One note: He never thought he'd win. He was amazed. But I definitely think his point had some legitimacy -- he was arguing that these kinds of popularity contests make life difficult for kids who can't win..I admire him for that. I'm not sure he could have made that point as effectively if he hadn't run.
I know what you're saying. I think there is some ambivalence, as he isn't a pure victim..But he does have the right to make the statement in his own way, don't you think?
Interesting lecture from an anonymous poster accusing someone (falsely) of a serious offense. The source story was linked in its entirety in the intro. It's an odd kind of plagiarism that links to the source material. Also, some info in the piece didn't come from the paper. There are two phrases I should have quoted, mostly knowing that there are people like User 240151 out there. Obviously, I didn't think people wouldn't notice or I wouldn't have linked it. I always attribute qnd quite scrupulously. In this case, I even linked to the whole story. But I will certainly be even more scrupulous in the future, knowing there are lots of people like this out there.
And the fact that this kind of charge can be made by a person who redefines the whole idea of an anonymous coward is also troubling. People should take some responsibility for the things they say and do.
This is a lie and shouldn't be allowed to stand. It's really on the edge of defamation. The source material for this story was linked to in the introduction on the front. You can't plagiarize something that you are linking to, obviously, as should be clear even to Greg. The fact that the wording is similiar is also not especially significant, since all of the accounts of the suspension used more or less the same language.
This story came from the local paper, the Daily Breeze, which was credited and linked to at the beginning of the piece. But that wasn't the only source..Others included wire services, two local reporters, a bunch of kids who all sent me the same info but didn't want to be ID'd or have the information attributed to them. So to make sure, I linked to the story and then paraphrased the information. Some phrases should technically have had quotes around them. I didn't because I linked to the entire piece and couldn't credit the others. Greg, you don't know what you're talking about. This isn't plagiarism by any stretch of the imagination. That's a deeply offensive charge. Anyone familiar with my work, regardless of what you think of it, will see meticulous attribution to all information that doesn't come from me. If you have the least bit of decency, which appears doubtful, you should apologize for this and set the record straight. I won't hold my breath. If I were really into the law, I'd teach you what it really means to charge somebody with something so recklessly and stupidly. But you have the perfect right to raise this issue, however inaccurately.
I don't plagiarize, and in nearly two decades of writing, th is is the lst time the word has ever come up in connection with my and. And inaccurately. I find this sad.
I just got in and was very sorry to see myself accused of plagiarism for the first time in my life. To me, it's a new low in the story of/. hostility to me and others. Tim and jeff are posting messages about this, but just to make it clear. I don't plagiarize, not now or ever.
The source of the bulk of this info is linked to in the introduction..it's the Daily Breeze, the local paper. I don't know how you plagiarize something you link to. I don't think that's even possible. But there were several other sources for one or two facts, including wire services, local TV and about 20 e-mails people sent me, including some school officials and reporters who didn't want to be id'd. So I respected that, and linked to the stuff that came from the paper so there would be no doubt as to the source.
I agree all factual material should be attributed which is why I always did it and a couple of paragraphs here or phrases should have had quotes on them, but it didn't all come from one source, which was the problem. Obviously the point, opinions and commentary are mine. Attribution is importand and valid point to raise. But plagiarism is an ugly charge and it's particularly vicious to make it in this way when anybody with any common sense or good faith could have seen the link or simply e-mailed me. If anybody has any questions, feel free to e-mail me now. This is a sad accusation for me, especially when it's made in so witless and irresponsible a way. Anybody has the right to ask anything here, but some of you really ought to ask yourselves some questions about the level of viciousness and cruelty you seem to take as acceptable in your writings. If anybody has any questions, e-mail me, or you can arrange to speak to me. There is no plagiarism issue here, only a question of attribution in one or two paragraphs. Nobody in the world is more of a stickler on this than me,as anybody can see by reading any of my columns...hardly a one doesn't have quotes and attributions. This is really a cheap shot, well over the line, but you're all entitled to an answer about it.
