I am sorry for my delay in making a statement about the plagiarism issue that blew up on Thursday. Because of the nature of the case, there were various entities, boards and committees involved, and I did not want to make any statement that would then have to be further qualified or explained.
In the future, more might need to be said about this issue, and that might include some differences of opinion. But now is not the time or the place to try to anticipate that sort of thing. Right now, I simply want to acknowledge what happened, and take responsibility for all that I can.
On Thursday, Rachel Miller revealed that significant portions of A Justice Primer, coauthored by Randy Booth and me, had been plagiarized. The same day Canon Press discontinued the book, posted their own statement about it, as well as separate statements from Randy and from me. They can be found here. In addition, a second statement from Aaron Rench, CEO of Canon, has now been posted here.
Rachel Miller and I have clashed in the past, but on this issue I owe her my heartfelt thanks. Better this revelation now, and a resultant mess, than to have years of calm if such calm were to be purchased by means of undetected plagiarism. I am grateful to God for sending this revelation, and grateful to Rachel Miller for bringing it.
I have been friends with Randy for many years, and that friendship will continue. He has sought my forgiveness for this, and it has been extended. We are at peace with each other.
The day it was revealed, Randy resigned from the review committee that was looking into our previous two controversies. More about that can be found here. He also resigned his position on the NSA board on Thursday, and the board accepted that resignation today (Saturday), and issued a statement about it, which can be found here. Randy was already on a leave of absence from the NSA board because of his work on the review committee. His resignation was effective last Thursday.
In addition, Randy was serving as the pro tem presiding minister of the CREC. Resigning that position is a bit more complicated constitutionally, but that process has begun.
Justin Taylor made some helpful comments about publishers and plagiarism here. Canon is already in the process of contacting the authors who were plagiarized in order to apologize to them. But yesterday Canon Press took the additional step of purchasing some plagiarism software which, as Justin indicated, is not yet industry standard, but is likely to become so. They intend to incorporate that software into their editorial processes. The first thing they did with it is run my contribution to A Justice Primer through it, which came out clean.
Nevertheless, all that said, there are some significant areas where I need to take the responsibility. Let me first make a few general statements, and then follow it up with a few specifics.
I continue to affirm the principles I laid down on this same subject in my discussion of Mark Driscoll and the charge of plagiarism against him. The particularly relevant sections are #4-6. The cash quote is here: “I am nevertheless responsible for it. My name is on the cover.”
Consequently, I want to take full responsibility for having my name on the cover of a book containing plagiarized sections, and where the contributions from the authors were undifferentiated. In such circumstances, when plagiarism is detected, the one who finds it has every right to look at the cover and decide right on the spot who is responsible. The names on the cover are the ones with the authorial responsibility, which is the primary responsibility according to contract, and the editorial imprint is the one with the publisher’s responsibility, also specified by contract. Further investigation might reveal where particular culpability lies, but the responsibility for the project flows (according to God’s design) to the names on the cover.
There are two kinds of responsibility in this kind of thing. We may call them covenantal and practical. The covenantal responsibility is what is assigned because of the name-on-the-cover principle. The practical responsibility is the kind you feel when you can think of things you ought to have done differently. The responsibility I am assuming here is of both kinds. Even if there was nothing I could have done differently, I am still in an important measure responsible.
That being the case, and with all this in mind, I would first like to apologize to all the authors whose work was taken into this book and represented as quite possibly mine. I will be following this general public statement up with a letter to each of these writers in order to apologize directly. I would also like to apologize to Canon Press for urging this book project on them. They are the ones who have been financially damaged in very tangible ways by this. And last, I should apologize to New St. Andrews College. Academic integrity is the heartbeat of any academic institution, and even though the board has acted promptly and wisely in accepting Randy’s resignation, I am still distressed by the headache this has caused them.
This reality is heightened by the fact this is the second time it has happened. While it should not have happened either time, it really should not have happened the second time. (The first time was almost twenty years ago with the booklet Southern Slavery as It Was, co-authored with Steve Wilkins.) Because it has happened before, and because I am operating in an environment of hyper-scrutiny, I should have taken special precautions against the possibility of this happening. Not doing so in an adequate way was solely my responsibility.
I mentioned that I needed to state a few specifics. One of them is that after I gave my sections to Randy for editing and blending, I did not do anything more. I looked at the manuscript when it came in, but did not read through the whole book, left to right. I do not know that doing so would have changed anything, but it could have. This is an example of practical responsibility.
Taking responsibility in either sense needs to result in something concrete, and in my case it means that I will not be co-authoring any books like this anymore. I will not be putting myself in this position again.
I should also offer a last word of encouragement to those good people who are weary of controversy, particularly controversies that have my name in the middle of it. (“Doesn’t he know how to do anything else?”) My apologies to you as well. Some controversies are quite necessary, but this was not one of those. But regardless of all such circumstances, God remains constant and good. He knows what He has assigned to us.
“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, forasmuch as ye know that your labor is not in vain in the Lord” (1 Cor. 15:58).
Thank you, Doug. I appreciate this statement and the plans for the future very much.
Please, please, Pastor, with all respect, can you close the comments? I feel that they make more damage than good, and I have never really seen any fruitful thing coming out of them. The comment section here resembles more an arena for butchering -biting and devouring- one another than a place for Christian discussion.
Blessings to you!
I agree, to the extent they should be closed for this post, and off-topic comments immediately removed from subsequent posts. I would like to see the comments section restored to its generally edifying tone of several months ago.
But…off topic Dorothy Sayers discussions…? :(
1. I’d be willing to put up with that kind of thing until the trolls were excised.
2. I said “subsequent” posts. :-)
Ah, I see! I would still be quite sad.
Well, so would I. I enjoy the rollicking digressions that sometimes happen, and I wouldn’t even want to shut down some of the rabbit trails I don’t enjoy, because others consider them worthwhile. But if it’s the price of getting things cleaned out a bit…
of course now it’s all moot because nobody’s taking my advice anyway. :-)
100+ comments…yeah. I think that a judicious amount of IP blocking would help with the trolls more than closing comments – but that probably means more reporting on our parts. I’ll have to think about that.
If you see something, flag something.
I think the default setting is 3 flags remove a coment.
I have been deliberately reporting every non-substantive or repetitive accusatory comment on this thread.
I believe I shall follow your example. Thanks, Jane!
“God remains constant and good. He knows what He has assigned to us.”
These are the times that try men’s Calvinism. Happily, Calvinism is made of sturdy stuff and turns out to be exactly what’s needed.
I have been thinking today on Doug’s phrase, “God loves cliff-hangers!” :)
I have no idea how the Lord will use this whole thing to advance His Kingdom, but I know He will!
This all seems reasonable to me from Doug. I wonder if what’s happened here has given him any pause to consider possibly offering more grace and kindness to Natalie over her concerns with how she was treated? Times like this seem to help remind us we are ALL in need of God’s grace and mercy. In the end, that’s what was missing towards Natalie from her description of what occurred. The sort of grace and mercy you are seeking here Doug. The sort Jesus is really good about giving. May you experience much grace and mercy from the Lord as… Read more »
Thanks, Ryan. Are you now going to retract your previous assertion that Doug’s involvement amounted to deliberate and malicious plagarism, or will you stand by that assumption?
