SDN: To Ender, about Lantean drones

Did a related website in the community go down? Come back up? Relocate to a new address? Install pop-up advertisements?

This forum is for discussion of these sorts of issues.
User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

SDN: To Ender, about Lantean drones

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Feb 13, 2009 10:57 pm

As usual, it didn't take much for a typical SDN versus debater to jump at any glimpse of mistake or any form of excuse to flush a diarrhea of insults and stupidity.

I'm going to address this nonsense.
First, a while back, following the airing of Stargate Atlantis 4th season's Adrift and Lifeline episodes, the two first ones, l33telboi started a thread to post observations here.
Among the many points addressed in his thread, we came to look at the sequence of asteroid pulverization (which l33t started a smaller thread for at SBC.

Recently, a guy nicknamed RJLCyberPunk (or PunkMeister in other places, notably at SDN, and also registered at Gateworld if I'm correct) started what looked like an innocent thread at SBC about the drones. I know he also runs a low traffic vs website which I registered at some while ago, before realizing what it was about.

It wasn't clear that his thread (at SBC) was going to serve as a source of information and ammo for his own arguments in a thread at SDN, If Ancients (SG) tech is found in the SW galaxy...., which he started a few days earlier at the end of January 09.

Time went on, I posted my own opinions and the results of some observation I and l33t made, including firepower figures for the drones.

Logically, RJLC started parroting these opinions, calcs and other pieces of info for his debate, and this is where around page 6 of the SDN thread, Ender intervened with the all natural bile you can expect from these folks.
This is where the comedy really writes itself as well. Therefore, I'll quote Ender's sneerful post and just deal with each of his points, which he seems rather proud of for some reason.



Ender -- Post subject: Re: If Ancients (SG) tech is found in the SW galaxy.... Post Posted: 2009-02-12 10:43pm wrote: I didn't waste my time reading the whole of this thread. But I will address the absolutely atrocious analysis work done here.
Yes. Most of what he actually typed his nothing more than the result of his totally assumed ignorance of the topic at hand and where material comes from. The surprise!
For Reference, all this is work done by one Mr.Oraghan at SB. PM glossed over that fact except for a throw away line and is basicially trying to create the impression that it is his. We do not have an explicit rule against plagiarism, but as someone who does a lot of analysis, I think stuff like this is a good example of why we should.
Actually, as shown at the beginning of this post, I posted my calculations and observations at SFJN first, and only a very few excerpts at SBC.
Also, the pictures you'll see below are actually PunkMaister's as far as I can tell, since I never made them, nor l33telboi as far as I can verify (both here and at SBC).
Of course, there is a wide gulf between what I've done and what this guy does. Mr.Oraghan is one of the many sockpuppets of some twit from that RSA cesspit.
Classic. That's sheer ignorance. Anyone here would know this couldn't be further away from the truth. Just a recurring buzzword in their mouths anyway.
He believes, among other things, that power is irrelevant to the effects of a process, that conservation of energy is not in fact true,...
A rather cheap shot reference at about a post I made on the way repulsors work, according to an unfounded ICS claim about how the floatation created by repulsorlifts was totally powerless, debunked by Vympel himself while citing a piece of the AOTC novel, regarding the time Obi-Wan pulls some cables off from the killer droid's entrails, and both start to plummet.
I pointed out that the topic of anti-gravity was just too complex, that planets don't consume power to maintain gravity as far as we know, that the energy involved wasn't necessarily produced by the ship itself, and that again in the context of trying to make sense of the explanation that hyperdrives were built in the vicinity of black holes and were the result of another technobabble gibberish about space time knots what have you.
... and can't do basic math. This will come into play here shortly.
Actually, you'll see that the calculations were right, and the error is indeed an error, but a rather obvious one that I freely admit, not a stupid belief which sounds as bad as claiming Earth is flat.
PunkMaister wrote: That is the episode but if you think it validates your claim of the asteroids being about the size of a jumper think again, and it is that video that provides the evidence to the contrary and here it is:

Image

First is a comparison between the overall size of the main tower and the jumpers here:
Image
We can see clearly how big and large the circumference of the building is in relation to the ship's overall size...
Failure to correct for perspective when measuring the Puddle Jumper. Which makes the rest Error Carried Forward, but lets run through it anyways since it ends up being irrelevant.
PunkMaister wrote: Second we have an asteroid about to impact said tower here:

Image

And here it is you see to validate your claim it has to be that either the puddle jumpers somehow grew in size or the tower in question shrank which we know it cannot be. The asteroid envelopes the whole width of the building as is about to hit!
Again, failure to correct for perspective. We do not know the relative positions of the asteroid, tower, and camera. The more conservative approach (and as we shall see, the correct one) would be to assume that it is close to the ship that has been heading towards it at high acceleration the entire time, but that would drive down the size of the asteroid and thus the power of the event. And SB analysis is all about getting the value you want, not about figuring out a consistent and accurate value.
Although I'm in agreement about the atrocious scaling job done there, we can appreciate the public sharing of his hatred towards Spacebattles.
Many would also pick the irony of his final statement.
PunkMaister wrote: And finally we have another size reference as the puddle jumper maneuvers up and away from the tower after it destroys the offending asteroid:

Image

So while the asteroids were probably not kilometers wide they were certainly in orders to 8 and even 20 times bigger than the jumpers in question that one was easily 20 times the size of the jumper...
If you want to lie, yes, one could certainly draw that conclusion. However if you seek to determine accurate values, you will notice that if you assume that the puddle jumper does not magically change size, it is more consistent for a much smaller asteroid being closer to the puddlejumper in image 2. It is an incredibly simple exercise to subtend the angle in a manner similar to how one covers the moon with your thumb, even without numbers. Given that we have the puddlejumper for reference we can do this relative to it. Eyeballing it, the PJ covers about 3x as much of the screen as the asteroid. For that asteroid to be 20x the diameter of the PJ, there would need to be a separation of multiple kilometers between them. If that were the case, then there would be no need for the evasive action we see in image 3.

So we have intentional misrepresentation of the scene in question to inflate the numbers. Which is of course the point, PunkMaister and the others at SB are looking for high values, not an accurate assessment. This turns out to be a trend.
PM, at this point, was largely backpedalling from his previous claim that the drones were pulverizing kilometer wide asteroids.
We can again wiggle at the "trend" stab. Let's just remember it's SDN, haven of parsimony, fair observations and objectively reasonable low lower ends when it comes to Star Wars and Star Trek, and probably the last serious versus board where there's a complete consensus in support of Saxton's official writings in SW.

A trend, says who?

PunkMaister wrote: I need to correct the overall scales I posted earlier as is actually 2,3 or more times larger than the jumpers and not 20. This darn connection just keeps breaking off darn it! Anyhow here are some calcs about the whole deal by Mr.Oraghan.
Me wrote: A 10 meters wide asteroid has a mass of 1220 tons for a vlume of 524 m³.

That is 2,328.2442748091603053435114503817 kg/m³.

Rounded to 2,328.24 kg/m³.
In typical SB fashion they work back from pretty much any starting point they want to get whatever figures they want. Apparently that makes more sense to them than doing research. This is a good example of that, but another one that I won't be surprised if PM trots out was the time they took a magazine line about zero point energy having enough energy in the volume of a coffee cup to boil the oceans and worked from that, leading to a long argument about what was the valid size for a coffee cup.
A sweeping slanderous generalization of a whole community because of statements made by a few at SBC regarding ZPE, how surprising.
Anyway, we have effectively an arbitrary density for a given asteroid rather than making assumptions about it. For carbonaceous types graphite would have been a better base assumption.

Also, apparently he has no idea what "rounding" is, needing to go to 28 decimal places. I suspect this is an attempt to make the work look really precise and adopt an artificial air of validity. Of course, looking accurate and being accurate are totally different things.
Obviously, someone over there has a different meaning for the word rounding.
As for the calculation? Ender debunks nothing. His rebuttal his a mix of maybes and assumptions, as you can see below.
That is, the density figure was nothing more than a check. We could see that as Wong's calculator drastically rounded numbers to a very few decimals, the final figure wasn't totally identical.
But the difference was minor.
Me wrote:Let's say that certain debris were 1 m wide.

An asteroid, assumed as a sphere, being 1 meter wide, has a volume of 1 m³.
Yes ladies and gentlemen, that is correct. Here Mr Oraghan apparently thinks a sphere and a cube are one and the same. A sphere with a diameter of 1 meter will have a volume of ~0.52 meters^3, while a cube 1 meter on a side will have a volume of 1 m^3.

The alternative is that Mr Oraghan is a lying sack of shit who is trying to artificially inflate his numbers. It's like a choose your own adventure.
Yes, in Ender's world, I'm either as dumb as toothpick, or a "lying sack of shit" with an agenda to inflate numbers.
Completely impossible to compose in his head the idea that it could merely be a ... mistake?

