The Manassas Journal Messenger reports on the Friday night screening of the latest version of the 9500 Liberty screening.
According to the article,
The reaction to the film ran the gamut, after its showing Friday night at Trinity Episcopal Church in Manassas.
Chris Pannell, who left Help Save Manassas this spring, praised the video. Woodbridge Workers Committee Nancy Lyall enjoyed the film, but expressed her outrage at the resolution.
City Councilman Jonathan Way said the presentation was interesting but that he learned nothing new.
“It was far less contentious and argumentative than I thought it might have been,” Way said.
Conversely, Help Save Manassas member Maureen Wood said the video was one-sided, made Prince William County Board of Supervisors Chairman Corey A. Stewart look like a fool and the filmmakers and she would never “see eye to eye on this issue.”
I have no idea what people are talking about here anymore.
Is plagiarism a crime? Heard of copyright laws?
Here is a link to answer all those questions.
http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-definitions.html
No Rick, I’ll pass. I don’t share your view of the (ahem) target population or your penchant for porn. With you, it just makes me sad that a funny guy who can invoke the great Romero or Rez Dogs wants to waterboard illegal immigrants. It must be dark in that townhouse indeed. You bring up legitimate labor concerns about wages and rights, and then turn around and undermine them with your fixation on people who dare to speak Spanish around you.
But one thing I have been meaning to ask. Why is it you keep writing as though illegal immigrants aren’t already living in Fairfax or adjacent counties and have been, for the duration? All this just wait til Fairfax finds out stuff seems rather odd. Fairfax (and Arlington where I live) both have large existing populations of illegal immigrants.
Mackie,
Many things all at once. We are bad like that. JC defended Michael to Leila who said it was plagiarism. JC thinks plagiarism is nit-picking. Rick is giving us his resident shock jock redition of the day. I am jealous because the dark screen gets the dark religious satire, which I want. Rick is being mean by witholding the starfish comments.
Aren’t you sorry you asked?
I type fast and make errors but given the intelligence on this site, I didn’t feel the need to repost another post just to edit my spelling..
Leila- Get over yourself
Censored- Guess your now Leilas talking head and where have I heard the red circle referred to as Specs…hmmmmmm
Rick- OMG you are on a roll today!!!! LOVE IT…
Moon-howler: (((cricket)))) (((((cricket)))))))
So I guess we are to draw the logical conclusion then???
Mackie-
I dont think plagiarism is nit picking as a whole..Just HERE on this blog.. and as usual, Leila, Moon-howler and Censored ( Refer to them as the Pack Rats) went after Michael and in turn I thought it was no big deal where he got his dialogue but that it was rather good for debate and instead of staying on topic ( which was Ethics )
…YOU GUESSED IT..the pack rats changed agenda and now we are in the midst of word war and ohhhhhhh the fact that Leila can’t sleep and her obsession that I am obsessed with her apnea…
Just Cause, what are you smoking? I never went after Michael. I was discussing plagiarism. I generally do what WHWN does…scroll on down. I wouldn’tn expect much sympathy from Mackie when dismissing plagiarism. I know where he went to school and what they thought about the subject.
We are still discussing academic integrity and intellectual pilfering. I just think perhaps you aren’t grasping what we are trying to say, judging from your summary.
JC, Don’t you mean to call us the Rat Pack? Does that make us ratty?
Wrong Moonhowler- I guess I was a little anxious cause the main topic was ETHICS and Law
Michael ( or who-ever) made some very good points about ethics and morals and how they should go hand in hand with the law…and the debate was actually getting good and brought fourth much more to ponder then right in the midst of it….BAMMMMMM
Leila had to go and change agenda…I get the whole plagiarism thing just dont give 2 cents worth about it here…On this blog!!! and what does a persons schooling or academic integrity have to do with the discussions on this blog??? N-O-T-H-I-N-G!
I guess in the end of it all..some people are just plain insecure….
and No..I meant PACK RATS..cause you never ever blog alone…Where there is on persons opinion ( whom ever disagrees) there is always 3 more coming…
OOPS ONE instead of ON (jus so you will understand)
Just instead of Jus
(See how freaking annoying that is..to always re-post another post )
“You bring up legitimate labor concerns about wages and rights, and then turn around and undermine them with your fixation on people who dare to speak Spanish around you.”
