« Boston Globe: Republicans Can’t Be Heroes. | Home | The French-o-cRATS »
Shunned and Banned: Jack
By Matt Margolis | July 11, 2003
I honestly never expected it would come to this, however, a recent incident in my blog has caused me to impose a shun and ban order on Jack, a frequent commenter in my blog. I direct you all to my post “Georgie Boy Comes Through” and read Jack’s comments.
Jack, has done a good job of trying to present himself like someone who thinks he knows everything. He posts comments in my blog accusing everyone who disagrees with him of being stupid. I know that he likes to make himself feel all warm and fuzzy by making posts with academic level discussion material that he has regurgitated from other liberals on the web – but I don’t fall for it.
Jack, your cut-and-paste job has no place in my blog.
I direct my readers to the this webpage.
I ask you to look at the third to last paragraph:
Eliminating the tax on dividends is unlikely to spur business investment spending. The administration claims the dividend tax cut will help boost the stock market, thereby creating greater incentive for businesses to invest. But countless studies over the past several decades have found overwhelming evidence that business investment responds very little to changes in the stock market. Rather, the consensus among economists is that the major determinant of business investment is internal cash flow, also known as undistributed profits or retained earnings. Indeed, if tax on dividends is eliminated, businesses might now face pressure from shareholders to pay out more dividends resulting in less cash for investment.
The above quote, written by Robert Murphy, associate professor of economics at Boston University, sounds awfully familiar to Jack’s post doesn’t it?
In one post, Jack accuses myself and others about not knowing about the economy – and then attempts to prove that he knows something about the economy, not by blessing us with his own knowledge, but by cutting and pasting someone else’s words, and presenting them as his own. He is a liar and a thief.
Jack, this is not tolerable. I am beyond irritated at this. I am forced to question the originality of all of your posts on my blog. As a result of this, I can’t trust the validity of your future posts because your obvious attempt to present someone else’s material as your own is an example of your dishonesty. You present yourself as an intellectual, but can’t even make an argument with your own words or research. You didn’t even cite your source – you chose to append and prepend Murphy’s words with your own – giving the appearance that you wrote the words yourself.
Differing opinions are welcome in this blog. But the stealing of material is not. Accusing others of ignorance on a subject followed by plagiarism of material on that subject is also not welcome.
Jack, I hereby ban from my blog indefinitely. I did not come to this decision lightly, but your actions just are not tolerable. You now have two options.
1. Admit your wrongdoing and apologize. Apologize not just to me, but also to everybody. I’m not interested in hearing excuses or justifications for your deceit, either. If you make a satisfactory apology and admission, you will only be banned for a short period of time determined by me. Until I receive such an apology, all your future posts will be deleted without review.
2. Don’t apologize or make an admission, and never return to this website, or post comments again. All comments posted on this blog by you will be immediately deleted once discovered.
Jack, the choice is yours.
Topics: Website News |
Related Posts:
July 11th, 2003 at 9:13 pm
most reputable universities expel students who plaigarize. Shame on you Jack…. footnotes or some type of citation was in order…. Shame shame shame.
Matt,
somehow, i doubt jack is at home crying about being banned from your blog….
July 11th, 2003 at 11:30 pm
One A-hole down, one to go!
July 11th, 2003 at 11:32 pm
Is he supposed to apologize for calling Bush a shithead or what?
July 12th, 2003 at 4:59 am
From my take, he’s supposed to apologies for claiming to have knowledge he only copy pasted, and was unable to put into his own words.
Not apologies for his political stances, that’s what Democrats and Lefties usually ask for. (Lott ring a bell?)
July 12th, 2003 at 11:39 am
If you call wishing Segregation was still in place and that we would all be better off if the “Niggras” were kept in their place a political stance. The thing that really pisses me off is that you dont care that Lott is a Racist asshole all you care about is that he got caught.
Um I checked your FAQ and it says nothing about Plagiarism.
July 12th, 2003 at 12:19 pm
Um Yeah, I refer to the following in my Blog FAQ:
I feel this is absolutely applicable in this case. However, for future reference, I shall included something specifically regarding shunning and banning sooon.
Also, Um Yeah, regardless of whether or not it was addressed, it really doesn’t matter. This is my website, my blog, and my domain. I am master of my domain, and what I say goes. I have provided my spot on the web as a forum for you, and in this forum, I rule.
July 12th, 2003 at 12:41 pm
so, Um Yeah, Senator Byrd, a KKK member ought to be given the ticket out of Congrees????? Last I checked, the KKK was rather racist.
