So if you’re standing by your contention that Galloway plagiarized the article, then put your money where your mouth is and do some research and provide some proof or quit wasting my time.

BTW, RPJ thanks again for agreeing with me that this never was a fun little intellectual exercise, but something else.

Vicktor said…
“And asking me to substantiate my claim that George Galloway is a plagiarist is
an unimaginative attempt…”

and said…
“Compared to your subterfuge my charge of plagiarism on the part of George
Galloway is a just a footnote…”

and said…
“I see that you have already deleted my charge of plagiarism against George
Galloway…”

and said…
“…let them decide for themselves if my charge of plagiarism against George
Galloway was well founded or otherwise…”

and said…
“I clearly wrote that parts of it are plagiarized, not word for word…”

I can only conclude that this bozo is just a troll and likely a teenager based on his immature ramblings.

P.s. What would Chomsky say?

Now in one last sad attempt to save face you are basically asking me to be gone. No problem irrational man. One final question for you. Are you proud of yourself? Are you proud of your doctored post and the way you have responded to me all throughout? Think about your most respected professor. Think Chomsky. Would you proudly hold this post up for his review, and say, “Professor Chomsky, this is who I am.”

You write:

“Do I know what would happen to me in a university setting if I accused a professor of plagiarism? Yes, I do. First, the plaintiff would have to provide evidence. Second, the plaintiff upon not being able to produce said evidence would be labeled a lune. Third, I would personally demand that the plaintiff double up on their dosage of Prozac.”

You do realize, don’t you, that in your final paragraph’s example, YOU would be the plaintiff whose dosage of Prozac you want upped? Next time you read the word “plaintiff”, think in your head “plaintiff means the one who’s doing the accusing”.

By the way, for the nth time, now: have you put together ANY evidence to support your claim of George Galloway’s alleged plagiarism? Have you done ANY research on George Galloway’s post-1991 criticism of Saddam Hussein’s regime? Have you finally grown tired of humiliating yourself that you’re willing to retract the contrived ethical dilemma that It was unethical for me to keep this article on wikipedia?

If the answer to these three questions is “no”, then might I be so bold as to ask why the heck are you still hanging around here?

Do I know what would happen to me in a university setting if I accused a professor of plagiarism? Yes, I do. First, the plaintiff would have to provide evidence. Second, the plaintiff upon not being able to produce said evidence would be labeled a lune. Third, I would personally demand that the plaintiff double up on their dosage of Prozac.

adj. A fallacious attempt to attack an opponent’s character rather than answering his argument.

When I called you a liar, that was quite simply not an ad hominem attack under the definition of the term. First off, an ad hominem attack, in order to actually be fallacious has to, at a very minimum, have the structure of an argument. You have to actually use it to argue something. Anybody who’s read a book on informal reasoning knows that the simplest structure any argument can have is a syllogism (there are other structures, but they’re all more complex) and in the part of my comment where I called you a liar (and you read it through again if you like), nowhere will you find an attempt at a syllogism or an attempt at any other kind of an argument. It was merely stated obiter dictum as an observation (thus the importance of me using the phrase ‘obiter dictum’ because an obiter dictum does not need to have the structure of an argument).

The second reason why it doesn’t constitute an ad hominem attack is that, in addition to it not having the structure of an argument itself, it was not an attempt to deflate one of your unrelated arguments by attacking your person. The argument in question which you made on the subject of your original charge that George Galloway “plagiarized word for word from wikipedia” was that you had never actually made that statement and that somehow my copy and paste function made up a quote from you. Thus, it was not an off hand remark designed to discredit you irrespective of your utterances, it was directly related to the issue at hand (though not an argument because just calling somebody a liar, does not an argument make).

Thus, when I called you a ‘liar’ that may have been not particularly neighbourly (and frankly I don’t care if that’s the case because it’s the truth) but it was not, technically, an ad hominem attack because it had neither the form of an argument nor was it a way of attacking an unrelated argument by attacking your character.

Moving on, you think that I’M being “totalitarian” on the subject of plagiarism??? Wow. Clearly you’ve never been in an academic setting. Do you know what would happen to you in a university setting if you accused a professor of plagiarism (and word for word plagiarism, no less) and then after repeated requests to produce ANY evidence of this, you still could not produce anything? Do you have any idea what would happen? First, at least one panel of academics would be conviened and you’d testify before the board. Then, if you’d accused a professor, you’d likely go before a full session of the University Senate. Then, over and above that, you’d probably be faced with whatever private tort law suits the individual falsely accused of plagiarism wished to bring against you and you’d have to defend yourself in a court of law.