WOW! A ... mistake?? What's that?
Yes, a mistake, no more no less.
Which means the following bit, from the original post:
Let's say that certain debris were 1 m wide.

An asteroid, assumed as a sphere, being 1 meter wide, has a volume of 1 m³.

The debris move at 19.5 meters over .25 seconds, or 78 m/s.

The kinetic energy is:

E = 1/2 x m x v²
E = .5 x 2,328.24 x 6084
E = 7,082,506.08 joules (for an asteroid of 2,328.24 kg)

So we get a ratio of:
E = 3,042 joules / kg
... is quite wrong. But I don't feel the need to explain that it was just a mistake, as I suppose I was thinking in cubic meters and for some reason my brain fused and went with a cube instead of a sphere. I don't think I need to tell that I know the difference between a sphere and a cube.

I don't even know why I typed this, as it's totally irrelevant to the following and final calc in my original post. That's probably just me typing stuff as I was thinking without really checking back to see what I typed there. Yes, that happens, and yes, it's unfortunate.

However, is this proving anything about the calculation? No.
As far as I'm concerned, the secondary calc for the whole mass, which is just as basic as it can get, is absolutely correct, and his exalted excellence Ender could have easily known this by using the same speed (78 m/s) with the same mass (18,496 tons) I used.
Me wrote: The debris move at 19.5 meters over .25 seconds, or 78 m/s.
We know the scaling is off, so this is highly suspect.
This figure has absolutely nothing to do with PunkMaister's scaling.
Me wrote:The kinetic energy is:

E = 1/2 x m x v²
E = .5 x 2,328.24 x 6084
E = 7,082,506.08 joules (for an asteroid of 2,328.24 kg)

So we get a ratio of:
E = 3,042 joules / kg

If applied to the whole asteroid's mass, and remembering that a noticable portion of the asteroid was beyond that range two frames earlier, I tried to get the total energy for an asteroid which was 24.75 meters wide:
All of this is highly suspect given the above flaws. By the way, note that there is zero attempt to justify an asteroid diameter of 24.75 meters.
It's actually amply justified, both at SFJN and SBC, two websites he does know. However, for someone who thinks he knows where the info comes from, who I am and who my idol is, he seems to make a lot of uneducated guesses after all.
Me wrote:Mass of a 24.75 m wide granite asteroid: 18,496,000 kg

Total E = 56,264,832,000 joules.

Squid's E = 28,132,416,000 J.

I don't know if it's quite a good way to obtain the energy...
Granite is formed from volcanic activity, when molten rock is subjected to extreme pressure. Something tells me there is very little in the way of molten rock of intense pressure in an asteroid field.
It depends where the asteroids come from. If they were part of a much larger mass (planet or moon), yes, you'd have found that pressure at a given time.
But wait, that's not the funniest part!
Further granite has a density of ~2750 kg/m^3 which doesn't match his little derivation above.
Have at him boys.
Indeed, it does not match it. My figure is based on a lower density. A figure which I picked from no else place but Wong's own asteroid calculator:
M. Wong, about granite wrote: Density is roughly 2330 kg/m³. If any readers have access to more accurate thermophysical property data on granite, I would appreciate the input.
I could pick the greater density, but I'm sure I'd be accused of craving for the highest figures.
And finally, as we can see, the whole basis to refuse the calc is nothing more than a biased, ignorant and hasty opinion. Good job.

As for the carbonaceous type asteroid, graphite inside, the average value would be around 1750 kg/m³.

Again, picking the average 24.75 meters diameter for the asteroid, we have a volume of 7.9382 e3 m³, a mass of 13,891,850 kg, an overall KE of 42.259 e9 joules, for an expansion speed of 78 m/s.

Therefore 21.1295 GJ per squid (two were used).

This is the pure kinetic energy, it does not account for the heated up material, for the extreme dust-like pulverization of the rock, nor the energy required to drill into the asteroid.

Besides, as pointed out, a surface explosion on the backside of the asteroid --necessary to explain why the tower's glassy surface just behind was not visibly damaged by any shard-- would lead to a figure four times the result, according to a note l33telboi found.
Which would bring the drone's yield to 84.518 GJ, and obviously quite more when you'd consider all the parameters, meaning that we're quite likely around the 100 GJ value if not much more, and that even for weak asteroids.

