|
We have had a spat of this recently and it's not good History nor evidence of research and use of the method. I refer to cut and paste predominately. In certain threads and subs there is more tolerance for it then others. For example in the 'Science' thread or a couple of the 'Defense' threads it's tolerable to a point. As these are info specific related with no or little expected return commentary. Though you should always feel comfortable with replying. And I encourage it. However in other areas, for example: 'General History', History of the Americas' etc. etc. Cut and paste and failing to cite a source (in particular) is plagiarism (which is never good) and a no-no, no-go. It does not necessarily positively add to a debate or effort among posters, when you cite an article but offer no comment on whether it's veracity or informative value has any thing to do with the opinions already posted in the thread. In fact it generally provides nothing more then confusion as to your intent. And it's trolling. A CoC violation. Nor is posting a cut and paste from Wiki or elsewhere, with no individual commentary going to be tolerated for very long. So... as I myself having been guilty of it on occasion.... give ya heads up. Get better at not doing it. otoh ya might see the bench....if ya don't. Because this also is trolling. Because in doing so, you and I, better demonstrate our seriousness for the subject matter and our attempt to remain civilly, and objectively, facilitators of communications and stimulator's of debate. And yes, I understand that we have many here for whom English is not their primary language and.... rules of grammar may differ....and that's understandable. And due consideration will be given. Because frankly, I'm not concerned with your individual use of vernacular and grammar. Though improper usage does not facilitate in the minds of some... your intellectual acumen. That's understood as well. But don't let that become your common practice and not your exception. CV
-------------
"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"
S. T. Friedman
Pilger's law: 'If it's been officially denied, then it's probably true'
|