John Wesley? You mean this John Wesley? “Finally, has any one been accustomed to regard Wesley with dislike on account of his Arminian opinions? Is any one in the habit of turning away from his name with prejudice, and refusing to believe that such an imperfect preacher of the gospel could do any good? I ask such an one to remould his opinion, to take a more kindly view of the old soldier of the cross, and to give him the honour he deserves” (Ryle, Christian Leaders). John Wesley was an ignorant and zealous soldier of a powerless cross; a… Read more »
I wrote a comment on the previous post which I promptly removed thinking it may be more useful when this (kind of) post comes out. Now I am not so certain. Doug has taken responsibility in an appropriate way, and I don’t want to remove from his apology. Yet I think the whole question around plagiarism needs to be considered from several angles. I think it is wrong in our culture. I think that the analogy (and it is an analogy) to theft may be incorrect. So for what it is worth. I think plagiarism should be avoided in our… Read more »
To go along with some of bethyada’s points… I understand that Randy Booth has taken responsibility to own and apologize as the reason for the lack of citations. Randy and the publisher have acknowledged that the lack of citations constitutes plagiarism, so that isn’t in dispute. Canon Press has chosen to halt sales immediately, which indicates that they are taking the issue very seriously. Wilson fully supports that decision. There’s no reason to suggest that this isn’t a serious matter, or that it isn’t a gift to the posse of the perpetually peeved. Being on the front lines isn’t a… Read more »
Thank you— that’s a useful evaluation for anybody else commenting.
Luke 6:41 and 42 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42 How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. Rachel Miller has always been a speck hunter re: Wilson from what I can see. Her lexical “analysis”… Read more »
I’m glad to see that Doug has assumed full responsibility. Proof that this was not intentional is the word for word copying of definitions and just being too lazy to cite them, If Booth was doing it intentionally, surely he would know he would get caught for those. This kind of thing is so easy to prevent today that there really is no excuse for it ever happening. College students and bloggers use anti-plagiarism software exactly because we all know how easily you miss stuff. Given that it’s happened before, I would have thought this would be a no-brainer for… Read more »
What I am going to say is something that Doug probably wouldn’t agree with, and will sound like an attempt to minimize this. But I sense the need to remember that the idea of “plagiarism” as we understand it is a modern invention. Whilst there is dishonesty in representing oneself as having done work one did not do, the concept that because a truth or idea was expressed by an individual it becomes there’s is a modern notion. If one reads texts that our old, not even super old, say the puritans or anything before them, everyone is borrowing from… Read more »
Very good points. And flowing from that are questions about what constitutes just and measured consequences for Randy Booth or others in similar situations. If it was indeed it was negligence and not malice, then was his resignation from NSA really necessary? Given the sensitive nature of the CREC’s investigation and the absolute need to keep every aspect of it above reproach, I can see that one being necessary for the good of all involved. But the NSA one I can’t figure as easily. I just wonder if there ought to be room – in situations like this – for… Read more »
I have sympathy with your comment. I agree with him stepping down over the CREC investigation for the reasons you state.
You may be correct about NSA being excessive (I think it is), though given the strong admonition against plagiarism for students of NSA it may have been deemed prudent.
If NSA, and Classical Christian Education for that matter, are to be taken seriously then heads need to roll. If these men want to set the standard for neo-academia via an old tradition, then heads had to roll. If they want to be taken as serious scholars, then heads had to roll. This is lazy scholarship –period. There is no excuse for lazy scholarship. NSA doesn’t tolerate lazy scholarship nor should they. At least not if they want to be taken as a serious institution. Doug can’t have this if he wants to be taken as a serious scholar. Canon… Read more »
Maybe you know more about the specifics than I do. Like I said, I leave open the possibility that Booth’s departure from NSA is the right thing to do, but all I know in the way of specifics is what was released in the statements linked to, and the most that was said was that Booth drew on old notes and lectures that may have had material from others that – years later, he hadn’t realized weren’t simply his own thoughts at the time. One would have to know the details to know exactly how egregious or understandable it was… Read more »
Excuse me, I didn’t finish my thought there. What I meant to say was not simply that we might leave zero room for malice-free mistakes of attribution, but that we leave zero room for anyone in those situations to remain on staff – in other words, might find ourselves espousing a principle that leaves even the most complex, understandable, and accidental instances of plagiarism as considered still too egregious to retain a scholar, professor, etc.
I am not an academic and I am in agreement with you. But that requires a conversation to be had in this country about the nature of ideas. My husband, who is an academic, said about Wilson, “Once; you can survive. Twice; that get’s a lot harder.” He, like Doug, believes in the standard. He sees it intrinsically related to Christianity and that is why the West places such a high value on it. He does not see Randy’s confession as him taking an out. He is not sure which is worse: to say it was intentional or to admit… Read more »
I liked how Bayly explained how easily something like this can happen. Check out his blog
“Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
but trust him for his grace;
behind a frowning providence
he hides a smiling face.
His purposes will ripen fast,
unfolding every hour:
the bud may have a bitter taste,
but sweet will be the flower.”
William Cowper, God Moves In A Mysterious Way
The saints at Christ Church Twin Cities are trusting God with you for his grace, awaiting with you the sweetness of the flower.
A well written apology for not doing anything wrong! I’m sorry but….MY part of the book passed the new program. I take FULL responsibility but…. I really don’t see how I am responsible.
If you take responsibility why isRandy the only one being punished?
There are two kinds of responsibility in this kind of thing. We may call them covenantal and practical. The boss owns up to what happened in his business, though he may not have performed the action that was criticised. A father may take responsibility for his son’s actions but he didn’t say the actual insult or steal the lollie. Doug was co-author, not editor, so he is taking the rap beside Randy rather than above Randy. I believe in the previous book he thought he was more responsible (even though the actions were another’s)? Our current generation baulking at taking… Read more »
You can’t say you take full responsibility and then not TAKE the responsibility.
And an apology with a “but” isn’t an apology. Learned that in grade school.
I apologize but… MY part of the book isn’t at fault here. His name is on the front. He took credit for the whole book but is qualifying his part in the fault.
Randy is being put through the ringer and Doug is what? Nothing more than simply saying he takes responsibility but not really because it’s all Randy’s fault.
‘C, with attribution, here is what Wilson is taking “full” responsibility for: “There are two kinds of responsibility in this kind of thing. We may call them covenantal and practical. The covenantal responsibility is what is assigned because of the name-on-the-cover principle. The practical responsibility is the kind you feel when you can think of things you ought to have done differently. The responsibility I am assuming here is of both kinds. Even if there was nothing I could have done differently, I am still in an important measure responsible.” It is not correct or accurate, but rather dishonest for… Read more »
“Right now, I simply want to acknowledge what happened, and take responsibility for all that I can.”
Right here Doug doesn’t take full responsibility.
I will take their version of the story at face value. And I think Doug did state that his name is on the cover and therefore there is no excuse. I don’t see this as not his fault, rather I see him more at fault since this isn’t the first time he has been down this path. And he confessed that as well. He should have done a better job since he has been here before. There will be consequences for him, even if not in his church. This is a big gaping wound right now, so don’t assume he… Read more »
And speaking of a boss taking responsibility and dads taking responsibility. Pretty sure in history CEOs have stepped down for actions of their employees and dads have resigned from positions of elder preacher etc… For the actions of their children.
Doug isn’t doing anything. He wrote a blog about how he’s not responsible but sorry he made the mistake of putting his name on a book with someone who is and won’t do it again.
Meanwhile his defenders are trying to make sense of this by trying to redefine plagiarism and talking of how it’s an out of date concept.
So you think Wilson should lie? That’s a pretty amazing claim. Yes, CEOs have stepped down, but that is more complex and quite often unjustified. CEOs should not step down for the errors of others. They should step down for their own and if creating a certain kind of culture or allowing certain things is their fault, then they should step down. However, many of those occasions are merely scapegoating, an attempt to make other people feel good by giving in to unreasonable demands from uneducated and unthinking people. The problem is that loud mouths don’t usually come with reason.… Read more »
I don’t think the book was divided into Randy’s section and Dougs section was it? Dougs name was on the cover claiming the book as much his as Randy’s. Profits to be made as much Dougs as Randy’s. No?