One of the newspapes I used to subscribe to is the NYTimes..Until they asked me to write an oped piece and refuse to permit my e-mail, because they don't believe in that. Is this the accountable medium you're holding up as a role model. No newspaper i know of is nearly as accountable as slashdot is, or makes it nearly as easy for readers to criticize and challenge it. I'd almost think you're j oking..only two newspapers in America even permit e-mail at the end of all reporters stories.
I'm eager to hear of the ethical, accountable accessible papers you read.
Slashdot has plenty of imperfections,b ut a great record of acknowledging them and permitting critics to get at them. Vastly better to the majority of traditional media outlets. Try leting Peter Jennings know what you think of ABC News tonite! Or the Washington Post. How many stories and facts are corrected in those media? And who has done a better job of serving readers on important issues like technology over the past few years?
I would say Slashdot does a vastly superior job of giving its critics a voice than any conventional media outlet I know of. Including these threads. Try writing a c ritical letter to your local newspaper or TV station if you have any doubts. The people running Slashdot would be the last ones on earth to send a pompous missive like the column above to a newspaper, demanding to know why they arent as ethical. Yuk. If anything, I'm understating how pompous and hypocritical this idea is.
Personalizing my writing is a cop out.
I think this columns stereotypes new media as inherently inferior. I'm not sure which community owned sites you refer to, but if you'll point them out, I'll be happy to go take a look at them..plse e-mail the sites to me.
The point isn't that all journalists in new or old media are ethical or n ote. The point is that traditional media has enormous and largely unacknowledged ethical issues, and presents itself too often as superior form of communications. This is sometimes true, sometimes not. The ethic dramas in traditional media are serious, and I think to demand to know what standards new media are using in the context of the virtuous old culture is a bit self serving.
But of course no media is perfect, slashdot least of all.But you're ducking the issue.
who said a lot of important things but few of them well. Ciulla isn't making a political argument, but a personal one. Not a fair comparison, I don't think. she's not calling for an end to the system, just for considering how to live well within it. And I think you're way overromanticing Marx..
I think you're quite right, and that's precisely what Ciulla is saying..be aware that it's a choice, and a big one. As you are obviously aware, lots of people don't know they're making one.
A lot of people love their work, and it means a lot to them. And communism killed off the work ethic almost wherever it went. I think the problem is corporatism, not capitalism. Technology binds people to work for longer hours, and corporatism has killed off the idea of work loyalty and company responsibility.
This is a very important point, I think, and I'd love to see more (can you e-mail me, user? I'd love to hear more about this from you). The idea of added value is the next big thing for publishing, I think, and something User ll0..etc has perfectly explained..That would combine the value of the printed book with a completely new and interactictive value..But I'd love to hear more about this from this poster or anybody else..this is the heart of it..
You're describing House of Leaves to a T I think..A great novel, no music but different plots, lots of graphics..this is exactly what I was writing about...A new kind of creative sensibility.
Books are portable. They can be passed along to friends and relatives. They don't need batteries. They can get smeared and batterred. They make bookends. The question is, is there something about the experience of readable a book as is that is particular, special or worth preserving. Personally, I don't buy the idea that everybody wants everything to be experience on a screen or tablet.
My theory is that the move for e-books is coming from publishing execs much more than from younger book readers, who have no problem with the form of the book -- a book is a miracle of efficient technology -- but find few books they want to bother to read. House of Leaves and the Eggers book prove this, I think. There is something special about the feel and experience of a book, I think, that isn't replicable on screen. I'd be interested in knowing if many of you agree with that.
"House of Leaves" (published very recently, as it happens) perfect reflects Gibson's notion of a new kind of space, a new kind of reality. I think he caught the idea (whatever you think of his writing since) that there's a new kind of creative space betweeen traditional forms of narrative and new kinds of writing influenced in part by interactivity, life online, e-communicatiions and a willingless to play with the form of the story.
