It's not a crime, but the school (I don't think it is precisely the Naval Academy) presumably didn't know that he'd plagiarized it when they granted the degree. They seem to say they are going to investigate it. They could rescind the degree. barfo
He copied part of the 9/11 report. This happened in 2013. There has been software where you can enter a paper and check these things around for years.
Exactly. If you want to be butthurt at someone, be butthurt at the college he went to. Funny how this seems to suddenly be a problem when he joins the Trump Administration. Nobody gave two shits about his supposed plagiarism until CNN got involved. Gee....funny how that works, huh? Just come out and say that you don't like the guy, barfo. Stop hiding behind CNN's constantly exaggerated claims and just admit it already. That way, we can just laugh at you and move on. Only an idiot takes CNN seriously about anything. Their credibility is completely shot right now.
Sure, they could have checked his thesis for plagiarism. Since I've never heard of the Naval Postgraduate School before today, I'm not sure what to say about the school. Maybe their standards suck. Maybe they trust their students not to cheat. Dunno. Nobody knew about it (other than, presumably, Clarke himself) before CNN reported on it. Yeah, weird how federal officials get more scrutiny than sheriffs. Surely must be some sort of conspiracy. Ok. I don't like the guy. Not that that's the issue here. I just did. Happy now? You don't have to take CNN's word for it. You can examine the original documents, if you care to. "The truth is out there". See, I quoted that phrase. barfo
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Clarke_(sheriff) So let me get this straight....if he had placed quotations around the words of his sources, then this wouldn't be an issue? Or are "footnotes" not the same as providing a "citation"? CNN is as objective as Breitbart. You can't possibly take anything they say seriously about anything. Otherwise, you might as well take Breitbart seriously. I don't. Nor should anyone else. Surely you held Clinton to the same standard as you are judging Clarke, right? I mean, really....a few plagiarized passages in a thesis? Really? I don't recall you wetting your panties on here when faced with Hillary's overwhelming corruption and incompetence. I'm not questioning whether or not Clarke was wrong. I'm questioning your objectivity on this matter. Personally, I could give a flying fuck if he copied parts of reports into his thesis, because there are far more important things to worry about. And quite frankly, this kind of nonsense is the same kind of partisan, one-upmanship bullshit that keeps our government divided. It's the kind of juvenile behavior that I would expect people to bicker about in a comment section on some third-rate news site somewhere. But that's just me. Yeah....nobody believes that on this forum. Especially not me. You've demonstrated clear bias with every single anti-Republican/Trump/Conservative issue that pops up on this forum. So I'm afraid you're going to have to do better than that. I don't. Frankly, I'd rather jack off with a cactus than engage in this juvenile witch-hunt over things like Trump's tweets and how many scoops of ice cream he gets.
That's correct. It may seem a bit academic, but then Masters degrees are a bit academic by definition. You are shooting the messenger rather than examining the message. One can independently verify that what CNN reported is true. Apparently it was more than a few. But yes, if Clinton turns out to have plagiarized any of her academic work, I would call her a plagiarist also. There are plenty of plagiarists out there, Clarke is not unique. Nor are they all republican. How does my objectivity matter here? Even if I am the most flagrantly hypocritical partisan hack ever (and I'm not, I was only 3rd in the latest ratings) Clarke either is or is not a plagiarist. It has nothing to do with me and everything to do with him. Yep, that's just you. Arguing about it, and saying that it isn't worth arguing over. So what if I'm biased? So are you, you know. Neither of our biases caused Clarke to plagiarize his thesis. So don't. No one is forcing you to post about this topic. barfo
Sarcasm? Really? Look....if you want to join in with the hysterical masses over missed quotation marks, then you go right ahead. But those who choose to ignore the almost 30 years of good work he's done in Law Enforcement for his community and his State over missed quotation marks obviously have nothing better to do with their time. I've examined enough of it for myself. Missed quotation marks....boo hoo. I mean, it's not like he lied about missing emails from a high-profile job or anything.... Ignoring the point and making your own. Need I say more? I refuse to believe that you're so stupid that you honestly thought that I was referring to Clinton plagiarizing papers. Surely you're smarter than that. It matters because it's a constant theme with you; almost on the level of Rasta's twitter posts. After a while, nobody takes such opinions seriously if they aren't reasonably objective about both sides of the political spectrum. For example: I REALLY don't like Clinton or Obama. BUT....even I have the decency to realize that Clinton didn't plan out the Benghazi attack and murder Chris Stevens (I think she was negligent in how she handled it, but it wasn't premeditated in murder). And Obama isn't a Muslim who was born in Kenya. And yeah, the Republicans could have worked with him a bit better than they did. See? That's being objective. Are you capable of doing the same for the Right? Your history says otherwise. So sure...perhaps your objectivity on THIS particular topic isn't relevant to the subject matter. But....it sure is a reoccurring theme with you against anything that has to do with the Right. No barfo. MOST rational people would look at this subject and go "yeah, it's the media making a mountain out of a mole-hill". Except you. You certainly seem annoyed by the fact that I'm not freaking out with the rest of the Left over this issue. Missed quotation marks? Someone at CNN needs a new line of work.
Who is freaking out? I mean shit lol. It's funny. the dude copy pasted his "master thesis". What a buffoon.
Perhaps "freaking out" isn't the words I should have used. It just seems to me like the Left has found yet ONE MORE THING to bang their Communist hammers on (that's a joke...get it? Communist Hammers....symbol of Communism...?). And at this point, it's just sad and desperate.
Come on. I'm not defending plagiarism. Honestly I'm not. But for all we know it could have been one paragraph out of a 200-page thesis. Nowhere has it been mentioned that he copied his entire thesis from other people's work. All I'm asking is this: is this REALLY worth it; missed quotation marks? It just seems petty and vindictive to me for CNN to hammer the guy with. Can't they just grow up?
Wow, Hillary isn't a murderer, and Obama wasn't born in Kenya? You do earn the objectivity merit badge! I will try to match you, though: Pence is not a murderer, and Trump was not born in Kenya. Am I objective now? I seem annoyed? You aren't reading me right. This story is not important at all. Clarke is not important. His old job wasn't important, his new job doesn't seem to be important, whether he is or isn't a plagiarist (he is) is meaningless. The only reason we are talking about it at all is that you implied that the story was made up, a claim which is factually untrue. You've now changed your view to 'even if it's true, it's not important', which is the correct response. barfo
That's your problem. I never implied that at all. All I said was that I didn't take CNN seriously about anything. Not taking CNN seriously about anything doesn't mean that I think the topic at hand is false. But I do think that it was exaggerated and blown grossly out of proportion. 47....words? Sentences? Lines? Paragraphs? Pages?
Really? Let's look: I guess the 'make up some bullshit' part made me think that you were implying the story was false. If you were just saying that presenting the story about Clarke makes them biased and irrational, I guess I misunderstood. You know, you could read the story yourself instead of asking. SPD provided the link. barfo
Indeed, it was a figure of speech on my part. I apologize if that was misunderstood. As for the link, I didn't see it, but I've moved on to other things. I'll check it later. Short attention span and all that.
