[continued from previous message]   
      
   > think of the same line; it really requires no more than two of them.   
   >>   
   >>>> Exceptions and Nuances:   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Allusion and Homage: Poets sometimes allude to or pay homage to other   
   >>>> poets by incorporating lines or phrases into their work. However, this   
   >>>> is usually done with some form of acknowledgment or in a way that   
   >>>> 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 usual, the hypocrisy runs rampant.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   Exactly, Pendragon thinks if he repeats something enough times it'll   
   eventually become true.   
      
   😏   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)