A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She maybe went to school with Judith Griggs?

Look peacegirl, the list of quotes on pages 288 and 299 are clearly and proveably not the result of your original research or compilation. Though the quotes are attributed to people, they are not properly cited so may be falsely attributed or flat out made up. Just including that list of quotes is plagiarism, and without proper citation you can't tell if they are true, which may mean you are also guilty of libel if they are in fact false.

Not true at all, and I refuse to run away with my tail between my legs as if I'm guilty of something. By the way, page 288 is blank.

As far as p. 299, I gave everyone credit. I don't know where you're coming from LadyShea. Are you just out to win the argument?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You also seem to be admitting to lifting whole sentences and ideas from others that you didn't source/cite.

Look in any well researched non-fiction book and you will see lots of citations everywhere, then an extensive bibliography or notes section. I grabbed a non-fiction book* randomly off my library shelf, opened the Notes section, and see that Chapter 8 alone has 49 citations

Here is a good resource for citing
Citing Sources

Most of these citations involved research. This knowledge is unprecedented, so there is no research involved.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, unless you call copying one or two sentences that I really liked and didn't give the source, as plagiarism. I don't think it is. I wouldn't want to think of myself as a plagiarist.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are a plagiarist if you copied even a single sentence without proper citation

But I gave citations wherever I could.

Plagiarism.org : Learning Center : Plagiarism Definitions, Tips on avoiding Plagiarism, Guidelines for proper citation, & Help Identifying Plagiarism

If I change the words, do I still have to cite the source?

Changing only the words of an original source is NOT sufficient to prevent plagiarism. You must cite a source whenever you borrow ideas as well as words.

If I cite the source, can I still be accused of plagiarism?

You are allowed to borrow ideas or phrases from other sources provided you cite them properly and your usage is consistent with the guidelines set by fair use laws. As a rule, however, you should be careful about borrowing too liberally -- if the case can be made that your work consists predominantly of someone else's words or ideas, you may still be susceptible to charges of plagiarism. Also, if you follow the words of a source too closely, and do not use quotation marks, it can be considered plagiarism even if you cite the source.

So, while it not seem like a big deal to you, and while you may think we are making mountains out of molehills or whatever, this once again indicates a high level of thoughtlessness and sloppiness. People consider the source when evaluating the ideas offered by that source.

If you have no problem with people dismissing the book as a whole based on this poor scholarship, then keep on minimizing these issues. If you have no problem being a plagiarist then do nothing.


*Culture of Fear by Barry Glassner

I would never purposely plagiarise anyone's writing. But my feeling of remorse would not be due to your reprimands. My feelings of remorse would be the result of my conscience letting me know that what I did was a hurt to someone.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by thedoc

First you say that the material you copied fit what was said in the book, and then you say that it had nothing to do with the book?

I got what peacegirl meant. I'm pretty certain that peacegirl wrote the forward to the book, and she wrote parts to connect chapters or to tie in Lessans essays together. The parts she claims to have written are not important or relevant to Lessans "discoveries."

[LadyShea]

Sorry I typod. It's on page 298-300 of Decline and Fall

“The cause of most disease is in the poisonous drugs physicians
superstitiously give in order to affect a cure.” Charles E. Page, M.D.

“Medicines are of subordinate importance and because of their very nature
they can only work symptomatically.” Hans Kusche, M.D.

“Drug medications consist in employing, as remedies for disease, those
things which produce disease in well persons. Its materia medica is
simply a lot of drugs or chemicals or dye-stuffs, in a word poisons. All are
incompatible with vital matter; all produce disease when brought in contact
in any manner with the living; all are poisons.” R.T. Trall, M.D., in a
two and one half hour lecture to members of Congress and the medical
profession, delivered at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C.

“Drugs never cure disease. They merely hush the voice of nature’s
protest, and pull down the danger signals she erects along the pathway of
transportation. Any poison taken into the system has to be reckoned with
later on even though it palliates present symptoms. Pain may disappear,
but the patient is left in a worse condition, though unconscious of it at the
time.” Daniel H. Kress, M.D.

