‪@damonkenny7818‬

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

Anyone care to take a guess on whether @Creamy-1988 is Damonkey or JEdith?

[@Creamy-1988]

Please take that guess, because I'm neither one of them and I think it's hilarious. I literally don't even know who they are. 😂🤣 Tag me correct next time because I didn't get a notification of this one.😂

[@nealjroberts4050]

It's possible they're just a troll who mistakenly thought you were an easy target 😂

[@Creamy-1988]

@@nealjroberts4050 no, no Target. I just saw something that wasn't factual and I'm pointing it out. Everything would have been cool if it was actually plagiarism but the man did not pass it off as his own work.

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@Creamy-1988 It's unattributed text under his own username. The default is that people clearly attribute text that isn't theirs. They didn't do so. Thus they're guilty of plagiarism.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

@@nealjroberts4050 I wonder if Creamy here was more taking an issue with me calling out Trump lying. But regardless, I cannot understand his take that DK didn't commit plagiarism because he didn't represent what he posts as things that HE is posting.🤦‍♂ Make that make sense.🤦‍♂ Short of the publisher of each of the edition taking over Damonkey's account and posting their respective blurbs, it's unquestionably plagiarism. It's really weird the mental gymnastics that he's performing to try to defend Damonkey despite supplying the definition of plagiarism that Damonkey definitely met. I'm glad he won't read this comment since he seems to be limited on how long a post is, regardless of whether it's well-structured or coherent.

[@nealjroberts4050]

For the benefit of anyone unclear, plagiarism is when you take something written by another person and present it as if it's your writing. This is distinct from quoting or citing something where quote marks or italics are used along with a reference to where the passage is from. Notably DK didn't quote or cite. Instead they typed out the passages and failed to make clear it wasn't their own words. Thus they committed plagiarism. How severe this can taken is dependent on whether they know how to properly quote and their explanation for why they used someone else's words. I think their subsequent posts and complaints highlight it wasn't mere ignorance of the quote/citation process.

[@damonkenny3444]

That’s a cute accusation. Why did QC mistakenly attack the book blurb, author and title inc. because the “Publisher” wasn’t provided? Does that lie make sense?

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@damonkenny3444 You joining us in the stream or running away again?

[@damonkenny3444]

@@nealjroberts4050 You gotta admire QCs cowardice. He requested that I provide citations for what he’d said, and then blocked and removed the citations calling me deluded.

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@damonkenny3444 Come join us if you dare

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@damonkenny3444 Come join the stream if you're brave enough

[@AXKfUN9m]

As if trolls had shame, embarrassment and guilt...

[@Tuna_Man2323]

Well done. Now you have documented DaMonkey's gaffe for future reference, maybe in a year or two, when he is hoping that everyone will have forgotten his plagiarism. So much for his claims of being well read. 😂 Reading a blurb does not mean that you've read the book. I don't think he's read the buybull, either. He's like Otto from the movie A Fish Called Wanda. Or Trump with his 2 Corinthians.

[@damonkenny3444]

Liar, how is a book blurb with Author and Book Title provided “plagiarism”. And why did QC attack the blurb and lie about a philosopher he’s admittedly never read and doesn’t know his views?

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

​@@damonkenny3444 It's explained in the video.😂

[@damonkenny7818]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs You’re a liar.

[@holgerlubotzki3469]

DaMonkey was all shook up At the thought of a cloister hook up with the on duty priest Who he knew was a total beast Down on his knees and too scared to look up!

[@Tuna_Man2323]

@@damonkenny3444 You could come to the live session and present your side. I'll not interfere.

[@wyldink1]

He didn't hecause he can't. And he can't because there isn't a defense.

[@nealjroberts4050]

It is a conundrum: are they ignorant of what plagiarism is or are they dishonest?

[@Creamy-1988]

@@nealjroberts4050 I don't know did he put his name on the work or did he say it was his work did he pass it off as his own work?

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@Creamy-1988 Did you not watch the video?

[@Creamy-1988]

@@nealjroberts4050 yeah and I completely missed the part where he passed it off as his own work in the conversation about the book in which the information is about and or from. Doesn't really matter because he didn't pass it off as his own. He didn't claim it to be any work of his or even his words and it's not hard to go find the information on the book that they were talking about and see where it came from. Now if he said he wrote the book and or said it was his work, then posted, that would be plagiarism. But no he posted about the book and then he posted information from the book about the book or whatever. It's simple comprehension. Not to mention he did it for no gain, so what's the point in doing so or even complaining about it if it was plagiarism? Because you don't like him?

[@nealjroberts4050]

@@Creamy-1988 So the part of the video showing DK's post with said text included and not differentiated from his personal words and QC explaining that they used that to search and found that it was a blurb and not DK's own words? You know the major part of the video. Or are you declaring that people's posts aren't intended as their own words?

