[Vision2020] Citing Primary Sources via Secondary Sources

[Jeff Harkins]

There you go again Joe,  I never threatened the man and if you think 
otherwise, you are wrong.

Read all the posts, go to all the sites.  If you can find one 
"threat" I will recant.  Most of the points you raise about honor 
code, student, etc. are all irrelevant in this issue.

I am not apologizing for something I did not do.

At 06:17 PM 9/18/2008, you wrote:
>Jeff,
>
>Like I said before, these kinds of personal fights aren't 
>appropriate in a public forum. Not that
>I haven't similarly sinned before but I have no desire to do so any 
>longer. Folks don't care that
>you dislike me and shouldn't be subjected our quarrels.
>
>It is clear enough from the post that the Law School Honor Code 
>applies to STUDENTS functioning
>in that capacity. Andreas is not a student. That was my first and 
>primary point and I should have
>made the point more clearly and left it at that. Sorry for doing 
>otherwise and for trying to make
>my point with humor.
>
>Why am I corresponding with you given what I've said in the past? 
>Besides my more obvious
>weaknesses I simply hate bullies. You are an emeritus professor. 
>Andreas is a law student. It is
>not only wrong but unconscionable for you to threaten him in the way 
>that you have done in a
>public forum. You are taking advantage of your superior status to 
>win what appears to be a
>political debate and although others won't say anything to you 
>because they don't want to
>experience your hateful wrath, I have nothing to loose on that 
>score, so I decided to step in.
>
>You are way out of bounds here. You need to stop and should issue an 
>apology or your own
>reputation is bound to suffer. I'd be interested in seeing if there 
>is one other academic who
>agrees with you. I know that there is at least one other who has 
>taken my side: Nick Gier. If you
>can find another academic who thinks that your threat to Andreas is 
>warranted, I'd like to know.
>
>--
>Joe Campbell
>
>---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> > Your post is so convoluted, a response would be pointless.
> >
> > And, why are you breaking your boycott of not corresponding with me.
> >
> >   At 07:10 AM 9/18/2008, you wrote:
> > >Is Vision 2020 a UI research forum? Is Andreas our student -- your
> > >student, since you are the one
> > >bringing up the charges? Was his post an assignment that we/you gave him?
> > >
> > >This is about as inappropriate of a charge as I can imagine.
> > >
> > >What does the Law School Honor Code say about handing in work with
> > >someone else's name on it?
> > >Wait a minute that has to be plagiarism, too! So anonymous posters
> > >can/should be threatened
> > >too. That's right, we don't know who they are. Or do we? I am
> > >shocked that a man like you, so
> > >concerned about the integrity of our posts, hasn't brought this
> > >point up. Or maybe I'm not!
> > >
> > >--
> > >Joe Campbell
> > >
> > >---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> > > > Sorry Nick,
> > > >
> > > > Your little trick to bring my offlist reply to you back on to the viz
> > > > was anticipated - and reveals a great deal about your character. I
> > > > know, it was an oversight, right?
> > > >
> > > > If you can't find the time to review the material that has already
> > > > been posted, I am not going to spoon feed it to you.
> > > >
> > > > All the issues are fully presented; all materials linked to my
> > > > position provided.
> > > >
> > > > All comments are available.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks, but I have provided full back up of my position.
> > > >
> > > > Oh - no more offlist correspondence with you.
> > > >
> > > > You apparently don't really understand plagiarism - here is how it is
> > > > defined in the Law School Honor Code:
> > > >
> > > > >Plagiarism. No student shall claim as his or her own original work
> > > > >the research, ideas or
> > > > >writing of another, or copy in whole or in part or in effect from
> > > > >the work of another, without
> > > > >clearly identifying it as the work of another. Paraphrasing without
> > > > >acknowledgement of
> > > > >authorship is a form of plagiarism. Paraphrasing is the close
> > > > >restatement of another's idea or
> > > > >using approximately the language of the original. [Section 
> IIB, page 64]
> > > >
> > > > Thus, your use of secondary sources in your writings, which are
> > > > by-products of primary sources, would require citations.  Do you
> > > > provide citations for your use of secondary sources?
> > > >
> > > > Mr. Shoue paraphased, but provided no citations whatsoever.
> > > >
> > > > I think we are done.
> > > >
> > > > Bye.
> > > >
> > > > At 12:02 PM 9/17/2008, you wrote:
> > > > >Hi Jeff,
> > > > >
> > > > >I'm bringing this back on the Vision because of the seriousness of
> > > > >the charges you made against Andreas.
> > > > >
> > > > >You have ducked the question I posed to you: what is the difference
> > > > >between what I did in my Gandhi research and what Andreas did?  I
> > > > >don't care to go through the details of what you debated.  That's
> > > > >simply not necessary. I just want you to do tell me, Andreas, and
> > > > >others on this list in concise terms what the difference is.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Let me clarify one important thing.  You somehow have the notion
> > > > >that reviewers of my Gandhi work checked it for plagiarism. No such
> > > > >thing ever happened.  As I stated in my first post, Gandhi scholars
> > > > >quote the primary sources through secondary sources all the time.
> > > > >
> > > > >This is a serious charge that you have leveled.  You have to back it