“Something he has nothing to do with.” REALLY?
Writing a book is a bit different than riding in a car.
What exactly did Wilson do wrong? Please be very clear and very specific.
“Pretty sure in history CEOs have stepped down for actions of their employees and dads have resigned from positions of elder preacher etc… For the actions of their children.”
As far as I know Doug isn’t Randys CEO, employer, pastor, or father.
If we are going to mention CEOs, let’s not forget university presidents. Perhaps Abc, RyanSather, GraceTruth and the posse of the perpetually peeved are attempting the Mizzou power play. I think one of the rules for radicals is to keep repeating personal verdicts and demands until you get what you want. If that doesn’t work, will they go on a hunger strike soon? Based on The Free Speech Apocalypse documentary, the strategy seems to be about winning coerced apologies, as a way of announcing who is in power to demand cultural apologies. Although, in my view, this tactic actually just… Read more »
This ain’t your grandma’s passive-aggression.
So— what should Doug do? Seriously, in your opinion should he resign as a pastor, pay damages to the authors plagiarized, commit suicide, stop writing books…. It’s quite right that confession is usually not enough, but what can be done here? (the book’s already withdrawn, which is some punishment)
Yes they have. That is why I used the example. But if a CEO steps down he is doing so in what Doug describes is covenantal responsibility. Were he to say that he actually committed the theft he would be lying. So the examples I gave are to show what Doug means by covenantal and practical. However a CEO and father are covenantally responsible because they lead. As co-author Doug is in an equal relationship (analogous to brothers) not an authoritative relationship (analogous to father and son). I am not claiming it is out of date, quite the contrary, that… Read more »
Wilson is responsible for the book. He is an author. The fact that he is letting his writing partner take the fall shows exactly Wilson’s level of ethics here. He throws his co author under the bus like a coward crowing as if a hero: ‘Randy has sought my forgiveness in this and it has been extended.’
Remember this the next time he vomits a call to ‘manly’ responsibility. He would have been fired or asked to resign from any credible university or organization that takes creative ethics seriously.
He would have called for his own resignation you know…. If it wasn’t actually him.
That’s what’s most amazing to me about this. These people don’t won’t or can’t see that.
Resignation from what? The book, at the moment is “resigned”.
Booth resigned from some board positions but is still a pastor as far as I can tell.
‘C, what positions do you think Wilson should resign from, due to lack of citation by a co-author / editor, in the book?
By the way ‘C, you sound a lot like Katie Botkin, which does not mean that you are her, it’s just that you and she seem to speak in the same “voice”.
Putting aside the fact that he just did take responsibility, what standard of manly responsibility has Doug gone against?
If you are accusing him of being hypocritical for going against the standard he has often written about – the God given standard of responsibility for men – are you conceding that such a standard exists?
Accsuing anyone of violating some standard laid down by some imaginary deity would be silly to me. Like me suggesting you are violating the standard of Baphomet or Ra. So no.
And now you know how dismissable where you are going with that is. Because my suggestion is rightfully laughable to you.
“He throws his co author under the bus like a coward crowing as if a hero:”?
Randi, it is untrue to say that Booth is being thrown under the bus. Booth says he was the one who made the errors in question.
Wilson did not make the errors in question, but does concede shared responsibility.
“The fault dear Randi is not under the bus, but in ourselves.”
You want Wilson under the bus, and are disapointed that he is not.
Where is your sense of “altruistic group ethics”? ; – )
Wilson is the author. He holds responsibility. This is his second plagiarism. I suppose only in Christian publishing do you get to keep ‘credibility’ with your readers.
Honesty Randi: Wilson is the co-author. He holds co-responsibility. This is his second co-plagiarism. (lack of citation) I suppose only in Christian co-publishing do you get to keep ‘co-credibility’ with your readers. The reason Wilson has credibility, is that this problem, a technical error, missed attribution / citation, was inadvertant by the co-writer editor, and missed by Wilson, when Wilson read the draft. When the error was brought to their attention, they acknowledged the error and withdrew the publication. The honorable thing to do. Joe Biden got to keep his career after his personal lack of attribution was discovered. MLK… Read more »
Wilson has now twice been called out for this offense. The worst offense in journalism and creative ( or non creative writing as is th case here) there is. He has now had to retract two books in his lifetime. I suppose that his someone else’s fault as seems to always be the case with this guy. His standard tap dance with its ‘apology’ worn like a book jacket is not very convincing. Even so, it certainly doesn’t excuse his participation as an author in this aborted work. And your argument is that he should get a pass because other,… Read more »
“Wilson would be clucking like a chicken if this was one of his enemies would he not?”
If it’s no big deal then why is Booth stepping down from all these roles? Why doesn’t Doug support booth staying in his roles?
I suppose Booth is stepping down from some of his board roles because, an an author/editor, he made a lack of citation error, albeit unintentional. I don’t see that he is stepping down as a pastor.
Perhaps he stepped down to satisfy you ‘C! Are you satisfied?
Finally, when will you cite The Jackson 5 for your Disqus name?;-)
The Jackson 5 thing, that’s funny, a little levity is a good thing in this place.
Amen to that Mr. President!????????
Ha! ;) they don’t own the alphabet!
Selective outrage is the name of the game these days. If Doug jaywalked across a street, some folks here would argue for 15 years hard time, no chance of parole.
Wilson is under the bus to anyone but his sycophants. A two time plagiarist who fancies himself an author that will ever be taking seriously outside of his core sect is delusional.
Yes. The sixty or so books he’s written were probably just group delusion. Authorship, indeed. The impertinence. Why, Randman is more of an author than Doug, what with incessant commenting and all.
So quantity of published books has anything to do with content? L Ron Hubbard is the most published author of all time. Draw your own conclusions.
In fact, Wilson confesses to not reading the final draft of the book, a pretty remarkable confession. He hasn’t read his own book, even to proofread his co–author. That is a humbling confession, and he deserves credit for making it.
“He would have been fired…”
Do you have examples to prove the veracity of this statement?
You can do a simple google search about it?
I am not suggesting that Wilson step down here. Step down from what? His splinter church? Merely that there is a higher standard of accountability out there than in this sectarian community.
Wilson is the king of his little self-appointed fiefdom. I don’t expect any rigorous journalistic standards to be held to by religious publishers or readers here. After all it took an outsider doing what amounted to very little checking.
Not being a publisher or an author, I know next to nothing about these things. However, it seems to me that it would have been the publisher’s responsibility to do the plagiarism check; and after the slavery pamphlet, one would think they would be doing that religiously; no pun intended. That seems negligent on their part, but it seems to me that you are being overly harsh about their journalistic standards.
As has been stated elsewhere here, there are plenty of software solutions. But even so, writers write. Publishers publish and this is perhaps the most damning slip up possible for either role.
One strike and you are out as far as credibility is concerned in my book. Wilson is on number two.
I am not being to hard here. Just how it is.
Where can we read RandMan’s book? Why should anyone want to appeal to RandMan’s book? Is it authoritative, or self-appointed?
Does RandMan’s book not distinguish degrees of plagiarism? Or does it assume that everyone who ever failed to correctly and completely attribute every phrase ever used first by someone else, must have done so for utterly malicious reasons?
Didn’t realize I had to write a book to have an opinion about creative ethics and responsibilities. My bad. Wilson admits his plagiarism. And I of course claim no malice here- that would be dumb. Just shoddy workmanship… again.
