|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
Think they doth protest too much.
|
On July 20 2016 03:38 The Bottle wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 03:23 KwarK wrote:On July 20 2016 03:16 The Bottle wrote:
I looked at the transcripts of Melania Trump and Michelle Obama's speeches. Basically one paragraph out of a very long speech looks strikingly similar. And it's not a paragraph that makes a very specific point, it's really just a few platitudes and trite statements. The kind that look so generic I would expect them to appear in a thousand different speeches. So yeah, this looks to me like a media overblow of major proportions. The sentiments are common, sure. But the specific words in the same order, that doesn't just happen. Consider the probabilities of the two explanations. One, Ivanka Trump, for whom English is a second language, chose the exact same words in the exact same order to explain the exact same sentiments without using any synonyms or variations. Two, Ivanka Trump had someone incompetent/malicious help her with her speech. I mean sure, you can argue that it could just happen and I could start arguing that maybe the World Trade Center would have collapsed due to unforeseen structural issues on 9/11 anyway and that the plane thing was just a coincidence. But we should accept the much more logical argument that the reason the same words appear in the same order expressing the same sentiments from two people with a vastly different educational and social background is because one of them used the words of the other. That bolded part is not true. There are synonyms and variations, and even a couple of sentences that are completely different. Like I said, it is strikingly similar in a suspicious way, in a similar sense of that of a kid taking an essay written in a previous version of his class, and changing a few words and phrases here and there in attempt to make it look different without changing the fundamental structure. But this was one paragraph out of a long speech, and one which doesn't offer anything even remotely profound or unique, which makes me question even the motive for copying that specific passage. And even if she did, I hardly give a shit, simply because of the lack of depth of this one passage, and it being such a small portion of her speech. I still think it's a mountain out of a molehill nonetheless.
Yeah, and that's the other thing. The overall message that Melania gave was very different from Michelle Obama's.
|
|
|
On July 20 2016 03:38 The Bottle wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 03:23 KwarK wrote:On July 20 2016 03:16 The Bottle wrote:
I looked at the transcripts of Melania Trump and Michelle Obama's speeches. Basically one paragraph out of a very long speech looks strikingly similar. And it's not a paragraph that makes a very specific point, it's really just a few platitudes and trite statements. The kind that look so generic I would expect them to appear in a thousand different speeches. So yeah, this looks to me like a media overblow of major proportions. The sentiments are common, sure. But the specific words in the same order, that doesn't just happen. Consider the probabilities of the two explanations. One, Ivanka Trump, for whom English is a second language, chose the exact same words in the exact same order to explain the exact same sentiments without using any synonyms or variations. Two, Ivanka Trump had someone incompetent/malicious help her with her speech. I mean sure, you can argue that it could just happen and I could start arguing that maybe the World Trade Center would have collapsed due to unforeseen structural issues on 9/11 anyway and that the plane thing was just a coincidence. But we should accept the much more logical argument that the reason the same words appear in the same order expressing the same sentiments from two people with a vastly different educational and social background is because one of them used the words of the other. That bolded part is not true. There are synonyms and variations, and even a couple of sentences that are completely different. Like I said, it is strikingly similar in a suspicious way, in a similar sense of that of a kid taking an essay written in a previous version of his class, and changing a few words and phrases here and there in attempt to make it look different without changing the fundamental structure. But this was one paragraph out of a long speech, and one which doesn't offer anything even remotely profound or unique, which makes me question even the motive for copying that specific passage. And even if she did, I hardly give a shit, simply because of the lack of depth of this one passage, and it being such a small portion of her speech. I still think it's a mountain out of a molehill nonetheless.
You literally don't understand how plagiarism works.
No one is saying that the entire speech was copied verbatim from Michelle's. That's not required for plagiarism. What we're pointing out- which is 100% true and inarguable- is that one of that paragraphs was plagiarized. Period.
|
On July 20 2016 03:39 GGTeMpLaR wrote:What a strange world we live in... Show nested quote +Biden lifted Kinnock's precise turns of phrase and his sequences of ideas—a degree of plagiarism that would qualify any student for failure, if not expulsion from school. But the even greater sin was to borrow biographical facts from Kinnock that, although true about Kinnock, didn't apply to Biden. Unlike Kinnock, Biden wasn't the first person in his family history to attend college, as he asserted; nor were his ancestors coal miners, as he claimed when he used Kinnock's words. Once exposed, Biden's campaign team managed to come up with a great-grandfather who had been a mining engineer, but he hardly fit the candidate's description of one who "would come up [from the mines] after 12 hours and play football." At any rate, Biden had delivered his offending remarks with an introduction that clearly implied he had come up with them himself and that they pertained to his own life.