Before you come back and say, Byrd was in the KKK a long time ago, and he has made up for it….it is just as easy to say that past immoral acts or words of any Representative or Senator ought to be forgiven, including Trent Lott. But you don’t give Republicans the right to to be redeemed. This is what people call a DOUBLE STANDARD. So, Um Yeah, suck it!
July 12th, 2003 at 2:02 pm
He was in the KKK 60 years ago. He apologized and admitted it was a mistake. You can cry all you want and then make a Gay proposition pass at me all you want, it still wont change anything.
July 12th, 2003 at 2:56 pm
Um Yeah, it’s amazing to me how Java knew exactly what you were going to say, and you said it anyway.
You are an example of the “hypocrisy of the Left.” Go run along and play outside with the rest of the neighborhood children.
July 12th, 2003 at 5:08 pm
Oh my gosh… Byrd apologized… yet so did Lott…. who got the boot? Lott. Who has the (R) after his name? Lott! No shit.
July 12th, 2003 at 10:00 pm
Lott didnt get the boot, hes still a Senator ferchrissakes.
July 12th, 2003 at 10:24 pm
He was driven out of his leadership position. He was also the victim of intense criticism and scrutiny by the media.
Byrd, on the other hand, uses the phrase “white niggers” on television, and no one in the media or the left bats an eye.
July 12th, 2003 at 11:19 pm
Exactly how many years ago was his “White Nigger Comment” I know it happened but I forgot how long ago it was.
July 12th, 2003 at 11:21 pm
My source for the following is http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0212/20/bn.01.html
(Leon) Harris: “Let’s go ahead and bring in Ron Brownstein with the “L.A. Times” and here at CNN.
Ron, are you surprised not with the news, but the timing of this?
RON BROWNSTEIN, “L.A. TIMES”: I am. This is another example of how the news cycle acceleration is really changing life in Washington. It’s really almost impossible for a story like this to go on, even the three weeks originally to January 6 when Jeb Bush said earlier this week, this couldn’t go on. He was exactly right. These things force themselves to a resolution very quickly.
HARRIS: Any idea, Ron, what may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back?
BROWNSTEIN: Well, I think the indication of interest in Bill Frist, I would suspect, was the approximate cause of Lott concluding he could not survive.”
–
Therefore, it would seem that while his comments hurt him, it was not the Democrats driving him out of his leadership position.
July 12th, 2003 at 11:23 pm
How long ago, Um Yeah?
Not long ago at all. Not long ago at all.
July 13th, 2003 at 1:54 am
Um Yeah: What are you like Jack’s b!tch now?
Sorry Matt, you can ban me for that if you want. But it was so worth it.
July 13th, 2003 at 3:21 am
I find it most interesting that the very first comment Jack ever wrote here was accusing YOU of cutting and pasting. What’s that saying about pointing your finger and three pointing back….yah.
July 13th, 2003 at 11:09 am
You’re right Serenity, Jack did accuse me of cutting-and-pasting regarding “The Bastardization of Democracy Part II” after he discovered another article on the web that used Federalist 76 to discuss Judicial Nominations. Jack’s claim was completely groundless because while the article he apparently googled on the subject used specific quotes from Federalist 76, I used many different quotes from it to support my position.
I am now led to believe that Jack, in attempt to find information to discredit the applicability of Federalist 76 regarding Judicial Nominations (probably to plagiarize that material as well) discovered that article, and in a desperate attempt to besmirch me, he accused me of cutting-and-pasting.
July 13th, 2003 at 1:28 pm
Courtney how did you get into College? How in the name of Sweet Zombie Jesus (Futurama)did you get out of Highschool???!!
July 13th, 2003 at 1:42 pm
So this is where Mmm Bop has been hiding. Matt why do let the Bopper post, since its email addy is a fake?
July 13th, 2003 at 1:50 pm
*sniff-sniff* Boo-hoo. Lesson learned: defend your position intellegently, and credit your sources. Of course, this should not be difficult for any of us. And if it is, go hang out at Kimmit’s blog. He makes no such requirement of his commenters, and would probably welcome your views, Um Yeah.
I certainly do not mind in the least an honest disagreement, as that is debate. I do, however, despise intellectual dishonesty and the sort of character assasination that so many resort to when they cannot make a cogent argument.
Good riddance, Matt. Thank you.
July 13th, 2003 at 2:30 pm
Ouch Um Yeah. That one you know, just hurt so bad. I just don’t know what I’ll ever do with myself. You know, because your opinion matters that much to me.
July 13th, 2003 at 4:05 pm
I applaud your call, Matt.