I don’t have anything against Hispanic people. I don’t have anything against countries that speak Spanish. I do have something against the illegal influx going on here.
“But one thing I have been meaning to ask. Why is it you keep writing as though illegal immigrants aren’t already living in Fairfax or adjacent counties and have been, for the duration? All this just wait til Fairfax finds out stuff seems rather odd. Fairfax (and Arlington where I live) both have large existing populations of illegal immigrants.”
Yes. And the ones who immigrated in to PWC in the last few years are now moving to Fairfax, Arlington, and Montgomery Counties largely. They’ll now have a LARGER illegal population, something like what we had here circa 2006. Let’s see how they will react. An indication that this is happening is the influx of new school students in Fairfax, at least 1000 of whom come from PWC. Same amount of housing, same or less property tax revenue, more people enrolling at school – they will notice their standard of living declining and their tax burden increasing, just as I did.
Look at it this way – what goes up must come down. I am so much happier with my neighborhood since the illegal contingent left. i assume they will bring the same misery to the next neighbors they have.
You probably don’t think so. I say, wait and see.
And if and when it does happen, and Help Save Arlington and Help Save Fairfax get going hard and heavy, please keep the option open that the root problem is not just that there is culture clash, it is the particular culture clash of a people reducing wages and standard of living coming into a place and trying to make it like the lousy place they just came from. Not every illegal alien does that, and maybe not most. But a lot of them do, and when your neighborhood is beseiged to tens of thousands of new poor, you realize nothing good can come from that.
Rick, with all due respect, the Help Save groups rely on a foundation of prejudice and intolerance that will never again be seen in Arlington and Fairfax. In fact, it will soon be extinct in PWC.
Ironically, it seems one of our most ubiquitous Hate Bunnies has accused someone of being insecure. I think perhaps another symptom of insecurity is fretting and freaking over the fact that the public opinion pulse of Prince William County is no longer a carefully censored propaganda post that like BVBL.
Here, where there is free competition of ideas, the Hate Bunnies try to rally. But they expose the bankruptcy of their ideas by resorting to filibuster (cutting and pasting the ideas of others in order to clog up the flow of information here) and 2007-style hysteria about graffiti and excesses use of the Spanish language.
You expose your own insecurity just by posting here, Just Cause, again and again and again. This is the place where you are not insulated by misinformation, fake statistics, and a general attitude of racial scapegoating. You have to fend for yourself here. So come up with some ideas of your own and stop attacking people.
Or, at least come up with some ideas of your own in addition to attacking people.
JC,
You do realize that censored and Leila are not at my house and I have no control over whether they are blogging or not? Because 3 people are independently disagreeing with you might be a signal of something. Think about it.
Leila didn’t change the agenda. There was no agenda. Michael was also not responding. Leila left him a message about him plagiarizing. This is not a live chat room. Michael is free to come back and respond to you or Leila or both of you. If I were Michael, I would chose you. You and Michel are free to discuss whatever you want, independent of what Leila says.
I will not allow academic integrity to be dismissed any more than I would allow you to say you wrote War and Peace or take my wallet. I don’t know how else to put it. It is stealing. If you are lecturing on ethics, then doesn’t stealing academic material, however poorly written, come into play? I believe Leila was pointing out the irony of a diatribe on ethics by a person who doesn’t give an author credit for his work. Perhaps this is an insignificant topic in your world, JC, but it isn’t in mine. It can be a real career breaker.
Red Dawn, 21:23
I tried to explain who decides what is right and wrong, with three concepts cut and pasted from Wikipedia. I had to leave, so could not continue the discussion sorry. My father was in the hospital with a heart attack, but he is better now.
I really think that regardless of all the debates and hateful language thown around on this blog, the real issue about “illegal” immigration is centered on law, morality and ethnics and the determination of who is the greater wronged, the “majority” of the population, affected by “illegal” immigration or the “illegal” immigrants themselves. While I have sympathy for the conditions under which illegal immigrants live, and I know if we enforce the law those conditions will not exist, I feel the greater wrong is done to the “majority” population affected by “illegal” immigration in hundreds of widely documented ways. I know this because my wife was an “illegal” immigrant.
