Ben’s Comments (group member since Jan 31, 2009)

Ben’s comments from the Write, right, rites, reads group.

message 109: by brian (last edited 01/30/2009 06:45PM) (new)
5 minutes ago


RA: i'd caution against throwing stones, you glass house prick.

koe: what is ' why do this' exactly? i challenge you to find one place in which i behaved anything less than civil on this thread (excepting the above; the prick has it coming) - i have every right to feel betrayed in that a person who i have been sending private emails and publicly praising her astonishing reviews for well over a year... failed to tell me they weren't hers.

i know jessica treat as a generous compassionate person and was put off by jude's self-righteous and sanctimonious bullshit. i attempted to explain to jude and ginnie the confusion pity and sympathy we all feel.

that said: donald is 100% correct in what he says. but there's a difference in those who share a history with ginnie expressing our disappointment and those who leaped in to take a shot at the kid on the ground.






reply | flag *


message 110: by Abigail (new)
5 minutes ago


If #105 is aimed at me, I have to say that I don't think I'm the one in need of some ethical self-examination. I thank you for the concern, but my scruples are doing just fine.

I can appreciate your distaste for a behavior which strikes you as dishonest - I share it - but given Ginnie's record of attributing (something she frequently does do), my first instinct would be to give her the benefit of the doubt, and assume that those reviews posted without attribution were mistakes.

Even if I couldn't make that leap of faith, I would refrain from a group assault, about which the best thing that can be said, was that it was in poor taste. I commented above to show my solidarity with Jude and Ginnie. I really have nothing else to say about this topic, or any particular bones to pick. If you all want to fight, fight fair. If you can't, don't ask for respect.


reply | flag *


message 111: by Randomanthony (last edited 01/30/2009 06:43PM) (new)
4 minutes ago


Throw 'em. I'm ready for 'em, asshole. Bring 'em on, cocksucker. I've got all night.

Oh, wait, what did I just say about treating people better? Shit. Oh well. Better try to treat people well. Carry on, sir. I'm going to try to do the right thing, but it's not easy. I mean that. I'm going to try to be that person.




reply | flag *


message 112: by Jessica (new)
3 minutes ago


Ginnie, I'm also obviously extremely sorry to hear this news, and my thoughts are definitely with you. It must have been horrible to log on at a time like this looking for a refuge, and come across this thread. I will reiterate that none of this is meant as a personal attack, and does stem from genuine confusion and dismay at feeling misled by someone we admire, trust, and like.

Re Post 96: I feel this characterization of things not being personal to be totally out of line. My heart goes out to Ginnie, who I've come to picture as a person, which is in a way what all these upset feelings are about. Of course, plagiarism pales in importance next to matters of life and death, but everything is relative.

And Ko, I don't understand what you mean by "why do this?" No one knew about Ginnie's present situation earlier when these issues were raised, and our concerns were perfectly valid. I was never attacking Ginnie personally. This was not a "group attack." This was an airing of an ongoing and -- to me -- troubling issue on this site.

I agree that a few people here did show a lack of sensitivity and decorum. However, I stand by my own statements, and I'm more than a little appalled at being judged so harshly.

As I indicated earlier, all of us who "know" Ginnie through this site like and respect her a great deal, which is why this was such an issue. That said, of course our hearts are with you, Ginnie, and I am very sorry about the timing of this.


reply | flag *


message 113: by Books Ring My Bell (new)
2 minutes ago


Abigail, 105 was NOT directed at you, it was directed at Jude's comment in msg 96. Hence, the 96 before my rant.


reply | flag *


message 114: by Randomanthony (new)
0 minutes ago


I want to go on record, by the way, that I thought what Jessica (and David echoed) said in that longer post earlier in the thread was reasonable. I had no problem with that. I also don't think, to be fair, that people may have realized how they may have sounded to others at the time...God knows I've done that in real life over and over again.

message 97: by Jessica (new)
3 minutes ago


Not fair.
but..whatever.
I feel badly about your husband Ginnie...

take care.
I'm to bed now.





reply | flag *


by Ben
0 minutes ago


I don't mean to sound cold hearted, Ruth, but didn't you read post #39? "while ginnie has definitely turned all of us on to some really good books and it's appreciated, i'd say that most (definitely more than half) of her reviews were written by someone else with zero credit given." Now, what do you think about her using that as excuse? And if she wasn't trying to use it as an excuse, why would she bring it up, if not to try to make us feel bad? We don't even know if she's telling the truth about it, for petes sake; at her age, wouldn't you think she'd have learned about the little boy who cryed wolf?

This having been said, Ginnie, you are a very smart women with a far superior reading list, writing ability, and probably even intellegence than myself. And, you do have a family here on goodreads that does love you and is here for you.




message 101: by Koeeoaddi (new)
23 minutes ago


Brian, with all due respect, if you really can't help but feel horrible for Ginnie, why do this? Really, why do it? (sorry but I really hate this thread)

Ginnie, my best wishes to you and your husband.


reply | flag *


message 102: by Books Ring My Bell (new)
23 minutes ago


Ginnie, I am sorry, so sorry for your grief and suffering now. My condolences are with you.


reply | flag *


message 103: by Abigail (last edited 01/30/2009 06:35PM) (new)
18 minutes ago


Jude: if I could vote for a comment, I'd stand behind #96. I don't really care about the merits of the individual case, or who was in the right. Group attack can be defined with one word: cowardice.

