Christina Wilkie認証済みアカウント

It's a fake scandal. I'm firmly against Gorsuch confirmation. But what he did, although sloppy, is not plagiarism.

But SCOTTS especially should be beyond reproach academically at least

In my mind, grounding question when deciding whether conduct is plagiarism is was use corrupt - i.e., did it give unfair advantage/credit?

That's not how plagiarism works.

to me it speaks directly towards ethics and integrity.. and both seem lacking if there is plagiarism.

Right. And the question is whether what he did indicates bad intent, or mere sloppiness. He re-paraphrased from writer who paraphrased ...

CJS: A very neat solution to his "sloppiness" approach: Attribution.

Wow I'm a Professor and know plagiarism when I see it. This is a HUGE fail in any class I teach, but #SCOTUS NO WAY. DENY

I'm confused, if I wrote the facts of the case, wouldn't my writing be the same as both examples? Facts don't change.

you're confused bc you are thinking about it for the first time. Profs & scholars deal with this stuff all the time. It's straightforward.

No, I'm a lawyer whose written the facts of cases many times. Facts are facts. Unless you prefer #alternativefacts

did you lift the facts of those cases directly from another source? because that would be plagiarism.

* w/o citation

Now, if I shared your hypothesis on why doctors acted as they did, then I need to cite you. I don't see that here. I just see facts of case.

Yes, the facts of the case as recorded by one person and then copied and pasted as his own work by Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court.

You do see those little numbers right? You know those are citations don't you? I'm no fan of trump, but I'm also no fan of fake news.