That goes without counting the possibly higher feats involving drones burrowing through Wraith ships' armour.

Finally, regarding PunkMaister's plagiarism, shame on him as well.

EDIT: paths changed for the pictures, since I put them in another folder.
Last edited by Mr. Oragahn on Sat Feb 28, 2009 9:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:33 am

Except it was all LIES Mr. Oragahn I never plagiarized your material I did point out that it was your work especifically and not mine and here is the evidence to prove my innocence.
Image
Image
Image

I pride myself in the fact that I've never stolen anything from anyone ever and I do not plan to start either Now Ender really crossed a line by accusing me of being a thief and there is going to be hell to pay if that false accusation is not retracted at SDN.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Sat Feb 14, 2009 4:52 am

Care to explain why you tried to pass off work by SD.net members as something you contributed to when reposting it on SB.com? You claimed credit for work you had no part in.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:11 am

Alyeska wrote:Care to explain why you tried to pass off work by SD.net members as something you contributed to when reposting it on SB.com? You claimed credit for work you had no part in.


I never have taken anybody's work and claimed it as my own, any and every time I've used somebody Else's material I've made clear that it is not mine but of X person and that's a fact. You know Alyeska you can go fuck yourself! Again we have a fucking SDNetter calling me a thief with no reason. I swear that I'd love to have you all in front of me with a machine gun in my hands so I can fillet you all cabrones!

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:21 am

PunkMaister wrote:
Alyeska wrote:Care to explain why you tried to pass off work by SD.net members as something you contributed to when reposting it on SB.com? You claimed credit for work you had no part in.


I never have taken anybody's work and claimed it as my own, any and every time I've used somebody Else's material I've made clear that it is not mine but of X person and that's a fact. You know Alyeska you can go fuck yourself! Again we have a fucking SDNetter calling me a thief with no reason. I swear that I'd love to have you all in front of me with a machine gun in my hands so I can fillet you all cabrones!
PunkMaster, this is your first warning. I recommend you go read the board rules. Tone it down and cut out the death threats.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:23 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
PunkMaister wrote:
Alyeska wrote:Care to explain why you tried to pass off work by SD.net members as something you contributed to when reposting it on SB.com? You claimed credit for work you had no part in.


I never have taken anybody's work and claimed it as my own, any and every time I've used somebody Else's material I've made clear that it is not mine but of X person and that's a fact. You know Alyeska you can go fuck yourself! Again we have a fucking SDNetter calling me a thief with no reason. I swear that I'd love to have you all in front of me with a machine gun in my hands so I can fillet you all cabrones!
PunkMaster, this is your first warning. I recommend you go read the board rules. Tone it down and cut out the death threats.
Sorry but I really don't take kindly on people calling me a thief and he was... Again!

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:33 am

Well, well, so I see you show your true face once and for all. That of a liar that is. Unbelievable that when presented with overwhelming evidence pointing to the falsehood of me being a thief you still cling to the idea, but I guess you do whatever Ender and the other slimeballs back at SDN tell you too and not to see the truth for yourself. Now I would like absolute proof of me being a common thief and criminal as you guys are claiming. I would like to see where is that I took credit for something that is not mine and I guarantee you you won't find it, off course you will resort to half truths like Ender.

You SDNetters are no better than Islamists, the only difference being that at least SDNetters do not do suicide bombing as off yet...
Ask and you shall receive.

Link: On Aug 25th you post a thread on SD.net asking them to do your research on SG Continuum firepower. When people explained the issues at hand you got indignant because you didn't like the firepower and whined about how pitiful it was.

Link: On Aug 29th you posted on SB.com claiming you discussed the issue on SD.net but presented the argument as your own. You essentially claimed ownership, in the very least you claimed partial credit for answers others provided for you when you threw a temper tantrum.


You begged SD.net members to answer your questions then you reposted the answers on SB.com claiming credit by saying you "discussed things" on SD.net.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:39 am

Speaking of guns.

Image

Image

Image

I went target shooting with a friend and a camera this summer. Cool pics yes? My friend was nice enough to take those pictures.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:42 am

Alyeska wrote:
Well, well, so I see you show your true face once and for all. That of a liar that is. Unbelievable that when presented with overwhelming evidence pointing to the falsehood of me being a thief you still cling to the idea, but I guess you do whatever Ender and the other slimeballs back at SDN tell you too and not to see the truth for yourself. Now I would like absolute proof of me being a common thief and criminal as you guys are claiming. I would like to see where is that I took credit for something that is not mine and I guarantee you you won't find it, off course you will resort to half truths like Ender.