Ginnie: I'm so sorry to hear of this development with your husband. I can't pretend to know or understand what you are going through, what pressures both personal and physical must be pushing down on you. I can only say that if the worst thing I've done, when faced with tragedy, is neglect to attribute reviews, I'll consider that I've done fairly well.


reply | flag *


message 104: by Jude (last edited 01/30/2009 06:35PM) (new)
17 minutes ago


XPOST with 101-103

not sure "fairness" is the point, all things considered. this is the most i have heard of most of you - and one of you has already let me know that no one asked my opinion.

what appalled me about the thread was that Ginnie was left in the third person. Once she provided the topic by "betraying" you all, she was never addressed directly.

And in this family a member who lies about a book review can logically be suspected of making up a dying husband -as an excuse... and then reminded that her family "does love you and is here for you."




reply | flag *


message 105: by Books Ring My Bell (last edited 01/30/2009 06:35PM) (new)
16 minutes ago


96- WHATEVER. Before you get all up on your high horse, get the facts. get some scruples!

This is not an "oops" I goofed incident.

She did "reviews" on Bonk, In Silence, and The Little Book of Plagiarism these were done over the course of the last 6 MONTHS!!! All are word for word reviews of Publishers Weekly!
Then there's her review on Medea. The second paragraph is straight from Washington Post.
Also, Lavinia back in May of 2008 - the review matches that of Alan Cheuse of NPR.

I have enjoyed many of Ginnie's reviews. I love that she often posts links to relevant sites or other reviews...
but this is wrong...

*unless Ginnie writes for Publishers Weekly, Washington Post and has the pen name "Alan Chase" - then, ROCK ON, woman, you write some AWESOME reviews!


reply | flag *


message 106: by Randomanthony (last edited 01/30/2009 06:38PM) (new)
9 minutes ago


So much for staying out of the fray...

there was a piling on and display of viciousness here that far outweighed whatever moral lapse was originally performed.

I agree with this completely. Even if Ginnie purposely engaged in plagarism, for a while this thread looked like a group of playground bullies surrounding the kid who told a lie, breaking her down under the rationale of "well, she told a lie, she's getting what she deserved."

For anyone to take pleasure from it or find it fun and/or hilarious...well...is that who we really want to be? Is that how we want to treat other human beings?


reply | flag *


message 107: by Ben (last edited 01/30/2009 06:42PM) (new)
6 minutes ago


Jude #104: Loving and being there for someone means being there no matter the circumstances. The comment doesn't attribute those things to a specific circumstance or situation. And listen, I just started using this site on a regular basis -- I am a part of no family.... Trying to help someone feel better after having made a valid and logical comment about a situation does not then deserve a comment like the one you made in #104, given that you're comment made a false assumption.


reply | edit | delete | flag *


message 108: by Ben (new)
6 minutes ago


make that two false assumptions....


reply | edit | delete | flag *

message 87: by Choupette
2 hours, 32 min ago


The sweet, intelligent former librarian from Pasadena a plagiarist!? All my illusions are crumbling.

How hard can it be to include a link? Seriously.


reply | flag *


message 88: by David
2 hours, 24 min ago


Damn!

It appears that either (a) all my goodreads reviews have been cribbed from an individual called "David M. Giltinan" over on amazon.com, or (b) an individual called "David M. Giltinan" is sytematically cribbing all my goodreads reviews over on amazon.com.

A pox upon you, "David M. Giltinan"! You got yer nerve!!


reply | flag *


message 89: by Ginnie
1 hour, 51 min ago


You are all totally correct. My only mea culpa for my non-attribution is that my husband was transferred to home hospice and palliative care on Wednesday and I have been distracting myself for a hard reality by posting here. I will withdraw. Sorry you were disconcerted. Mea maxima culpa.


reply | flag *


message 90: by Ben
1 hour, 3 min ago


This whole thread post, just amazing: the emotions, the battles of the minds, the different representations of the human condition, rules, laws, gray, on-and-on...reading this thread post was like reading a great novel....


reply | edit | delete | flag *


message 91: by Jessica
54 minutes ago


oh that was a wonderful thing to say Ben.



reply | flag *


message 92: by Ben (new)
46 minutes ago


I think that was sarcasm, but I don't know for sure. Was it sarcasm, Jessica?


reply | edit | delete | flag *


message 93: by Jessica (new)
44 minutes ago


no it wasn't, actually.
sorry, not meant that way.
it's just that one feels one's squandered the whole afternoon away, one feels spent, etc.
so it was nice to read that!


reply | flag *


message 94: by Ben (new)
40 minutes ago


okay cool. I really did mean it. I sat down and I even let my dinner cook too long because I wouldn't leave from reading the thread. I felt anger about justice and trust, but I also felt some sorrow, even pity. I was lost in passoniate thought while reading it, and I felt an array of emotions: I'm telling you, it really was like reading a good novel. : )


reply | edit | delete | flag *


message 95: by Ruth (new)
12 minutes ago


Sheesh. You're all getting so carried away that you don't even notice what Ginnie has said in #89. That is hard, hard news fer chrissake.

