Plagiarism

I whole heartedly agree. It should not be tolerated on this board or elsewhere. Some posters do this on a regular basis while others in error but regardless plagiarism is not right as it's called theft. Mind you, there are honest errors and there are deliberate theft, kind of like what Mark Driscoll and Hank Hanagraaf have done. All you have to do is compare a recent Hanagraaf book to a older 1980's book by Walter Martin and the plagiarism is obvious with Hank giving no credit. I find it very irritating reading a book (or post on BB, lets not forget that) and seeing how bad the author has stolen someone else's material and gives no credit.

 

I was working for a publishing co as janitor and one evening notice a new book on the assembly line, took a look at the front. Read the intro by the author - local pastor - said most of the material was from others, but he couldn't remember who so thanks to all that contributed and anyway there is nothing new under the sun. Guess that made it right.

When teaching a conference speaker walked into the office where my wife was making tapes from his messages - OH What are you doing? Wife told him. OH, Stop! I don't want tapes of my messages. Ultimately told her much of the material was from others.

I could list several other instances but ... sad.


It is rampant and WRONG!

Even in the old timers it was done. When teaching and assembling class notes I read many commentaries/theologies and ran across many many word for word quotes with no hint of credit.

 

You ain't right, man - lol - right down to the misspelling of Hanegraaff

Thanks, brother. You made me laugh real hard.

 

You two have very similar views, I guess it's true, great minds think alike.

 

Unfortunately I have called several on this and have shown they've done just that.

Be careful, you may receive an infraction for doing so while being accused of derailing a good thread. Truth doesn't matter, hitting someone with an infraction for pointing this out DOES.

 

On a serious note, there COULD be a reasonable explanation for Hanegraaff using Martin's work without credit given.

Hank replaced Martin at the CRI. And it would not surprise me if the works of Martin belong to the ministry, to be freely used by future CRI presidents.

I have nothing but a hunch there, but I used to hear Hank extoll the greatness of Martin very frequently when I listened to the show 13-14 years ago.


But rally, I think this whole plagiarism/credit issue is nonsense.

I can see if someone plagiarized on a test, proving they didn't know the material, or if someone writes a fiction novel, and someone steals the work to make money. Maybe they ought to be raked over the coals.


But getting bent out of shape because someone "stole" truth to make a point in a debate? Gimme a break. Is someone supposed to have the truth market cornered, to where they need "credit" for it?

Did that person give credit to the Holy Spirit for the enlightenment?

I once placed a one-time ad on Craigslist, offering electrical services. I had prices listed for almost everything, a troubleshooting guarantee that I fix it, or you don't pay one cent, a bit piece about trusting your contractor, etc.

One day about 6 months later, was scrolling through the ads and ran across a caption that sounded similar to what i had used. I clicked on the ad, and saw my ad. He didn't make a single change except name and number.

I was like "what the....?"

But then i thought about it. I had run that ad one time. It served me well enough that i was busy for 5 years because of it. I didn't need that ad anymore, God had provided. That guy obviously saw the value in it, to the point that he used it over and over.

I never got any credit, but if i had, it would only have served my already inflated ego. how much less should believers care about credit?

 

You should get an infraction for using the word "truth" in your moniker.

 

Well, he could be preacheragainsttruth, no?

 

Hank had a run in with D. James Kennedy over this same issue. I wasn't aware of Driscoll doing this. Unfortunately some do the same on BB and only come clean or excuse themselves when called on it. Status quo of professed believers.

 

Your welcome, I view it as my ministry to BB, a little bit of levity every now and then is good for the place.

 

I'm honored to know that I'm on your radar.

 

Man, you ain't right; you just ain't right...

 

Lighten up. THs was just engaging in harmless levity.

Oh no. Not that. Anything but a picture of a rabbit! You're so cruel.

 

....me too, fried w/biscuits & gravy, mmm mmm....

 

Plagiarism is a tricky issue b/c some people who haven't done much tertiary research won't realize that there is nothing new under the sun. Having a unique idea these days is very rare. The question is, should this be considered plagiarism?

Also, I have read so much and my thinking influenced by so many that I regurgitate them. But they are now my views and developed in my own words. Do I really need to qualify all of my statements when I know that others have influenced my thinking on this and thus I am "plagiarizing" their thoughts? Eventually, ideas are owned and there is no longer a place to credit someone.

That said, quotations of course should be credited. And thoughts that are fresh and undeveloped by yourself but came from somewhere else definitely should be cited.