Most American political reporters were not so attuned to Britain's politics that they recognized Kinnock's words. But Michael Dukakis' adviser John Sasso had seen the Kinnock tape. Without his boss's knowledge or consent, he prepared a video juxtaposing the two men's speeches and got it into the hands of Dowd at the Times, David Yepsen of the Des Moines Register, and NBC News. When the story broke on Sept. 12, Biden was gearing up to chair the Supreme Court nomination hearings for Robert Bork, Ronald Reagan's far-right nominee. Biden angrily denied having done anything wrong and urged the press to chase after the political rival who had sent out what came to be called the "attack video."
Unfortunately for Biden, more revelations of plagiarism followed, distracting him from the Bork hearings. Over the next days, it emerged that Biden had lifted significant portions of speeches from Robert Kennedy and Hubert Humphrey. From Kennedy, he took four long sentences in one case and two memorable sentences in another. (In one account, Biden said that Pat Caddell had inserted them in his speech without Biden's knowledge; in another account, the failure to credit RFK was chalked up to the hasty cutting and pasting that went into the speech.) From Humphrey, the hot passage was a particularly affecting appeal for government to help the neediest. Yet another uncited borrowing came from John F. Kennedy. Show nested quote +"I think I probably have a much higher IQ than you do, I suspect," Biden sniped at the voter. "I went to law school on a full academic scholarship." That claim was false, as was another claim, made in the same rant, that he graduated in the top half of his law-school class. Biden wrongly stated, too, that he had earned three undergraduate degrees, when in fact he had earned one—a double major in history and political science. Another round of press inquiries followed, and Biden finally withdrew from the race on Sept. 23.
The sheer number and extent of Biden's fibs, distortions, and plagiarisms struck many observers at the time as worrisome, to say the least. While a media feeding frenzy (a term popularized in the 1988 campaign) always creates an unseemly air of hysteria, Biden deserved the scrutiny he received. Quitting the race was the right thing to do.
Twenty-one years on, how much should Biden's past behavior matter? In and of itself, the plagiarism episode shouldn't automatically disqualify Biden from regaining favor and credibility, especially if in the intervening two decades he's not done more of the same, as seems to be the case. But no one has looked into it. The press should give his record since 1988 a thorough vetting. It's worth knowing whether the odds-on favorite to be our next vice president has truly reformed himself of behavior that can often be the mark of a deeply troubled soul. Source
Your source is broken fyi.
|
|
|
Canada11372 Posts
I feel like, when accused of getting your platitudes from your political opponent's wife, a better defence is NOT that you actually got your platitudes from a kid's TV show. That is unless you are directly referencing the TV show, as in 'look, even kid's TV shows like MLP got this figured out (and then some sick burn about Democrats being dumber than kid's TV shows.)
Case in point:
CNN's front page really liked the MLP defence...
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/vkI2zCc.png)
Having said that, I feel like things like things like the over-riding Roll Call votes and such were a bigger deal.
|
|
|
On July 20 2016 03:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Yeah a molehill is a he said she said. This is a public speech next to another public speech 8 years ago. They don't respond then the fire gets bigger and
She's a potential First Lady, not an elementary schooler being tested, are we supposed to find out who was responsible to call their parents and rebuke them because they might have copied 3 sentences out of 2000 words?
On July 20 2016 03:27 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
so far their response has been Michelle Obama has plagiarized songs, movies, and yes even My Little Pony.
The RNC is probably furious or getting drunk as possible.
