|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 872 |
The Common Lawyer, dressing himself in stolen finery, seduces you with an undue respect for his own shabby words and ideas. He deceives you to attain your respect, for if you think him wise (not realizing that his words are stolen words) you will be misled in your assessment of the remainder of his writing. And your fate.
Milum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
Max says, "I challenge you to support your assertion." Max, have I not already indicated my logic in each of two preceding posts?
I would gladly explicate further. But I would want to do so in a way responive to your point and logic, and I don't see that you have specified them (except for the adjectival conclusion "bizarre").
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
Thank you, milum. But your post's clever parallelism is not logically cohesive -- unless you are taking the view that a lawyer's words are the same thing as stolen [plagiarized] words.
And I would suggest that such a view is factually incorrect. In my admittedly limited litigation experience, a court will quickly note if the lawyer's brief neglects to cite specific, verifiable authority for his position.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 10,542 |
here's an example of what I have in mind:
some years ago (many years ago?) there was a short-lived furor over a book written by William Manchester (on the Kennedy assassination?), which was supposedly plagiarized material. I have no idea how it was finally resolved, if it was resolved at all. my only concerns were: was the book worth reading; and if it sold at all, did the right person get the proceeds. who actually wrote it seems of no real gravamen as it pertains to my interests as a potential reader.
(this would not hold in the case of a prof. grading papers; the interests of the parties are quite different.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
Noting that tsuwm's final paragraph makes the point that circumstances alter cases:
Max, can you and I temper our disagreement by agreeing that in some specific cases the plagiarized author will be, and in other specific cases will not be, the primary victim of the plagiarism? That not every case will be as I suggest, and not every case will be as you suggest? In short, that each of us has overgeneralized?
(and that a particular case might of course be arguable and might depend on the definition of "primary")
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409 |
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 13,803 |
Please temper your disputation. All I want to know is how much money I'm getting in the class action suit and when I can expect to get it. I've got a plumber to pay and property taxes coming due.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 2,605 |
ROTFL, Faldage! BTW, I'm a real estate attorney; have you considered a property tax protest?  disclaimer: just kidding! disclaimer inserted to be sure I will not be accused of practicing law in a jurisdiction in which not licensed!if one has something stolen, I find it hard to see how anybody else can suffer more from that theftMax, I fully agree that the original author is the overwhelmingly-primary victim of the theft aspect. But plagiarism as I understand it is simultaneous a theft from the source, and a fraud on the reader*. When both parts are considered, the balance would vary from case to case (as tsuwm noted; see his final paragraph). I sense that the issue is "not of general interest", so Max, let's continue by e-mail. ------------ *simplified definition of "fraud" for legal purposes: intentional misrepresentation of a material fact, with intent to deceive
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,913
Posts229,810
Members9,187
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
0 members (),
858
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
|