First “Law” decides what is right and wrong. That is voted on by our representatives and enforced by our police. It has consequences if we break it, so essentially a “judge” decides what is right and wrong by deciding who has broken the law and what the punishment will be, based on strict legal interpretation of the law and legal precedence.
Those things not covered by law are covered by morality. People and societies, and the pressure that people put on each other to conform with the majority opinion determine morality, and in the case of beliefs and religions, morality is determined for those individuals by religious doctrine and how they interpret it.
Then there is ethics, which covers whether a person should be a “radical” or not and demand that a law that is not working for the benefit of the entire society or the benefit of everyone the same regardless of race, gender, religion or ethnic group be “changed”. Ethics is the ability to make decisions about right and wrong when considering the needs of everyone, not just a few, deciding good or bad and determining the best course for a life worth living for everyone, not just a few people. Ethica and morality determine right from wrong, when you have no power under the law to enforce law on others or force others to not harm you, when they lack “ethics” for the good of all, not just a small percentage of the population they personally favor, privilege or discrimminate against.
I believe it is the only “ethical” thing to do, to prevent more people living under the misery of “illegal” immigration, to stop it, and permanently prevent new people from having incentives to come here illegally. I think not allowing amnesty of any kind (to avoid the flood of 40 million others to do the same in the future), and sending the current “illegal” people home, to discourage any furthur lawlessness and reverse the damage “illegal” immigration has already done, is still doing, and will do to the majority of people the law was designed to protect is the only moral and ethical thing to do, when you consider everyones’ rights the same, AND EQUALLY UNDER THE LAW.
I feel anyone who does not support democracy and lawfullness, and instead supports lawlessness and anarchy is comitting a moral and unethical act toward the “majority” of the people. Those who do not do this are being immoral, by being concerned only about their own racial,gender, religious or ethnic groups welfare, EXCLUDING all others. Because of this I believe groups that organize to do this are hate groups, even if they think, radicalism is a noble and just cause, but they fail because they do it only for minority group reasons and concern for just a small group, not everyone the SAME. THough they think they are being “moral” to the small group, they are being “immoral” to the large group. This very concept undermines DEMOCRACY.
Alanna, 23:56 you have a good point.
However you cannot make such a decision in isolation of all the other people affected by Cubans who make it to land and Cubans who do not. It is not that simple. Of course their ethics do not change, based on that simple of an example, but neither have they broken any law, which requires an assessment of the effect of the broken law on everyone affected by it. That is why we have law.
Leila 1:38
Point taken, I assume you are one of the “plagerism police”. Yes there was a reason, several actually.
1. I did not have time to write my own version, linking several points from several locations together to create a “different” concept.
2. I did a collage, I cut a magazine, a newspaper, and book page together to create a different form of “new art” or textual .
3. I borrowed text from a widely acknowledge “open source” (you do know there are things called “open source” that are not copy-writed don’t you?
4. I borrowed only portions of that text for personal and academic discussion (not a homework assignment) and not commercial reasons, I did not make any money from it or receive a grade for it.
5. I’m on a “blog”, not an academic institution that has plagerism rules posted with a threat to kick out their students if they are caught as punishment. I doubt Alanna or Elena is going to kick me off this blog for borrowing words from an open internet source, written by unknown and a multitude of contributing authors. Most if not all if I remember came from a wikipedia site.
6. I don’t care if you think it is some un-ethical offense, I and most others would not agree with you, I am not writing a research paper or a book for sale, or a grade.
7. Go read the laws on copy-write, if you think I have committed plagerism.
8. As you said, you could easily tell they were not my words, because I do not right like that.
9. When you copy someone else’s comments and insert them in your posts, make sure you always give them credit for those exact words.
10. I was too lazy to post a reference, sorry if I offended anyone for being in a rush.
Since my last post did not go in:
Leila, just so people don’t think you are as smart as you think you are, Wikipedia comes under the GNU Free Document license. Google that. You can “copy” it as much as you wish.
But just for you: I do not give you permission to copy any of my text and reuse it without my permission. Is that a legal copywite?