“The greatest part of all chronic disease is created by the suppression of
acute disease by drug poisoning. Every drug increases and complicates
the patient’s condition.” Henry Lindlahr, M.D.

“Every educated physician knows that most diseases are not appreciably
helped by medicine.” Richard C. Cabot, M.D.

“Medicine is only palliative, for back of disease lies the cause, and this
cause no drug can reach.” William Osler, M.D.

“Medical practice has neither philosophy nor common sense to recommend
it. In sickness the body is already loaded with impurities. By taking
drug-medicines, more impurities are added, thereby the case is further
embarrassed and harder to cure.” Elmer Lee, M.D., Past Vice President,
Academy of Medicine.

“Our figures show approximately four and one half million hospital
admissions annually due to the adverse reactions to drugs. Further, the
average hospital patient has as much as thirty percent chance, depending
on how long he is in, of doubling his stay due to adverse drug reactions.”
Milton Silverman, M.D. (Professor of Pharmacology, University of
California).

“Why would a patient swallow a poison because he is ill, or take that
which would make a well man sick.” L.F. Kebler, M.D.

“The necessity of teaching mankind not to take drugs and medicines is a
duty incumbent upon all who know their uncertainty and injurious effects;
and the time is not far distant when the drug system will be abandoned.”
Charles Armbruster, M.D.

“What hope is there for medical science to ever become a true science when
the entire structure of medical knowledge is built around the idea that there
is an entity called disease which can be expelled when the right drug is
found?” John H. Tilden, M.D.

Compare the above copied from the book to the three sites I linked to before (plus many more). Here is a copy pasta from just one

16 Doctors Speak Out on Pharmaceutical Drugs

Charles E. Page, M.D.

1. "The cause of most disease is in the poisonous drugs physicians superstitiously give in order to effect a cure."

Hans Kusche, M.D.

2. "Medicines are of subordinate importance because of their very nature, they can only work symptomatically."

O.W. Holmes, (Prof. of Med. Harvard University)

3. "If all the medicine in the world were thrown into the sea, it would be bad for the fish and good for humanity."

R.T. TraIl, M.D., in

4. (Excerpt from a two-and-one-half-hour lecture to members of Congress and the medical profession, delivered at the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C.)

"Drug medications consist in employing, as remedies for disease, those things which produce disease in well persons. Its materia medica is simply a lot of drugs or chemicals or dye-stuffs: in a word poisons. All are incompatible with vital matter; all produce disease when brought in contact in any manner with the living; all are poisons."

Robert Henderson, M.D.

5. "Every drug increases and complicates the patients condition."

Daniel. H. Kress, M.D.

6. "Drugs never cure disease. They merely hush the voice of nature's protest, and pull down the danger signals she erects along the pathway of transgression. Any poison taken into the system has to be reckoned with later on, even though it palliates present symptoms. Pain may disappear, but the patient is left in a worse condition, though unconscious of it at the time."

Henry Lindlahr, M.D.

7. "The greatest part of all chronic disease is created by the suppression of acute disease by drug poisoning."

Richard C. Cabot, M.D. (Mass. Gen. Hospital)

8. "Every educated physician knows that most diseases are not appreciably helped by medicine."

Wier Mitchel, M.D.

9. "Medicine is only palliative, for back of disease lies the cause, and this cause no drug can reach."

William Osler, M.D.

10. "The person who takes medicine must recover twice: once from the disease and once from the medicine."

Elmer Lee, M.D., Past Vice President, Academy of Medicine.

11. "Medical practice has neither philosophy nor common sense to recommend it. In sickness the body is already loaded with impurities. By taking drugs — medicines — more impurities are added, thereby the case is further embarrassed and harder to cure."

Milton Silverman, M.D. (Professor of Pharmacology, University of California)

12. "Our figures show approximately four and one half million hospital admissions annually due to the adverse reactions to drugs. Further, the average hospital patient has as much as thirty percent chance, depending how long he is in, of doubling his stay due to adverse drug reactions."