(p.s. I read sci-fi, all the time, though I don't get the relevance here)
As I'd define it, open publishing is creating books that are more creative, not that are simply distributed electronically. This means reflecting an interactive sensibility that successful writers like Eggers are bring to books, and which younger consumers are buying in droves. This writing is informal, anti-hype and very experimental. In my mind, it definitely reflects a Web and Net and interactive sensibility.
I'm not sure what fiasco Messenger is referring to here..If he means making sure people are giving permission to have their comments included in a book, that doesn't seem like a fiasco to me. The Hellmouth experience was anything but a fiasco..And I can't imagine what it has to do with open publishing.
This is one of those columns where you know going in you have to put the asbestos on. Not being a gamer, I'm not announcing these things, but feel strongly that RPG's like Shadowrun and Mage should be taken more seriously as the cultural offerings that they are. I think there's a streak in some of the posts (I got lots of very nice compliments on this column, too, I should say. Be careful not to conclude from Threads that this is representative of/.) that simply wants to say "I know all about this," and that's a shame, because I'm not announcing the existence of these games.
They mostly tended to be dismissed, and still are not taken as seriously as they ought to be taken. I've been bombarded by suggestions for other RPG's that are interesting in this way and intend to keep on writing about them.
People who feel they know all about this stuff should obviously skip it, but I think these games were prescient and important -- and were definitely not recognized as such. So I will absolutely keep on writing about them, not in a technical but a cultural way. I think it's important, and yes, we know some of you are awesome and cool, so chill.
This is a great subject and I'm sorry that the state of Threads is such a mess that you can't read the great posts from some of the many people who played Mage and Shadowrun and like talking aobut them.
...I've ever seen on Slashdot are down below in this discussion..it's really worth trolling past the shitheads to read this stuff..some of it is amazing,a real testament to what discussions on/. will one day be like (I hope and pray)
Slashdot Mirror
One note: He never thought he'd win. He was amazed. But I definitely think his point had some legitimacy -- he was arguing that these kinds of popularity contests make life difficult for kids who can't win..I admire him for that. I'm not sure he could have made that point as effectively if he hadn't run.
Actually, I'm not sure of the origins of Homecoming. Is anybody else?
I know what you're saying. I think there is some ambivalence, as he isn't a pure victim..But he does have the right to make the statement in his own way, don't you think?
Interesting lecture from an anonymous poster accusing someone (falsely) of a serious offense. The source story was linked in its entirety in the intro. It's an odd kind of plagiarism that links to the source material. Also, some info in the piece didn't come from the paper. There are two phrases I should have quoted, mostly knowing that there are people like User 240151 out there. Obviously, I didn't think people wouldn't notice or I wouldn't have linked it. I always attribute qnd quite scrupulously. In this case, I even linked to the whole story. But I will certainly be even more scrupulous in the future, knowing there are lots of people like this out there.
And the fact that this kind of charge can be made by a person who redefines the whole idea of an anonymous coward is also troubling. People should take some responsibility for the things they say and do.
This is a lie and shouldn't be allowed to stand. It's really on the edge of defamation. The source material for this story was linked to in the introduction on the front. You can't plagiarize something that you are linking to, obviously, as should be clear even to Greg. The fact that the wording is similiar is also not especially significant, since all of the accounts of the suspension used more or less the same language.
This story came from the local paper, the Daily Breeze, which was credited and linked to at the beginning of the piece. But that wasn't the only source..Others included wire services, two local reporters, a bunch of kids who all sent me the same info but didn't want to be ID'd or have the information attributed to them. So to make sure, I linked to the story and then paraphrased the information. Some phrases should technically have had quotes around them. I didn't because I linked to the entire piece and couldn't credit the others. Greg, you don't know what you're talking about. This isn't plagiarism by any stretch of the imagination. That's a deeply offensive charge. Anyone familiar with my work, regardless of what you think of it, will see meticulous attribution to all information that doesn't come from me. If you have the least bit of decency, which appears doubtful, you should apologize for this and set the record straight. I won't hold my breath. If I were really into the law, I'd teach you what it really means to charge somebody with something so recklessly and stupidly. But you have the perfect right to raise this issue, however inaccurately.