RandMan referred to his book, but it appears that nothing is actually in writing after all. None of it is subject to review. Instead, RandMan is free to make it all up as he goes. He’s not tied down to anything. His ethical opinions are free and creative, like the choice of an icecream flavor each new day. You see, atheists like RandMan and others are still trying to inflict maximum damage when we Christians fail to meet our own standards, but this is opportunistic. They expect that we will be in damage-control mode, and will just overlook that they… Read more »
Randi, speaking of google searches, are you the original “randman”? If not, did you cite the original randman? You may well have, I just don’t know. ; – ) “TOP DEFINITION “randman A randman is nutcase, a crazy person, and doesn’t notice or care if everybody around him thinks he’s wacked out. The term became widely known among Florida cell phone tower builders and in various online communities where a legendary poster with the same name made himself famous. It is quite common now to describe an odd ball as a randman.” “Look at that randman go on and on… Read more »
Why ad hom me adad? Unnecessary. If you are getting frustrated, then maybe just don’t comment- supposedly no one cares. right?
Ah Randi, no “ad hom” intended! I did not know until I googled it, that “randman” was urban slang for a blog comment spoiler guy, which it seems, you like to be! If you knew of this definition of “randman”, I could see how you might use it as an Internet text version of your “Jolly Rodger”, aka, pirate flag. As far as attribution goes, I doubt that you are the original randman of the urban slang definition. Please confirm. If not, maybe you should put “randman” in quotes.; – ) Incidentally, I don’t think you are all that whacked… Read more »
‘Cute-sy’ as my commercial art teacher used to say with a disappointed smirk.
David Giese?(sp?) Of the U of I?
Any history on your definition of “randman”?
So, in your view, it makes no difference which of the co-authors failed to cite references, if a book contains plagiarized material, all authors are equally responsible. Is that what you are saying?
Yes. Take responsibility for your work and your partnerships. Not stealing from others is one of a writer or creative’s foremost responsibilities. Imagine if a recording artist had sampled another record in multiple places and then put it out as their own. Then claimed, ‘Oh, I didn’t know! Yes, my name is on the record and I would have taken the glory record sales, and royalties as a songwriter, but now that it is a problem… my co producer really did it!’ Then we learn this is not the first time that this has happened in their career? My confidence… Read more »
Like Vanilla Ice? Or Metallica useing Dave Mustains work on their first two albums?
Yes, exactly like vanilla ice. He stole Bowies riff and lied about it or was just too dumb realize it as theft. Either way responsible.
Mustaine was a violent drunk, got fired and had some of his cowrites subsequently recorded on a huge record. Ka-ching. Not plagiarism.
“Imagine if a recording artist had sampled another record in multiple places…” Imagine practically every rap tune written in the ’80s and ’90s. Not only was this heinous practice quite ubiquitous for 2 or 3 decades, but it was like an aural Easter Egg hunt in which only audiophiles could participate. RARE was the recording artist who gave credit to the original artist after blatantly sampling and looping their work. So common was this unimaginable hypothetical of yours that there are still artists to do it today. In fact, rather than get mad over the plagiarized tune/riff/beat, the original artist… Read more »
In fact, I, Malachi, want to introduce an entirely new and orginal phrase:
“Imitation is the serverest form of flattery!” ; – )
If Doug Wilson thought it was Godly and honest to adopt the kind of attitude his supporters have here, he wouldn’t have apologized as he did. He knows how to take masculine responsibility. Some of Doug’s problems arise from these kinds of remarks in the peanut gallery. Doug knows this stuff doesn’t fly. Doug’s words were not “minor citation” but rather “significant portions”. The comments here are just the kinds of consequences he was expecting and also what he was apologizing for bringing on himself. His peers in the publishing world do not take this as lightly as you all… Read more »
Wrong again Memi, here is a more prophetic thing Wilson said earlier; ” “It is quite easy for me to envision a situation where an author is responsible for plagiarism, misquotation, or a screwed up citation, but not be guilty of it. It is always proper to hold the author responsible, but if in the heat of controversy people are demanding that he acknowledge his personal guilt, as though it did it himself on purpose, his refusal to do so might not evidence a lack of integrity, but rather the opposite. Keep that in mind as one of the possibilities.”… Read more »
Not going to argue about this. Do as you see fit – knock yourself out. But I take Wilson’s words over yours, indeed he did speak for himself. If you read more carefully, you will note that I did not say the charge was that Wilson never admits he is wrong. He obviously has a different standard for his work than you do.
” it lends credibility to the charge that Doug’s followers will never admit he is wrong. It does appear that some of his followers won’t admit he was wrong even when Doug Wilson confesses that he was wrong. ” You words Memi, not Wilson’s. Wilson holds himself to the highest standard, that is why he behaves as he has in this minor citation issue. Some critics are trying to make this technical error of 2+/- missed citations into a moral fault that it is not. As a study in contrasts, 1/3 of MLK’s dissertation was uncited when it should have… Read more »
Obviously, even with quoting you still have a hard time reading. I did not say Doug doesn’t take responsibility, not even close. Nor did I say that was the charge, not even close. But it was a good try, thank you for playing.
I am addressing the ideas you attribute to nebulous “others”. For example “critics” does not equal Memi.
Read more slowly and think more carefully Memi. ; – )
FYI – just something for you to consider. Before Thanksgiving, this site was barely noted in Alexa ratings. The sex scandals, though public, were barely noticed. This morning, Doug’s Alexa rating is 173,044. The world is watching. Rachel’s Alexa rating 1, 437,555. People aren’t getting their information from her. Please tell me you all know about Alexa ratings. . .
Don’t know anything about Alexa ratings. I am happy to hear that “the World is watching” so to speak! Who exactly Ordains such things? Not Memi and not “A” dad.
Every comment I make is written with the knowledge that God does have some poor angel writing down this entire pathetic conversation. I am not concerned about myself. Rachel Miller should be concerned about herself.
“Imagine practically every rap tune written in the ’80s and ’90s.”
see also the ‘amen break’
This was of course common in the early days of sampling until people started getting sued for it and losing. But that is not what I was talking about. It is unethical and while it occasionally still happens, you have to clear samples. No record label wants to get stuck in a lawsuit over uncleared recordings.
And which recording artist chalks actual theft of their hard work up to flattery? Specifically? I’m calling BS on that one. I you can even find one, I guarantee that their theif isn’t selling any records.
Also with music there is more tolorence for similarity than with books, eg.
RandMan is back to using the word “stealing” and adds the example of sampling another musician’s record to pass off as their own. In other words, Randman is back to assuming malice on the part of Wilson. I called him on this before, and he tried to deny it, but RandMan still thinks that Wilson is the one with the credibility problem.
I deny it again. I don’t think there was malice. There is simply plagiarism.
Round two of plagiarism on Wilson’s part.
RandMan is full of denials, yet he continues to use comparisons that entail malice. “Stealing” samples from another musician’s music to pass off as your own, for gain, is malicious. Perhaps RandMan was so eager to accuse that he didn’t have time to think through just what form his accusations should take. In the meantime, we have a book by Wilson and Booth that is full of attributions to other authors. This is considerable evidence that there was no intent to broadly pass off the work of others as their own. In those places where there was a failure to… Read more »
I think you should go back and read Doug’s work on Covenantal Responsibility, and then read his statements as they applied to Mark Driscoll and his confession above. This is exactly what Doug believes. That does not mean both men are equally guilty, but both are equally responsible. As the title of this post says, “The Name on the Cover”.
I wasn’t aware Doug had any credibility in your book to start with. How much negative credibility has he accumilated?