Ginnie, I'm so sorry.


reply | flag *


message 96: by Jude (new)
9 minutes ago


Ruth, they can't hear you. all Ginnie's post did was indicate it was time for the group post-coital cigarette. As so many went out of their way to explain, none of this was personal - which is to say Ginnie is not a person - merely a catalyst.


reply | flag *

message 81: by matthew
3 hours, 38 min ago


damn. erased my response.

it's true; i was a bottle baby.

jessica, i don't believe i ever suggested i was defending ginnie because she was female - i'd like to see YOUR source for that. i defended her because she was mobbed, and for no good reason.

to find me impervious to logic, david, you'd have to present me with some. throwing up your hands is very convenient, when you've lost. i never attempted a redefinition of plagiarism (you really do love the appeal to authority, by the by). plagiarism occurred. i didn't feel it was wrong, merely unfortunate, in this particular instance.


reply | flag *


message 82: by Jessica (last edited 01/30/2009 02:40PM)
3 hours, 33 min ago


Matthew, I guess I misinterpreted your comment. Sorry. I still think you're defending the indefensible! Did you look at the comments after the plagiarism review? Mark told her she'd written a good review, and she didn't correct him by saying she hadn't written it! I don't know if a sustained pattern of uncited pasting is merely unfortunate, but I'm confused because I don't really know what to make of it otherwise. It seems like a strange thing to do. I know Ginnie's mentioned being a retired librarian who loves to catalogue and so maybe she just likes the idea of having every book that interests her compiled with a review, but I do find it very puzzling how she keeps forgetting to mention that someone else wrote them. I mean, don't you think that's a bit odd?

In a way, I was relieved back when I realized Ginnie wasn't writing most of her reviews, because it made me realize that it really is impossible to be SO well-read and clever, even if you're older. But mostly it just made me sad, and disappointed, and pretty confused.


reply | flag *


message 83: by Jessica (last edited 01/30/2009 02:41PM)
3 hours, 22 min ago


It just goes to show that you can never trust anyone over the Internet. I think this should serve as a good warning to anyone considering meeting one of their Booksters in person. There's no way of knowing who's hiding behind those avatars, or just what evils they might capable of!

Naive booknerds, BEWARE!


reply | flag *


message 84: by Books Ring My Bell
3 hours, 19 min ago


I think this should serves as a good warning to anyone considering meeting one of their Booksters in person.

LOL!!!

imagine the things that could happen!

:)


reply | flag *


message 85: by Donald
3 hours, 10 min ago


I feel very naive and stupid I never noticed this.


reply | flag *


message 86: by David
3 hours, 10 min ago


to find me impervious to logic, david, you'd have to present me with some. throwing up your hands is very convenient, when you've lost. i never attempted a redefinition of plagiarism (you really do love the appeal to authority, by the by). plagiarism occurred. i didn't feel it was wrong, merely unfortunate, in this particular instance.

Hysterical!

Zoe, have we got the man for you!


reply | flag *

message 58: by Jessica
4 hours, 11 min ago


I don't feel that any of this is in any way a personal attack on Ginnie. I'm sure all of us who've interacted personally with her on this site completely adore Ginnie(even if that's not her real name). But uncited use of another author's word-for-word writing is the definition of plagiarism, whether or not it's intentional.... And plagiarism is like an insidious, destructive cancer (sorry, I'm reading Sontag) on any intellectual (or quasi-intellectual, or psuedo-intellectual, or whatever it is that we do here) discourse, however casual!

Personally, I'm uncomfortable even with cited reviews that are just thoroughly repasted from another source. I understand the urge to catalogue, but to me it runs counter to what this site is about, which to me is people posting their personal opinions about what they've read. I like seeing a link or an excerpt among other writing, but just recopying someone else's review feels very odd to me. Of course, that's just my own personal opinion; the plagiarism thing, though, that's another matter. That's BAD!

And Matthew, I find the idea that no one can take issue with this because Ginnie's female highly offensive. I feel certain that Ginnie (whoever she is) is a highly intelligent, ethical person, and I definitely don't believe that she's doing this as some part of sinister plot to rack up book report votes. I agree with Donald that she's just not being vigilant in her attributions. However, I have gotten upset on many occasions when I realize I'm reading an unattributed professional's review, and I think that's legitimate.


reply | flag *


message 59: by brian
4 hours, 11 min ago


this is slowly becoming one of the all time great bookface threads.


reply | flag *


message 60: by Jessica
4 hours, 10 min ago


http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/342...


reply | flag *


message 61: by Donald
4 hours, 9 min ago


I unvoted for it, Brian, not voted for it.

Your girlfriend is smarter than you.


reply | flag *


message 62: by Manny
4 hours, 9 min ago


Brian, could we get a tight reaction shot of Ginnie's face, then pan over to the cat?



reply | flag *


message 63: by Books Ring My Bell (last edited 01/30/2009 02:06PM)
4 hours, 9 min ago


how about a steel cage match: gothboy and donkey don vs. randomanthony and zoe.

Move on over, Brian. I HAVE to see that...