I don't plagiarize, and in nearly two decades of writing, th is is the lst time the word has ever come up in connection with my and. And inaccurately. I find this sad.
I just got in and was very sorry to see myself accused of plagiarism for the first time in my life. To me, it's a new low in the story of /. hostility to me and others. Tim and jeff are posting messages about this, but just to make it clear. I don't plagiarize, not now or ever.
The source of the bulk of this info is linked to in the introduction..it's the Daily Breeze, the local paper. I don't know how you plagiarize something you link to. I don't think that's even possible. But there were several other sources for one or two facts, including wire services, local TV and about 20 e-mails people sent me, including some school officials and reporters who didn't want to be id'd. So I respected that, and linked to the stuff that came from the paper so there would be no doubt as to the source.
I agree all factual material should be attributed which is why I always did it and a couple of paragraphs here or phrases should have had quotes on them, but it didn't all come from one source, which was the problem. Obviously the point, opinions and commentary are mine. Attribution is importand and valid point to raise. But plagiarism is an ugly charge and it's particularly vicious to make it in this way when anybody with any common sense or good faith could have seen the link or simply e-mailed me. If anybody has any questions, feel free to e-mail me now. This is a sad accusation for me, especially when it's made in so witless and irresponsible a way. Anybody has the right to ask anything here, but some of you really ought to ask yourselves some questions about the level of viciousness and cruelty you seem to take as acceptable in your writings. If anybody has any questions, e-mail me, or you can arrange to speak to me. There is no plagiarism issue here, only a question of attribution in one or two paragraphs. Nobody in the world is more of a stickler on this than me,as anybody can see by reading any of my columns...hardly a one doesn't have quotes and attributions. This is really a cheap shot, well over the line, but you're all entitled to an answer about it.
One of the newspapes I used to subscribe to is the NYTimes..Until they asked me to write an oped piece and refuse to permit my e-mail, because they don't believe in that. Is this the accountable medium you're holding up as a role model. No newspaper i know of is nearly as accountable as slashdot is, or makes it nearly as easy for readers to criticize and challenge it. I'd almost think you're j oking..only two newspapers in America even permit e-mail at the end of all reporters stories.
I'm eager to hear of the ethical, accountable accessible papers you read.
Slashdot has plenty of imperfections,b ut a great record of acknowledging them and permitting critics to get at them. Vastly better to the majority of traditional media outlets. Try leting Peter Jennings know what you think of ABC News tonite! Or the Washington Post. How many stories and facts are corrected in those media? And who has done a better job of serving readers on important issues like technology over the past few years?
I would say Slashdot does a vastly superior job of giving its critics a voice than any conventional media outlet I know of. Including these threads. Try writing a c ritical letter to your local newspaper or TV station if you have any doubts. The people running Slashdot would be the last ones on earth to send a pompous missive like the column above to a newspaper, demanding to know why they arent as ethical. Yuk. If anything, I'm understating how pompous and hypocritical this idea is.
Personalizing my writing is a cop out.
I think this columns stereotypes new media as inherently inferior. I'm not sure which community owned sites you refer to, but if you'll point them out, I'll be happy to go take a look at them..plse e-mail the sites to me.
The point isn't that all journalists in new or old media are ethical or n ote. The point is that traditional media has enormous and largely unacknowledged ethical issues, and presents itself too often as superior form of communications. This is sometimes true, sometimes not. The ethic dramas in traditional media are serious, and I think to demand to know what standards new media are using in the context of the virtuous old culture is a bit self serving.
But of course no media is perfect, slashdot least of all.But you're ducking the issue.
who said a lot of important things but few of them well. Ciulla isn't making a political argument, but a personal one. Not a fair comparison, I don't think. she's not calling for an end to the system, just for considering how to live well within it. And I think you're way overromanticing Marx..
