There has been a minor sensation and plenty have jumped the gun on a so-called case of "plagiarism" but I believed a full examination of the facts may well prove that a mistake has been made and further discussion is warranted.
It really depends upon whether the original article in the Pattaya Mail was theirs to begin with. The PattayMail is just one of a breed of today's publications which appears to be a newspaper but is more a advertorial type publication running "puff" pieces and re-printing press releases with minor changes along with the ocassional oringinal article. There is nothing wrong with that of course but they can't be compared with newspapers of the past where the majority of articles were researched and written by teams of reporters and journalists.
So my point is: the accusation that Earwig is guilty of "plaigiarism" is so far just that : an accusation. Yet he has been tried , found guilty and punished on the skimpiest of evidence. If this were a court of law nothing of what has been provided so far would hold up. Far more investigation would be needed than the hysteria that has happened within the past few hours.
Therefore it is my intention to contact the Pattaya Mail and discover the full source of their material and I believe I will have some interesting shocks in store for you. ( I say that because I already know the answer anecdotley but I wish to provide you with proof!)
I believe you will you would all find that the only fairest thing to do and I do not see why anyone would object to that !
0
In defence of Earwig
Started by Guest_Joan Crawford's Ghost_*, Dec 17 2006 08:29 PM
-
This topic is locked
18 replies to this topic
#3 Guest_Joan Crawford's Ghost_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 December 2006 - 09:36 PM
yes sorry "People..People"..I don't normally take these trashy rags and I don't even have a budgie cage to line it with afterwards. I'm only doing this for you ! 
talk about non-story of the week !
talk about non-story of the week !
#4
-
- Members
-
- 1,683 posts
Veteran
Posted 17 December 2006 - 09:52 PM
Have you noticed the lingering scent of Pearly69 cologne in this thread ?
I had no idea ghosts wore perfume, much less were capable of finding the right newpaper to annoy.
Someone better start feeding her the rope. Mind that hay on the floor too.
Hehehe.....
I had no idea ghosts wore perfume, much less were capable of finding the right newpaper to annoy.
Someone better start feeding her the rope. Mind that hay on the floor too.
Hehehe.....
#5
-
- Members
-
- 3,737 posts
Veteran
Posted 17 December 2006 - 10:10 PM
This thread looks like Pearly69 playing the role of Joan Crawford, who is playing the role of Portia in the Merchant of Venice, a old film in which Ear Wig is playing the role of "Let Me Tell Shylock," who is seeking an internet pound of flesh from the German alleged paedophile featured in the original newspaper article that Ear Wig didn't write, but pretended to write, until some ingenue playing the role of justice, with the unlikely name of Khun Pa, opened the con, blew the whistle and popped the link that sent Ear Wig scrambling for what's left of his badly injured posting reputation.
Since some people believe that Ear Wig is also playing the role of Pearly69, the whole things means that he is essentially representing himself, while suing himself, which means he certainly has a fool for a client too.
I've seen all the evidence one needs to see that the defendant swiped a news article on the internet and intentionally altered it to make it look like it was his writing. He then refused to admit the deception until confronted with the actual article. Case closed.
The accused is sentenced to serve two months confinement with the Village Idiot on 24 hour internet access.
Since some people believe that Ear Wig is also playing the role of Pearly69, the whole things means that he is essentially representing himself, while suing himself, which means he certainly has a fool for a client too.
I've seen all the evidence one needs to see that the defendant swiped a news article on the internet and intentionally altered it to make it look like it was his writing. He then refused to admit the deception until confronted with the actual article. Case closed.
The accused is sentenced to serve two months confinement with the Village Idiot on 24 hour internet access.
#6
-
- Members
-
- 1,972 posts
Veteran
Posted 17 December 2006 - 10:40 PM
QUOTE(Hedda @ Dec 17 2006, 03:10 PM) 
Since some people believe that Ear Wig is also playing the role of Pearly69, the whole things means that he is essentially representing himself, while suing himself, which means he certainly has a fool for a client too.
I've seen all the evidence one needs to see that the defendant swiped a news article on the internet and intentionally altered it to make it look like it was his writing. He then refused to admit the deception until confronted with the actual article.
I do not believe that Pearl69er/Fan of Thailand/Joan Crawford's Ghost is being played by LMTU/Earwig. The former's posting is far too erudite to be anything the latter is capable of writing.
The second paragraph above has accurately identified the crux of the matter and the intention of Bahtstop to suspend Earwig if no apology is forthcoming is entirely fair. Once again the notorious barrack-room lawyer and originator of this thread has muddied the waters.
"Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence...Speak your truth quietly and clearly..."
"Desiderata" (1927), Max Ehrmann (1872-1945).
"Desiderata" (1927), Max Ehrmann (1872-1945).
#7
-
- Members
-
- 1,233 posts
Veteran
Posted 17 December 2006 - 11:01 PM
QUOTE(Joan Crawford's Ghost @ Dec 17 2006, 08:29 PM)
Therefore it is my intention to contact the Pattaya Mail and discover the full source of their material and I believe I will have some interesting shocks in store for you. ( I say that because I already know the answer anecdotley but I wish to provide you with proof!)