If Eddie did mention this to her months ago... she had time to fix it and make it right.


reply | flag *


message 64: by brian
4 hours, 9 min ago


et tu brute?


reply | flag *


message 65: by David
4 hours, 8 min ago


I thought Brian's Stolen Identity review sounded as if it were written by someone much wittier, more intelligent, and far, far sexxxier. Have we been duped again?




reply | flag *


message 66: by David
4 hours, 6 min ago


I don't feel that any of this is in any way a personal attack on Ginnie. I'm sure all of us who've interacted personally with her on this site completely adore Ginnie(even if that's not her real name). But uncited use of another author's word-for-word writing is the definition of plagiarism, whether or not it's intentional.... And plagiarism is like an insidious, destructive cancer (sorry, I'm reading Sontag) on any intellectual (or quasi-intellectual, or psuedo-intellectual, or whatever it is that we do here) discourse, however casual!

Personally, I'm uncomfortable even with cited reviews that are just thoroughly repasted from another source. I understand the urge to catalogue, but to me it runs counter to what this site is about, which to me is people posting their personal opinions about what they've read. I like seeing a link or an excerpt among other writing, but just recopying someone else's review feels very odd to me. Of course, that's just my own personal opinion; the plagiarism thing, though, that's another matter. That's BAD!

And Matthew, I find the idea that no one can take issue with this because Ginnie's female highly offensive. I feel certain that Ginnie (whoever she is) is a highly intelligent, ethical person, and I definitely don't believe that she's doing this as some part of sinister plot to rack up book report votes. I agree with Donald that she's just not being vigilant in her attributions. However, I have gotten upset on many occasions when I realize I'm reading an unattributed professional's review, and I think that's legitimate.


reply | flag *


message 67: by brian (last edited 01/30/2009 02:00PM)
4 hours, 5 min ago


AHHH! i have to go!
this really is one of my favorite threads ever...

i'm dorothy at the end of the wizard of oz-
goodbye manny!
goodbye donald!
goodbye BRMB!
goodbye j. treat!
goodbye gothboy!
goodbye eddie!
goodbye gary!
and especially you Dead Flamingo Jessica! I'll miss you the most!


reply | flag *


message 68: by Jessica
4 hours, 4 min ago


WOAH! Good call! Talk about irony!!

http://www.goodreads.com/review/show/161...

http://www.amazon.com/Little-Book-Plagia...


reply | flag *


message 69: by Manny
4 hours, 4 min ago


Well put David! My opinion of you really goes up as a result of that excellent post.



reply | flag *


message 70: by brian
4 hours, 4 min ago


genius, david, genius.


reply | flag *


message 71: by Books Ring My Bell
4 hours, 3 min ago


NO FUCKING WAY! Somebody please copy this whole thread so we can keep it forever! I'm scared Ginnie will delete it!


reply | flag *


message 72: by Jessica (last edited 01/30/2009 02:01PM)
4 hours, 2 min ago


wait. we can only have one genius a day. crikey, now we've got 2.
(see #46)


reply | flag *


message 73: by Randomanthony
4 hours, 0 min ago


Please keep me out of it, man...I don't enjoy the drama...


reply | flag *


message 74: by brian
3 hours, 59 min ago


fag.


reply | flag *


message 75: by Randomanthony
3 hours, 58 min ago


Well, I am a Morrissey fan..:).


reply | flag *


message 76: by Jon (last edited 01/30/2009 03:21PM)
3 hours, 58 min ago


edit: you had to be there.


reply | flag *


message 77: by brian
3 hours, 56 min ago


omfg. #76.
wow.
wow.
wow.

i really gotta go. i love you all.


reply | flag *


message 78: by Books Ring My Bell
3 hours, 55 min ago


OH NO!!!! Ginnie, er, Matthew's mom!!!

(I just pissed myself laughing!!!!!)

CLASSIC! CLASSIC!


reply | flag *


message 79: by Manny
3 hours, 52 min ago


I'm bowing out as well. That was great fun guys!




reply | flag *


message 80: by Donald
3 hours, 44 min ago


This is very funny but also sad.


reply | flag *

message 36: by Books Ring My Bell
4 hours, 38 min ago


I didn't see any personal attacks, Matthew.

Here's a definition (from Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary)
"plagiarize" means
-to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own
-to use (another's production) without crediting the source
-to commit literary theft
-to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else's work and lying about it afterward.

Ginnie has put up reviews where she adds a link... It needs to be here as well... CREDIT, yo!




reply | flag *


message 37: by Donald
4 hours, 38 min ago


I think Ginnie usually is pretty good about fairly attributing work. Maybe it just slipped her mind, some stress or other at home.

Thievery in Art is a fascinating concept. I think Bowie said everybody steals, you just have to be clever who you steal from.


reply | flag *


message 38: by Books Ring My Bell (last edited 01/30/2009 01:28PM)
4 hours, 37 min ago


IMHO, "Ginnie is a lying plagerizing jerk" would be an attack.

Not stating, "I've been duped!"


reply | flag *


message 39: by brian (last edited 01/30/2009 01:33PM)
4 hours, 34 min ago


not so, donald.
while ginnie has definitely turned all of us on to some really good books and it's appreciated, i'd say that most (definitely more than half) of her reviews were written by someone else with zero credit given.


reply | flag *


message 40: by David (last edited 01/30/2009 01:37PM)
4 hours, 33 min ago


Matthew, there's really no sense talking to you. You're impervious to logic. And yet...

Copying something without attribution is not only against GR rules; it's also against copyright laws. And even if she attributed a source, it'd still probably be against copyright laws because you're only allowed to cite portions of a work in a review without the permission of the author, not the entirety.