I’ve had interactions with RandMan about ethical standards and foundations before. As an atheist, he took the materialist position and wasn’t able to come up with any basis for prescription, let alone a standard of ethics. In atheism, all that exists are self-appointed ethical fiefdoms, because his accidental universe is on autopilot with nowhere to go and no moral magnetic field. I’m sure that RandMan would rather not talk about that anymore, and would rather assume a moral high ground that he doesn’t even have access to. He would rather assume malice without demonstrating it. He would rather pin everything… Read more »
Of course the bible is no place to find ethics unless of course you value murder, genocide, incest and rape with your peace and love. Randman is always happy to discuss this with katecho. And no Randman is neither happy nor unhappy that christianity is currently in decline. And he does not view baby J as a threat of any kind. He dismisses him with the ease that katecho dismisses the other 300 or so gods currently worshiped on planet earth. Randman does enjoy talking with conservative christians because they speak to his former pre-apostate self and the views of… Read more »
Of course the bible is no place to find ethics… if you are incapable of rational thought and/or wedded to a sophomoric tantrum of a worldview. For those not burdened with RandMan’s infirmities, the Bible tells the story of humanity with God and without God. Its purpose is to turn the honest reader’s attention to Him. On purely literary grounds, RandMan is incorrect. We can turn to multiple genre’s where murder, genocide, incest and rape are not used as ends in themselves, but as a means to teach and enlighten us about greater things than ourselves. So its not just… Read more »
Ah, so for example, your god commanding the genocidal slaughter and rape of the Midianites was a metaphor for us to learn from? Interesting lesson. Lot drunkenly sleeping with his own daughters who he previously was going to toss to a mob for raping… also top shelf lesson there. Good thing your god spared him for that… mysterious ways.
Weirdly, I am not feeling very enlightened.
Where did God command the rape of the midianites?
Now kill all the boys and all the women who have slept with a man. Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves. Numbers 31:7-18 NLT
Allowing the young virgins to be kept as spoils of war is not a command to rape them.
Keep telling yourself that. Because all bloodthirsty armies with a command to decorate a population and take female humans as spoils of war treat them as if they are their date to the cotillion.
Given the Isrealites disobediance to Gods command to drive out all the inhabitants of the land, Im not sure how bloodthirsty they were.
This is why I can’t take RandMan seriously. He just keeps repeating his ad hominem charges against God as if repetition will make them true. We’ve refuted his nonsense before. There is no mention of rape in this passage, but merely the sparing of the life of virgin girls. These would have been infants up to around age 13, meaning that the average age would have been about 6 or 7. This is an age of dependence. Israel would have had to care for these spared girls. On average they wouldn’t have been old enough to even do chores to… Read more »
First of all the very idea of you crying ad hom against a god just made me belly laugh. I guess neither of us can now take the other seriously!
And to address your point. Of course a marauding army of genocidal maniacs with the idea of their god commanding them to slaughter and conquest the remaining win would have treated these virgins with kid gloves. Of course they would have katecho… ISIS anyone? Every other army in the history of mankind? You are really out on a limb brother.
RandMan appears to be blinded by visions of modern day ISIS. He sees what he wants to see. What he doesn’t seem to realize is that Israel was not a marauding army when God liberated them from Egypt. They were a bunch of slaves. God is the one who turned them into an army to execute His judgment in the region of Canaan. This was not Israel’s fight. We know this because Israel was not permitted to spare or take plunder in most cases. It was all devoted to God. Israel was permitted to spare some of the Midianites, perhaps… Read more »
I see an apologist for rape and genocide who is fooling himself. Sure katecho, a maniacal army egged on by a maniacal deity ushered the virgins into a gentle life of servitude and respect. Got it. I would ask you if you could see how utterly ridiculous that is on all levels, but you seem committed to a reframe of genocide and rape. As far as ISIS goes, they are doing the exact same thing that your scripture describes. Killing and raping in the name of their god and their god-given rights, rationalized by the knowledge that they know what… Read more »
Your inference about what the Israelites did with the young female Midianites says more about your own motives than it does about the teaching of Scripture. You are reading in between the lines a motivation which is simply foreign to the text. The fact that this motivation is so obvious to you says more about your character than it does about the ethics of Scripture. We all understand now what you would have done were you in that situation. Thank you for informing us.
No denial? You really only have three options: 1) acknowledge that a reasonable person who is aware of the outrageous forced violation of Dinah (Gen 34:7), and also most likely living among a people who are heavily populated with males, would not think to rape a group of young girls spared from destruction, but seek to care for them and eventually marry them; 2) maintain that the only reasonable inference to draw from the sparing of young women would be to understand those young women as “free to rape;” or 3) understand that sticking to your guns on point two… Read more »
You create a false dilemma my friend. The inference I take from the phrase ‘keep the virgins for yourselves’ (after you massacre and entire people in a genocidal blood bath including already post-virginal woman and male babies) is not ‘seek to care for and eventually marry’. History has not shown us that is the case in war. Need I start listing examples? Or are you not a masochist after all.
Once again, that inference is only obvious to the perverted. No one with a biblical worldview, formed by serious interaction with the Torah, would agree with your inference. If you are allowed to read in between the lines whatever motivations seem reasonable to you, then I am allowed to condemn you by telling you your intentions. You keep condemning the Bible on the basis of the claim that the Bible commands rape. You make this claim on the basis of an inference, namely it is obvious that anyone who hears “keep the young virgins for yourselves” would understand the phrase… Read more »
I read a rabbinical commentary that said the purpose of sparing the very young virgins was that they could be accepted as proselytes and would be eligible for marriage into the Jewish priesthood. Unfortunately the same commentary set the age at 3 and one-half!
Remember the difference between the Jewish betrothal system and ours. Joseph and Mary were husband and wife before they came together.
“The inference I take from the phrase ‘keep the virgins for yourselves’ (after you massacre and entire people in a genocidal blood bath including already post-virginal woman and male babies) is not ‘seek to care for and eventually marry’.”
They were likely to be kept as slaves and or concubines, which is likely not worse than they would have been treated in their own scociety.
Is that what they were likely to do? According to what historical account. What does making a woman your wife or mistress mean to a bronze age conquerer. I’ll let you imagine. Certainly not a ‘covenant’ relationship.
But all in all a adequate rationalization for wickedness and subjugation of others.
Minor point, the command to kill everyone but the young virgins was from moses because the people had already taken captives.
“What does making a woman your wife or mistress mean to a bronze age conquerer. I’ll let you imagine. Certainly not a ‘covenant’ relationship.”
What does making a woman your wife or mistress mean to any conqurer of any age?
“But all in all a adequate rationalization for wickedness and subjugation of others.”
I am merely arguing that you are wrong in saying the Isrealites were commanded to rape the midianites.
There’s no reason to make that inference, or at least, there’s no reason to assume that inference is more correct than the behavior that is actually authorized by the same law-giver, that of taking them as wives or concubines at the appropriate time.
Putting aside for a moment the obvious wickedness of this god commanding human beings as spoils of war, and his desire for these objectified prizes to be made wives and concubines of their conquerers, I would prefer to make an inference based on what we know of human behavior in wartime. You can keep telling yourself that somehow the Israelites were different. Thought experiment: I am assuming you would be okay if the Israelites rolled into your town under god’s dictate, murdered everyone you know save your daughter and ‘made her a wife or concubine’. It is morally bankrupt to… Read more »
Whoops! somehow I was here at the right or wrong time!
Just being silly here Randi, but could your comments about the Old Testament be considered anti-semitic?
In any case, good thing neither you nor me, are the “arbiter of morality”.
The issue is not whether or not the Israelites were different, the issue is the substance of God’s commands. You are inferring a command that is not there based on your reading of of history. This is not a good way to represent the commands of others. You do not like it when others interact with you in this way.
You have got to be kidding. Yes, when I command genocide I want to make sure my other command to ‘keep the virgins for yourselves’ is strictly understood to mean ‘y’now, for yourselves in a nicest possible way.’ But please massacre all of their mothers and younger brothers in front of them. Every last one.
Oh, I understand what you are saying. You are saying that you are pro-rape. Yes? Gay marriage is a perversion and you are in favor of that, so obviously you are also in favor of rape. It doesn’t really matter if you actually state that you are against rape, because I infer that you are not on the basis of your acceptance of what I consider an abomination.