L.F. Kebler, M.D.

13. "Why would a patient swallow a poison because he is ill, or take that which would make a well man sick."

John H. Tilden, M.D.

14. "What hope is there for medical science to ever become a true science, when the entire structure of medical knowledge is built around the idea that there is an entity called disease which can be expelled when the right drug is found?"

Charles Armbruster, M. D.

15. "The necessity of teaching mankind not to take drugs and medicines, is a duty incumbent upon all who know their uncertainty and injurious effects; and the time is not far distant when the drug system will be abandoned."

Robert Mendelsohn, M.D

16. "We are prone to thinking of drug abuse in terms of the male population, and illicit drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. It may surprise you to learn that a greater problem exists with millions of women dependent on legal prescription drugs."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as p. 299, I am not guilty of anything. I gave everyone credit. I don't know where you're coming from LadyShea. Are you just out to win the argument?

You obviously copied the whole list off the web, they're even in the same order and use exactly the same sentences (see bolded), and trusted that the quotes and attributions are accurate. Do you know for a fact that they are accurate? What if the pages you lifted it from made them up?

[Vivisectus]

Apart from that - are we now to entertain the notion that medicine is the cause for most disease?

No wonder you were so upset by my little firemen-are-a-condition-for-fires joke! It is actually pretty close to what you really believe!

Every time you think you have plumbed the depths of crazy it just gets a little better.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, proper citation of other people's ideas and words, in addition to being the right thing to do and a legal obligation under the terms of the contract to which you agreed to be bound, is just something that authors who wish to be taken seriously do as a matter of course. This is not something we just made up in this thread. It is one thing to write on a message board. It is another thing to try to hold yourself out as offering some kind of serious work. This is virtually a threshold requirement for credibility, and one that you fail to meet, even before turning to the bizarre nonsense that constitutes the text itself.

Chuck, I quoted everyone and gave them credit. The only time I didn't do this is when the sentence had nothing to do with supporting the premise. Here's an example.

Trying to convince our most impressionable what is truly important
is equivalent to selling them a bill of goods because they learn by what
they see, and the popular culture wins out every time...but at whose
expense? The disparity between these two realities has made children
distrustful of themselves and others because they don’t know who or
what to believe. They are left adrift in a very confusing world with no
lighthouse to guide them back to shore. Is it any wonder they are in
such turmoil?

I heard someone say this one sentence on a t.v. show. Am I now supposed to credit this one sentence to this person who was talking about a completely different subject matter? That's nuts.

[specious_reasons]

- This is precious:

I’ll never forget the time she had a doctor come to the house even
though she was perfectly well in order to teach me a lesson. She
pretended she was very sick and told the doctor she didn’t know what
was wrong. After examining her the doctor prescribed some medicine
which she ordered right away. He instructed her to follow the
directions carefully so that the medicine would take immediate effect.
Otherwise she could get sicker, he warned. When the medicine came
she said, “Now watch son,” as she poured the entire bottle right down
the drain. “Why did you do that, mom, you wasted it?” She replied,
“The doctor and pharmacist have to earn a living and I helped them
in this respect but I certainly don’t have to follow their advice. I
wasn’t even sick but the doctor prescribed medicine anyway. The
difference between him and I is that he has more faith in the medicine
and I have more faith in my body’s natural healing power.”

(emphasis mine)

No the difference is Lessans's mother lied to the doctor, and the doctor assumed she was telling the truth!

The lesson you should learn from that is that you can fool somebody if you lie to them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Apart from that - are we now to entertain the notion that medicine is the cause for most disease?

No wonder you were so upset by my little firemen-are-a-condition-for-fires joke! It is actually pretty close to what you really believe!

Every time you think you have plumbed the depths of crazy it just gets a little better.