What difference does it make if you have proof? The best you can do with it would be able to say that 'Pattaya People' should have noted their source, and you would be right if that is the case. That still would neither alter nor justify the fact of the deliberate deception that occurred.
#8 Guest_Joan Crawford's Ghost_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 December 2006 - 06:24 AM
I believe you are all wrong and as for Hedda, Id hate to have her on my jury needing such little proof of guilt!. What a strange internet board . It is competely annonymous in every way including as to ownership and moderators therefore they can do as they wish without question or appeal. Still they must be how they prefer it.
I now see Earwig has thrown his head under the guilloutine blade but then he sounds like he doesn't take any of this very seriously anyway. Why anyway else does is a mystery.
(Uncle Sam don't you have any new records in your collection ?. You do play same old broken ones all the time. Maybe you could say something of interest one day and attract some new members !)
(nb: Does Hedda aknowledge any sources he uses when he researches the pieces he writes ?. I don't see any. )
I now see Earwig has thrown his head under the guilloutine blade but then he sounds like he doesn't take any of this very seriously anyway. Why anyway else does is a mystery.
(Uncle Sam don't you have any new records in your collection ?. You do play same old broken ones all the time. Maybe you could say something of interest one day and attract some new members !)
(nb: Does Hedda aknowledge any sources he uses when he researches the pieces he writes ?. I don't see any. )
#9
-
- Members
-
- 1,382 posts
Veteran
Posted 18 December 2006 - 11:30 AM
QUOTE
I now see Earwig has thrown his head under the guilloutine blade but then he sounds like he doesn't take any of this very seriously anyway.
That's the only thing you got right since you changed names from Pearl69. Ear Wig thinks it's all a joke; how you can claim to be involved in publishing or journalism and agree is beyond me.
My guess is the closest you ever got to journalism or publishing was reading the newpapers - comics sections only.
#10
-
- Members
-
- 82 posts
Member
Posted 18 December 2006 - 11:36 AM
It seems to me that some people, especially the ghost, don't fully understand what plagiarism is. If you look it up in a dictionary, or for instance Wikipedia, you get Plagiarism is the practise of claiming or implying original authorship of material which one has not actually created oneself
Thus earwig's changing the original article to read my sources and his subsequent claim of authorship would appear to be blatant and deliberate plagiarism, from which no smoke screen from the ghost can detract.
Thus earwig's changing the original article to read my sources and his subsequent claim of authorship would appear to be blatant and deliberate plagiarism, from which no smoke screen from the ghost can detract.
#11 Guest_Joan Crawford's Ghost_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 December 2006 - 01:46 PM
Yes gwm4asian: your Wikpedia quotation is correct but I dispute whether Earwig claimed it was his own work.
I also dispute whether the (so-called) newspaper that printed it has the right to call it it's own work. You need to go back to journalism school and learn that publishing and copyright ownership is far more complex that you imagine and merely printing a piece does not necessarily imply ownership or authorship of that article despite their claims to copyright.
You are merely showing what a goose you are and what little understanding you have of the publishing world and obviously believe everything that is printed and published is true. That is why folk like me and others have made a nice living out publishing complete rubbish all our lives.
I also dispute whether the (so-called) newspaper that printed it has the right to call it it's own work. You need to go back to journalism school and learn that publishing and copyright ownership is far more complex that you imagine and merely printing a piece does not necessarily imply ownership or authorship of that article despite their claims to copyright.
You are merely showing what a goose you are and what little understanding you have of the publishing world and obviously believe everything that is printed and published is true. That is why folk like me and others have made a nice living out publishing complete rubbish all our lives.
#12
-
- Members
-
- 3,737 posts
Veteran
Posted 18 December 2006 - 01:59 PM
Isn't it a coincidence that pearl69 and the Crawford ghost both claim to have had careers in journalism.
Take my advise, Mommie dearest, can the tuna and disappear. You are not doing Ear Wig's case one bit of good with the nonsense you are posting. One could not imagine a clearer case of plagiarism than this one and your're only wasting everyone's time in beating that horse.
Take my advise, Mommie dearest, can the tuna and disappear. You are not doing Ear Wig's case one bit of good with the nonsense you are posting. One could not imagine a clearer case of plagiarism than this one and your're only wasting everyone's time in beating that horse.
#13 Guest_ear wig_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 December 2006 - 02:02 PM
Come on dear Hedda it is Christmas lets all forgive and forget and move on, Im sure you have not time to bother about this any more, you have to wrap my pressie 
#14 Guest_Joan Crawford's Ghost_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 December 2006 - 02:05 PM
How disappointing Hedda.
I thought you would have been so complimented that journalists from far and wide came to read your words of wisdom.
Maybe you prefer to be a big fish in small pond.
I thought you would have been so complimented that journalists from far and wide came to read your words of wisdom.