And anymore this isn't about "attacking" Ginnie, who I am sure is a nice enough woman; it's all about you and your belief that you are entitled to modify the definition of plagiarism as you see fit. There is absolutely no basis for your argument anywhere but in your head.


reply | flag *


message 41: by Donald
4 hours, 32 min ago


Well, if that's the case, Brian, that's the case. It is what it is.


reply | flag *


message 42: by Manny
4 hours, 28 min ago


Michelle wrote: "What kind of world would we live in if we only paid attention to rules when money was on the line?"

If that was a reply to my post #25: I can see sense in copying chess moves from one window to another in order to make money, very little in doing so in order to inflate a rating which no longer measures the quality of my own play. And yet it's somehow still tempting. Go figure.



reply | flag *


message 43: by brian (last edited 01/30/2009 01:43PM)
4 hours, 26 min ago


well, donnie, it seems that you and Randomanthony actually do agree on one thing.
he just voted for this review.

how about a steel cage match: gothboy and donkey don vs. randomanthony and zoe.

omfg, i'd pay to see that shit.


reply | flag *


message 44: by Manny
4 hours, 26 min ago


By the way, I love the fact that the book this thread is attached to has the word "Irony" in the title, also that the vote counter is going up as people talk. If I were directing a movie, I'd discretely highlight both those aspects.



reply | flag *


message 45: by Eddie
4 hours, 25 min ago


I called Ginnie on this (privately) months ago.


reply | flag *


message 46: by brian (last edited 01/30/2009 01:41PM)
4 hours, 24 min ago


manny you really do fit the description brad attributed to you on the devil's dictionary thread.
hysterical!

oh, and a brian depalma-style splitscreen would be the way to go on that scene...


reply | flag *


message 47: by Donald
4 hours, 23 min ago


No, the review should not be voted on if it's not her work.


reply | flag *


message 48: by brian
4 hours, 22 min ago


i know, i know... i'm just starting shit.
xoxo


reply | flag *


message 49: by David
4 hours, 21 min ago


Did somebody say Zoe?


reply | flag *


message 50: by brian
4 hours, 21 min ago


DONALD YOU ARE A SICK FUCK!

aw, hell... if you can't beat 'em...


reply | flag *

message 51: by David
4 hours, 17 min ago


Brian, you Rothmoron.


reply | flag *


message 52: by Eddie
4 hours, 17 min ago


For a good post-modern laugh check out Ginnie's review of A Little Book of Plagiarism...


reply | flag *


message 53: by brian
4 hours, 16 min ago


heh.


reply | flag *


message 54: by Manny
4 hours, 14 min ago


Thank you Brian! Absolutely agree on the split-screen. You do the cinematography, I'll direct.




reply | flag *


message 55: by David
4 hours, 14 min ago


I'm not afraid to take Brian, Donald, and all the rest on. Bring it, bitches! Plagiarize my foot in each of your asses!


reply | flag *


message 56: by Jessica (last edited 01/30/2009 01:50PM)
4 hours, 14 min ago


David: you look like a Zombie Looking for Zoe...
just sayin'.

damn, david, you did it again: you deleted your Zoe remark, so mine makes zero sense...OOps, my bad...everyone's posting so fast, they're tons of comments in between! woah..guys!


reply | flag *


message 57: by Gåry
4 hours, 14 min ago





reply | flag *

message 15: by Kevin
5 hours, 20 min ago


It looks like the little old lady from Pasadena has been caught with her hands in the cookie jar..


reply | flag *


message 16: by David
5 hours, 19 min ago


Bells, did you just vote for this?


reply | flag *


message 17: by Books Ring My Bell
5 hours, 19 min ago


Matthew, it is WRONG... WRONG! esp. on a site where people vote on stuff. You give credit... that's the right thing to do.


reply | flag *


message 18: by Michelle (last edited 01/30/2009 12:58PM)
5 hours, 18 min ago


Wrong is the perfect word, Matthew. Is there any other way to look at it? It's plagerism. Unless Bacevich is credited, it is plain and straight plagiarism. Her name is at the top followed by another's words. Explain how that is right in any form?


reply | flag *


message 19: by Jon
5 hours, 17 min ago


Well. I was interested in talking about Niebuhr/Obama with the person that wrote this review, because it is a subject that interests me. As it turns out, the person I wanted to talk to is Bacevich, which is not a surprise since he is a man I greatly admire. It is not that reviews need to be meticulously cited like an academic paper, but in an environment like GR, where words are not only all we have, but are the focus of what we are doing here, a misrepresentation of this sort is, in fact, just plain wrong.


reply | flag *


message 20: by Books Ring My Bell
5 hours, 16 min ago


i tested the vote/unvote feature.

Can I send my vote to Andrew J. Bacevich?

I'm looking for other falsified reviews I voted for, so I can unvote!


reply | flag *


message 21: by Books Ring My Bell
5 hours, 11 min ago


now I'm mad. It won't take my vote away!

GRRRRR!


reply | flag *


message 22: by Jessica
5 hours, 6 min ago


hmmm....I think it does & will, eventually. I've done it accidentally on other reviews, when I forgot I'd already voted...hmm. maybe something one used to be able to do but no longer??


reply | flag *


message 23: by Shelly
5 hours, 3 min ago


I can't take credit for the sleuthing, by the way. It was the handiwork of Goodreads' own Brian G.