If you think what I’ve done here is totalitarian, then my friend, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.

I do, however see now that you’re beginning to realize the seriousness of your charge (even though you won’t admit it) and you’re now backing away from the statement on plagiarism. It’s a pitty, I would have really liked to see you try to defend your claim.

Third: I see you’ve decided to continue to refuse my offer to do some further research on George Galloway because you don’t want to be confused by the facts since you mind is already made up. That’s a pity too. George Galloway was first elected to the British House of Commons in 1987 (I believe) — only a few years before Saddam became an official enemy. If you do ever muster up the courage to read something or do some research, you’ll find that his harsh criticism of his regime extends well past the time when Saddam became an official enemy.

Lastly, you go on to write “but you are without a doubt blinded by myth… you are blinded by the myth of what you want to believe your heros [sic] are rather than believe the history books.”

Where did you ever get the impression that Che was one of my heroes? Because I defended him in the body of this post? Because I’ve read about him and know a reasonable amount about him?

What even makes you think that I hero worship anybody?

If you want, you can read up on my opposition to all forms of idoloatry and hero worship as I’ve written extensively on them here:

http://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/on-idolatry-and-winston-churchill-the-anti-semite/

here:

http://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/01/30/is-capitalism-justified/#comment-14273

here:

http://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/10/10/war-is-peace-freedom-is-slavery-ignorance-is-strength/#comment-9186

And, lastly, if you like, you can read the “about me” section of this blog and you’ll see a rieteration of one of the themes I discuss in one of the comments above wherein I talk about how Marx as nothing more than a 19th Century dead white guy and he should be treated as such, but that it is on that basis that I call myself a Marxist.

Now I’ll tell you why I won’t bother to do more research on George Galloway. It’s because I already know enough about his type to know all I care to know about his type. He is a political opportunist blinded by his own hate for the United States of America and Capitalists. I’ll prove it. When the USA supported Saddam Hussein he condemned Saddam Hussein in the harshest terms, so you say. When the USA turned on Saddam Hussein he said “Sir, I salute your courage, your strength, your indefatigability”. That is the Butcher of Baghdad he is so glowingly admiring. Why because anyone who is an enemy of the United States of America and Capitalists is a friend of George Galloway. Let me quote another political opportunist blinded by his own hate for the United States of America and Capitalists:

“Once more I was able to convince myself how criminal the capitalistic octopuses are. On a picture of our old and bewailed comrade Stalin, I swore not to rest before these capitalistic octopuses are destroyed.” Che Guevara

Old and bewailed! Che Guevara said that about the man responsible for the Great Purge, Gulag labor camps, the Ukrainian famine, the Katyn Massacre, Siberian death camps and countless other holocausts that some estimates claim cost between 3,000,000 to 60,000,000 human lives. Why? Because anyone who hates the United States of America and Capitalists is a friend of Ches’. I also believe that you are blinded. By hate for the United States of America and Capitalists? I don’t know, but you are without a doubt blinded by myth. Like George for Saddam and Che for Stalin you are blinded by the myth of what you want to believe your heros are rather than believe the history books. Here’s what one man had to say about myth:

“For the greatest enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived, and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, pervasive, and unrealistic.”

That myth worship is why you can’t see that your mind fabricated a quote I never said about George Galloway and that myth worship is why you worship Che, Marx and a slew of other revolutionaries who are nothing more than egotistical tyrants disguised as saviors. But how can I expect you to be intellectual enough see yourself when you are probably not even intellectual enough to know who said that quote about myth.

I love how you write that I am “blinded by [my] own beliefs” while suggesting that you occupy an unbiased viewpoint; that you stand at the archimedean point of the universe.

Anyhow, contrary to your assertion, you haven’t refuted any of the substantive issues I’ve put to you. The items such as ‘liar’ ‘opportunistic machiavellian’ et cetera were simple obiter dictim observations on my part and even then, you laughably hold that a retort such as “your wrong” actually constitutes a refutation of anything. Either way, you know full well what the substantive matters I’ve put to you are, however, I’ll reiterate them to you as you have been conspicuously silent on them.

First, I asked you to research George Galloway’s written statements and Hansard to educate yourself on his strong opposition to Saddam Hussein which can be found therein and to report back to me what you found. You’ve steadfastly demonstrated your phobia of doing such a research project (it wouldn’t even take you too long if you knew where to look) and consequently you’ve more than demonstrated your desire to retain your untenable position that Galloway supported Hussein’s regime. I guess we wouldn’t want any of those pesky ‘facts’ which blind my biased worldview to infect your unbiased worldview.

