[Vision2020] Citing Primary Sources via Secondary Sources

Jeff Harkins jeffh at moscow.com
Thu Sep 18 10:37:55 PDT 2008 

No Nick - your credibility is the one at risk here.  You refuse to 
read the material and familiarize yourself with the central 
issue.  Appears you are simply harassing.

So you were careless with the reply button. I am supposed to know 
that - or should I just assume that you are careless and can be 
forgiven for that?

You have not answered my question - do you cite secondary sources or not?

Shoue provided no citations whatsoever.

The End of this thread!

At 08:35 AM 9/18/2008, you wrote:
>Hi Jeff:
>
>I never intended that this thread be off-list, so there is no 
>grounds for your phony outrage.  When I forget to hit "reply all" I 
>always re-post.  Nothing dishonest about that at all.
>
>Once again I ask you to come clean:  What is the difference between 
>the way I handled primary sources in my Gandhi work and the way 
>Andreas handled his.  If you cannot tell us the difference, then you 
>have no credibility on this list.
>
>Your inability to admit a mistake and apologize to Andreas says 
>volumes about your character.
>
>Nick
>---- joekc at roadrunner.com wrote:
> > Is Vision 2020 a UI research forum? Is Andreas our student -- 
> your student, since you are the one
> > bringing up the charges? Was his post an assignment that we/you gave him?
> >
> > This is about as inappropriate of a charge as I can imagine.
> >
> > What does the Law School Honor Code say about handing in work 
> with someone else's name on it?
> > Wait a minute that has to be plagiarism, too! So anonymous 
> posters can/should be threatened
> > too. That's right, we don't know who they are. Or do we? I am 
> shocked that a man like you, so
> > concerned about the integrity of our posts, hasn't brought this 
> point up. Or maybe I'm not!
> >
> > --
> > Joe Campbell
> >
> > ---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> > > Sorry Nick,
> > >
> > > Your little trick to bring my offlist reply to you back on to the viz
> > > was anticipated - and reveals a great deal about your character. I
> > > know, it was an oversight, right?
> > >
> > > If you can't find the time to review the material that has already
> > > been posted, I am not going to spoon feed it to you.
> > >
> > > All the issues are fully presented; all materials linked to my
> > > position provided.
> > >
> > > All comments are available.
> > >
> > > Thanks, but I have provided full back up of my position.
> > >
> > > Oh - no more offlist correspondence with you.
> > >
> > > You apparently don't really understand plagiarism - here is how it is
> > > defined in the Law School Honor Code:
> > >
> > > >Plagiarism. No student shall claim as his or her own original work
> > > >the research, ideas or
> > > >writing of another, or copy in whole or in part or in effect from
> > > >the work of another, without
> > > >clearly identifying it as the work of another. Paraphrasing without
> > > >acknowledgement of
> > > >authorship is a form of plagiarism. Paraphrasing is the close
> > > >restatement of another's idea or
> > > >using approximately the language of the original. [Section IIB, page 64]
> > >
> > > Thus, your use of secondary sources in your writings, which are
> > > by-products of primary sources, would require citations.  Do you
> > > provide citations for your use of secondary sources?
> > >
> > > Mr. Shoue paraphased, but provided no citations whatsoever.
> > >
> > > I think we are done.
> > >
> > > Bye.
> > >
> > > At 12:02 PM 9/17/2008, you wrote:
> > > >Hi Jeff,
> > > >
> > > >I'm bringing this back on the Vision because of the seriousness of
> > > >the charges you made against Andreas.
> > > >
> > > >You have ducked the question I posed to you: what is the difference
> > > >between what I did in my Gandhi research and what Andreas did?  I
> > > >don't care to go through the details of what you debated.  That's
> > > >simply not necessary. I just want you to do tell me, Andreas, and
> > > >others on this list in concise terms what the difference is.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Let me clarify one important thing.  You somehow have the notion
> > > >that reviewers of my Gandhi work checked it for plagiarism. No such
> > > >thing ever happened.  As I stated in my first post, Gandhi scholars
> > > >quote the primary sources through secondary sources all the time.
> > > >
> > > >This is a serious charge that you have leveled.  You have to back it
> > > >up or apologize big time.
> > > >
> > > >Nick
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> > > > > I am going offlist again.
> > > > >
> > > > > Schou is the only one who can know what he did and what his intent