Giving prescriptions for just about every ailment under the sun is a big problem in today's society. It is not the cause of disease, but it can do more harm than good in many instances. This in no way relates to your example of firemen being a condition of fires. You'll have to do better next time Vivisectus.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

- This is precious:

(emphasis mine)

No the difference is Lessans's mother lied to the doctor, and the doctor assumed she was telling the truth!

The lesson you should learn from that is that you can fool somebody if you lie to them.

If you want to be Mr. Smarty Pants who never tells a lie, and blame others who do, then you would be put on the same pedestal as George Washington. But in actuality, we are justified in lying if we believe we are making matters worse for ourselves, by not lying. She did the right thing. You're not seeing the deeper issue, because your aim is to attack. You don't want Lessans to be right which is going to sabotage your understanding.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's totally Fair Use, thedoc, you needn't have gotten permission. It was nice and extra careful that you did, though.

I got permission as a courtesy to the author, and to let him know I was doing it, we were also in the middle of other corespondence about the book.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Giving prescriptions for just about every ailment under the sun is a big problem in today's society. This in no way relates to your example of firemen being a condition of fires. You'll have to do better next time Vivisectus, because your reasoning is way off.

These quotes go quite a bit further than that - they say that almost all disease is actually caused by medication! And as usual this is done by accepting the first theory that comes along and that you like the look of, without checking up on it or studying it in any depth.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want to be Mr. Smarty Pants who never tells a lie, and blame others who do, then you would be put on the same pedestal as President Washington. But in actuality, we are justified in lying if we believe we are hurting others, or being hurt, by not lying. She did the right thing. You're not seeing the deeper issue, because you don't want to. You don't want Lessans to be right which is going to ruin it for you.

Generally, I don't lie to my doctor, because lying leads to an incorrect diagnosis and incorrect treatment. Apply some sense to the situation.

There are some symptoms that can be observed, and some symptoms that a doctor must rely on the patient's testimony.

She could have gone to any expert, lied and gotten incorrect results. The only difference is she tried to pretend it was a lesson about the body's natural healing ability.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I heard someone say this one sentence on a t.v. show. Am I now supposed to credit this one sentence to this person who was talking about a completely different subject matter? That's nuts.

Please calm down. No one here expects anything approaching ethical behavior from the likes of you.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

No the difference is Lessans's mother lied to the doctor, and the doctor assumed she was telling the truth!

The lesson you should learn from that is that you can fool somebody if you lie to them.

Also that it's A-OK to abuse folks and waste resources in furtherance of making some sort of jackass point! Looks like the special brand of sociopathy on display in this here thread was inherited rather than learned.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you want to be Mr. Smarty Pants who never tells a lie, and blame others who do, then you would be put on the same pedestal as President Washington. But in actuality, we are justified in lying if we believe we are hurting others, or being hurt, by not lying.

For example, when a doctor, treating a patient who claims to be very sick but exhibits no discernible physical symptoms, suspects a psychological cause and prescribes a placebo, and instructs the patient to follow the directions carefully so that the "medicine" would take "immediate effect."

I do wonder, however, whether someone who was actually ill might have benefited more from the doctor's time. I guess we'll never know.

[Vivisectus]

So to recap - the doctor, being fed false information on purpose, prescribed a medication that, because his/her patient lied about her symptoms, was not required.

And this shows that the Doctor had not faith in the bodies natural healing powers because she didn't need the medicine?

But she went out of her way to mislead the doctor about her condition! What the hell is that supposed to prove? That doctors can be misled?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I do wonder, however, whether someone who was actually ill might have benefited more from the doctor's time. I guess we'll never know.

"Benefited more"? lol don't be silly. Baby Jane Lessans had an opportunity to infuse some idiocy into her li'l man. What's a sick person getting treatment compared to that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quit with the histrionics.

I don't want you thrown in jail or to pay anything because I have not been harmed. Other people may feel harmed by inclusion of their words in your book without being sourced. Others may feel harmed if their names are attached to something they didn't say. Chances are they will never see it, though, and so you will never have to worry about legal consequences.

