Re Plaigarism

[Guest guest]

I disagree with the opinion put forth by Trisdale.

 

This is just a group sharing views, ideas, thoughts, readings and

knowledge. It is not a commercial site and absolutely no one here is

gaining monetary benefits or selling knowledge.

 

Infact if you start insisting every quote or statement here should be

referenced then we can have a bibliography section. I understand

members read something and have queries or want clarification or

simply want to share it with others, they take the effort to retype

long paragraphs and share the knowledge with others.

 

It is not a publication or book to start referencing, I bet no one

here claims they wrote the Upanishads!!

 

I do not think we should start embroiling ourselves in such pernicuty

issues and loose focus on the subject matter......

[Guest guest]

Plagarism is merely not giving credit to the author. In essence

everything is partially plagarized becauise everything is dependent

on everything else, but when one says something in same words as

someone else then one must quote person responsible for those exact

words. For instance, I could say, "dance, make some love and get

down." OK fine, but if I say, "Do a little dance, make a little love,

get down tonight, get down tonight," then I must give credit to KC and

the Sunshine Band, (except in such instances as this where the

originator is already commonly known.

 

We aren't writing phds here so plagarism is no crime or sin. In fact

who really cares. Hopefully we aren't attracting too many master

debators to this ng.

[Guest guest]

If we are to worry about palgerism in hinduism then

nothing is possible. We have quotes from unknowns all

round. Some may know the authors but many does not. as

long as you are imbibing the truth. rest is OK by me.

This is my personal view

*smile*

--- Kirk <kirk_bernhardt wrote:

> Plagarism is merely not giving credit to the author.

> In essence everything is partially plagarized

> becauise everything is dependent on everything else,

> but when one says something in same words as someone

> else then one must quote person responsible for

> those exact words. For instance, I could say,

> "dance, make some love and get down." OK fine, but

> if I say, "Do a little dance, make a little love,

> get down tonight, get down tonight," then I must

> give credit to KC and the Sunshine Band, (except in

> such instances as this where the originator is

> already commonly known.

>

> We aren't writing phds here so plagarism is no crime

> or sin. In fact who really cares. Hopefully we

> aren't attracting too many master debators to this

> ng.

>

 

 

 

 

Mother's Day is May 12th!

 

[Guest guest]

Whether it is secular or sacred, when we are doing some copy &

paste job(As seen sometimes(rarely) in this list) from other websites

or lists in internet, it is basic courtesy to atleast mention the

source. Such unmentioning is generally considered plagiarism.

 

Just informing....

 

S.

[Guest guest]

OM Sarabhaanana

 

This thread on plaigarism was started with Trisdale's cryptic

comment, 'Stop plagiarism'.

 

It would have been more useful if the poster had elucidated

more on the intentions of the post and what prompted it.

 

Plagiarism is a recent invention designed to protect royalties and

other earnings and generally implies using someone else's

work for personal gain. In the great age of western classical

music musical phrases were freely borrowed and incorporated

into one's own work. There was no thought that those borrowed

elements made the work any less original (or moving). Today,

rock groups go to court to sue over a few notes. Why? Because

money has become the motivation for music. This degeneration

of intent in composition is matched by a degenerative attempt to

malign others with the label of plagarism.

 

In this forum, celebration of spiritual path is the raison d'etre of

the group. Who cares about so-called plaigarism in this context.

 

It would be useful at times to include references if not to an

actual publication and page number at least to the author. In this

way, those interested in the message can have another

reference to explore. But to insist on attribution in the interest of

some misguided sense of fairness or basic courtesy is wrong.

 

Attribution and plaigarism implies ownership. Does anyone

really think that an authentic Guru would claim ownership of

his/her words and thoughts when he/she knows those

illuminating words and thoughts come from Brahaman. Does

anyone really think that an authentic Guru is upset if his/her

words are used but not properly attributed?

 

Those who seek to impress and set themselves up as an

authority by using the words of others only set themselves up for

ridicule given the wide backgrounds of the members of this

group. Eventually, someone will point out the sources of these

messages and the falseness of the poster. The poster will be

shown to be a posturer. In addition, each poster reveals

himself/herself as they post. If, suddenly, a post made by a

someone carries a different voice or an unusual depth of

knowledge than that usually associated with that poster, then we

can be suspicious of the origins of the post and possibly the

intent of the poster.

 

But there may be people who use the words of others in an

entirely innocent way. Someone may use the words of a spiritual

advanced person as a way of trying to get inside the

consciousness of that Adept. Sort of like the child wearing the

clothes of the parent.

 

It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Using the

words of an Adept could be just another form of flattery as well

as an attempt to understand the consciousness of the Adept.

 

So the idea of plaigarism has many facets. Not the least of which

is the validity of the concept of 'plaigarism', especially from a

spiritual point of view.

 

OM Namah Sivaya

 

Omprem