A mostly relaxing weekend that went AWOL down the home stretch by:
1. Switchpod giving me small headaches by not doing what I want it to do.
2. A security update from Apple killing my wireless signal which meant considerable screwing around to get it going again.
3. Some anonymous git accusing me of plagerism in the last post (don't bother to look, it's been deleted).
4. Cathy not feeling the best (her cold has gone down into her lungs) which kept us up the night.
5. Having to go back to work today.
So yes, there is crankiness this morning. I'm sure it will pass. I'm just saying, not the happiest houshold in all the land right now.
By the way, just so I make this crystal bloody clear, I love people commenting on my blog. It makes me immeasurably happy that people take the time to read what I'm writing and feel the urge to comment on it. And I allow anonymous comments because, for the most part, they're benign and it's people without Blogger accounts and can't be bothered to get one (fair enough). But if people are going to take shots at me, insult me or accuse me of plagerism of all bloody things, then you're going to sign your name to it. Otherwise, the anonymous function disappears.
I'm a benevolent dictator. To a point. And this really isn't the morning to piss me off...
7 comments:
Maybe your git has been patronizing my blog as well? Seems a bit coincidental otherwise.
I have seen examples of plagiarism on the NL Blogroll recently but not here.
"...No, two things became apparent.
1. She wasn't learning from her mistakes.
2. She kept hammering the same points, using the same phrases, over and over..."
From your criticism of Averill Baker's writing skills.
It's STILL plagiarism, the correct spelling, that is.
As tempting as it is to just ban anonymous comments and delete the criticism, I will respond this one time. "Anonymous" is welcome to respond, however he/she has to use a real name, otherwise it will be removed.
That is the rule on this blog. Each blog has their own rules. This is mine. People are welcome to say things that are less than flattering to me. I was a journalist for many years and have been chewed out by irate politicians, including two Newfoundland premiers and a mayor, annoyed mothers, pissed off authors and many others.
So no, people do not have to come here and shower me in praise. But they do have to give their name if they want to criticize something I say. They most certainly have to put a name to it if they're going to call me a thief.
Also, if I'm being accused of plagiarism (btw, lovely cheap shot on the spelling), I want the specific example cited. If you post here again, and the specific web page isn't cited, you're gone.
I have a low tolerance for fools that feel the need to pop onto people's blogs and be an ass just because they can. If that's all you have to offer, feel free to go elsewhere. It's a big Internet. I'm sure you can find another corner to be an ass in.
i have to admit i'm baffled by this whole thread and it might be because the orignal "anonymous" post was deleted. i'm not quite sure what you're accused of plagiarizing but
http://www.plagiarismchecker.com/
is a handy tool. Maybe that can help, now or in the future?
And yes - anonymous - it is considered good form to sign your name ...
um, craig. speaking of leaving names on blogs ... for some reason i can't link back to my blog by clicking on my name - & i can't see my picture (not a big loss but you know - hayden is in that pic too!:) it works on all other blogs - and used to work on yours -but doesn't now.
help? :)
?? wtf?
odd. nevermind. sorry for the gratuitious pointless poorly spelled comments. you can delete these :)
See, here's the problem with this sort of thing - they, being the ubiquitious cowards who hid behind the label of anonymous, can make a defamious ( is that a word? if not, I claim to have invented it) statement on you blog comments page, and you cannot defend youself because a) you have no way to see if there is a similar passage on another blog/source so that you can respond, b) you only lend credence to someone's claim by trying to defend blind and c) for anyone who identifies themself as a writer, being accused of plagerism is one of the worst insults you can possible receive. And d) to respond that you are upset by an allegation of plagerism and therefore cannot take critism, well that's just illogical. And I'd venture to guess that is the comment had not be defamatory ( now, I *know* that's a word) you would not have removed it. For example, if the person had crticised you for your position on a topic, for example, that would not have been removed, just responded to.
So, Anonymous, if he's plagerised, where is the "original source"? And if you cannot link or direct us to one, where's your apology?
Yeah, think this one has been beaten to death. Hopefully Anonymous will slink off back to his/her shadows, to flame another day...
Post a Comment