Not that you need my approval because, as you so correctly point out, this IS your blog. You pay for it and if you should choose, for example, to ban any and all posters ever using the word “boob”, then so be it.
However, banning somebody for trying to pass somebody else’s work off as his own is very appropriate as far as I’m concerned. I certainly have nothing against quoting, I just expect anybody doing so to credit their sources properly.
Not much to ask, methinks.
July 13th, 2003 at 4:18 pm
Yes Misha,
I further suggest that attempting to pass off another’s material as your own by integrating it with your own words makes the situation much more severe - especially when the person doing such has accused others of ignorance and stupidity. He couldn’t even come up with something original. He had to steal someone else’s work to try to inflate his own ego.
We won’t be missing Jack.
July 13th, 2003 at 9:14 pm
Jack who?
July 14th, 2003 at 12:13 pm
Well, well, well… That’s some pretty nifty research, Matt. Do you sit around typing quotes from my posts into Google?? I guess that’s fine, if you’ve got the time. There’s just one problem…
I wrote that passage…
I take it you have not heard of graduate research assistants, eh? Sure, in the interest of time, I cut and pasted that passage, in its original form mind you, FROM MY DRAFTS OF THAT REPORT. But of course, when you cannot counter the message, you go after the messenger.
Nice try, but no cigar.
So needless to say, AN APOLOGY FROM YOU IS THE ONLY APPROPRIATE REMEDY. Not that I really expect that you would have the class or humility to do so…
So if you want to ban me, fine. Aside from the fact the blog is based here in Boston, the only real interest is the stunning ineptitude of your readers. In fact, I have to say that I am rather happy that my view is posted so prominently at the top of your blog. I find it priceless that by letting your readers see my words at the top of your site., you have finally, albeit inadvertently “posted some wisdom”.
Enjoy the feeling, cuz it ain’t gonna last.
July 14th, 2003 at 1:34 pm
hmm… “Numbers Simply Don’t Work in the Bush Economic Plan” By Robert Murphy.
So Jack’s real name is Robert Murphy???
Assuming Jack is correct that he assisted in the writing… It is still consideried plaigarism if you don’t acknowledge the other people involved in the writing. Also, picture this. Hitlary’s book, “Lying History”, was not really written by her, but by a ghostwriter, or series of ghost writers. If one of them decided to quote passages from the book under their own name, that would probably be considered a breech of contract, and likely follow in some lawsuit. The point… the byline says “Hitlery Clinton”, not Ghostwriters 1, 2, and 3. So, if you contributed to the writing of this article, and the author published it under his name, ther was likely some type of verbal or written agreement that the work would be published under his name and sole ownership belongs to him. So, my guess is, that since you didn’t cite the article or acknowledge that the article was part of a team effort that you contributed to without acknowledging the other parties invovled… you have either broken your contract with the author, or plaigarized.
July 14th, 2003 at 2:05 pm
Java - you’re reaching, buddy. We’re talking about a blog here.
Secondly… a contract? Are you fucking serious? Aren’t you the one who was discussing graduate studies? Contracts for research assistants with plagerism provisions?? Boy… the Profs are gonna love you, man.
Finally– the article was for the Chornicle. AN INTERNAL NEWSPAPER FOR FACULTY AND STAFF.
A contract?!
July 14th, 2003 at 2:13 pm
heck yeah, atleast a verbal agreement. Don’t forget, your liberal sue-happy lawyers will stop at nothing to protect intellectual property.
Regardless, contract or none, it wasn’t published under the name, Jack the weak minded liberal idiot. If I can’t do a search for the article with your name as the author, I’m sorry, but you gotta cite your source. You wouldn’t stand a chance against an ethics committee….
Here’s the ethics hearing now:
Jack: Uh, yeah, I helped write this article.
Ethics Committee: Really? Is your name on the article?
Jack: Uh, I, uh…. no.
EC: You want us to take your word for it?
Jack: Well, yeah.. I helped write it.
EC: Proof?
Jack: Uh, proof?
EC: Yes, like your name cited in the article as a contributer?
Jack: Uh, no…. nothing like that. But i swear I helped to write it.
EC: You fucking idiot! Get outta here!
July 14th, 2003 at 2:18 pm
“Hitlary Klinton” roflmao!
July 14th, 2003 at 2:20 pm
Obviously you have a lot to learn about grad school.
Who the fuck do you think does all the work? The professors?
Is Java your real name? Do you really think mine is Jack? Are you going to find articles on the web by the author with the name Doc Russia. Give me a break.