You SDNetters are no better than Islamists, the only difference being that at least SDNetters do not do suicide bombing as off yet...
Ask and you shall receive.

Link: On Aug 25th you post a thread on SD.net asking them to do your research on SG Continuum firepower. When people explained the issues at hand you got indignant because you didn't like the firepower and whined about how pitiful it was.

Link: On Aug 29th you posted on SB.com claiming you discussed the issue on SD.net but presented the argument as your own. You essentially claimed ownership, in the very least you claimed partial credit for answers others provided for you when you threw a temper tantrum.


You begged SD.net members to answer your questions then you reposted the answers on SB.com claiming credit by saying you "discussed things" on SD.net.
How is that claiming ownership? I did say the answers came from SD.NET.

And now you are basically fishing, because you are resorting to words such as partial credit. The truth is you do not have evidence to bring forth that proves I ever claimed credit for something I did not write or do, I've always pointed who made it or where it was made.
Alyeska wrote:Speaking of guns.

Image

Image

Image

I went target shooting with a friend and a camera this summer. Cool pics yes? My friend was nice enough to take those pictures.
Cool yes, your friend was obviously also crazy enough to put himself right in the line of fire of those 2 guns with your fingers right on the trigger. Personally I've never had much faith in the gun safeties certainly not enough to do what he did...
Last edited by PunkMaister on Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:45 am

PunkMaister wrote:How is that claiming ownership? I did say the answers came from SD.NET.
By prefacing that with the claim "I discussed this with". You claim to be a part of the process that came up with the answer. This is not what happened.
And now you are basically fishing, because you are resorting to words such as partial credit. The truth is you do not have evidence to bring forth that proves I ever claimed credit for something I did not write or do, I've always pointed who made it or where it was made.
Partial credit. Partial ownership. You have no credit in those answers you posted on SB.com. You own none of it. You did not discuss the issue. You begged them to provide answers for you. That is not an open discussion.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Sat Feb 14, 2009 5:51 am

PunkMaister wrote:Cool yes, your friend was obviously also crazy enough to put himself right in the line of fire of those 2 guns with your fingers right on the trigger. Personally I've never had much faith in the gun safeties certainly not enough to do what he did...
Unloaded. Not chambered. Hammer is down. Verified every time before every picture. Besides, I took pictures for him too.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:04 am

Alyeska wrote:
PunkMaister wrote:How is that claiming ownership? I did say the answers came from SD.NET.
By prefacing that with the claim "I discussed this with". You claim to be a part of the process that came up with the answer. This is not what happened.
And now you are basically fishing, because you are resorting to words such as partial credit. The truth is you do not have evidence to bring forth that proves I ever claimed credit for something I did not write or do, I've always pointed who made it or where it was made.
Partial credit. Partial ownership. You have no credit in those answers you posted on SB.com. You own none of it. You did not discuss the issue. You begged them to provide answers for you. That is not an open discussion.
I'll byte that I worded it poorly by saying it was a discussion but I assure you I had no intention in taking credit full or partial for the answers given which is why I pointed as I always do the source for them.

Besides that one instance in which my poorly worded statements lead to a conclusion of taking "partial" credit for them you can't find anything else can't you? Because there is not. This has now become a witch hunt. You feel that you need to justify calling me a thief and a criminal when you very well know I'm not! And why? Because Ender and the other %$%$^ back at SDN say so? Anyway Ender pointed out that I had taken credit for Mr. Oragahn's work when is so clear cut that I did not, you did not even bother to look at the evidence when Ender posted this you jumped into the bandwagon without even blinking and now even though you know the claim is false you still claim that I'm a criminal on very shaky grounds I might add.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:15 am

PunkMaister wrote:I'll byte that I worded it poorly by saying it was a discussion but I assure you I had no intention in taking credit full or partial for the answers given which is why I pointed as I always do the source for them.