See how simple it is?


reply | flag *


message 24: by matthew
5 hours, 1 min ago


i submit that "in an environment like GR", as jon puts it (an attribution!), people should ease off on the caffeine. it's a casual "space". should ginnie give her sources? surely. do the votes mean anything? uh... no. was malice intended? i think not. that people could be enraged by such a sl(e)ight leads me to believe that they have more free time than even myself, which is saying a great deal. perhaps they should employ said time in seeking therapy.


reply | flag *


message 25: by Manny (last edited 01/30/2009 01:05PM)
5 hours, 0 min ago


Oh dear. As a keen online chess player, I hope history won't repeat itself. I used to play on the free chess sites, but they became infested with people who consulted chess engines in order to make themselves into virtual Grandmasters. I now have to pay $60 a year to use the facilities of the Internet Chess Club, where they have automatic testing which makes sure that people's moves don't match the chess engines too well. What's crazy is that no one was playing for money, just rating points.

Would really be a shame if this kind of thing happened to GoodReads...



reply | flag *


message 26: by Jessica (last edited 01/30/2009 01:09PM)
5 hours, 0 min ago


if only therapy worked...!


I didn't say malice was intended. but deception is never a good thing, whether done with malice or benevolence. that's how I see it at any rate.


reply | flag *


message 27: by David (last edited 01/30/2009 01:07PM)
4 hours, 58 min ago


that people could be enraged by such a sl(e)ight leads me to believe that they have more free time than even myself, which is saying a great deal. perhaps they should employ said time in seeking therapy.

This really is very childish, Matthew. Nothing like rebutting our arguments with implicit insults about mental stability. Cute, very cute.

And, yeah, maybe it would be considered "sloppiness" if she didn't do it ALL THE TIME.


reply | flag *


message 28: by Shelly
4 hours, 57 min ago


Well put, Chairy.


reply | flag *


message 29: by matthew
4 hours, 54 min ago


i think it childish to attack the woman!


reply | flag *


message 30: by matthew (last edited 01/30/2009 01:12PM)
4 hours, 53 min ago


goodreads is a conversation. it doesn't require footnotes.


reply | flag *


message 31: by Jessica
4 hours, 53 min ago


and if she were a he?


reply | flag *


message 32: by Michelle (last edited 01/30/2009 01:17PM)
4 hours, 52 min ago


Matthew! By saying that you are not only devaluing what we ALL write, but also what we all depend on as readers. This "space", this forum is more then a random blog with make-believe pretend reviews. We all come here to discuss books, read about books, and learn about books. Discussing with someone about a book we shared doesn't work when the other person is pretending to know what they are talking about.

"When I read that paragraph I wanted to punch myself in the dick. Hard. But I think I have issues. Maybe others do not." JKBruenning GR 10/2008

Credit your sources. It's easy.


reply | flag *


message 33: by David
4 hours, 52 min ago


No one attacked her. Man, you're defensive... Are you Ginnie Jones? All we did was point out that it was wrong -- which everyone seems to believe except you for some reason.

goodreds is a conversation. it doesn't require footnotes.

Maybe you should peruse your terms of use some time. It does require footnotes.


reply | flag *


message 34: by matthew
4 hours, 40 min ago


ha! i was going to write "if that IS her real name!", but i guess i got beaten to it. i am not ginnie; believe as you like. ginnie, whomsoever she may be, though, has pointed me to interesting books. she should've linked me to the original reviews, probably, but perhaps she did me a service through editing. "WRONG!", "I've been duped", and "I'm so enraged" are attacks. yes, i try to defend those i feel are wrongly attacked, and by a mob, at that. hm. as to the terms of use, you are correct: i have not read them. i didn't know people really did, unless money was on the line, or some such. still, it's an argumentum ad verecundiam, in essence, and i shan't have it.


reply | flag *


message 35: by Michelle
4 hours, 38 min ago


What kind of world would we live in if we only paid attention to rules when money was on the line?


reply | flag *

Freinds: I had copied, pasted and sent myself an e-mail of Ginnie's review, along with the first 114 comments in its thread. I'll be pasting the review, and then the thread below:

The Irony of American History
by Reinhold Niebuhr




Ginnie's review

rating:
bookshelves: government, history, philosophy-ethics, politics



Barack Obama has identified Reinhold Niebuhr as "one of my favorite philosophers" and is familiar with the great Protestant theologian’s various writings. Yet as Obama assumes the mantle of Most Powerful Man in the World, Niebuhr’s Irony of American History is one volume that deserves a careful second reading by all citizens.

Published in 1952, when the Cold War was at its frostiest and Americans were still coming to terms with what it meant to exercise global leadership, Irony called attention to a series of illusions to which Niebuhr believed his countrymen and their political leaders were peculiarly susceptible. To persist in those illusions, he warned, was to court political and moral catastrophe. History, he wrote, "is enacted in a frame of meaning too large for human comprehension or management." To imagine that history can be coerced toward some predetermined destination represents the height of folly.

With the end of the Cold War in...more Barack Obama has identified Reinhold Niebuhr as "one of my favorite philosophers" and is familiar with the great Protestant theologian’s various writings. Yet as Obama assumes the mantle of Most Powerful Man in the World, Niebuhr’s Irony of American History is one volume that deserves a careful second reading by all citizens.