> > > > >up or apologize big time.
> > > > >
> > > > >Nick
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> > > > > > I am going offlist again.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Schou is the only one who can know what he did and what his intent
> > > > > > was.  I can say that if he had submitted his original post to me as
> > > > > > written (in an academic setting) I would have moved forward with
> > > > > > charges of plagiarism.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Since you haven't had time to go through the full dialogue, we
> > > > > > probably won't get anywhere by focusing on details.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As I have pointed out numerous times, this is a problem he created,
> > > > > > not me.  Read the details, get back to me and we can chat offlist.
> > > > > > Pay particular attention to the material prepared by 
> Alperin-Sheriff
> > > > > > and the Terms of Use of the McClatchy site (which he admits he
> > > > > > used).  He doesn't seem to appreciate how reckless and careless his
> > > > > > actions were and how significant the consequences can be 
> (ie, Biden's
> > > > > > use of Kinnock's speech).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > All I have done is point out to him that he needs to 
> approach the Law
> > > > > > School Administration and deal with the matter with them. He is
> > > > > > subject to the Law School Honor Code.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What he chooses to do to resolve this is up to him.  I 
> plan no action
> > > > > > on my part.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As to a comparison with your work - no, I am not investing time in
> > > > > > that comparison.  I trust that the reviewers of your work 
> handle that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At 10:57 AM 9/17/2008, you wrote:
> > > > > > >Hi Jeff,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >This is response is no response.  Would you care to distinguish
> > > > > between what
> > > > > > >Andreas did and what I've done for 18 years in my Gandhi research?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >Nick
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >---- Jeff Harkins <jeffh at moscow.com> wrote:
> > > > > > > > At 10:27 AM 9/17/2008, you wrote:
> > > > > > > > >Greetings:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >"I've not followed the exchange between Andreas and Jeff
> > > in complete
> > > > > > > > >detail ..."
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > That more or less covers my response.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >I'm preparing for a keynote address that I will give 
> on Gandhi's
> > > > > > > > >birthday on Oct. 2 at San Diego State 
> University.  When I first
> > > > > > > > >started doing my Gandhi research in the early 1990s, 
> it was very
> > > > > > > > >difficult to get the primary sources, even through 
> interlibrary
> > > > > > > > >loan.  Until I went on sabbatical to India, I relied 
> on secondary
> > > > > > > > >sources, especially very fine anthologies of 
> passages arranged by
> > > > > > > > >subject and fully documented.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >When I finally got to India, I was able to sit down 
> and check out
> > > > > > > > >references and read for context in Gandhi's 
> Collected Works (100
> > > > > > > > >volumes!) and the journals Young India and
> > > Harijan.  Very few Gandhi
> > > > > > > > >scholars read every page of these huge volumes. That is
> > > why we have
> > > > > > > > >bibliographers.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Gandhi kept meticulous records of everything that 
> happened in his
> > > > > > > > >ashrams, and most of that does not make for very edifying
> > > > > > > > >reading.  The Collected Works have a very good 
> index, so that was
> > > > > > > > >very handy to find the passages that I needed for a
> > > particular topic.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >As soon as finish this post, I will go downstairs to 
> my reading
> > > > > > > > >couch and re-read the fabulous anthologies that take me
> > > right to the
> > > > > > > > >passages that I want to review, and perhaps I'll find
> > > some new good
> > > > > > > > >ones.  The Collected Works are now on line, but they 
> are even more
> > > > > > > > >clumsy to use than the actual books themselves.  For crucial
> > > > > > > > >passages I will double check the original references
> > > again on line.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >I believe this is what Andreas did, and if I'm right,
> > > then I'm just
> > > > > > > > >as guilty of plagiarism as he is.  I wouldn't be 
> invited to San
> > > > > > > > >Diego if that is what my colleagues think I did.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >Nick Gier
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >=======================================================
> > > > > > > > >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > > >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > > >                http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > > >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > >=======================================================
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > > > >  List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > > > > > > >  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > > > > > > >                http://www.fsr.net
> > > > > > > >           mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > > > > > > > =======================================================
> > > > > >
> >