Besides that one instance in which my poorly worded statements lead to a conclusion of taking "partial" credit for them you can't find anything else can't you? Because there is not. This has now become a witch hunt. You feel that you need to justify calling me a thief and a criminal when you very well know I'm not! And why? Because Ender and the other %$%$^ back at SDN say so? Anyway Ender pointed out that I had taken credit for Mr. Oragahn's work when is so clear cut that I did not, you did not even bother to look at the evidence when Ender posted this you jumped into the bandwagon without even blinking and now even though you know the claim is false you still claim that I'm a criminal on very shaky grounds I might add.
Your right, probably something like that. I don't like you. I never really did. Thing is, you were already on egg shells over a variety of things. You've had plenty of warnings before. I especially loved your claims about Dim mak. You were already on a razors edge and that post is merely what pushed you over the side. Thing is, we didn't just ban you because we wanted to. We have discussed your fate more then once and elected not to ban you until now.

FYI, plagiarism is not a crime.

PunkMaister
Jedi Knight
Posts: 622
Joined: Sat Feb 14, 2009 1:25 am
Location: Ponce, P.R
Contact:

Post by PunkMaister » Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:26 am

Alyeska wrote:
PunkMaister wrote:I'll byte that I worded it poorly by saying it was a discussion but I assure you I had no intention in taking credit full or partial for the answers given which is why I pointed as I always do the source for them.

Besides that one instance in which my poorly worded statements lead to a conclusion of taking "partial" credit for them you can't find anything else can't you? Because there is not. This has now become a witch hunt. You feel that you need to justify calling me a thief and a criminal when you very well know I'm not! And why? Because Ender and the other %$%$^ back at SDN say so? Anyway Ender pointed out that I had taken credit for Mr. Oragahn's work when is so clear cut that I did not, you did not even bother to look at the evidence when Ender posted this you jumped into the bandwagon without even blinking and now even though you know the claim is false you still claim that I'm a criminal on very shaky grounds I might add.
Your right, probably something like that. I don't like you. I never really did. Thing is, you were already on egg shells over a variety of things. You've had plenty of warnings before. I especially loved your claims about Dim mak. You were already on a razors edge and that post is merely what pushed you over the side. Thing is, we didn't just ban you because we wanted to. We have discussed your fate more then once and elected not to ban you until now.

FYI, plagiarism is not a crime.
Oh yes it is if you don't believe me go and copy someone's book and try to sell it as your own or a song and see what happens when the author finds out. It's the same as theft and I take theft accusations very seriously. You don't like me fine! But don't ever call me something I'm not don't ever call me a thief again. I don't care about being banned from the cesspool that is SDN but I do care very much about being falsely accused as a thief and until that is rectified this will not be over.

Alyeska
Bridge Officer
Posts: 87
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:00 am

Post by Alyeska » Sat Feb 14, 2009 6:31 am

PunkMaister wrote:Oh yes it is if you don't believe me go and copy someone's book and try to sell it as your own or a song and see what happens when the author finds out. It's the same as theft and I take theft accusations very seriously. You don't like me fine! But don't ever call me something I'm not don't ever call me a thief again. I don't care about being banned from the cesspool that is SDN but I do care very much about being falsely accused as a thief and until that is rectified this will not be over.
You are confusing Plagiarism with Copyright Violation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagiarism
Plagiarism is the use or close imitation of the language and ideas of another author and representation of them as one's own original work.

Within academia, plagiarism by students, professors, or researchers is considered academic dishonesty or academic fraud and offenders are subject to academic censure. In journalism, plagiarism is considered a breach of journalistic ethics, and reporters caught plagiarizing typically face disciplinary measures ranging from suspension to termination. Some individuals caught plagiarizing in academic or journalistic contexts claim that they plagiarized unintentionally, by failing to include quotations or give the appropriate citation. While plagiarism in scholarship and journalism has a centuries-old history, the development of the Internet, where articles appear as electronic text, has made the physical act of copying the work of others much easier, simply by copying and pasting text from one web page to another.

Plagiarism is not copyright infringement. While both terms may apply to a particular act, they are different transgressions. Copyright infringement is a violation of the rights of a copyright holder, when material protected by copyright is used without consent. On the other hand, plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship.
Other contexts

Generally, although plagiarism is often loosely referred to as theft or stealing, it has not been set as a criminal matter in the courts.[10] Likewise, plagiarism has no standing as a criminal offense in the common law. Instead, claims of plagiarism are a civil law matter, which an aggrieved person can resolve by launching a lawsuit. Acts that may constitute plagiarism are in some instances treated as copyright infringement, unfair competition, or a violation of the doctrine of moral rights. The increased availability of intellectual property due to a rise in technology has furthered the debate as to whether copyright offences are criminal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_infringement

You were saying?

Post Reply