A post for Olivia H and Luxury Daphne, and anyone else who cared to ask

I wish LM69 would bang my gavel. Originally Posted by Meerschaum

Meer, you know I would bang anything of yours I could get my hands on...

PhantomofTheOpera you have made numerous false assumptions. I will address those properly when I get to a computer.If Olivia paid you over a dime for that post you over charged her.

The citation WTF used is appropriate on a SHMB...the MLA doesn't necessarily apply here...

A casual note on a SHMB only requires that a reader can easily find the corresponding full text. That is accomplished via a link.

He was sloppy in not italicizing the excerpted text, but plagiarism requires a certain amount of intent that I judged he did not possess.

My ruling stands.

{{{bangs her gavel}}} Originally Posted by LilMynx69

*chuckling* You are correct on one point Miss Mynx, and that is in regards to MLA not being relevant in this instance. That is why I provided the correct citation using the APA style. I mentioned both styles since APA and MLA are the standards for citations since I deemed it necessary as there might be a few people here who don't know that fact, which now they do.

Regarding your comment that any note on a SHMB has to follow only a loose standard, you have made an error in that judgment. All written work that references another's written work has to follow the standard as outlined regardless of what anyone thinks. The definition of plagiarism is not variable as it is a clearly defined idea with a clear definition that is well known by those who use citations. Additionally, plagiarism does not, in fact, require the intent you mentioned. What is required for plagiarism to be found is the failing to properly cite another's work when using another's words in ones work, and nothing more.

In this case, WTF did plagiarize the words of the other author because it was not clear what he posted were not his own words, but that of another author. That is by definition plagiarism even if it is on a silly hooker message board, hookers and mutts be damned.

Time to move on as this matter is settled and the defendant is found guilty, guilty, guilty!

{{Bangs the final gavel}}

By the way, nice shoes in your avatar Miss Mynx.

Clearly, a person is only a commodity if they are property such as slaves were considered, like the blacks from the past of this country. When women got the vote and drivers licenses’, clearly they moved beyond the idea of their being considered chattel. Additionally, their Vagina's cannot be considered a commodity since that is indistinguishability from the female having one. Originally Posted by PhantomofTheOpera

Not so clearly. Below is an example given by Merriam. What is clear is that Merriam is using a actor as an example of a type of commodity. While some hookers acting abilities may not be as proficient as others one could make a analogy that they too are actresses.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commodity

5
: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market <stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry — Film Quarterly>

*
Regarding your comment that any note on a SHMB has to follow only a loose standard, you have made an error in that judgment since all work that references another's work has to follow the standard as outlined regardless of what anyone thinks. Originally Posted by PhantomofTheOpera

Not so fast Perry Mason....

I have used both of the preceding formats for citations, but I have used the APA style more and I am more accustomed to seeing it used in both Law books as well as the undergraduate and graduate coursework I have done.

. Originally Posted by PhantomofTheOpera

This is not grad school. I asked on a hooker board.

. Yet you can not name what a proper citation is on a hooker board. Originally Posted by WTF

This is more akin to playing a game of friendly golf at your local public links course not a PGA Tour event.

While you are 100% correct to say for instance that all putts must be putted out on Tour, it is quite common for players to concede 'gimme' putts while out playing for fun.

This is not a Law Book , it is a Hooker Board.

The method I used , while maybe confusing for certain nitwit's, was quite acceptable on a Hooker board. There was no intent to deceive just like a gimme putt at a local munnie is not an attempt to cheat.

Olivia used the link I provided. There is a reason to provide links. I'm not going to hold your hand after doing so.

You posted it as your words. If I had not gone to the link, which I rarely do for the kooky sites you reference, I'd have thought they were your words.
. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Not so fast Perry Mason....





This is not grad school. This is more akin to playing a game of friendly golf at your local public links course not a PGA Tour event.

While you are 100% correct to say for instance that all putts must be putted out on Tour, it is quite common for players to concede 'gimme' putts while out playing for fun.

This is not a Law Book , it is a Hooker Board.

The method I used , while maybe confusing for certain nitwit's, was quite acceptable on a Hooker board. There was no intent to deceive just like a gimme putt at a local munnie is not an attempt to cheat. Originally Posted by WTF

Grow The Fuck Up. Are you six?

WTF --> <whiny voice> "Show me!"
WTF --> <whiny voice> "Show me!"
WTF --> <whiny voice> "Show me!"
WTF --> <whiny voice> "Show me!"
WTF --> <whiny voice> "Show me!"
WTF --> <whiny voice> "Show me!"
WTF --> <whiny voice> "Show me!"
WTF --> <whiny voice> "Show me!"
WTF --> <whiny voice> "Show me!"
WTF --> <whiny voice> "Show me!"
WTF --> <whiny voice> "Show me!"
WTF --> <whiny voice> "Show me!"
WTF --> <whiny voice> "Show me!"

Someone finally gets sick of the whining, shows him.

WTF --> <whiny voice> "It doesn't count!"

Someone finally gets sick of the whining, shows him.

WTF --> <whiny voice> "It doesn't count!" Originally Posted by LNK

What part of on a hooker board are you having trouble with? This is not grad school. I provided a link just like 95% on the posters on this board provide. You do not provide a citation if you are trying to pass off something that is not yours as yours.