Thank you for teaching me that method of interpretation. I will be sure to use it on your future comments.
So you are saying in convoluted sarcasm that this version of god being pro-genocide doesn’t automatically tar him with the rape brush… and how dare I!? That is a truly bizarre argument.
I wouldn’t describe the destruction of the Midianites as genocide, but yes that sums it up quite well… except for the adjectives bizarre and convoluted. Those do not appear to be accurate. I think most reasonable people do not particularly enjoy misrepresented in any area. I know that I do not like having words attributed to me which I have explicitly condemned in other places. Typically when I say something which might have the effect of scandalizing others, I don’t then consider myself free game to be misrepresented in other areas. You are pro-sodomy. I consider sodomy a terrible abomination.… Read more »
You are being disingenuous to think that ‘keep the virgins for yourselves’ means anything less than subjugation and slavery with all it’s attendant human suffering. At best forced marriage and rape. Be real.
As far as you crying about misrepresentation, go reread your posts to me- starting from the first one.
I am interacting with your claim that God commands rape, a non-existent command which you have inferred from God’s instruction to Israel to “keep the young virgins for themselves.” What do you call an individual who reads perversity into commands which are not perverse? To the defiled, all things are defiled. I read the instruction and I know exactly what it means. You are scandalized at the thought that it could mean anything other than what you understand it to mean. To suggest a different reading, a reading which better harmonizes with the prohibitions we find in the Law is… Read more »
Well, what ever you need to imagine to feel good about the text you apologize for. Carry on.
p.s. Ad hom is not a great way to argue.
I make no apology for the Bible. Unless you are using the word in the sense of “defense,” though I doubt that is what you mean. I find every one of God’s laws morally perfect. It is a remarkable book.
I think the destruction of the Midianites was justified and the sparing of the virgins merciful.
Randman: “oh you know what it means?”
Randman: “oh come on… You know”
Randman: “you know!”
Tim: “yah they are getting married.”
Randman: “No man! It’s about rape!”
Tim: “Isn’t that a perverted way of looking at it?”
Randman: “that’s ad hominem!”
I don’t think RandMan is subconcioisly confessing anything about himself. I think he’s operating under the assumption that Isrealites can not have evolved a morality superior to other cultures of the time or later times.
I agree with you. RandMan’s motivations are most likely more complicated than I am making them out to be. As long as RandMan is intent on dogmatically accusing God of commanding perversity, I am intent on accusing him of perversity. Whatever the rules are, we ought to apply them evenly across the board. I think it is foolish to read in between the lines inferences about a person’s character on the basis of one’s general knowledge of human nature. Randman feels entirely comfortable doing this with God’s command to “save the virgins for themselves.” If RandMan feels comfortable making his… Read more »
“As long as RandMan is intent on dogmatically accusing God of commanding perversity, I am intent on accusing him of perversity. ”
Being dogmatically illogical in response to someone being dogmatically illogical will only result in a mad hatter tea party.
There is a place to answer a fool according to his folly. But yes, an extended mad hatter tea party is not desirable.
I think your repeated attempt to reframe my comments as perverse is an obvious argumentative ploy. Christopher is correct jn that I am not going give the Israelites dome sort of historically undeserved pass. The fact of the matter is that rape is a historical tool of war, and an ancient invading army in the grips of revenge and god-commanded bloodlust is going to behave accordingly.
You don’t have morality on your side here and you certainly don’t have history. To resort to ad hom is telling.
Interesting. Well this is my last attempt to help you understand logical consistency. You can have the last word if you want. So this God you disbelieve in says that rape is an outrageous thing that ought not to be done in Israel (Gen 34:7) and commands the death penalty for rapists (Deu 22:25). This God also instructs his people to keep alive for themselves “all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him” (Num 31:18). You want to interpret God’s words in Numbers 31:18 as “a command to rape,” despite the fact that God routinely… Read more »
Here is my last word: of course think whatever you want to think. It is clear to me (and just about anyone other than a reformed calvinist apparently) the immorality of this. Genocide and the commanded subjugation of other humans is enough. You are welcome to this idea of a god. But you give up the right to claim god given morality. Even the TAG circular kind. Parsing out whether or not rape occurred doesn’t even really matter- It is clear what happens to women as spoils of war. And besides Numbers, there is of course other equally immoral biblical… Read more »
That is correct. Thank you for that.
It’s not a matter of what Randman “would” do. It’s what God (or Moses, if you prefer to keep it in human terms) DID do. The treatment of women and children is prescribed, and did not permit what you’re projecting.
Did some people violate those laws? Yes. But you can’t impute that to the laws themselves. There are laws given by the same law-giver who is authorizing the conquest of the Midianites, concerning the treatment of women with whom you have sexual relations, and there’s no scope in them for sexual slavery.
The alternative to God commanding these human beings to be treated as spoils of war is His commanding them to be slaughtered or left to starve. There is no third option given the context.
The Midianites were not a bunch of Buddhists sitting around quietly when the Israelites came calling. They were a society that had made war on Israel, and sacrificed their own children as a matter of course. How would the noble Randman suggest dealing with them, given the realities of life two millennia before Christ? I’m curious.
So they deserved it and god should be commended for his sparing of the virgins. How convenient.
What would I suggest? I am not the imaginary vengeful deity who has to answer for genocide nor a rationalizing follower who has the unfortunate problem of apologizing for the bible and it’s bronze age dictates.
But how about not being a capricious monster playing dolls with human beings who have the capacity of suffering? That would be a good start for a god.
But you would punish Wilson.
[100 years in the future]
… oh that’s nothing. Get this, there actually were people who condemned God, saying he was “a capricious monster playing dolls with human beings who have the capacity of suffering”, while AT THE SAME TIME condemning any attempt to outlaw abortion!
I didn’t say they deserved it. I asked you a question: if bloodthirsty culture made war on your people, and you were constrained by second millennium BC levels of civilization and technology, what would you do? Would you just let your people group be overrun? Or would you conduct a war, and if so, how would you conduct it and how would you deal with survivors who could not provide for themselves? If you’re going to sit on judgment on how things were done, it would be good to explain what your superior moral vision actually entails. Then we can… Read more »
If I were a god existing outside of time, with the ability to create a universe with hundreds of millions of galaxies each containing as many stars and an uncountable number of planets with the snap of my fingers, I might not waste my time waiting till figurative 11:59pm to create a life form that I could play house with. The very idea is preposterous. My superior moral vision would not be to create life capable of suffering and then make them suffer. It is fairly simple. (And pre-emptively, please spare me the circular logic that without god there can… Read more »
Nor can you invoke any standard by which to judge anything other than yourself, from within yourself. But point taken.
“I might not waste my time waiting till figurative 11:59pm to create a life form that I could play house with. The very idea is preposterous.”
If you are outside of time a figurative 11:59pm is meaningless.
To my point yes. So is creating life and torturing them.
“Woe to him who strives with him who formed him, a pot among earthen pots! Does the clay say to him who forms it, ‘What are you making?’or ‘Your work has no handles’? Woe to him who says to a father, ‘What are you begetting?’or to a woman, ‘With what are you in labor?’” – Isaiah 45:9-10 That is how God answers that accusation. Doesn’t complaining about the suffering on the world boil down to being mad at God for not creating the universe for your pleasure? You are proving the the two tennents of atheism, 1 there is no God… Read more »
Ah yes… god works in mysterious ways! Who are we to ask questions of the great oz. Please. To your second paragraph, no, it does not. Being mad at god is just another religious fetish, but recognizing suffering is to simply be alive and has nothing to do with complaining at all. To do this and have true compassion for one’s self and others who suffer is part of a skillful path. You can reach for a solution to suffering without reaching for god by default. The buddhist way does this rather nicely in it’s many different forms (it’s sometimes… Read more »
“recognizing suffering is to simply be alive and has nothing to do with complaining at all. To do this and have true compassion for one’s self and others who suffer is part of a skillful path.” So if God does exist you have no complaints about the suffering? “My hatred for JC and his pop (err.. I mean himself) is about as intense as your hatred for Zeus. Which is to say non-existent. And I am as bemused as you probably are by the thought of hating something you dismiss as a myth.” You don’t get very far by saying… Read more »
I have never said that if a god existed I would hate it. That makes no sense and is not something that I would think or say. Please point out where I have so that I may correct the record.
