Now, now, let’s not try to out-cynical each other. 
I don’t think it gets you toward a more accurate view of things, and is more likely to lead you further astray. I’m not suggesting most people are more ethical now, though, although most are reasonably ethical. What I’m saying is today anyone at any publication source can read everything else by anyone who’s publishing on the same subject, and they’re far more likely to notice if someone’s lifting their copy.
4 Likes
WE editor does not seem to be telling the truth. He claims it’s an inadvertent cut-and-paste error. But, somehow, the Times’ antique use “Mr.” in its copy got deleted for the WE version. Jeez.
5 Likes
I inadvertently whacked off this morning.
The Washington Examiner: “All the News That’s Not Fit to Print”
3 Likes
Damned interns.
3 Likes
Sure, mattinpa, sure… 
2 Likes
“Who among us…”
2 Likes
Amy Kremer. Was she the one who started every comment with “I am personally insulted…”?
I wasn’t listening very much, and after hearing her twice, was ready to change the channel, but then they went to commercial.
“Inadvertent” plagiarism: I hate it when that happens!
2 Likes
Dear Joel
Many conservatives think the news is fake. Many conservatives despise real journalism. The problem here is that you are not only a bad journalist, you are just fucking lazy. You can’t be stupid enough to think you could get away with this, so lazy it is.
So much for a career. You do NOT work for the real Washington newspaper; you know the one - The Post. You shouldn’t be working for any news outlet after this.
1 Like
Yeah. My college students always used that excuse - I didn’t mean to plagiarize. I didn’t know that what I did was plagiarism.
1 Like
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a
new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men
are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any
nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great
battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a
final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might
live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate – we can not consecrate – we can not
hallow – this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have
consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will
little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what
they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the
unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It
is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us –
that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for
which they gave the last full measure of devotion – that we here highly resolve
that these dead shall not have died in vain – that this nation, under God, shall
have a new birth of freedom – and that government of the people, by the people,
for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
. . . I was just typing a modest post, when this speech suddenly came and forced its way in. It must be an epidemic.
5 Likes
I shall not be corrected over a mere typesetting error; good typesetters are so hard to find these days.
The sentence should’ve read: “Who hasn’t had that happen to them.” As you can see, emphasizing “that” makes all the difference in the world.
Besides, had I used your construction I would’ve wrote “Who amongst us” just for its archaicness.
5 Likes
Perhaps it would be better as a powerpoint:
No worries here. 
I was using that construction as a mild homage to the many online comments/tweets that begin that way.
2 Likes
If you’re so lazy that you have to lift an article from others and copy/paste, at least have an administrative assistant do it so its done right. And have a better excuse for your botched plagiarism.
1 Like
I might have accepted that it was inadvertent - except for the fact that they scrubbed all the “Mr’s”. The obligatory use of “Mr.” [or "Ms."or whatever honorific is appropriate] is a well known NYTimes affectation. The most likely reason to remove them is to hide the fact that that this is NYTimes prose.
3 Likes
Zowie.
The deranged appear to have gone pro.
What are the wierd to do?
(Asking for a friend.)
2 Likes
He could always work as Melania’s ghostwriter. Just as soon as she gets a copy of Stormy Daniels’ book.
2 Likes
Copyright infringement.