That being said I think you are a sloppy researcher and sloppy writer and sloppy thinker. My opinion of you has been informed by our discussions in this thread, and by the book itself. My opinion carries no force of law though.

You are entitled to your opinion, but in my opinion you are very inept in your ability to analyze the important points in this book. What you have done to this book in the name of truth doesn't compare to the triviality you have charged me with. To call me a sloppy thinker when you have not taken the time to read the book is ironic. All you have done is ripped the book apart in your attempt to find flaws that aren't even there. I don't think you will ever understand the significance of this work because of the mindset in which you operate.

I did the best I could considering what I knew about citing written works. If I made a mistake, will I burn in hell?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't believe in hell, so can't answer that. You have to live with your own conscience...so knowing what you know now, do you remain comfortable publishing the book as it is now? If so, there's your answer

I don't believe in hell either LadyShea. That was just an expression. I actually like the way you quoted those individuals. Was that an original source?

Will you not read the book?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Though you refuse to believe me, I have read a large portion of the book. I will not do so again, however, though I may refer to it for discussion points.

I don't believe you in the slightest. The fact that you thought his proof of determinism was based on a tautology is very revealing. And the fact that you didn't know what syllogistic reasoning is, is a dead giveaway because it's mentioned approximately 15 times in the book. If you were such a careful reader, wouldn't you have looked that word up after reading it 15 times?

Will you consider me a total fraud?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I already stated my opinion of you as related to your work with the book. You may be a perfectly lovely person in all other ways, however.

I hope you think I'm a lovely person in spite of a possible error on my part. I did not do anything with malicious intent, and I would repair whatever I could if I wrote something that would damage someone's reputation.

Can you tell me in all honesty that you never copied a sentence from someone else to support your thesis?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I knowingly copied anything, I cited it. Of course my brain has been informed by multiple things I have read and heard, and it's quite possible some phrase or another I utter or type will come out of my memory banks as a whole. My discussions however, will mostly fall under Fair Use*, and so are not the same as knowingly borrowing from another source for a published work.

I believed these examples fell under Fair Use because they were said or written in a public arena. I was always alert, while I was compiling these books, to phrases that might be useful.

I am not a malicious person, and if I felt that someone got hurt from anything I did, I would feel so terribly responsible that I would try to repair it in any way that I could.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have no way of knowing if someone might be hurt by your use of their words or name.

Someone could quote something I wrote in this thread and mess up my reputation. You have to trust people to a certain degree or you better not say anything at all. I can't live my life as if everyone's out to get me. If I really didn't want to take the risk, I should have never posted online.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You could, if you are worried, look up the people whose names are attached to the quotes you lifted, and see if they are okay with their quote and name being used. Dr. Charles E. Page (one of the quoted people) apparently has a practice in Durango, Colorado and his contact info is easily found through Google.

I could, I guess. But the question remains: If he didn't want anyone to quote him, why did he post his opinion online?

Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Of the factors mentioned, I don't think I've broken any rules of copyright, although I could have been more careful when verifying the source of my information.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So to recap - the doctor, being fed false information on purpose, prescribed a medication that, because his/her patient lied about her symptoms, was not required.

And this shows that the Doctor had not faith in the bodies natural healing powers because she didn't need the medicine?

But she went out of her way to mislead the doctor about her condition! What the hell is that supposed to prove? That doctors can be misled?

It was to show her son that when you call in a doctor, they will most likely give you medicine, even if they don't know what the source of the problem is, because that is what they have been trained to do, and that's how they earn a living.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I got what peacegirl meant. I'm pretty certain that peacegirl wrote the forward to the book, and she wrote parts to connect chapters or to tie in Lessans essays together. The parts she claims to have written are not important or relevant to Lessans "discoveries."

Exactly.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You must care more about your slander, than you do about getting real answers. Off you go to devils (ignore) island. Bye david, have a good time there, and if you can send me a postcared from time to time.

Fuck off, pissgirl.

