[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> clearly signals the reference.   
   >>   
   >> So allusion is not plagiarism, even when there is no attribution.   
   >   
   > I didn't think it possible, but George Dance just paraphrased something   
   > correctly!   
      
   Evidently you also didn't think about what either the original or the   
   paraphrase actually said, did you? You and your Goon have been claiming   
   throughout that any   
   poet who uses someone else's line (with no exception for allusion) is   
   plagiarism -- or, in your words, "will be labeled as a plagiarist" by   
      
   > Go George!   
   >   
   >>> Parody and Pastiche: These forms of writing intentionally borrow from   
   >>> other works for satirical or artistic purposes. In these cases, the   
   >>> borrowing is usually obvious and part of the artistic intent.   
   >>   
   >> So pastiche is not plagiarism, even when there is no attribution.   
      
   > George is on a roll!   
      
   So that's a second exception to your Goon's claim that quoting even a   
   line is plagiarism (without qualification). Now even their "trusted   
   source" has given two exceptions: allusion and pastiche. Pity they   
   didn't read the whole thing  before they decided to copy and paste it.   
      
   >>> Public Domain: Works that are in the public domain are not subject to   
   >>> copyright restrictions.   
   >>   
   >> There is no "public domain" exception for plagiarism. If it's plagiarism   
   >> to use a line from a copyrighted work, it's plagiarism to use a line   
   >> from a public domain work.   
   >   
   > Too bad.  I thought you were going to get three in a row.   
   >   
   > The quoted passage was not talking about "plagiarism," George.   
      
   I see I have to remind you that this AI is supposed to be answering the   
   question: "if a poet uses a line from another poet in a poem of   
   >>>> his own, unattributed, does that make him a plagiarist?" If the AI is no   
   >>>> longer talking about plagiarism but has changed the subject, that's the   
   >>>> AI's problem, not mine.   
      
   > It   
   > specifically said "copyright restrictions."  These are not the same   
   > thing.   
      
   Are you trying to blame the AI's confusion of plagiarism and copyright   
   restrictions on me, somehow?   
      
   >>> In most cases, using another poet's line without attribution is   
   >>> considered plagiarism and is unethical."   
   >>   
   >> Maybe. Since Gemini AI doesn't provide any data on cases, this sounds   
   >> like pure speculation.   
   >   
   > There's no "maybe" about it, George.   
      
   Of course there is. Unlike you and your Goon, the AI admits there are   
   cases (allusion and pastiche) where using a line without attribution is   
   not plagiarism. There's no reason to think that allusion of pastiche are   
   a minority of cases.   
      
   > Most poets, most writers, and most people in general consider it to be   
   > plagiarism.   
      
   Once again, HarryLiar, neither you nor your Goon can speak for "Most   
   poets, most writers, and most people in general." As we've seen, you   
   can't even speak for your "trusted source."   
      
   > You attempted to pass an AI program off as both a "friend" and a   
   > "trusted source," George.   
      
   No, Lying Michael, the word "friend" came from you. Did you really think   
   that because you'd whined about it first, that you'd get away here with   
   making up fake quotes and attributing them to me? Considering how many   
   time you've tried it, and got caught, one would think you'd have learned   
   better by now; but evidently not.   
      
   > NancyGene has only used AI to show where your "text messages" actually   
   > came from.   
      
   No, Lying Michael, thats a lie as well. NastyGoon did not do a thing to   
   show where these so-called "text messages" (another quote you made up   
   and attributed to me) in my original posts came from. Instead, while you   
   and Kevin de Meatpuppet were whining about how "sleazy" I was for using   
   an AI as a "trusted source," NastyGoon had run off to ... consult with   
   their own source, which (surprise, surprise) also turned out to be an   
   AI.   
      
   > As I said before... you have been BUSTED!!!   
      
   Yes, AFAIK you've said that twice. Is your saying something twice now   
   sufficient for you to believe that it's true? I thought you had to say   
   it at least three times.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)