Leila, 12:12, I could care less about copy editors. I’m an Engineer, and cojuld caqre less about “syntax”, except when I’m writing software for a spacecraft. I simply type fast, and don’t want to take the time to edit it, unles I feel like it.
You get the content anfd the concept, that is all that matters as far as I’m concerned. I prefer to think of it as art, broad brush strokes, impressionism, doesn’t have to be “realistic” to help some people to “get the message”. Art and science are like that, full of approximations, heck we sent a spacecraft to the moon with that 0.000001 decimal imprecision.
O’ and some of the software on the Lunar Lander was “copied”, it came from the AV-8, and a lab of academic developers. Darn that pesky thing called LAW, it has a specific definition of Copywrite, and usually is covered by this symbol called a @. (can’t make a c )
WHWY, 13:07
I am neither ignorant nor obtuse, I simply am engaging with people who have a personal agenda and are extremely difficult to debate with or reason with, who simply do not like what I have to say. I think you will find however that my comments follow the “neutrality and justice of law” far more accurately and of “majority” opinion that the beliefs of those more “radical” rebels who propose lawlessness and anarchy as the next society they want to create and live in.
I am sincerely trying to engage with all of you on this very serious topic.
Here are my beliefs in a nutshell.
1. Democracy is the most important concept we need to support in our nation and society.
2. We have a constitution written by people far smarter than anyone on this blog and we should follow its principals, the most significant of which are
a. Freedom
b. Right to self governmemt by the people, for the people and government by a majority vote, enforced by majority law equally on everyone the same.
c. Right to bear arms should the government become legally and morally corrupt.
d. Right to treat all men equally, right to “indivdual” rights, not group rights, without discrimmination or privilege based on race, gender, religion or ethnic group.
e. Right to pursuit of happiness, liberty and justice FOR ALL, not just a small segment of the population.
f. Right to defend those rights from all enemies foreign and domestic, and from any person, group or nation who would undermine them.
None of what I have said here on this blog, goes outside those basic principals.
If some of you disagree with me and prefer anarchy and lawlesness to democracy and lawfulness, that is your problem, to figure out when the radical and socialists concepts that many profess here, begin to destroy our nation’s peace, prosperity, and stability.
I won’t horse trade IQs or “careers” with anyone, my past and present is coveted by many of my friends, but I can assure you my “peers” do not hold your belief that I am ignorant and obtuse. That is only the opinion of people who disagree with me on this blog. Call it political character assasination and political hate-mongering. I would call that comment sophmoric as well.
None of your words, or the words of others hurt me, only the ignorance of hearing it said, knowing my country and legal system will suffer for it.
Michael, you assume that if some of us don’t agree totally with you, that we are anarchists. I find that very offensive. That sort of shuts down all dialogue.
Moonhowler, 17:02
THERE is no author to CREDIT. See how quickly people make assumptions about what someone is saying and quickly twist it into something that is “gasp” “way beyond something they actually said” or conveyed.
That is the problem with politicians and people who are political animals more than the are serious thinkers.
JC was recognizing, the debate might actually lead somewhere worthwhile, instead it spiraled into “character assasination”, the lowest of political snoberies and meanness (unless you are attacked first, then it might justify a nasty snarl back”.
Was it TEDDY or FDR that said speak softly, but carry a big stick?
Would I not be labeled “unethical” if I made someone up to credit my “cut and paste” with? IT’s WIKI for freakin sake!
I’m inclined to believe JC’s initial instincts were right, there was a different agenda here, lower than plagerism.
I don’t agree Moonhowler,
I do not assume that because some of you disagree with me you are anarchists. I don’t object to disagreement and then immediately attack individuals, I only “challenge” people personally when they have said something bad about me, or attacked my character or “ethics” first. I am actually a very fair and ethical person, so you will rarely see me step outside the bounds of lawful and honorable debate. I prefer to let my brain rule my emotions, think first and then talk. It is the sign of a good leader, and I have led many in my lifetime. I said their words lead me to believe they prefer anarchy and lawlessness, over democracy and lawfulness.
Anarchy (from Greek: ἀναρχία anarchía, “without ruler”) may refer to any of the following:
A state, free from coercive authority of any kind, is the goal of proponents of the political philosophy of anarchism (anarchists).
“Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder.”[1]
“A theoretical social state in which there is no governing person or body of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder).”[2]
“Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere.”[3]
It should be noted that “ruler,” if used in the context of the third bullet point, has no explicit connection to the term “rules.” In an anarchy, as defined by the last bullet point, it is possible to have rules (laws), however, these must be agreed upon by the participants in the system, and not imposed from above, by a ruler (leader, authority). Some languages, such as Norwegian[4] have two separate words for the two meanings.
I especially see this in some of Mackies comments (not to single you out Mackie, some of what you say I agree with, but I rarely if ever desire to “attack” him personally, I prefer to challenge his “beliefs”. That is called “debate”
Michael, perhaps I mischaracterized what you thought about anarchists or I might have misread.
Actually, I don’t care whether you credit or don’t credit. Leila did ask a reasonable question of you. What JC doesn’t seem to understand is that you can talk to her and talk to Leila and that is your choice. Leila was being accused of changing the agenda. This isn’t a chat room.
i do have a problem with blowing off academic integrity. You didn’t do this and I am not accusing you of doing it.
Michael, it is very difficult to discuss an entire philosophy with someone. Why don’t you pick one of those and dangle it out there. I believe most bloggers want a quick exchange. I think you have some interesting ideas. If you presented them in smaller doses I believe things would go better. It is human nature to avoid that which is too much work.
Most people are tired, it is the end of the day….a paragraph or 2 would be a good starting point. Just a suggestion. No one will throw you off if you don’t agree to this.
Michael, sorry, just seeing your comments now. I never brought up the word copyright or mentioned any issue of law. I personally think it is unethical to reproduce a large block of text as if it were your own. It is very simple to attribute. You could just say, per a Wikipedia entry on Ethics, etc. etc. or similar. It’s amusing that you think the only form of a citation is an actual person’s name.
Also, it wasn’t a question for me whether Wiki cares if you copy from them. I am familiar with GNU, Stallman, open source, etc. However I think many people would argue that it lacks integrity to pretend that large blocks of narrative text are your own words if they are not. It takes a second of your time to attribute. It also makes your prose seem less schizophrenic since what you cut and paste and what you write are so radically different in terms of attention to error. But that’s a minor point. The only reason I brought this up at all is because you were talking about ethics.
And about your words here, no, it isn’t a legal copyright. People can quote you without permission. It is a public forum and people are free obviously to quote one another or the blog post itself just the same way as if they were standing on a street corner. Copyright (which I never brought up in relation to your cut and paste from Wikipedia) is a formal process.
I brought up copyright in making a point to JC. I never said it about you Michael and Leila didn’t use it at all. I would find the quote…but it is not important now.
Moon Howler, I think I might actually attend this time, as long as there is no human or animal sacrifice going on. It’s against my religion.
WHWN, I realize you were joking. That’s why I brought up the human-sacrifice question to Rick.
Information Only, I have no idea what goes on at their meetings, so I can’t educate you.
Contentious bunch tonight. I was out enjoying “The Lion King.”
Hakuna Matata!
Gesundheit
Emma,
I asked about the next economy sacrifice and it hasn’t been determined. Lots of vacations are going on. It was just too hard to pull off at the last film event. So stay tuned. When I find out, I will let you know.
Well said Michael…
Moon-howler- OMG GIVE ME A BREAK… you brought up copyright and all the other “laws” of academic integrity and went on a rant about plagiarism AFTER Leila hijacked the ethics debate and then you both questioned my work ethic not to mention making jokes about spelling and grammar and now I am being labeled a hate bunny. ALL this transpired because of debate derailing and disagreements…now seems you are back tracking and not defending your true intent which in reality was Character assassination.
I’m done beating this dead horse
Peace out!
Just Cause- Please re-read. I said *I* brought up the issue of copyright, not Leila.
Yes, I did speak to academic integrity. I will always think it is important. I do not like having it dismissed as something we just don’t worry about this time. Do I care if Michael dotted all his i’s and crossed all his t’s? Not particularly. However I will not have issues involving intellectual property blown off without a countercomment either.
