cite.

Ubi includes NONE of the elements of a citation. He's pretending he's
written the article. That's plagarism.

anim is flaming me here. Get your own; you can't mine.

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>On Wed, 28 Jun 2023 08:18:18 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>>Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:

>>>�We made clear � they made clear that we�d rather th- � they�d rather
>>>threaten the default of the U.S. economy than cut or get rid of, for example,
>>>$30 billion in taxpayer subsidies to oil companies who made $200 million
>>>[sic] last year � billion. I said �million.� Billion dollars last year ��
>>>(June 14, 2023).

>>Your post was just about unreadable because of the many, many non-ASCII
>>characters. (Above is a sample.) This is usenet. It does ASCII.

>Really? I'm pretty sure that I could easily read the previous posting
>and that all of it was ASCII - what parts did your browser block? (I
>use Agent 8)

This is Usenet. He was using a newsreader, not a browser. It's set for
a different character set and mistranslates them as you can see.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>> . . .
>
>>> anim, you keep insisting that Ubi is doing exactly the opposite of what
>>> he's actually doing. Just stop it at this point.
>
>> OK you could not possibly be more wrong. But here's a question. Could your
>> client be displaying the information differently than mine? When Ubi posts
>> something from TJ, it says it's from TJ. There is no hint anywhere that
>> it's from Ubi except maybe something you can dig up from the hidden
>> headers. so what I get is an article written by TJ credited to TJ. Granted
>> it's apparently not actually posted by TJ. But it's not plagiarism.
>
> Terrence Clay, not TJ
>
> Please stop saying it's an impersonation. It's a forgery.

I’m saying it’s not plagiarism

>
> You are the one who keeps bringing up these forgeries which is not the
> trolling method he used in this thread. You are unwilling to discuss the
> trolling method he actually used in this thread.

I said, I never saw the original posts in this Thread

>
>>> . . .
>
>> If Ubi's name is right there in a post from TJ for everybody to see, why
>> does it anger you?
>
> This doesn't make any sense. Ubi puts Terrence Clay's name and email
> address on From of posts he forges of Terrence Clay. He also pre-loads
> injection headers copied from Terrence Clay's actual article to
> contribute to the illusion that it's Terrence Clay's actual article
> injected through Google Groups. That is one massive violation but
> Giganews does not prevent Ubi from committing abuse.
>
> Why do you continue to bring up the Terrence Clay forgeries? That's not
> the trolling method Ubi used in this thread.
>

See above

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

>I said, I never saw the original posts in this Thread

Message-ID: <u7unlk$3nnmm$1@dont-email.me>

That's the article Danny complained about, but there are similar
instances throughout the thread.