Published in 1952, when the Cold War was at its frostiest and Americans were still coming to terms with what it meant to exercise global leadership, Irony called attention to a series of illusions to which Niebuhr believed his countrymen and their political leaders were peculiarly susceptible. To persist in those illusions, he warned, was to court political and moral catastrophe. History, he wrote, "is enacted in a frame of meaning too large for human comprehension or management." To imagine that history can be coerced toward some predetermined destination represents the height of folly.

With the end of the Cold War in 1989, those very same illusions—now expressed through self-congratulatory claims that the end of history had elevated the United States to the status of indispensable nation called upon to exercise benign global hegemony—gained a rebirth. In the wake of 9/11, George W. Bush embraced those illusions and made them the foundation of his global war on terror. The catastrophes that ensued testify eloquently to the enduring relevance of the warnings that Niebuhr had issued a half century earlier.

To correct the errors of the Bush era will require that Obama repudiate the illusions that gave rise to those errors in the first place. In that regard, Irony should serve as an essential text. A first rule of statecraft, Niebuhr writes, is to nurture a "modest awareness of the limits of our own knowledge and power." Modesty doesn’t imply passivity. It does mean curbing the inclination to portray our adversaries as evil incarnate while insisting that we ourselves are innocent and our purposes altruistic.

Niebuhr observed that "the pretensions of virtue are as offensive to God as the pretensions of power." After eight years that gave us Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, and waterboarding, our pretensions of virtue look a bit worse for wear. The imperative of the moment is to manifest "a sense of contrition about the human frailties and foibles which lie at the foundation of both the enemy’s demonry and our own vanities....

message 1: by Jon
01/29/2009 04:39PM


Good review Ginnie. It is one of the strange ironies of the past 8 years that the religious right was able to hijack Niebuhr (it will take someone much smarter than I to unpack how they did it) to advance some of their own ideas, and now Obama will try and right the ship with some of the same thinking.


reply | flag *


message 2: by matthew
8 hours, 19 min ago


if it's enacted in a frame of meaning too large for human comprehension or management, how does he imagine he can say anything definite about it? i haven't read the book, but it seems he conflates history with god (an interesting idea, if not particularly useful). i don't decry where he appears to be going, but how he's getting there.


reply | flag *


message 3: by David
6 hours, 46 min ago


Um, wasn't this just a cut-and-paste of Andrew J. Bacevich's article in the Washington Monthly?

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/feature...

Shouldn't this be attributed?


reply | flag *


message 4: by Michelle (last edited 01/30/2009 11:25AM)
6 hours, 41 min ago


Hear hear, David!


reply | flag *


message 5: by Jessica
6 hours, 31 min ago


Ginnie, I've found this with some of your reviews as well, that they're not always attributed--the one on Kleinzahler's poetry book, for example. It's confusing and misleading.


reply | flag *


message 6: by Chris
5 hours, 36 min ago


Damn, I've been duped. The review did feel a bit too polished but I never suspected it was a cut and paste. Nice catch, David.

Any way I can take back my vote for this review?


reply | flag *


message 7: by matthew
5 hours, 33 min ago


yikes! it's not an academic paper, people. she's not getting paid for it. i don't think she intends to cover herself with the glory of professional reviewers.


reply | flag *


message 8: by Kevin
5 hours, 31 min ago


That would be quite the commute from Pasadena to Boston!


reply | flag *


message 9: by Chris
5 hours, 31 min ago


I am so enraged by this that I won't be able to sleep tonight. In fact, I may never be able to sleep again.


reply | flag *


message 10: by Books Ring My Bell
5 hours, 30 min ago


sorry Matthew. You have to give credit where credit's due... esp. when it's word for word.




reply | flag *


message 11: by Books Ring My Bell (last edited 01/30/2009 12:36PM)
5 hours, 29 min ago


*passes Chris some Ambien*

Nothing is as it seems, eh?

Yes, you can take your vote back, by clicking on yes again.


reply | flag *


message 12: by Jessica
5 hours, 28 min ago


There's an assumption here that the reviews we write are our own, unless attributed, whether they're silly or stupendous... not stating otherwise is wrong, no matter how you look at it.


reply | flag *


message 13: by matthew
5 hours, 22 min ago


"wrong" seems a strong word. inattentive, perhaps. sloppy? maybe. simply furthering the spread of ideas? quite possibly. i don't thank god every time i say "vengeance is mine!".


reply | flag *


message 14: by David (last edited 01/30/2009 12:47PM)
5 hours, 22 min ago


Wow, Matthew. Do you really believe it's okay to post someone else's writing without giving credit, regardless of the context? I hope not. She could've just linked the article if she wanted to "spread ideas."

I can't take credit for the sleuthing, by the way. It was the handiwork of Goodreads' own Brian G.


reply | flag *

Good stuff Melody!

I honestly thought that maybe she was reading the books, and then finding reviews that agreed with her opinion, and that was how she justified it in her mind. If she didn't even read the books, she's even more of a criminal.

MyFleshSingsOut wrote: "Ben wrote: "That makes think: I wonder if she even read all the books she plaigarized reviews for..."

I immediately assumed "No" when becoming aware of the extent of the plagiarism. But who knows..."


If that's the case then the whole thing is even worse, because she's attributing stars (or lack thereof) that don't belong there; you can't have an opinion of something you haven't read. Even the reviewer that she stole from could have given the book a different number of stars than her. It sounds silly to care about, but it's another example of her gaming our beloved goodreads system.