If it isn’t something that has been important in your world, well, then it just isn’t. However, Intellectual Property has been something important in my world since I was a young child. Please do not trivialize other people’s values. Academic integrity is just one small component of Intellectual property. Don’t just take my word for this. Check out ‘intellectual property’ on any web source.
Leila did not hi jack the ethics debate. Actually there was no debate going on. She posted a comment that is very relevant to ethics.
I never questioned your work ethic. Again, reading comprehension skills. I never joked about grammar or spelling. Cut the hysteria. If I get my red pen out, you will know it. I don’t do that on a blog. It would be too much like work without pay.
Very seriously now, JC, when you come to a blog and start shrieking at people, you probably are not going to get the kind of response you want. Abrasiveness is just not going to win you friends. Secondly, this blog is not a chat room. You are treating it as such. That can be verified by observing some of your other not-so-stellar posts on other blogs.
One more thing, JC, my arguement isn’t with Michael. I don’t recall even reading his post in question. My argument was with YOU, tearing in to Leila. You seem to think some debate was going on. There wasn’t.
Leila may make any comment she wants regarding another post. She is a trusted blogger with a good reputation for accuracy and fine-tuned research. I might not always agree with her but I would NEVER challenger her research or her knowledge about such topics. She could mop the floor with me if she chose to.
and with your politically correct way to continue the character assassination, I rest my case..
does it really matter who could mop who here?? Is that what this site is really all about?
I thought this was a blog about a topic we are all passionate about and could voice opinions and concerns back and fourth but perception is that if someone makes a valid point and you or your peers disagree, then discrediting them at any cost is how the game is played and that’s where I took issue. If you cannot see the forest for the trees than continue your rant , I just hope you practice what you preach.
I think it might just be manners rather than political correctness. Why would I need to use political correctness here?
JC asked ‘does it really matter who could mop who here??’
No, this isn’t a roller derby queen contest. I was acknowledging that Leila knew a great deal more about the topic at hand than I do and if she chose to exibit her knowledge, she could surely do that. I have never known Leila to behave that way towards her friends. I hope this clarifies my statement about the mopping
For the record, my passion, if I have one, is more about HOW a political agenda was snuck into the county in a very underhanded way. I don’t think anyone supports illegal immigration, including those who aren’t documented.
Are you two done yet? 😉
JP, You will know when.
I am outraged that the law was not enforced to protect the citizens from the begining stages but I also have sense enough to know that millions and millions of people cannot be deported. I personally had the perception that PWC was becoming a 3rd world arm pit and that’s why I moved to another county and rather that was the result of illegal or Hispanics in general, I cannot directly say but I can tell you that my Community was becoming more and more diverse over the years and less attractive to its residence and then the HOA was becoming more relaxed on their policies and then over a course of time, it became an undesirable place to live. Then After meeting and talking to people (Twinad) in particular, I felt terrible about her situation and then you hear other stories and situations from both sides of the fence and again…Emotions run high and once again the mind changes. I do not know exactly where I stand in all this except that I am angry that my Government has even put me in a situation to where I have to choose.
I really do not want to give the impression that I am a hate bunny but rather a confused bunny at this point, I am sure politically you yourself could mop me but…I still am willing to give my opinions anyway…There are days I can strictly understand where Rick and Emma are coming from and then there are days when I see your point as well as Alannas..so I would assume it makes me a fence riding bunny foo foo..
JC,
I think that is a fair assessment of how many people feel about this issue. I sure don’t see any easy answers. I thank you for bringing this mixed feeling to the forefront of the conversation. Perhaps it is the most important topic we can be discussing.
People should not have to feel totally aligned with HSM or MWB. There is a huge central ground out there and I think you and I probably are sitting right in the middle of it. Again, thank you for finding that common ground, at least between us.
JC,
Nothing wrong with riding a fence in my eyes. There are legal issues, security issues, and there are human issues. Put me on that fence with you.
and thanks Moon-howler for your patience and understanding and yes, the media helps play into people that they must Choose a side…I often wondered how people could choose a side so quickly but I guess that is a mystery all in its own and through time I am sure people will switch again and again…thats the frustration.
Whew..I feel much better and I will have to admit, I thought when I came here, that I too had to choose a side…