. Yet you can not name what a proper citation is on a hooker board. Originally Posted by WTF

fuc

Not so clearly. Below is an example given by Merriam. What is clear is that Merriam is using a actor as an example of a type of commodity. While some hookers acting abilities may not be as proficient as others one could make a analogy that they too are actresses.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/commodity

5
: one that is subject to ready exchange or exploitation within a market <stars as individuals and as commodities of the film industry — Film Quarterly> Originally Posted by WTF

I read the quote and the link you provided WTF. I still maintain my previous point that for an item to be considered a commodity, it has to be property. What Merriam did in their definition was to reference another source, which you noted in your post, where they extend their point, but do not make on their own. I have noted the contradictory nature of their definition as well since that site makes the same posit I do while crawfishing by including other ideas such as what you referenced.

The concept that any actor/actress is a commodity of the Entertainment industry has been around for a long, long while, and is arguably debatable. Since if the person were not an entertainer, then what is their value? And for them to have value, they are a product of the Entertainment industry. In a strict line of thinking, it is arguable that hookers can be actress' since most are mattress actress'. That is again a beer discussion, see below for clarification.

That to me is a beer discussion as it is both circular and not resolvable since the resolution depends on subjective input rather than objective input, e.g. I think one thing, you think another but neither of us has any objective data that is conclusive and undeniably supports either person's position.

A commodity is corn, pork, oil, but not people unless those people are property, i. e. chattel. That is my view and I expect you will disagree but that is cool with me.

~~~~~~~~

As for your other post arguing about my point on plagiarism, you lost the argument. As I clearly point out, you plagiarized your post by using the words of another as your own with a link to another site that requires someone to read that site and find the words you used. THAT IS PLAGERISM by definition and it matters not if the medium being to convey one's thoughts is a hooker review site or a Law or MBA Ethics paper.

Move on Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, you lost this one a long time ago. I just got tired of reading the bullshit about you not plagiarizing when it is clear you did.

. Additionally, their Vagina's cannot be considered a commodity since that is indistinguishability from the female having one. Originally Posted by PhantomofTheOpera

I will concede, and to be crude for a moment, pussy is pussy and therefore the pussy only is a commodity. ! Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Which is it you two?

^^^^^ WTF, nothing has changed over the years for you I see; just too damn amusing.

^^^^^ WTF, nothing has changed over the years for you I see; just too damn amusing son. Originally Posted by PhantomofTheOpera

There is more Grandpa

The fine art market is not a commodities market. It just isn’t. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Phantom is art a commodity? Or is that there one of those beer topics Merriam Webster likes to throw our way!

.



As for your other post arguing about my point on plagiarism, you lost the argument.

. Originally Posted by PhantomofTheOpera

as my great grand pappy PhantomofTheOpera would say...That to me is a beer discussion as it is both circular and not resolvable since the resolution depends on subjective input rather than objective input, e.g. I think one thing, you think another but neither of us has any objective data that is conclusive and undeniably supports either person's position.

...
The fine art market is not a commodities market. It just isn’t. And feudal lords didn’t bind artist, it was the Church that bound the themes of paintings. Originally Posted by OliviaHoward

Phantom is art a commodity? Or is that there one of those beer topics Merriam Webster likes to throw our way! Originally Posted by WTF

You still haven't explained how I, "plagiarizing the author" when I provided a link. Originally Posted by WTF

What is the proper way? This is wtf I posted:
So you lie and said I plagiarizing the author, now you are saying referenced it in such a weird way. What weird way? I provided the link and then provided what the author said. How is that weird and how should it be properly done?
Originally Posted by WTF

I'm waiting on the proper way to reference things according to OliviaHoward. Originally Posted by WTF

How about you just say the proper way I should have noted something on the internet so you would not accuse me of plagiarism. Originally Posted by WTF

And then suddenly you change to: "On a hooker board".

What part of on a hooker board are you having trouble with? This is not grad school. I provided a link just like 95% on the posters on this board provide. You do not provide a citation if you are trying to pass off something that is not yours as yours. Originally Posted by WTF

And you didn't. And you got called on it. And got butt hurt.

You sound like the six year-old telling his mommy that "Everyone else gets to stay up until nine o'clock!"

Proper citation works anywhere. Improper citation is improper anywhere, regardless of the number of people who do it.

Stop crying about being called on it, when you asked for it.

Ok, since I am bored today, and waiting for a telephone call, I'll play along.

Listen to ole GrandPa my boy as your question has a question embedded in it, which I am positive you did not realize. To your stated question of Is Art a commodity? My response is that idea is debatable, but variable depending on who is asked.

Now to the implied question you asked such as Olivia is referencing, is Fine Art a commodity?

My response to that question is an undeniably no, if one defines Fine Art along the lines of Paul Cézanne, Pablo Ruiz y Picasso, Pierre-Auguste Renoir, Claude Monet, Vincent van Gogh, or Michelangelo di Lodovico Buonarroti Simoni and others who are in the same category of artists. Those artists did not create commodity items nor are their original works available in a mass produced manner. For something to be a commodity, it has to be mass produced which implies availability to a large audience. Fine Art is exclusive by nature and is not something that is mass produced except in fakes, which may be a commodity in its own right, but the original work of Fine Art is most definitely not a commodity item.

Originally Posted by PhantomofTheOpera

So it is a beer topic. I like this game.

Is pussy a commodity or is that too a beer topic?

I'm off to practice my putting , going to have to start putting out now that I know the public links is just like the PGA!