[@Creamy-1988]

Plagiarism is the use of another's work, words, or ideas without attribution. The word “plagiarism” comes from the Latin word for “kidnapper” and is considered a form of theft, a breach of honesty in the academic community. Did he claim these words are his? You haven't proved anything. You know what he was talking about you know where the information was coming from because he mentioned the name of the book and you were able to find the words that he used that he did not claim that were his in a comment thread. The fact that he didn't use it for any gain but just to pass on information, not going to mention that part. 😂 Talking about being dishonest. 🤣

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

Honestly, I didn't know he was just copying and pasting it. If I just copy and paste some work here, you are not going to assume that it's my own words? I'm not talking about knowing what he's talking about. My initial response to his post was that it did not sufficiently describe Soloviev's point. Why would I say that if I thought he was pasting one specific blurb from one specific edition of the book that he mentioned. Tell me that you knew those weren't his words. Especially the second blurb he posted, I initially thought he had written it. I got suspicious because it was too coherent. But I like how you define plagiarism and say I didn't prove it because he didn't start with, "these are my words."

[@Creamy-1988]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs it's just stupid to assume anybody's words are their own online. Especially in a comment section. Bottom line. I mean do you believe in everything that you read in what people say? You shouldn't, that's why you should do your own research like, oh this is where he got the information. It's not smart to take people on the word and it's not smart to assume things either. I literally defined plagiarism already. 🤣

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

​@Creamy-1988 😂 So we can't ever assume that the words that someone post are their own words? And because of that, people can just post excerpts from anywhere, not put any quotes or attribute it, and you don't consider that plagiarism? 😂😂😂 Can you look up what the definition of plagiarism is? And you are saying that him putting the title of the book is sufficient for you. EVEN though he didnt take an excerpt from the book? Nice. Well, here's one of his complete post. Please do tell me why it's not plagiarism. _After passing through deism, pantheism, and sundry atheistic visions of life, Vladimir Solovyov emerged as a Christian thinker of irrepressible conviction and uncommon genius. The Justification of the Good, one of Solovyov's last and most mature works, presents a profound argument for human morality based on the world's longing for and participation in God's goodness._ _In the first part of the book Solovyov explores humanity's inner virtues and their full reality in Christ, weaving his moral philosophy with threads drawn from Orthodox theology. In the second part Solovyov discusses the practical implications of Christian goodness for such areas as nationalism, war, economics, legal justice, and family._ _This edition of The Justification of the Good reproduces the English edition of 1918 and is the only new publication of this work since that date. The book includes explanatory footnotes by esteemed scholar Boris Jakim and a bibliography, compiled by Jakim, of Solovyov's major philosophical and religious works._

[@Creamy-1988]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs slow mo I'm not reading all that because I don't give a damn. Because it doesn't matter. But you really shouldn't assume people's going on their own word when they're talking about a book in specific obviously. Did he say those are his words specifically? Did he take credit for anything did he gain anything from this except for a troll trying to get in his a$$? No he relayed the information. It's time for you to grow up. Instead of treating this like he plagiarized a paper that you would give him credit on. 🤣😂

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

@@Creamy-1988 There wasn't much to read. The second part was Damonkey plagiarizing where he just copied and pasted wholesale from a blurb. Didn't put any quotes. Didn't indicate that he was quoting the book or a blurb. If you want to act like an idiot and say that it's not plagiarism just because you can't trust anything posted online, and if you think ANYONE would start ANYTHING that they write with, "these are my words," then you really are slo. Mo. I don't know if you are Damonkey or JEdith, but even if you are, you certainly can join them on their dishonesty troll group. Based on your inablity to grasp concepts, I would guess it's Damonkey. I would invite you to my live stream to have a discussion about what would count as plagiarism online, but your last comment pretty much told me everything I needed to know. And I know as a troll, you wouldn't ever have the balls to actually directly talk to someone. Looking forward to seeing in the comments.

[@eggheadusa]

What’s up with amtpaul he have a disability, I was watching his channel it made me sad I thought he was playing a character. I suspect it but I’m used to trolls messing around, sorry guys.

[@damonkenny3444]

How does QC explain himself attacking a book blurb with book title and author provided? He made up a bunch of lies about a philosopher he’s admittedly never read and doesn’t know his views.

[@damonkenny3444]

I get it, QC embarrassed himself again. I outplay that troll.

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

What was the attack? And how was it an attack? Show the quotes of what I said. Oops. That's right. You don't know how to provide quotes.

[@damonkenny3444]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs Why did you make up a bunch of lies about Vladimir Solovyov claiming to explain his positions, claiming I couldn’t? Why did you attack the book blurb?

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

What was the lie? Quote it. Oops. I forgot. You don't know how to quote.

[@damonkenny3444]

@@ChallengeYourBeliefs Absolutely. You said: “He's not presenting Soloviev's position very well. Actually, I should say he doesn't know how.
 And isn't it ironic that for someone who can't cite ANY scientific research to back up his dumb points, he now gives a citation of a sort. Though all he's doing is name dropping.” “Considering that Damonkey can't represent anyone's position accurately, of course he can't to that for Soloviev. So I'll give it a try. Soloviev's history of the good is looking at the development of the concept of the good through various stages of human thought. From ancient philosophy, Judaism, Christianity, medieval scholasticism, and modern philosophy. He analyzes the concept of good from these different times and tries to connect them to HIS idea of the good as coming from the divine. And his idea is that morality is aligning our idea of the good to the absolute idea of the good, which is god. It's something like this. I don't know Soloviev's views, but his consideration of the historical idea of good was familiar to me.”