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

--
Let's go Brandon!

In <u7unlk$3nnmm$1@dont-email.me> Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> writes:

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

--
_____________________________________________________
Knowledge may be power, but communications is the key
dannyb@panix.com
[to foil spammers, my address has been double rot-13 encoded]

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) claimed over the weekend that Supreme
Court Justice Clarence was �profoundly disrespectful� for writing in his
concurrence with the Court�s overwhelming 6-3 ruling that race-based college
admissions are illegal that blacks are not �victims.�

Ocasio-Cortez made the remarks during a Sunday interview on CNN�s �State of
the Union� with host Dana Bash.

�The two black justices on the court, Justice Clarence Thomas and Justice
Ketanji Brown Jackson, had a really blistering debate that we don�t usually
see in decisions,� Bash said. �Here is part of what Justice Thomas wrote.�

Bash highlighted the following:

Justice Jackson uses her broad observations about statistical
relationships between race and select measures of health, wealth
and well-being to label all blacks as victims. Her desire to do
so is unfathomable to me. � It is an insult to individual achievement
and cancerous to young minds seeking to push through barriers. �
Their race is not to blame for everything � good or bad � that
happens in their lives.

When asked what her response was to Thomas� words, AOC responded: �I mean,
what Justice Clarence Thomas wrote there, I believe, is profoundly
disrespectful to � to � I just think it was profoundly disrespectful to his
colleague.�

AOC claimed that Thomas wrote what he did about Jackson �due to some sort of
inferior or less than really thought out of a stance.�

�I think it�s profoundly insulting. And I think that he really demonstrated
his character, frankly, and his worldview in that critique himself,� she
added.

WATCH:
https://youtu.be/H2_H1hI3BRM

[Wow. racist much, bimbo?]

--
Let's go Brandon!

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. However, it appears to quote Buttigieg accurately.
The main point he made is that the case was entirely fake; there was
no true controversy. The one criticism the article makes is that he has
no background in law. This is true. There was no vitriol in the article
versus Buttigieg.

Your point is not well taken.

I don't agree with Buttigieg that the main point of the lawsuit was to
chip away at the rights of the potential customer. It's a First Amendment
issue with respect to the business owner.

This is not about the constitutionality of legitimate public accomodation
law. Legitimate public accomodation law was about equal protection and not
restricting the First Amendment. Colorado tried to expanded the concept
of public accomodation law to override the First Amendment and not try
to balance competing liberty interests.

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?

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

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.

The executive branch nominates justices to the Court and Congress has
to approve those Justices and can even impeach them if necessary.

AOC made the remarks during a CNN interview on Sunday with host Dana
Bash when asked about President Joe Biden saying last week that he
opposes expanding the Court because "if we start the process of trying
to expand the court, we're going to politicize it maybe forever in a
way that is not healthy."

AOC said that she "truly" believes justices should have their power
limited, even though no federal official has unlimited power.

"The courts, if they were to proceed without any check on their power,
without any balance on their power, then we will start to see an
undemocratic and, frankly, dangerous authoritarian expansion of power
in the Supreme Court, which is what we are seeing now, from the
overturning of abortion rights, to the ruling that discrimination and,
frankly, stripping the full personhood and dignity of LGBTQ people in
the United States," she claimed.

"These are the types of rulings that signal a dangerous creep towards
authoritarianism and centralization of power in the court," she
claimed. "In fact, we have members of the court themselves, with
Justice Elena Kagan, saying that the court is beginning to assume the
power of a legislature."

WATCH:

AOC: "The courts, if they were to proceed without any check
on their power, without any balance on their power, then we
will start to see an undemocratic and frankly dangerous
authoritarian expansion of power in the Supreme Court, which
is what we are seeing now." pic.twitter.com/pndYqziZHk

- The Post Millennial (@TPostMillennial) July 2, 2023

DANA BASH: Congresswoman, you have called on President Biden to expand
the Supreme Court to 13 justices.

But even after Roe was overruled last year and this past week, what we
saw with affirmative action and other cases, I want you to listen to
what President Biden said. He just said this on Thursday on MSNBC.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BIDEN: I think, if we start the process of trying to expand the court,
we're going to politicize it maybe forever in a way that is not
healthy.

NICOLLE WALLACE, MSNBC HOST: That you can't get back?

BIDEN: That I can't get back.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BASH: I'd like you to respond to that.

And, also, you mentioned a moment ago judicial review. Are you also
saying that the justices' power should somehow be limited?

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: I truly do. And this is not a new development
in history. This is part of our system of checks and balances.

The courts, if they were to proceed without any check on their power,
without any balance on their power, then we will start to see an
undemocratic and, frankly, dangerous authoritarian expansion of power
in the Supreme Court, which is what we are seeing now, from the
overturning of abortion rights, to the ruling that discrimination and,
frankly, stripping the full personhood and dignity of LGBTQ people in
the United States.

This is - these are the types of rulings that signal a dangerous creep
towards authoritarianism and centralization of power in the court. In
fact, we have members of the court themselves, with Justice Elena
Kagan, saying that the court is beginning to assume the power of a
legislature.

BASH: Congresswoman.

OCASIO-CORTEZ: And, right now, whether it is expansion of the court.

--
Let's go Brandon!

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.

On 7/3/2023 10:51 AM, anim8rfsk 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?
>
Not so that it's apparent.

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.
>

So YOU say. SCOTUS has judges taking bribes, sitting in stolen seats,
lying under oath and making up new laws on their own.

None of that has anything to do with AOC.

--
"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 7/3/23 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.
--
"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

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.

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.

--
Let's go Brandon!

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.

--
Let's go Brandon!

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?

He is impersonating, certainly, but is impersonation plagiarism?

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

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

It's more than that.

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.

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

When Ubi puts Terrence Clay's email address on From, Ubi forged Terrence
Clay. Ubi commits Usenet abuse because he uses Terrence Clay's injection
headers as well. In these instances, Terrence Clay, who is a shill for
articles on various Web sites, did an abstract of an article and
provided a citation to the Web page.

Ubi did something else entirely in this thread.

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.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> 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.

>Well, he does, just not in a way that's easy to see.

It's like printing critical information in a book on the side of the
endpaper that gets glued to the hard cover. A citation is never hidden.

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.

>>
>> 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.

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

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.

>
>> He is impersonating, certainly, but is impersonation plagiarism?
>
> When Ubi puts Terrence Clay's email address on From, Ubi forged Terrence
> Clay. Ubi commits Usenet abuse because he uses Terrence Clay's injection
> headers as well. In these instances, Terrence Clay, who is a shill for
> articles on various Web sites, did an abstract of an article and
> provided a citation to the Web page.
>
> Ubi did something else entirely in this thread.
>

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

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.

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?

--
"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 7/3/2023 7:55 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.

It's not just one post, all his long 'opinion' posts are the same.
>
>>
>>> He is impersonating, certainly, but is impersonation plagiarism?
>>
>> When Ubi puts Terrence Clay's email address on From, Ubi forged Terrence
>> Clay. Ubi commits Usenet abuse because he uses Terrence Clay's injection
>> headers as well. In these instances, Terrence Clay, who is a shill for
>> articles on various Web sites, did an abstract of an article and
>> provided a citation to the Web page.
>>
>> Ubi did something else entirely in this thread.
>>
>
>
>

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.

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

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.