I don’t think you have said that but you did say things like genocidal maniac which would sugest some strong negitive emotion.
Trying to make a strong point.
Your moral outrage is directed at something. You have moral outrage. You have this because it violates your sense of justice. You will then argue that your sense of justice is ‘evolved behavior’ . You will then downplay the obvious that pogroms must be evolved behavior too. Its nature red in tooth and claw–it evolved that way. There is no justice or morality involved. It is good to crush your enemies, rape their women and steal their stuff. You will not confront the fact that your universe doesn’t care how you feel, that your sense of wonder and awe will… Read more »
I am able distinguish between the tools of buddhism, the efficacy of it’s practice and it’s awful religious side-component that like christianity and islam among others leads to violence. Buddhism is historically the least violent of the three as non-violence is tenet of the practice, but a strong sense of the overriding moral superiority of the worldview and more hard edge strains like Zen show that buddhism like any other religion (excepting Jainism) is as susceptible to immoral violence in the name of the religion as any other. The important difference that can be noticed in that there is no… Read more »
Less than 7% of all wars where religiously motivated. That means over 93% where secular in nature. Clearly it is secularism that is violent, not religion.
The massive democides of the 20’th century where commited by secular communist governments who murdered over 100 million people.
What is the distinguishing thing here? Clearly it was not God ordering it. What was it?
We were discussing your god and his genocide of the midianites.
But if you want to have that separate conversation, you are barking up the wrong tree with 20th century war references. Hitler was a catholic. Stalin commandeered the primed pump of russian orthodoxy. But even if history were different and they were all staunch modern atheists, they didn’t commit to war and sometimes genocide because of their atheism. Nor did they because of their non-astrology.
The midianites were slaughtered because of god.
Oh goodness. Your outrage grows more selective by the minute.
Non-religious war is excusable, religious war is not, because of a non-existent god.
I want to know why.
I also want to know why your moral outrage matters. In your view both your outrage and the warmongers desires are of equal moral weight–they both evolved and since there is no god then there is nothing inherently wrong with either.
My superior moral vision would not be to create life capable of suffering and then make them suffer. It is fairly simple When I hated God, I screamed this at Him. It would have been much better had I never been created. Better in that I would not feel pain, misery, fear etc. I still don’t know why He chose to do so. I do know that He has made me better. The overwhelming pointlessness of existence I can now look back on and put it into context; It was a small thing. Don’t get me wrong, back then it… Read more »
Add “God having Himself crucified” to the list of lessons. We can see an initial property from the literature; this Spirit is not concerned with blood and gore; as if flesh and blood, human life and death means nothing to Him. As if He has His mind on other things; things that are more important. If we engage the text (and have the eyes to see) we see that He works throughout history in a consistent way. To reconcile the world to Him. It is not He that is murderous, bloody and vile. It is you and me. The way… Read more »
^^Worth the price of admission, right there.
All this third person crap wears a little thin…
No doubt. Notice it is only ever in response to katecho who bears the instigatory burden. Although he would probably try find some way to argue that the burden was mine due to materialism.
Yeah, I’ve noticed that, I think he must do that to irritate you, though it was your use of it in reference to yourself that pegged out my third person meter.
Yes, it irritates me to do it too, but it can quickly feel like a compulsion which I imagine it is for katecho too. I get why he does it. When you write like that it floats you up and away from your own connection to what you are saying. It is a distancing mechanism. It is interesting to feel as you do it, but yes after a while you come off as pathological and narcissistic whether you mean to or not. Your further irritation has made me realize the error of my ways. Consider that the last time- even… Read more »
From a previous comment where katecho explains the usage of the third person
Use of the third person is certainly more formal, but it’s not unusual or original in any sense.
It’s still the dominant form for publicly contesting ideas in a debate, for example.
Debate societies even require it.
I believe the direction of address helps to keep the substance of the issues in better focus, even when I’m talking in a public forum with someone I agree with,
but I don’t say that others have to do like I do.
“And no Randman is neither happy nor unhappy that christianity is currently in decline.” Clearly his myopia prevents him from looking beyond the borders of Western Europe, where the church indeed is in sad decline, and N. America where it is stagnating. A more circumspect view of the entire world’s religious trends would reveal Christianity is burgeoning in Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Latin America. Greater numbers have come to faith in the last few decades than all previous centuries combined, even while factoring in higher overall populations as well. And those expressing personal faith in Christ in those regions… Read more »
I look forward to the decline of all superstition, Christian or otherwise… It doesn’t affect me emotionally either way, but I think reason over revelation would be a wonderful thing for all mankind. I don’t hold out too much hope in the short term, but the west becoming more secular is a good start.
Great things can happen quickly in a generation or two (or three) . Like civil rights, gay marriage and yes, the rapid secularization of a population.
Here’s to that.
“I look forward to the decline of all superstition”
Does that include the superstition of abiogenesis?
A hypothesis is if course not superstition. No one is saying that abiogenesis is a proven theory.
So, no to that.
“It doesn’t affect me emotionally either way, but I think reason over revelation would be a wonderful thing for all mankind.”
Reason requires revelation in order to function.
From ‘Bayesian Logical Data Analysis for the Physical Sciences: A Comparative Approach with Mathematica® Support’
“Every logic function can be constructed from NAND alone. The NOR operator…is also powerful enough to generate all logic functions.”
Useing your own reasoning exclusively you end up regecting everything. Whether divine or not anything you learned from someone else is revelation.
That buzzfeed has better ethics should be of concern here.
You mean the site that gets all its stories from reddit?
That was indeed my point.
The point of my question was whether or not you have examples of an author being fired by a credible university or organization for the plagiarism of his/her co-author. Your link provided an example of someone being fired for his own plagiarism.
That’s the question, does Dougs name on the cover make him 100% responsable for the books contents?
Yes. Does he get the credit and the profit? One shouldn’t throw their good name around lightly. The book wasn’t divided into sections labeled Dougs Section and Randy’s section.
If Randy was geting credit and profit then Doug wasn’t geting 100% of either. So why hold Doug 100% responsible for Randys contributions?
DW derangement syndrome Randman. Its making you look bad.
Trying to help brother.
How so? And by that I mean, how does wilson’s plagiarism make me look bad. Cheers.
When you consider that Doug Wilson has plagiarized in the exact same sense as Hillary had an affair with Monica Lewinsky. The picture should get a bit clearer. Cheers.
Ah. So Hillary was the co-potus?
The picture just got murkier.
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Just following your comparison where it leads… or doesn’t.
Is RandMan referring to Mizzou? Creative ethics indeed. Will RandMan go on a hunger strike to get what he wants?
No hunger strike, Katecho. Instead he and Grace will hold their breath and turn blue.
Shrug. I want to keep reminding you apologists that your fearless leader in this instance is a few rungs short of professional. Done!
Done? Done? Hallelujah! Merry Christmas to all!
Come to think of it, where did Krychek_2 / Eric the Red go? Haven’t seen him around lately.
So he is sharing responsibility even though he actually did not do the plagiarising. This is more than most in our society.