I think you're quite right, and that's precisely what Ciulla is saying..be aware that it's a choice, and a big one. As you are obviously aware, lots of people don't know they're making one.
every idea was thought of a hundred years before..doesn't mean it shouldn't ever be raised again..work is a big issue for people.
A lot of people love their work, and it means a lot to them. And communism killed off the work ethic almost wherever it went. I think the problem is corporatism, not capitalism. Technology binds people to work for longer hours, and corporatism has killed off the idea of work loyalty and company responsibility.
This is a very important point, I think, and I'd love to see more (can you e-mail me, user? I'd love to hear more about this from you). The idea of added value is the next big thing for publishing, I think, and something User ll0..etc has perfectly explained..That would combine the value of the printed book with a completely new and interactictive value..But I'd love to hear more about this from this poster or anybody else..this is the heart of it..
You're describing House of Leaves to a T I think..A great novel, no music but different plots, lots of graphics..this is exactly what I was writing about...A new kind of creative sensibility.
Books are portable. They can be passed along to friends and relatives. They don't need batteries. They can get smeared and batterred. They make bookends. The question is, is there something about the experience of readable a book as is that is particular, special or worth preserving. Personally, I don't buy the idea that everybody wants everything to be experience on a screen or tablet.
My theory is that the move for e-books is coming from publishing execs much more than from younger book readers, who have no problem with the form of the book -- a book is a miracle of efficient technology -- but find few books they want to bother to read. House of Leaves and the Eggers book prove this, I think. There is something special about the feel and experience of a book, I think, that isn't replicable on screen. I'd be interested in knowing if many of you agree with that.
...eventually. I promise to die one day.
"House of Leaves" (published very recently, as it happens) perfect reflects Gibson's notion of a new kind of space, a new kind of reality. I think he caught the idea (whatever you think of his writing since) that there's a new kind of creative space betweeen traditional forms of narrative and new kinds of writing influenced in part by interactivity, life online, e-communicatiions and a willingless to play with the form of the story.
(p.s. I read sci-fi, all the time, though I don't get the relevance here)
As I'd define it, open publishing is creating books that are more creative, not that are simply distributed electronically. This means reflecting an interactive sensibility that successful writers like Eggers are bring to books, and which younger consumers are buying in droves. This writing is informal, anti-hype and very experimental. In my mind, it definitely reflects a Web and Net and interactive sensibility.
I'm not sure what fiasco Messenger is referring to here..If he means making sure people are giving permission to have their comments included in a book, that doesn't seem like a fiasco to me. The Hellmouth experience was anything but a fiasco..And I can't imagine what it has to do with open publishing.
This is one of those columns where you know going in you have to put the asbestos on. Not being a gamer, I'm not announcing these things, but feel strongly that RPG's like Shadowrun and Mage should be taken more seriously as the cultural offerings that they are. I think there's a streak in some of the posts (I got lots of very nice compliments on this column, too, I should say. Be careful not to conclude from Threads that this is representative of /.) that simply wants to say "I know all about this," and that's a shame, because I'm not announcing the existence of these games.
They mostly tended to be dismissed, and still are not taken as seriously as they ought to be taken. I've been bombarded by suggestions for other RPG's that are interesting in this way and intend to keep on writing about them.
People who feel they know all about this stuff should obviously skip it, but I think these games were prescient and important -- and were definitely not recognized as such. So I will absolutely keep on writing about them, not in a technical but a cultural way. I think it's important, and yes, we know some of you are awesome and cool, so chill.
This is a great subject and I'm sorry that the state of Threads is such a mess that you can't read the great posts from some of the many people who played Mage and Shadowrun and like talking aobut them.
...I've ever seen on Slashdot are down below in this discussion..it's really worth trolling past the shitheads to read this stuff..some of it is amazing,a real testament to what discussions on
Has anyhone heard the term "social isolates"