> > > > > was.  I can say that if he had submitted his original post to me as
> > > > > written (in an academic setting) I would have moved forward with
> > > > > charges of plagiarism.
> > > > >
> > > > > Since you haven't had time to go through the full dialogue, we
> > > > > probably won't get anywhere by focusing on details.
> > > > >
> > > > > As I have pointed out numerous times, this is a problem he created,
> > > > > not me.  Read the details, get back to me and we can chat offlist.
> > > > > Pay particular attention to the material prepared by Alperin-Sheriff
> > > > > and the Terms of Use of the McClatchy site (which he admits he
> > > > > used).  He doesn't seem to appreciate how reckless and careless his
> > > > > actions were and how significant the consequences can be (ie, Biden's
> > > > > use of Kinnock's speech).
> > > > >
> > > > > All I have done is point out to him that he needs to approach the Law
> > > > > School Administration and deal with the matter with them. He is
> > > > > subject to the Law School Honor Code.
> > > > >
> > > > > What he chooses to do to resolve this is up to him.  I plan no action
> > > > > on my part.
> > > > >
> > > > > As to a comparison with your work - no, I am not investing time in
> > > > > that comparison.  I trust that the reviewers of your work 
> handle that.
> > > > >
> > > > > At 10:57 AM 9/17/2008, you wrote:
> > > > > >Hi Jeff,
> > > > > >
> > > > > >This is response is no response.  Would you care to distinguish
> > > > between what
> > > > > >Andreas did and what I've done for 18 years in my Gandhi research?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >Nick
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > At 10:27 AM 9/17/2008, you wrote:
> > > > > > > >Greetings:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >"I've not followed the exchange between Andreas and 
> Jeff in complete
> > > > > > > >detail ..."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That more or less covers my response.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I'm preparing for a keynote address that I will give on Gandhi's
> > > > > > > >birthday on Oct. 2 at San Diego State University.  When I first
> > > > > > > >started doing my Gandhi research in the early 1990s, it was very
> > > > > > > >difficult to get the primary sources, even through interlibrary
> > > > > > > >loan.  Until I went on sabbatical to India, I relied 
> on secondary
> > > > > > > >sources, especially very fine anthologies of passages 
> arranged by
> > > > > > > >subject and fully documented.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >When I finally got to India, I was able to sit down 
> and check out
> > > > > > > >references and read for context in Gandhi's Collected Works (100
> > > > > > > >volumes!) and the journals Young India and 
> Harijan.  Very few Gandhi
> > > > > > > >scholars read every page of these huge volumes. That 
> is why we have
> > > > > > > >bibliographers.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Gandhi kept meticulous records of everything that 
> happened in his
> > > > > > > >ashrams, and most of that does not make for very edifying
> > > > > > > >reading.  The Collected Works have a very good index, 
> so that was
> > > > > > > >very handy to find the passages that I needed for a 
> particular topic.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >As soon as finish this post, I will go downstairs to my reading
> > > > > > > >couch and re-read the fabulous anthologies that take 
> me right to the
> > > > > > > >passages that I want to review, and perhaps I'll find 
> some new good
> > > > > > > >ones.  The Collected Works are now on line, but they 
> are even more
> > > > > > > >clumsy to use than the actual books themselves.  For crucial
> > > > > > > >passages I will double check the original references 
> again on line.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >I believe this is what Andreas did, and if I'm right, 
> then I'm just
> > > > > > > >as guilty of plagiarism as he is.  I wouldn't be invited to San
> > > > > > > >Diego if that is what my colleagues think I did.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >Nick Gier
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >=======================================================
> > > > > > > >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > >                http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > >=======================================================
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > >                http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > >
> >

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list