Why do you think Randy should not have apologised to Doug?
What exactly do you think he should do more than has been done?
He would have been fired or asked to resign from any credible university or organization that takes creative ethics seriously.
Hmmm. Princeton is not to be taken seriously. Thanks!
Second, if you copy exact wording into your notes, you have to put it in quotes and include a reference. The reason I say “notes” here and not “final version” is that many of the unintentional problems occur because a writer might go back to old notes and not realize it was actually from someone else. I was a little sceptical about this when I heard something like it during another plagiarism scandal. Yet with modern writing on computers it seems this could easily happen. I keep collections of material to write about (never get around to it) and things… Read more »
I think it is sensible for any professional writer. When you have read widely over many years, and are blessed or cursed with an extremely retentive memory, it is fatally easy to quote inadvertently. Any time in my professional writing that I think I have come up with a wonderfully felicitous passage, I check to make sure it is mine.
Yes, as I said I was initially sceptical about another case. Having read more about gathering data, my own (small) experiences, and also reading the BaylyBlog post I think it is quite possible.
Though if others are less convinced I can understand why.
There’s also a whole mess with the idea of owning certain sets of words and phrases. Attribution is great, but the whole compound of academic citation is an over-fevered attempt to own the world of ideas. I’m sorry, but that’s just not how it works.
Note also when Taylor changed her post about Wilson without even a comment that she had done so (though I consider this even more minor than plagiarism) and nary a word from Wilson’s critics against her; even denials that Wilson’s comment as much was even true.
I have looked at Justin’s link on plagiarism. It is mixed. It conflates passing off others work as yours and copyright infringement. Now if the jargon of publishing uses plagiarism like this then they all understand each other, but outside publishing I am not certain that issues of whether one breaks copyright is what people mean by the concept. I think the issues are distinct enough that conflating them is unhelpful. To say that non-attribution is similar to attribution without permission is not really helpful. Though this got me thinking that plagiarism is unhelpful because it is “wrong” without addressing… Read more »
Beth, that is a particularly shrewd observation.
That was a good apology.
> “I should also offer a last word of encouragement to those good people who are weary of controversy, particularly controversies that have my name in the middle of it. (“Doesn’t he know how to do anything else?”) My apologies to you as well.”
Thank you, dear brother. I confess I have grown weary of it.
Controversy is not all bad and neither is transparency and people taking responsibility. One might even say, where there is no controversy, there is no transparency going on. There is nothing scarier to me then a situation where no mistakes are being made. We’re human and if there aren’t some obvious errors showing up, something is all wrong.
I understand that you have zero tollerance for “gnats” in your co-authored “camel stew”.
I don’t agree with Miller’s assertion that there was a “substantial” lack of citation in this book.
How many pages was the book?
How many citations were made?
How many citations were missed? (not counting the 4 definitions, Booth was not saying they were his)
What is Miller’s definition of “substantial”. (with citation please!)
Can I recommend this excellent article by Malcolm Gladwell arguing that most plagiarism scandals are silly? It is excellent and will cause you to rethink your righteous indignation.
I also thought that the BaylyBros had a good post on this.
Hi Christian, I read the New Yorker article and I didn’t really find the circumstances to be parallel. Plagiarism of music is beyond my knowledge, but the rest of the article seemed to be mainly concerned with “plagiarizing” the events of someone’s life without his or her permission. The plagiarism found in Justice Primer involves ideas and expression. When I decide to order a nonfiction book of Christian theology, I am influenced by two primary factors: (1) a keen interest in that particular author’s take on the subject under discussion; (2) an expectation that this author’s writing style will bring… Read more »
Jillybean, what Malcolm Gladwell was arguing is that all ideas in societies are shared (he did not just speak of music and actually used his own writings being stolen as an example). His point is that when you take someone else’s idea and make it something new (in a new context with new meaning and audience) it provides a value to the society and that plagiarism laws that prohibit that (as we see often in music but also elsewhere) are actually hurting society. We are helped when authors provide great works that inform and entertain. Gladwell’s point is that in… Read more »
Well Jilly, if I had to choose between Ezra Pound and you, I’d go with you all the way! ;-)
In fact, if you copied Ezra Pound and published it, I would suspect you were kiddnapped.
The plagarised parts are a very small part of the book. They shouldn’t be there, but they do not change the book in any significant way. It is a very, very good book. And I am happy to concede that many of the excellent concepts in the book may have come from others’ ideas; the non-plagiarised parts I mean. I would advocate buying any source material that influenced Wilson and Booth.
RIGHT ON!! ” The fault, guilt, responsibility and all falls not on the heads of the internet mob, but on the shoulders of Canon Press, Doug Wilson, and Randy Booth.” Mejustasking (stated below)
I have said nothing more than what Doug has said in his post. It is clear that he takes this all very seriously, and is grieved that he has given fodder to the internet mob all of his own volition. That does not mean, of course, that the internet mob is correct. Just that this one is on his shoulders.
I have always thought plagiarism scandals to be somewhat silly. The fact that there is nothing new under the sun indicates that all ideas are derivative in some way. Clearly plagiarism is a much more difficult notion to define than theft. Further, I would actually be happy if someone used some truth that I have said to influence others. Though I have never been a Driscoll fan and didn’t believe him to be qualified for ministry, I found it absolutely absurd when plagiarism became the mechanism which brought him down. Clearly he had his problems, but that particular problem seemed… Read more »
Complete agreement with you. And silly is exactly the word that should be used. Here is the problem: This is the standard to which Wilson et al. have ascribed to. This is the standard to which they hold NSA students and the one I assume they teach their students at classical schools to adhere. It is very difficult to make a Biblical case for how we practice it today. But given that this is what they hold their students to, they must submit to it as well.The NSA course catalog does not offer much leeway even for unintentional plagiarism. It’s… Read more »
Does NSA in fact hold students responsible for the plagiarism of their collaborators?
My guess is no, because collaboration on research material is not generally anticipated in the undergraduate, liberal arts environment. Therefore the NSA standard doesn’t anticipate situations where someone’s joint responsibility for something they’re not actually guilt of, will come into play.
And if that’s the case, then it’s not the same standard.
Obviously there is a difference because one person stepped down and one did not. But, if you read what Doug wrote, he holds himself to a fairly high standard and he believes he is responsible for what happened. His responsibility is not in the mistakes, but that we even know about it. It should have been caught before the book was published. And that is Doug’s role in this whole thing. That he didn’t bother to even read it. That nobody bothered to run the material through a checker (there are some good free ones), some of it would still… Read more »
It is helpful to distinguish between different types of writing. Given the world we live it, it is wise to have strict standards of plagiarism for academic writing. If you want to interact with the world of academia, then do so knowing that that world makes certain demands. Consider my above statement to be a statement which finds the demands of academia somewhat humorous and difficult to define at times. In terms of popular writing, I do think the standards are demonstrably different. I do understand that the worlds of NSA, KIRK, and DW’s personal writing overlap in certain ways,… Read more »
You have my full support on this. But my support is not what you need. I have no idea what “should happen to Doug”. Natural consequences and all are probably enough. Doug clearly gets what happened and how serious this is. I will trust his word for how he thinks about it. I would not have the courage to come before the world and announce that I didn’t even bother to read the book with my name on the cover. Whoops. All the areas that needed to be addressed were. He did make errors and that is the point. He… Read more »
I don’t think I am making excuses. I am just noting my amusement at the outrage.
And that should be it.
I think. You think. He/she thinks…
What about …
I pray. You pray. He/She prays…
Let’s make it a rule: For very word we write (or read!) on a comment section let’s pray one prayer for those involved and/or mentioned in the author’s post.
Let’s be known for praying before speaking (or writing!)
God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen!
Post without ceasing praying, you say? How…Biblical. :)