Second, I asked you from the very beginning to present evidence, other than your ’say-so’, that George Galloway had plagiarized his article from Wikipedia. I told you explicitly that if you presented me with evidence, I would let your charge of plagiarism stand. All you have to do is back up your statement. That’s it. It’s a fair and simple request, really. I haven’t told you you’re wrong on this matter, I’ve merely asked you to back up this contention. Moreover, I’ve now asked you multiple times to do so and you’ve had 5 days to do so. You’ve presented me with zero independent analysis of your own. You’ve presented me with zero sources of any reputable source which has done such an analysis. You’ve presented me with zero acknowledgment that charges of plagiarism are very serious and that they ought to be supported and ought not be leveled without support.

Third, you put to me the charge of unethical bahviour insofar as keeping this page on wikipedia was concerned. I retorted that you had conjured up an ethical dilemma as I was not the person to have added this page to wikipedia nor was I the individual who removed this page from wikipedia, nor have I have I ever had anything to do with the wikipedia page on Che Guevara. You have yet to acknowledge this matter in any way since my retort even if only to retract your contention that I had somehow acted unethically.

As for the issues you have put to me. You are correct that I have not bothered to wade into this ridiculous debate: ’serious versus tongue and cheek’. However, there’s a simple reason why I haven’t responded to your question as to whether this post was intended to be tongue and cheek or not:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author

Read up.

However, what I will say on this matter is that I generally do not post my academic research projects and essays on this blog as I do not want my material to be employed by online ‘essay thiefs’. There are occasionally exceptions to this general rule of mine, for instance, a while back I posted a section that I had to cut out from an essay that I’d written due to essay length concerns. Thus if you’re interested in reading a sample of my academic work (although it is not properly formatted and is still in its draft sage), you’re more than welcome to and you can do so here:

http://paulitics.wordpress.com/2007/11/29/holy-red-baiting-batman/

P.S. You wrote that I “can’t prove that” that you’re a liar. This is entirely and obviously true and I admitted this myself. Trust me, nobody regrets more than I the fact that I deleted the evidence that you are a baldfaced liar. However, I will have to make due with the knowledge that I know you lied and the knowledge that you know that you lied — that I didn’t doctor your comment to make you look bad, nor did I remove any context and that, yes, indeed, you did claim that Galloway “plagiarized word for word from wikipedia”.

You have insinuated that I am impressionable, If I was then I would have fallen for your ruse, but I’m the only one besides RPJ who didn’t. She agrees that this post never was a fun little intellectual exercise but says it was actually a tongue in cheek gag amongst friends. You still have not concurred or countered her entertaining hypothesis, so that if I was an unbiased reader of this post I would have no idea which it is. You claim that I think myself an expert on George Galloway, where have I ever said that?

You have said that I’m unsupported, crazy, liar, ruthless, fraudulent, opportunistic Machiavellian, think wikipedia is an authoritative source, discredited and ignorant. Let’s cover a-l-l of those one at a time. Unsupported – your wrong, RPJ agrees with me. Crazy – quit being a reactionary. Liar – you can’t prove that because you censored my post and as such you can’t credibly keep charging me with being a liar. Ruthless – don’t get hysterical. Fraudulent – see liar. Opportunistic Machiavelli – I’ve never been called that, thanks for popping my cherry. Think wikipedia is an authoritative source – where have I ever used the word authoritative in reference to wikipedia? Discredited – you are discredited, RPJ says so. Ignorant – besides RPJ I’m the only one who saw through your ruse so you can’t call me that either.

Now let me tell you what I think about you. You are obviously a person with some strongly held beliefs, unfortunately your arguments for them are weak and as such you have to resort to name calling and censorship. Here’s what you said are some characteristics of irrational people. They tend to:

1) Be incapable of using even-headed arguments without resorting to ad hominem attacks. ( You’ve never addressed my claim about your post. Instead you have made relentless personal attacks against me for a sentence you censored and continue to call me a liar/fraud despite your own admission of censorship.)

2) Unable to give an account of their opponent’s behaviour without using over-simplification or straw-men. (You’ve called me impressionable, lazy and ignorant.)

3) View those they disagree with as inherently evil, often attributing sadistic and/or even satanistic motivations to their opponent’s actions. (You’ve called me crazy, opportunistic, ruthless and Machiavellian.)

4) Ignore evidence which suggests that the subject of their attack is not the embodiment of pure evil seeking to destroy all of humanity and/or enslave all of humanity. (You’ve ignored the fact that your girlfriend RPJ continues to agree with me that this post was never an intellectual exercise.)