+ Show Spoiler +https://twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/755455563979427840
"So did Mrs. Obama plagiarize her? I would never say that." It seems like you missed his point.
|
On July 20 2016 03:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 03:38 The Bottle wrote:On July 20 2016 03:23 KwarK wrote:On July 20 2016 03:16 The Bottle wrote:
I looked at the transcripts of Melania Trump and Michelle Obama's speeches. Basically one paragraph out of a very long speech looks strikingly similar. And it's not a paragraph that makes a very specific point, it's really just a few platitudes and trite statements. The kind that look so generic I would expect them to appear in a thousand different speeches. So yeah, this looks to me like a media overblow of major proportions. The sentiments are common, sure. But the specific words in the same order, that doesn't just happen. Consider the probabilities of the two explanations. One, Ivanka Trump, for whom English is a second language, chose the exact same words in the exact same order to explain the exact same sentiments without using any synonyms or variations. Two, Ivanka Trump had someone incompetent/malicious help her with her speech. I mean sure, you can argue that it could just happen and I could start arguing that maybe the World Trade Center would have collapsed due to unforeseen structural issues on 9/11 anyway and that the plane thing was just a coincidence. But we should accept the much more logical argument that the reason the same words appear in the same order expressing the same sentiments from two people with a vastly different educational and social background is because one of them used the words of the other. That bolded part is not true. There are synonyms and variations, and even a couple of sentences that are completely different. Like I said, it is strikingly similar in a suspicious way, in a similar sense of that of a kid taking an essay written in a previous version of his class, and changing a few words and phrases here and there in attempt to make it look different without changing the fundamental structure. But this was one paragraph out of a long speech, and one which doesn't offer anything even remotely profound or unique, which makes me question even the motive for copying that specific passage. And even if she did, I hardly give a shit, simply because of the lack of depth of this one passage, and it being such a small portion of her speech. I still think it's a mountain out of a molehill nonetheless. You literally don't understand how plagiarism works. No one is saying that the entire speech was copied verbatim from Michelle's. That's not required for plagiarism. What we're pointing out- which is 100% true and inarguable- is that one of that paragraphs was plagiarized. Period.
Can you point to the quote of mine where I said that it wouldn't be plagiarism if she only copied the one paragraph?
|
|
|
|
|
Did you archive that slate article just to avoid giving them a couple clicks? That article is live.
|
On July 20 2016 03:46 The Bottle wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 03:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 20 2016 03:38 The Bottle wrote:On July 20 2016 03:23 KwarK wrote:On July 20 2016 03:16 The Bottle wrote:
I looked at the transcripts of Melania Trump and Michelle Obama's speeches. Basically one paragraph out of a very long speech looks strikingly similar. And it's not a paragraph that makes a very specific point, it's really just a few platitudes and trite statements. The kind that look so generic I would expect them to appear in a thousand different speeches. So yeah, this looks to me like a media overblow of major proportions. The sentiments are common, sure. But the specific words in the same order, that doesn't just happen. Consider the probabilities of the two explanations. One, Ivanka Trump, for whom English is a second language, chose the exact same words in the exact same order to explain the exact same sentiments without using any synonyms or variations. Two, Ivanka Trump had someone incompetent/malicious help her with her speech. I mean sure, you can argue that it could just happen and I could start arguing that maybe the World Trade Center would have collapsed due to unforeseen structural issues on 9/11 anyway and that the plane thing was just a coincidence. But we should accept the much more logical argument that the reason the same words appear in the same order expressing the same sentiments from two people with a vastly different educational and social background is because one of them used the words of the other. That bolded part is not true. There are synonyms and variations, and even a couple of sentences that are completely different. Like I said, it is strikingly similar in a suspicious way, in a similar sense of that of a kid taking an essay written in a previous version of his class, and changing a few words and phrases here and there in attempt to make it look different without changing the fundamental structure. But this was one paragraph out of a long speech, and one which doesn't offer anything even remotely profound or unique, which makes me question even the motive for copying that specific passage. And even if she did, I hardly give a shit, simply because of the lack of depth of this one passage, and it being such a small portion of her speech. I still think it's a mountain out of a molehill nonetheless. You literally don't understand how plagiarism works. No one is saying that the entire speech was copied verbatim from Michelle's. That's not required for plagiarism. What we're pointing out- which is 100% true and inarguable- is that one of that paragraphs was plagiarized. Period. Can you point to the quote of mine where I said that it wouldn't be plagiarism if she only copied the one paragraph?