Maybe you prefer to be a big fish in small pond.
#15
-
- Members
-
- 298 posts
Veteran
Posted 18 December 2006 - 04:25 PM
I have been enjoying this posting board and have found the moderators and the administrator to
be impartial and fair and quite tolerant, at least in my case..
If the "plargarism" offense threatens the existence of this board or can/will cause any hardships to the administrator, I would understand any action taken by them.. If this is just annoyance at cutting and pasting and not giving credit etc., it seems like the wrong issue to get so worked up over and to punish..
Clearly, all are now warned about this type of "plagarism" and it is not a "hanging crime" in my book..
I am not defending earwig but I do agree this is making a mountain out a molehill.. I have expressed
my irritations with the type of behavior that I believe should end ones posting privileges and in this
situation a slap on the wrist and say you're sorry seems adequate.. just my humble opinion...
be impartial and fair and quite tolerant, at least in my case..
If the "plargarism" offense threatens the existence of this board or can/will cause any hardships to the administrator, I would understand any action taken by them.. If this is just annoyance at cutting and pasting and not giving credit etc., it seems like the wrong issue to get so worked up over and to punish..
Clearly, all are now warned about this type of "plagarism" and it is not a "hanging crime" in my book..
I am not defending earwig but I do agree this is making a mountain out a molehill.. I have expressed
my irritations with the type of behavior that I believe should end ones posting privileges and in this
situation a slap on the wrist and say you're sorry seems adequate.. just my humble opinion...
#16 Guest_Joan Crawford's Ghost_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 December 2006 - 04:59 PM
Why is Earwig being asked to apologise on Baht-Stop for something that happened on Gay Thailand ?
If Time magazine published inaccurate information would it's readers demand an apology in Newsweek as well ?
In fact why hasn't this Earwig bashing extended to the Sawtadee forum and beyond ?
just asking.
If Time magazine published inaccurate information would it's readers demand an apology in Newsweek as well ?
In fact why hasn't this Earwig bashing extended to the Sawtadee forum and beyond ?
just asking.
#17
-
- Root Admin
-
- 59 posts
Administrator
Posted 18 December 2006 - 05:17 PM
QUOTE
Why is Earwig being asked to apologise on Baht-Stop for something that happened on Gay Thailand ?
"In attacking Hedda for alleged plagiarism, without any semblance of facts or support, Ear Wig forgets that he also attacks this board and its credibililty. Such conduct is not consistent with being a member in good standing of this board; those who make such false charges so flippantly must accept responsibility for their actions.
We do not invite people to post on this board if their intention is to abuse our hospitality with false and malicious claims against the board, its hosts and moderators.
Effectively at 7 Pm Monday, 18 December, Pattaya time, Ear Wig will be suspended from posting on this board unless he has posted by that time, in acceptable terms, an apology for these unwarranted charges of plagiarism against this board, its hosts and moderators."
Do you get it now ?
#18
-
- Members
-
- 628 posts
Veteran
Posted 18 December 2006 - 05:45 PM
So that means he still has one hour.
I for sure will be happy that I don't have to read postings from earwig anymore on this board.
I don't dislike ear Wig as a person, In real live I find him not to bad person, but his posting style doesn't bring this board any good.
So far I didn't see a apologize from Ear Wig and on the other board they are making fun about this problem already. I have seen Hedda bashing enough and I really think that Baht-stop should be behind Hedda and against Earwig. If there is no better apologize then what we have seen sofar from Earwig I think Baht-stop can't do anything else then bann Ear Wig.
I for sure will be happy that I don't have to read postings from earwig anymore on this board.
I don't dislike ear Wig as a person, In real live I find him not to bad person, but his posting style doesn't bring this board any good.
So far I didn't see a apologize from Ear Wig and on the other board they are making fun about this problem already. I have seen Hedda bashing enough and I really think that Baht-stop should be behind Hedda and against Earwig. If there is no better apologize then what we have seen sofar from Earwig I think Baht-stop can't do anything else then bann Ear Wig.
#19 Guest_Joan Crawford's Ghost_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 December 2006 - 06:22 PM
Yes I get it Baht-Stop although I'm not so sure that everyone would have absorbed the point to the degree that you have. I believe Earwig stated things in the light hearted manner that is his way and the thing was blown completely out of all proportion.
I think a perfect example is shown by dolypardon's quaint post above which I find very charming with small mis-spellings and such which are entirely harmless which mean little to me but if they had come from Earwig would have draw such fury, ridicule and the usual vicous belting meted out to him in print that is entirely unfair and is noticed by many elsewhere.
However-you are the boss and it's your board, so be it.
I think a perfect example is shown by dolypardon's quaint post above which I find very charming with small mis-spellings and such which are entirely harmless which mean little to me but if they had come from Earwig would have draw such fury, ridicule and the usual vicous belting meted out to him in print that is entirely unfair and is noticed by many elsewhere.
However-you are the boss and it's your board, so be it.
