More Fodder For The Anti- Gags Bunch
Disclosure: I voted for Worth Dikeman last time around.
Looks like the anti- Gallegos crowd has more to crow about this morning, with the Eureka Reporter finding strong similarities between Gallegos' My Word column back in May and some writings from Robert Kennedy.
Yep, it does look like he modified Kennedy's lines a bit and used them. Modified them enough for me, though, that I don't consider it plagiarism, at least not enough to get in a huff over. I found that particular My Word column even more non- sensible than this last one, so I don't see it as a big deal.
I suppose it could be construed as intellectual dishonesty, although I'm not going to go that far. Lee Bowker, Ph.D at HSU says, "Chances are, it's a habit for him...", since he's used other people's work for his writings at least twice.
I guess that's a good point. Enough said.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 8:22 AM
16 comments
16 Comments:
Oh Fred, I never thought you as one of those rabid Gallegos / Miller progresso's ?
You seem to poo poo the issue by your comments about more fodder for the anit-gags bunch. This is quite a bit more serious. Gallegos was "busted" these two times. It is painfully obvious. Why does he do it ? To give others the impression that he is a wise, thinking, intellectual being? To prop up his ego even more ? But he has done it twice for sure. Is this a quality you want, or would expect, from the District Attorney. From a guy who enjoys his status as the top law enforcement official in the county. This is just what is confirmed and made public, do you really think there isn't more ?
Oh well it's OK by you. We know where you stand.
Hey, I just know how hard it is to write some things, especially when you read something someone else wrote you think is really hot.
You try to write your own version of it, but having read the other person's writing first, anything you try to do, to communicate the same thing, just doesn't seem to do the job.
About all you can do is use what you read and change it as much as you can to try and make it seem as close as it can to your own.
Gallegos does seem to make a habit of it, though, I'll be the first to admit. Two for two doesn't look good.
I wonder if anyone could find some of my old letters to the editor that I "plagiarized" and find the source I plagiarized from?
Might be kind of tough. The last letter I sent in was to the Eureka Reporter and was a bit critical of the Gallegos campaign. That one was all mine, though.
Fred, I'm sure the fact that used resources is much different that taking the words verbatim from the source and taking credit as if they were your own.
It may explain why you find his pieces so incomprehensible also. He's taking quotes and putting them all in one writing without continuity.
He's a liar from the get go.
9:34 wrote, "I'm sure the fact that used resources is much different that taking the words verbatim from the source and taking credit as if they were your own.".
That's what I'm trying to say, at least in part. I started thinking some more about this and went back to the E-R article, wondering exactly where Kennedy used those quotes. Missed it the first time. Caps mine for emphasis:
"contained numerous phrases closely resembling those used by Kennedy in a VARIETY of writings AND public addresses.".
So, he didn't just take one speech or essay and modify for his use. He apparently took snippets from a VARIETY of Kennedy's writings. That can take some work.
As an aside, in the spirit of this whole discussion, I started wondering how much of Kennedy's stuff was written by him?
I understand many, if not most, candidates have speech writers. I know most presidents do. Did Kennedy really write all that stuff or did he have a staff member do it for him?
9:34 also wrote, "It may explain why you find his pieces so incomprehensible".
Are you saying you actually understand them? :-)
The Liar's Club--that's our DA and his handlers. And this isn't biased opinion meant to slander them but reasoned review of their proven track record.
that's right on the mark STEVE.
His handlers are the ones we should really be worried about !
Maybe with a little work someone can expose them too.
It's amazing, isn't it, how no matter what Gallegos does, his supporters - Joan Dunning in today's T-S - have to cover for him. At what point do they realize the guy isn't so great after all?
It's human nature. Most people don't like to, or just plain won't, admit that they were wrong. It takes a confident (secure) person to admit they were wrong publicly.
With these exposures I'm sure at least some of the followers will have had second thougts, even though they may not admit it.
PG never was great. He just looked good in a suit and was packaged to sell. For the most part he spouted the party line given to him by his controllers, Salzman and Miller. It's painfully obvious from the mess PG is in now that he is not an independent thinker. The question is, is he capable of independent thought PERIOD ?
This is only the beginning. "fins to the left, fins to the right" ... there's blood in the water and the sharks are circling.
Thanks Joan Dunning for warning me! The county is overrun with vigilantes! Lock my doors.
Want to know what the really sad part is?
Nothing is going to happen. Our over-vocal uber-leftwingers will stick their fingers in their ears and yell. They won't believe it, even if you had 1000x more proof then we do now. What we have now is a cult, PG is just a figurehead to the people pulling the strings in the background. Say what you want to say about Arkley, but he's pretty upfront in he views and what his plans are.
Where are Salzman, Miller and Gallegos and Company taking us?
Oh Fred: I admire you and your reasonableness. More often than not I totally agree with you. Not on this one however.
you wrote:
"Hey, I just know how hard it is to write some things, especially when you read something someone else wrote you think is really hot.
You try to write your own version of it, but having read the other person's writing first, anything you try to do, to communicate the same thing, just doesn't seem to do the job."
This is the whole thing behind plagiarism - you can't do that, you can't write your own version of someone elses writing without attributing it to them. It is being forced to come up with and original thought/words and not someone elses. That is why it is such a big deal with the academic crowd.
I agree with Bowker - the guy has done this before and probably alot. Makes me wonder why he had to transfer to the unaccredited law school in his second year. Does anybody know the answer. Where did he go before his first year and why did he have to leave?
"Joan, this just isn't worth it. I'm getting beat up on every day, criticized for everything I do. My every move is under a microscope. People laugh at me in jury selection. I'm done."
"I'm going to go back to private practice. It will all stop. All the hammering will stop. I can go to the store in peace. No one will care what I write. I can surf. I'm just freakin' tired of this. It's not fair."
"Will you call Richard and tell him I'm done?"
I hear property is cheap in Mexico.
Please take Richard with you !And Ken ! And Michael !
Dikeman is done.
Post a Comment
<< Home