The point being expressed in my
post is an independent observation
Sure, and the dog ate your homework. To see just how much that
strains shatters credulity, people simply need to look for themselves. I posted in a thread that you very regularly follow—where, I may add, you have sometimes popped up out of nowhere to spout nonsense at me when I wasn’t even addressing you. About two weeks later—well, when the quotes are placed side by side, a five-year-old child could see what happened:
Nullian Original (archive.is) (archive.org)Subject: [WO] NFTs are good!Proof that NFT technology will succeed:
I see WOers slinging the exact same FUD against NFTs as has always been used against Bitcoin. Let’s see just how much this technology will totally take over the world:
- “It’s a Ponzi.” ✔
- “The scarcity is artificial. Anyone can make perfect copies of it.” ✔
- “Drug dealers will use it to launder money.” ✔
- “Those fools will be burned when it is shut down by regulators (SEC, et al.).”2 ✔
I anticipate that as I keep reading WO posts about NFTs, I will be adding to this list...
What's struck me as a touch ironic is that bitcoiners are criticizing NFTs for the exact same reasons nocoiners criticize bitcoin:
"Anybody can make one." ✓
"It's a bubble and a fad that will never catch on." ✓
"It's a highly illiquid market, or else it's all wash trading." ✓
"Its only used by money launderers and criminals." ✓
What am I forgetting?
That would get you expelled from any academic environment.
To me as an
original thinker, it is discouraging: Why should I contribute my original thoughts to this forum, so that nutildah can rip me off without even the slightest acknowledgment?
There is only one nullius. nutildah’s unattributed paraphrase of my ideas is conceptually a half-step away from Faketoshi’s claim that he wrote the Bitcoin whitepaper.
(nutildah does get extra
chutzpah points insofar as he pretends to have me ignore-listed. Cue the
plagiarism bingo card:
“We had similar thoughts, including even the placement of Unicode checkmarks!”)
Correction for the record:
You claim I used the same checkmarks that you did, I didn't. So that part was an outright lie.
No. To the contrary, as quoted above, I said that you “paraphrased” my Unicode checkmarks with different Unicode checkmarks (just as you paraphrased my words); I said that you used the same placement of the checkmarks; and
I otherwise accused you of “aping” the checkmarks.
I don’t know why you would lie about what I said, when it is
right there for everyone to read.
Protip: Although your plagiarism was the impetus for me to bump this thread, the topic hereof is not about you any more than it is about Ratimov—
whose plagiarism you defended, fittingly enough.
This topic is about
my unspecified violations of
the letter of the forum rules. If you want to try to get me banned for that, this would be a good place to do it.
I am, in essence, benevolently trolling in an attempt to push people to
think about what plagiarism is, and what harm it causes. To question the nature of my “plagiarism” (or as I call it, my
contraplagiarism), the reader must develop a clear concept of
why that rule exists. Why do I say that I am doing nothing wrong, when I cheerfully stipulate that I am intentionally violating the rule? What could I possibly mean? To follow that train of thought, one must examine plagiarism from first principles.