The Malcontent

Biden's Boner

Maybe Senator Biden should start plagiarizing his own speeches more often.

I Miss You Most of All, Scare Quotes

The scare quotes have once again mysteriously gone missing in Reuterville.  The "news service" that refers to Osama bin Laden as a "terrorist" (scare quotes included) is once again struck completely credulous when it comes to pathological dissembler Kim Jong Il:

N.Korea ready to scrap nuclear plans for better ties: envoy

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea is ready to dismantle its nuclear weapons programs if it can better its relations with the United States, Japan and South Korea, China's envoy to Seoul was quoted as saying on Friday.

Chinese Ambassador Ning Fukui said in a meeting with a key South Korean lawmaker that building trust between Pyongyang and Washington was essential for advancing six-party talks aimed at ending North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. [...]

After putting that story through the Truth-O-Matic 9000, it reads:

N.Korea "ready" to "scrap" nuclear plans for better ties: envoy

SEOUL (Reuters) - North Korea is "ready" to "dismantle" its nuclear weapons programs if it can better its relations with the United States, Japan and South Korea, China's envoy to Seoul was quoted as saying on Friday.

Chinese Ambassador Ning Fukui said in a meeting with a key South Korean lawmaker that building "trust" between Pyongyang and Washington was essential for advancing six-party talks aimed at "ending" North Korea's nuclear weapons programs. [...]

(I was originally going to call this post "Gullible's Travels" until I arrived at the current headline, after which I found someone else at a far-flung blog had already used a similar idea for Reuters.  But I decided to keep it anyway, and screw you if you think I ripped you off!)

Mal's Content

One of the reasons I created this site was to be able to post original content, especially video captures that people might have missed elsewhere but would like the chance to see.  It's kind of a niche I am trying to carve.  It can be time-consuming, but I enjoy it and I think others do too.

Which is why it's always a bit disappointing to see those videos show up elsewhere, such as this hot Jamie Bamber capture that turned up weeks later on Fleshbot and other sites, without a hat tip.

I can easily get over the lack of credit, but I'm sure the people who are kind enough to advertise here would appreciate the extra traffic a behemoth like Fleshbot can drive my way, and theirs.

Granted, it is my own fault for rushing clips onto The Malcontent without adding some sort of graphic to identify the source, but as Tobias Fünke might say, "I shan't be making that mistake again."

[/queeny rant]

Plagiarism Update!

AF-H2O has apparently pulled down his entire site because I outed him as a plagiarist.  Even though the Hubbie thinks he probably shut down his site and jumped off a tall building somewhere, that wasn't my intended outcome.  I merely wanted respect for basic guidelines of attribution.

AF-H2O is very confused if he thinks "none of my content was copyrighted."  Just because someone doesn't put that little "C" inside the circle on their work doesn't mean it's not protected by copyright law.  The fact that I am the creator and writer of this site implies a copyright.

AF-H2O further says he was "trying to make a political point."  That rationale is so idiotic that I won't even dignify it.

Anatomy of a Plagiarist

Last night I was doing one of my periodic checks of Technorati to see who might be interested in what I have to say.  One of the links shown was from a blog called "Anaerobic Funk-H2O" (sounds a little like Engrish to me) in a piece about "intelligent design."

Great, I thought, someone must have liked what I said about the topic on Aug. 2 and was quoting me.

Well, "Anaerobic Funk-H2O" must have liked it so much that they plagiarized me, almost word-for word (the screen capture is from last night, altered only to produce a smaller JPEG image).  I don't know why Technorati showed a link to my site, because there was none at the piece I went to.  But it was clear Anaerobic is too lazy to "exercise" their own blogging talents:

The Malcontent (Aug. 2): "Intelligent design," of course, is the religious right's code word for "creationism."  Now, what troubles The Malcontent most, and the point about which we're hoping for elaboration, is the word "alongside."  It is one thing to present theological concepts in religious schools or as part of religious-studies courses.  It is another thing entirely to teach them "alongside" time-tested scientific theory.

AF-H2O (Aug. 6): "Intelligent design," is the religious right's code word for "creationism." What troubles me the most is the part where he said he wanted intelligent design taught right alongside evolution. I think it's one thing to present theological concepts as part of religious-studies courses, but it's another thing entirely to give it the same weight as 150 years of proven scientific theory.

Me: Proponents of "intelligent design," of course, will argue that they are not garden-variety creationists.  They will tell you that their "theory," in essence, is an add-on to evolution, to help explain how evolution itself came about.  The have even set up fancy websites and "institutes" to peddle their bullshit.

AF-H2O: Proponents of intelligent design will argue that they are not true creationists. They say their theory is an add-on to evolution, another theory to help explain how evolution itself came about. The have set up fancy websites and "institutes" to peddle their bullshit.

Me: The problem is that creationism is antithetical to science itself.  It is generally accepted that for something to be "scientific," it must adhere to the scientific method, which includes: observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, and analysis (including debate or peer review).

AF-H2O: The problem is that creationism goes against science itself. For something to be scientific it must adhere to the scientific method, which includes: observation, hypothesis, prediction, experimentation, analysis and debate. You cannot and never will be able to peer-review faith.

Me: The problem with their ideas, of course, is that the complete lack of scientific evidence for divine forces guiding the evolution of species disquaifies them to be taught "alongside" anything remotely scientific.  Again, the antithesis of science.  Creationism/intelligent design relies totally upon faith and/or belief in the supernatural.  Suggesting that it be taught in school "alongside" evolution would be no different, for instance, than if I were to argue that we should teach that the Earth came about on the back of a giant turtle.  [Here AF-H2O used the picture of the turtle from the link I provided to the creation myth, rather than my more facetious Yertle the Turtle.]

AF-H2O: The complete lack of scientific evidence for "Godly" forces guiding evolution disquaifies it to be taught alongside anything scientific. creationism/intelligent design relies totally upon faith and/or belief in the supernatural. Suggesting that it be taught in school along with evolution would be no different, for instance, than if I were to argue that we should teach that the Earth came about on the back of a giant turtle, as the Onondaga Tribe believe.

See?  They even did sloppy work editing their cut 'n' paste job (even leaving intact my misspelling of "disqualifies.")

Now, I have not thought to post a copyright notice on this website because I doubt any blogger minds having his/her words echoed by others, so long as proper credit is given, and I had thought there was something of "honor among thieves" when it came to basic blogging courtesies.  But I will have to reevaluate that.  Imitation is indeed a sincere form of flattery; outright theft is not.

Last night I added a comment to the pilfered post asking why they had plagiarized this site.  No response.  But perhaps the ultimate admission of guilt lies in the fact that AF-H2O's site no longer seems to be up and running.