You’re reachin…
July 14th, 2003 at 2:43 pm
Unless your name is Robert Murphy, take a walk.
typical left-winger…. avoiding the truth, and hating all that is Right.
Atleast we can admit our true identities….we stand behind our opinions, and hold true to our beliefs. You, you hide behind a mask, in an attempt to ward off the blemish that would be cast on your reputation (if you have any). Grow some balls, use your real name.
July 14th, 2003 at 2:46 pm
Ok. Java.
July 14th, 2003 at 2:53 pm
My name is Aaron….
July 14th, 2003 at 5:39 pm
Aaron — you should still answer why you keep deleting my posts questioning your inability to substantively respond to my actual economic argument? Aren’t you going to “stand behind your opinion”?
Guess not.
July 14th, 2003 at 6:45 pm
Hey… I’m not Matt…. he may be my brother, but I do not have access to delete entries. Your claims haven’t been responded to because you have been deemed to be non-reputable due to your lack of citations and alleged plaigarism.
Besides, that article was likely written by a Democrat, because of it’s attack on Bush. Don’t you find it funny that when there are analyses done on these ecnomic issues, the Democrats always find their solution to work, while Republicans find that their solution works. Both sides always argue that the opposition’s plan will fail… why is that? BIAS. You can’t trust any of these analyses….
July 14th, 2003 at 8:03 pm
ok, I read all this and I put myself in Robert Murphy’s shoes. If I had written something, and even though others might have done research or wrote a few lines, I’d be HIGHLY pissed if I found out that a “helper” was trying to pass my words on as his own. I really did try to look at this objectively and each time, that is the opinion I came up with.
July 14th, 2003 at 8:10 pm
Last semester at my school, I was involved in a group design project. Some work was individual, some was group. In the program my colleagues and I are in, we have to do portfolios after each segment of the curriculum. And, a major disclaimer for the portfolios when showing group work, is to list your group members who helped with the group work. This is a graduate program….and they are very clear that plaigarism is not tolerated. If you work on a group project, you MUST acknowledge your group members. END OF STORY!
July 14th, 2003 at 8:33 pm
The shit has hit the fan. Shoot who needs Tv when you’ve got mattmargolis.com
July 14th, 2003 at 8:56 pm
So from plaigarism to claiming it’s ok because of unacknowledged authorship. Interesting, aside from the silliness of a quote from Dem’s who still think socialism leads to prosperity, and don’t even know what capital is.
July 14th, 2003 at 9:05 pm
For the moment, I intend to give Jack the benefit of the doubt that he is telling the truth.
However this does not change my opinion on this matter, nor does it change my ongoing issues with Jack’s recent posts.
He’s accused me and others of “attacking the messenger” and not “countering the message” however, Jack has been very active in the “attacking the messenger” throughout his time posting on this blog.
He has also attacked myself and a family member (those posts have been deleted however) and that I do not tolerate. Not in the least. You don’t fuck with my family and get a pass on that.
Regarding the content Jack posted. I agree with Java, Serenity, George, and others who I’ve spoken with on this issue. The piece in question was published under the name of the professor. Technically, it is his intellectual property. That is how I view it that is where I stand. There’s no need to come up with other parallels and similar situations has have been previously commented on in this thread.
Jack may say, “it’s only a blog,” thus his use of those words really doesn’t amount to a possible ethical concern. My domain that I purchase technically is private property, so to speak. However, the content of this blog is in the public domain, for any to access, so I do feel that there is an issue here, and if Jack disagrees, that’s fine, but once again, my website, my domain, my property, I rule.
All that said, quite frankly I’m not interested in even dealing with this situation anymore because Jack is not worth my time or energy to deal with.
The ultimate decision is mine on how to handle this situation.
Jack is still shunned and banned from this website. I urge my readers to ignore his posts on this blog until I am able to delete them. If there are comments made in response to his future posts, they’ll be deleted or edited appropriated.
If Jack wants to continue posting on this blog regardless, he may attempt to do so if he chooses, however, he’ll just be wasting his time, and mine. Should he choose to “appeal” this shunning and banning, his only option is to e-mail me directly. I respect ones right to remain anonymous, and I would like to assure everyone that anyone who e-mails me will not have their information posted on my blog should they request it so.
I have said all I need to say. I have better things to write about. Perhaps a discussion on economics will reemerge in this blog in the near future; in fact I guarantee it will. However, because of my position regarding the questionability of Jack’s right to use the material he posted, I cannot in good faith and ethical fortitude dignify Jack’s original post.
On to more important things…
NOTE: This is blog is now closed. This issue is over. Don’t bother posting any more comments here. They will be deleted.