From what I have read, there are two issues going on between you and the other members, and our rules (if I've missed anything, please point it out) -1. Plagiarism2. Originality in your responsesRegarding issue 1 -
Let's review the definiition of plagiarism:pla·gia·rism
? ?/?ple?d???r?z?m, -d?i??r?z-/ Show Spelled[pley-juh-riz-uhm, -jee-uh-riz-] Show IPA
the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work.
something used and represented in this manner.
Some of this ties in with issue 2, but it seems to me that if you are only using material from WLC and others, and that is all
the material you use (you seem to have admitted you have nothing original to add), then by definition all your posts are just reformulated material from these other sources and since part of the definition is -
"or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one's own original work."
and continuing, since you don't cite the source material by link to a specific page or author of the material in your posts, then we have several concerns. One is that there is no way we can tell, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, post by post, who
it is you are citing and where
it came from. Simply telling everybody you have no original ideas and you will be re-posting other people's material, even if you say who it is as a blanket release, isn't good enough. Here's why - because people reading these posts may not know that you "absolved yourself" of citing (and as of now I am not allowing that anymore) because you said you were using WLC and other's material, in some post many days or months ago, the reader will think your material is your original ideas. That's why accurate
citations are important in every post you make if the material isn't your material. If every post has to have citations, then so be it, nobody is forcing you to only post reformulated material that belongs to other people.
Second important point, as another member pointed out, giving a precise citation (not just "I got it from this book") enables the reader to see for him/her self the original context of the material and if they so choose, to rebut your point based on other materiel in the same part of the book or website that the original citation came from. This keeps the debates honest because many people will simply copy/paste only the part that buttresses their points, while leaving other material that doesn't support their point alone.
So from now on, if you are not posting your own materiel, you must cite the source as accurately as possible. I suggest using the nb tags to place the citations at the bottom of the post. If you really don't have anything new or original to offer, then this is big job, but I must say, I've never heard of a debater that didn't have any original material or thoughts, so I don't think this would have ever been an issue for anyone else here. But, such is the burden for you if you have no original ideas.
Please acknowledge your understanding of this here.Regarding issue 2 -
Originality in your responses
Like I said before, if I was going to be debating the topic of Einstein's theories, I would have to use ALL of his work because there is no way I can think more orginaly than him regarding his theories. The same is true in regard to WLC... and I've already said I was using all of his stuff. Not my stuff. But his stuff. He's the one who did the work. I can't. I'm not that smart.
Here's the problem as I see it, based on my experience here and based on the way this community likes to interact, and based on some of the complaints I've read about your posts. Citing references to source material is required, and everyone does it from time to time to make a very important point in their argument. That's all well and good. But here's the problem for the community of WWGHA. We want to know what you
think about things. We want to know what you
consider logical and rational, not some other person. We want to probe your
own thoughts and ideas, and bounce off our opinions about your outlook, not some other guy that wrote a book. He's not here - you are. The other members respond with their own thoughts - why can't you?
If you are not smart as you keep saying (and I don't believe that) but if that's really the case, you need to learn from others after posting your own (not smart) ideas. That goes for everyone, but if you are so afraid or tentative or being so very careful as to make sure you never are able to be challenged on original ideas, that you cannot ever post an original thought, if you are so afraid you might slip up and have an error of your own pointed out, then I would suggest you just tell us that so-and-so has a book about Jesus' resurrection and to go read it ourselves. Why do we need you as a middleman with no original ideas? It seems to me that you just want to say, if the members point out an error, that it's all WLC's fault, you had nothing to do with the error. What if WLC isn't as smart as you might think? If you simply regurgitate his writing at every turn, without taking time to consider the possibility he also might be wrong, and using your own logic to follow this possibility, you have trapped yourself in a corner without realizing it. Do you see this?
I want you to understand this problem, and I do believe it is causing a problem. Everyone makes mistakes, and everyone learns here. You aren't any different, and you shouldn't want to hide behind other people's ideas and work. You need to start giving us your own original ideas about the members original ideas. That's the best way to operate in this community. The way we'll know if you start doing this is if you post and there are no citations, because you have already told us that you have no original ideas at all so every post will have citations, unless you start to talk to us as an individual person with individual personal ideas. I personally do not believe that you don't, and I ask you to please start interacting with the members with your own ideas and reactions to their posts.
Will you give us a pledge to start doing this Fran?
Addendum: Any and all productive comments are welcome