We can now add "plagiarist" to your charming characteristics, which include density, dishonesty and greed, among others.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe in hell either LadyShea. That was just an expression. I actually like the way you quoted those individuals. Was that an original source?

You like the way I quoted who? Was what an original source? Are you referring to the webpage I copied and pasted with a link to the source page and that I clearly stated was a copy and paste from a source page?

I believed these examples fell under Fair Use because they were said or written in a public arena.

It doesn't matter where they were written. Fair use addresses how you use someone else's copyrighted material. Websites have copyright data on the bottom of every page, so the list of quotes lifted wholesale off a website would be copying copyrighted work and using it in your book. Plagiarism.

Someone could quote something I wrote in this thread and mess up my reputation.

Slander and libel laws certainly exist to be used. You should probably understand them pretty well, though, before commenting on them

I could, I guess. But the question remains: If he didn't want anyone to quote him, why did he post his opinion online?

How do you know he posted his opinion online himself? How do you know he said what he was quoted as saying at all? From what I can tell some alternative medicine website(s) published a list of quotes and attributed them to various MDs, but didn't give citations that could lead to verification (a few had some added info but no dates or anything useful for verification purposes). You have no idea if Dr. Page said what the website you used said he said.

You have no idea if someone didn't just write

"Modern medicine is full of crackpots" LadyShea, MD

Of the factors mentioned, I don't think I've broken any rules of copyright, although I could have been more careful when verifying the source of my information.

The list of quotes is clearly plagiarism. Whichever website you pulled it from obviously stole it from yet another site...but that makes no difference if you get sued.

What if those quotes are fake? What if they are attributed to the wrong MD? What if an MD decides that the quote being published in your book is libelous and could harm his practice?

[Doctor X]

We will add "does not know what 'slander' is" to her ever growing list of willful incompetence.

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

These quotes go quite a bit further than that - they say that almost all disease is actually caused by medication! And as usual this is done by accepting the first theory that comes along and that you like the look of, without checking up on it or studying it in any depth.

No one really knows the long term effects of many of these drugs. We're all guinea pigs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You like the way I quoted who? Was what an original source? Are you referring to the webpage I copied and pasted with a link to the source page and that I clearly stated was a copy and paste from a source page?

It doesn't matter where they were written. Fair use addresses how you use someone else's copyrighted material. Websites have copyright data on the bottom of every page, so the list of quotes lifted wholesale off a website would be copying copyrighted work and using it in your book. Plagiarism.

Slander and libel laws certainly exist to be used. You should probably understand them pretty well, though, before commenting on them

How do you know he posted his opinion online himself? How do you know he said what he was quoted as saying at all? From what I can tell some alternative medicine website(s) published a list of quotes and attributed them to various MDs, but didn't give citations that could lead to verification (a few had some added info but no dates or anything useful for verification purposes). You have no idea if Dr. Page said what the website you used said he said.

You have no idea if someone didn't just write

"Modern medicine is full of crackpots" LadyShea, MD

The list of quotes is clearly plagiarism. Whichever website you pulled it from obviously stole it from yet another site...but that makes no difference if you get sued.

What if those quotes are fake? What if they are attributed to the wrong MD? What if an MD decides that the quote being published in your book is libelous and could harm his practice?

I get your point. I do believe the possibility of being sued is possible, but not probable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by wildernesse

If it is not your original idea, then you need to give credit to the person whose idea it is. Otherwise it is plagiarism. If you don't have any original ideas, then, yes, citing will verge on the ridiculous.

Yes, copying one or two sentences and not giving the source is plagiarism. Taking credit for an idea that is not your own is plagiarism, and length of expression of that idea is neither here nor there.

But it wasn't an original idea; it was a comment that I used which worked well in a paragraph. It had nothing to do with the subject matter he was discussing. If that's plagiarism, then I'm guilty as charged. I would never take credit for someone else's ideas. My conscience wouldn't permit it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get your point. I do believe the possibility of being sued is possible, but not probable.

IOW, you don't give a shit that you plagiarized, so long as no one notices.