(no subject)
There's been a number of requests for this. Here's the initial moderator response to this issue and the exchange that elicited it: (i.e. this happened before the linked post)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I regret that this picture has been cropped and so we miss the quote from the Freeman article and telemann's plagiarism of it. I reproduce them for the viewer here:
Freeman wrote,
There's a new option for millions of women at high risk for breast cancer. A drug called Aromasin more than halved the likelihood of developing breast cancer, without the side effects that have tempered enthusiasm for other drugs, a new study showed. It was the first time that Aromasin, Femara, Arimidex, and other aromatase inhibitors were tested in healthy women. These hormone-blocking pills are used now to block recurrence of breast cancer post-menopausal patients, and doctors have long thought they might help prevent the disease in the first place... All had at least one risk factor - being 60 or older, a prior breast abnormality or pre-invasive cancer, or a high score on a scale that takes into account family history and other things... Slightly more women on the drug reported hot flashes, fatigue, sweating, insomnia and joint pain...
Telemann wrote,
There's a new option for millions of women at high risk for breast cancer. A drug called Aromasin (that is the trade name: the chemical name is "exemestane") more than halved the likelihood of developing breast cancer, without the side effects that have tempered enthusiasm for other drugs, a new study showed. The study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has shown that a class of hormone blocking drugs used to treat post-menopausal breast cancer patients (Aromasin, Femara, Arimidex, etc) can prevent breast cancer in high risk patients. Study participants had at least one high risk factor: being 60 or older, a prior breast abnormality or pre-invasive cancer, or a high score on a scale that takes into account family history and other things. But some participants recorded some harsh side effects including severe joint pain, and hot flashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My remarks:
This initial response from moderation exhibits an exaggerated form of the lie moderation has, it seems, so far been sticking to in their treatment of the issue. You can see that abomvubuso pretends that telemann's posts contained citations to certain links which I am now reproducing, whereas what they contain are uncredited cut-and-pastes from other sources, claimed as his own work, and changed cosmetically.
It seems that the new version of this lie is that the charge made here is that they simply forgot to make a citation for some quote, which they want you to understand they may have done by accident, out of laziness. But one does not accidentally cut and paste sometimes multiple pages* of someone else's work, accidentally forget to make any mention of the fact that this is a quote, accidentally forget to make any mention of the actual writer of the piece, accidentally forget to add anything of your own, accidentally treat the piece as your own work in the ensuing discussion, and (make special note of this) accidentally make minor changes to the piece in order to prevent its recognition as a quote.
Coincident with this lie is the lie that my post to the community was made out of the blue, without any prior attempts to notify the moderators. You can see that that isn't true. You can also verify that that isn't true by observing the steps which moderation took before I ever made the post to the community: not just deleting the above exchange, but also deleting from the community archives (and take special note of this) not the cases of plagiarism I mentioned in this exchange, but rather cases which I did not mention and which were done by people who I did not mention. Why were the cases of plagiarism actually listed left untouched, while cases completely unmentioned got silently deleted? Also observe what they didn't do before my post: make the tiniest peep about this to any of you.
* It seems like there may be some confusion about this. I haven't quoted in full the passages plagiarized because it would be far too long. I use elipses to indicate that there is much more going onquoted. For example, the Crane and Matten piece on cloud computing mentioned here is six big paragraphs long: two pages on my screen. I only quoted a bit from the beginning and a bit from the end because to quote it all would be too long. But the whole piece was lifted beginning to end without addition beyond the little cosmetic changes. This is the case for most of the posts involved in this problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* I regret that this picture has been cropped and so we miss the quote from the Freeman article and telemann's plagiarism of it. I reproduce them for the viewer here:
Freeman wrote,
There's a new option for millions of women at high risk for breast cancer. A drug called Aromasin more than halved the likelihood of developing breast cancer, without the side effects that have tempered enthusiasm for other drugs, a new study showed. It was the first time that Aromasin, Femara, Arimidex, and other aromatase inhibitors were tested in healthy women. These hormone-blocking pills are used now to block recurrence of breast cancer post-menopausal patients, and doctors have long thought they might help prevent the disease in the first place... All had at least one risk factor - being 60 or older, a prior breast abnormality or pre-invasive cancer, or a high score on a scale that takes into account family history and other things... Slightly more women on the drug reported hot flashes, fatigue, sweating, insomnia and joint pain...
Telemann wrote,
There's a new option for millions of women at high risk for breast cancer. A drug called Aromasin (that is the trade name: the chemical name is "exemestane") more than halved the likelihood of developing breast cancer, without the side effects that have tempered enthusiasm for other drugs, a new study showed. The study published in the New England Journal of Medicine has shown that a class of hormone blocking drugs used to treat post-menopausal breast cancer patients (Aromasin, Femara, Arimidex, etc) can prevent breast cancer in high risk patients. Study participants had at least one high risk factor: being 60 or older, a prior breast abnormality or pre-invasive cancer, or a high score on a scale that takes into account family history and other things. But some participants recorded some harsh side effects including severe joint pain, and hot flashes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
My remarks:
This initial response from moderation exhibits an exaggerated form of the lie moderation has, it seems, so far been sticking to in their treatment of the issue. You can see that abomvubuso pretends that telemann's posts contained citations to certain links which I am now reproducing, whereas what they contain are uncredited cut-and-pastes from other sources, claimed as his own work, and changed cosmetically.
It seems that the new version of this lie is that the charge made here is that they simply forgot to make a citation for some quote, which they want you to understand they may have done by accident, out of laziness. But one does not accidentally cut and paste sometimes multiple pages* of someone else's work, accidentally forget to make any mention of the fact that this is a quote, accidentally forget to make any mention of the actual writer of the piece, accidentally forget to add anything of your own, accidentally treat the piece as your own work in the ensuing discussion, and (make special note of this) accidentally make minor changes to the piece in order to prevent its recognition as a quote.
Coincident with this lie is the lie that my post to the community was made out of the blue, without any prior attempts to notify the moderators. You can see that that isn't true. You can also verify that that isn't true by observing the steps which moderation took before I ever made the post to the community: not just deleting the above exchange, but also deleting from the community archives (and take special note of this) not the cases of plagiarism I mentioned in this exchange, but rather cases which I did not mention and which were done by people who I did not mention. Why were the cases of plagiarism actually listed left untouched, while cases completely unmentioned got silently deleted? Also observe what they didn't do before my post: make the tiniest peep about this to any of you.
* It seems like there may be some confusion about this. I haven't quoted in full the passages plagiarized because it would be far too long. I use elipses to indicate that there is much more going onquoted. For example, the Crane and Matten piece on cloud computing mentioned here is six big paragraphs long: two pages on my screen. I only quoted a bit from the beginning and a bit from the end because to quote it all would be too long. But the whole piece was lifted beginning to end without addition beyond the little cosmetic changes. This is the case for most of the posts involved in this problem.