Sure: "and even a couple of sentences that are completely different." Not in the plagiarized part. The other stuff isn't being talked about... only the paragraph that was clearly stolen.
|
|
|
Sometimes I wonder how a Biden campaign for president would have gone. I think all of this would have surfaced then if he did end up running.
|
I don't think very many people want Melania Trump raked over the coals or to retract the speech or give a public apology to Michelle or whatever. In fact I think the speech and her delivery of it were received the best by the "left" of any of the speeches that day.
I think people just find it fascinating and in some ways hilarious that 1) nobody in the Trump campaign is willing to admit the speech was not penned by her and 2) the campaign will go to such extremes to fight allegations that the speech was copied in any way.
|
On July 20 2016 03:49 Plansix wrote:Did you archive that slate article just to avoid giving them a couple clicks? That article is live.
No
|
On July 20 2016 03:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On July 20 2016 03:46 The Bottle wrote:On July 20 2016 03:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 20 2016 03:38 The Bottle wrote:On July 20 2016 03:23 KwarK wrote:On July 20 2016 03:16 The Bottle wrote:
I looked at the transcripts of Melania Trump and Michelle Obama's speeches. Basically one paragraph out of a very long speech looks strikingly similar. And it's not a paragraph that makes a very specific point, it's really just a few platitudes and trite statements. The kind that look so generic I would expect them to appear in a thousand different speeches. So yeah, this looks to me like a media overblow of major proportions. The sentiments are common, sure. But the specific words in the same order, that doesn't just happen. Consider the probabilities of the two explanations. One, Ivanka Trump, for whom English is a second language, chose the exact same words in the exact same order to explain the exact same sentiments without using any synonyms or variations. Two, Ivanka Trump had someone incompetent/malicious help her with her speech. I mean sure, you can argue that it could just happen and I could start arguing that maybe the World Trade Center would have collapsed due to unforeseen structural issues on 9/11 anyway and that the plane thing was just a coincidence. But we should accept the much more logical argument that the reason the same words appear in the same order expressing the same sentiments from two people with a vastly different educational and social background is because one of them used the words of the other. That bolded part is not true. There are synonyms and variations, and even a couple of sentences that are completely different. Like I said, it is strikingly similar in a suspicious way, in a similar sense of that of a kid taking an essay written in a previous version of his class, and changing a few words and phrases here and there in attempt to make it look different without changing the fundamental structure. But this was one paragraph out of a long speech, and one which doesn't offer anything even remotely profound or unique, which makes me question even the motive for copying that specific passage. And even if she did, I hardly give a shit, simply because of the lack of depth of this one passage, and it being such a small portion of her speech. I still think it's a mountain out of a molehill nonetheless. You literally don't understand how plagiarism works. No one is saying that the entire speech was copied verbatim from Michelle's. That's not required for plagiarism. What we're pointing out- which is 100% true and inarguable- is that one of that paragraphs was plagiarized. Period. Can you point to the quote of mine where I said that it wouldn't be plagiarism if she only copied the one paragraph? Sure: "and even a couple of sentences that are completely different." Not in the plagiarized part. The other stuff isn't being talked about... only the paragraph that was clearly stolen.
I was disputing Kwark's specific point that she chose the exact same words in the same order without synonyms or variations. At no point did I say that it disqualifies her from plagiarism if she in fact copied it from Obama's speech. In fact I even went on to clarify that I understand the scenario of plagiarism in which someone takes a passage and makes minor tweaks to it. Then you came and attacked me for not understanding what plagiarism means, when at no point I disqualified a passage from being plagiarised if it was copied with minor tweaks being made. I only offered my skepticism of the proposition that it was copied in the first place and my reasoning for that, which is something you can certainly dispute. You just have to understand what you're disputing before you actually respond, which you clearly didn't.
Also,
They taught and showed me values and morals in their daily life.
is the sentence I was referring to, that appeared in one speech and not the other, within the alleged plagiarised passage.
|
Alright boys let's do this!!
“Just words?” Sounds familiar, right? That phrase is from a mesmerizing 2008 Presidential Candidate Obama speech after he was criticized by Senator Hillary Clinton for being “just words and no substance.” He even based his entire inaugural address on the just words theme.
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
+ Show Spoiler +
Source
OH THE OUTRAGE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