It looks like her review of "The Great Divorce" is legit, which is a shame because she really should have given it 5 stars.

That makes think: I wonder if she even read all the books she plaigarized reviews for...

Heh, she is insufferable. But I still think you're her. Just ask Mike/David/Donald (they are all the same person, according to an earlier post from Mike).

I was joking...

Maybe you're Ginnie, MyFlesh... how do we really know???

What if Ginnie Jones is really Otis?

Jessica #65: In any case, hasn't this whole thing been kind of fun? Nothing like a little hysterical indignation and intrigue to distract me from my own failings.

Jessica, it may be because my life is lame, but damn I've had fun with all of this.

(the whole situation really is fascinating)

If anyone wants to add this to the conversation, they can -- I'm not sure if it's appropriate or not, but I figure it couldn't hurt to throw this in the mix should someone deem it relevant..(it's copied from portions of Joe Biden's wikipedia page):

"During his first year there, he was accused of having plagiarized 5 of 15 pages of a law review article. Biden said it was inadvertent due to his not knowing the proper rules of citation, and he was permitted to retake the course after receiving a grade of F, which was subsequently dropped from his record.[17:] He was admitted to the Delaware Bar in 1969.[16:]



In September 1987, the campaign ran into trouble when he was accused of plagiarizing a speech by Neil Kinnock, then-leader of the British Labour Party.[102:] Kinnock’s speech included the lines:

"Why am I the first Kinnock in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? [Then pointing to his wife in the audience:] Why is Glenys the first woman in her family in a thousand generations to be able to get to university? Was it because all our predecessors were thick?"

While Biden’s speech included the lines:

"I started thinking as I was coming over here, why is it that Joe Biden is the first in his family ever to go to a university? [Then pointing to his wife in the audience:] Why is it that my wife who is sitting out there in the audience is the first in her family to ever go to college? Is it because our fathers and mothers were not bright? Is it because I'm the first Biden in a thousand generations to get a college and a graduate degree that I was smarter than the rest?"

Though Biden had cited Kinnock as the source for the formulation many times before, he made no reference to the original source at the August 23 Iowa State Fair debate in question or in another appearance.[103:][104:] While political speeches often appropriate ideas and language from each other, Biden's use came under more scrutiny because he somewhat distorted his own family's background in order to match Kinnock's.[9:][104:]

A few days later, Biden's plagiarism incident in law school came to light.[17:] It was also revealed that when earlier questioned by a New Hampshire resident about his grades in law school, Biden had inaccurately recollected graduating in the "top half" of his class, that he had attended law school on a full scholarship, and had received three degrees in college. He had in fact earned a single B.A. with a double major in history and political science, had received a half scholarship to law school based on financial need with some additional assistance based in part upon academics, and had graduated 76th of 85 in his law school class.[105:]

The Kinnock and school revelations were magnified by the limited amount of other news about the nomination race at the time,[106:] when most of the public were not yet paying attention to any of the campaigns; Biden thus fell into what Washington Post writer Paul Taylor described as that year's trend, a "trial by media ordeal".[107:] Biden lacked a strong demographic or political group of support to help him survive the crisis.[101:][108:] He withdrew from the nomination race on September 23, 1987, saying his candidacy had been overrun by "the exaggerated shadow" of his past mistakes.[109:] After Biden withdrew from the race, it was revealed that the Dukakis campaign had secretly made a video showcasing the Biden–Kinnock comparison and distributed it to news outlets.[110:] Also later in 1987, the Delaware Supreme Court's Board of Professional Responsibility cleared Biden of the law school plagiarism charges regarding his standing as a lawyer, saying Biden had "not violated any rules".[111:]"

Message #31 MyFleshSingsOut: " A lie can at least be original. Not so with pure plagiarism." Great point! I guess that's where creativity comes into play, and the fact that the person is at least displaying some type of ability.

And yet, part of me thinks that the whole Ginnie thing wouldn't be as bad, if she had in fact created the whole librarian persona and is really a 35 year old male or something. Perhaps it's because in my mind, that way her persona is at least creative and her plagiarizing somehow becomes an extension of her created persona. It's awful and disgraceful either way, but it's something to think about...

Eddie wrote: There's also the possibility that the further you get from "Art" the less acceptable plagiarism (or borrowing) becomes."

Very interesting thought, Eddie. It makes me think of all the memoirs out there (take Running with Scissors for example) that are written in ways that may resemble the person's life, but contain many outright lies as well. In these instances, it pisses me off if the author tries to portray the book as (almost) completely accurate and doesn't at least use the term "based on" or something equivalent to it. But even if they don't, it still doesn't seem quite as bad as it would be if it were a total outright lie. And perhaps it does become less repulsive depending on the level of truth and yes, the level of creativity...

I think anyone is in the right when they get seriously offended and upset at plagiarism. It should tear and burn at your sense of justice and betrayal. I can only imagine how much worse it is when you have an admiration for the person that you found out did it. Although I've been a member for awhile, I've only been using this site for purposes other than keeping track of books, recently. Since taking on this excursion I've developed an admiration for the insights and abilities of some of you (Brian, Mike, and Jessica, for example). I think if I were to get as close to these people as some of you were to Ginnie, I really would have been upset, and I'm impressed at how well most of you handled the whole thing....