5) Believe their account to be the only valid account. This last characteristic is often associated with a belief that every one either already agrees with their account or that every one would agree with their account if they could simply realize just how popular this account really is. (Being an almost post grad college boy you can’t honestly say that your doctored post would ever pass anyone’s idea of an intellectual exercise.)

Paul you are so blinded by your own beliefs that you have become your own caricature. In closing the beauty of the blogoshere is that everyone gets a say. The bad news is that usually you end up preaching to the choir. Rather than fear me/hate me you should thank me for shaking you up a bit. And you have to admit that by logic alone I have destroyed everyone of your arguments without resorting to any of the 5 characteristics above while you have resorted to all of them. Please do not respond until after you have learned to do so without being the very person you warn others against.

I for one and perfectly capable of admitting when I did something wrong, and thus I do admit that I should have made the time to respond to this debate between RPJ and yourself. I also did something else that was fatally wrong, and I am prepared to fully admit that here and now too: I should never have deleted the one sentence in your original post wherein you accused George Galloway’s essay of being “plagiarized word for word from wikipedia”. I’ve encountered conservatives, libertarians and liberals who have strongly, forcefully (sometimes obnoxiously) disagreed with me on any number of issues. But, I must say, I was truly shocked by your following post because never have I encountered somebody willing to lie to further their cause even when they themselves know the statement or argument to be fraudulent. I’ve read Machiavelli, but I’ve never encountered anybody personally who was actually so ruthless in their devotion that they are willing to lie to further their cause.

So, with that said, I know that I just copied and pasted said quote from your comment and YOU know that I just copied and pasted said quote from your comment, and moreover, YOU know that it was not taken out of context because there was no context — the quote appeared in a one sentence, one line paragraph and it was only that one sentence which was deleted. However, that said, I must thank you for teaching me this (brutal) lesson. I promise I will never again delete a portion of another commenter’s post without at the very least first taking a screen cap of it.

Sadly, there is no way of me retrieving the deleted sentence for me to present to everyone to expose you as nothing more than an opportunistic Machiavellian, so I suppose you’re free now to retort with more feigned indignation. Sigh.

However, for what it’s worth, I think the readers of this blog will see through this ruse for what it is. I think most of my readers are aware that I have better things to do with my time than to fabricate a quotation from a blog commentator who thinks wikipedia is an authoritative source, and then to claim I copied and pasted them, and then to be silent on the issue of my ‘doctoring’ for several days instead of helping to further my cleaver and diabolical plot to discredit a person who is already, by his own utterances, discredited.

That said, moving on now, you write that you came across my blog via wikipedia and then you go on to further demonstrate your ignorance by writing “Either clarify your position, or ethics demands that you remove your tongue in cheek gag from wikipedia.” If you are not familiar with wikipedia, allow me to enlighten you: anybody can add anything to wikipedia and, here’s the novel part, you can go on to any given page’s history and look at precisely who added what and when. Look at the history of of the wikipedia page on Guevara. You’ll notice that I’ve never touched it. I never added this blog post to wikipedia, and what’s more, whoever did add this blog post to wikipedia also added a whole slew of other sources, hardly one of which would meet encyclopedic standards.

However, if you are interested, the vast majority of the articles linked to in the “further reading” section of the wikipedia page (including this blog post) were just removed a couple of days ago. So you’ve conjured an “ethical” dilemma here when none has ever existed. I wasn’t the person who added this page to wikipedia and I wasn’t the person who removed this page.

But I await your response to tell me what I did wrong there too.

P.S. I see you have still chosen not to provide any evidence to support your claims of plagiarism. Pity, I would have enjoyed watching you attempt to prove that one. I also see that you have chosen not to avail yourself of the opportunity I presented to you earlier to read up on George Galloway’s position of Saddam Hussein. He has been fiercely critical of Hussein long before it was fashionable to be critical of him. In other words, he’s been critical of Hussein since the 1980s when he was a favoured ally and Galloway continued his criticism after he was elected to the British House of Commons.

That being said let me tell you how I came across your blog. Wikipedia. Wikipedia may not be the most scholarly work on Che, Galloway, or Hari, but it is nevertheless a piece of work that many do take seriously. If your silence is indicative of your agreement with RPJ’s entertaining apology then I’m sure we can agree on at least this one item. Wikipedia is not the place for a tongue in cheek gag amongst friends. Either clarify your position, or ethics demands that you remove your tongue in cheek gag from wikipedia.