Receiving credit for your work

Pages: 1234
Oh you mean the types of court cases that you are claiming to be immoral/wrong in your paper?


Looks like ModShop caught LB nicely out here - seems like he's done a disappearing act!

My view on those who claim the work of others is that they are pathetic humans who can't really cope in this world without riding on the coat tails of those who can.

So ... if you can create/invent things then may the universe acknowledge and reward you, otherwise stop being a pathetic human.
Given the arguments made by LB in the sense that its okay to steal someone else's work, I am tempted to change his title from 'LB' to 'Wanna-B'.

Stealing from someone else doesn't make you that person, but it does highlight your intent to want to be like that person.
My arguments are stupid and I need to stay away from this topic for a while. Apparently I had a lot of cognitive dissonance.
Welcome back LB and good to see your recant on the topic.

I have to ask though, what possessed you to hold such beliefs in the first place?
@zepher 
LB is an intelligent, long-time and consistent contributor to the forum. Like any of us, he does occasionally make a faux pas, but there is no need to resurrect an old thread just to make fun of him.

People will do what they will, correct or not, but we like our little corner of the internet to be as civil as possible. ;O)
@Duoas
I respect LB and his contributions as well as the occasional faux pas, but what LB said appeared to be heavily laidened with corporate dogma. I find corporate dogma an insult to the field of mathematics and computer science and needs to be shown false at every corner especially when they try inflicting such dogma upon our fields where bs has no place.
zepher wrote:
I respect LB and his contributions as well as the occasional faux pas


Then respect his final comment and let it go.
My arguments are stupid and I need to stay away from this topic for a while.


@ultifinitus:
His last comment contains the "for a while" phrase which could be construed as him still holding to such beliefs in such sense that he would still see fit to act like a typical corporate some time in the future to retry justifying such dogma.

If this is so, then he should have his complete say right now.

I don't know what beliefs I hold on the subject at this time. I thought I had an opinion, but the more I responded to this thread the more I realized I held conflicting views. It's not a good feeling to realize that your beliefs conflict with each other. I was deathly afraid to respond to this topic because of how bad it felt. I've also had some rather unexpected bad things happen in my life that I had to address, so I eventually forgot about this entirely.

All my opinions are my own and they change over time. I don't think I've believed the same thing for more than a few years at a time. If I wanted to keep believing the same things all the time, I'd never talk about my beliefs. I start topics like this because I like to keep an open mind. If you think I am spreading propaganda, just explain why and I'll try to understand.

I will say, however, that I got an A- on the essay.
Last edited on
@zepher: Could be construed, sure, but your comments could also be construed to indicate that you like you're a hypocrite. I mean, such strong anti-corporate sentiments surely do not simply rest in your words without action, do they? Yet here you are, using the internet, a service built, maintained, and offered largely by some corporations. Powerful ones too.

EDIT: Before this gets reported, lemme just say that I'm not saying you're a hypocrite. I'm saying you're reading way too much into things. I have no reason to believe that LB's points were derived from any "corporate source", whatever that may be, and that no malicious intent was harbored here. Besides, if what LB was saying was true (that credit cannot be stolen), that could actually be a major issue for corporations as they are now, where individual achievement is usually hidden or misattributed.

Also, at no point did LB say that he supported stealing things. He merely made the claim that it is impossible to steal credit. Those are fundamentally different.

-Albatross

@LB: An A-? You bring dishonor on your famiry! Seriously, though, congratulations.
Last edited on
@LB: I meant no offense in my posts, I was merely trying to state my opinions and point out possible weaknesses/flaws in your logic. Better that I find them than your professor. Congratulations on the A- though, you clearly had good points.

@zepher: It's funny you want to call LB a wanna-B and a pathetic human, because usually people who put down others do so to make themselves feel better about their own lives. Stop being a dick and mind your own business.
@TheRabittologist
I will not reiterate the arguments made against LB's posts whereby ModShop caught him out in his conflicting logic.

The outcome of his defeat in the aformentioned argument illustrates that stealing is stealing regardless of where you or anyone else draws the line and as such can and usually does bear consequences.

Thus people who steal credit for other peoples work amount to nothing more than opportunistic scum buckets much like the corporate entities that act in such ways.

I have strong anti-corporate sentiments against corporations who act as though they have the right to bully an individual simply because they have the power and money to do so, regardless of how unethical their stance may be toward the matter at hand.

I have no problems with big corporations that innovate and make big bucks - as you point out - I am using the internet which is mainly controlled by big corporations.

So for LB to recant with a phrase containing "for a while" seems to suggest that he accepts defeat for now but will rethink his strategy for future.

If I am wrong about the meaning of this phrase within the given conext then please correct me, otherwise if I am correct then it highlights that he does not really accept defeat on this topic but merely acts as a wounded corporate who tries to be evasive while in the losing seat.

It could also be argued that if one is allowed to sue for deformation of character, then on the grounds that you are the original creator of something adds to your character and thereby one's character is deformed by the act of someone else claiming credit for your original work.


@LB - great that you got an A on your essay - it however still doesn't make it correct - sort of like scoring an A on a theological paper.

@ModShop
because usually people who put down others do so to make themselves feel better about their own lives


This is not the case with me - I'm just calling LB out on his scummy logic as such scummy logic can affect other peoples lives negatively by allowing big corporations to spread their false dogma as sound logic. So it will make me feel better about my life knowing that I stood up for something I knew to be correct. I still like the way you caught LB out even though you call me a dick :)
I don't think of anything in terms of winning or losing, because that's the wrong way to think of things. If you argue to win, you're not really able to accept that you could be wrong.

I meant to say "I needed to stay away from this topic for a while". I had no idea such a simple typo could generate such a wall of text.
I meant to say "I needed to stay away from this topic for a while"


I don't see how this is significantly different from your previous statement - care to elaborate?
who reported me and why?

can I see this information - if not, it seems like it will be a very handy new feature.
I reported you for hostile behavior and vicious personal attacks on other members.

On a side note, I can't understand how you draw a link between LB's philosophical musing and corporate dogma.

Regardless, it only reflects poorly on you for resorting to mean spirited personal attacks to make a point.
Last edited on
I reported you for hostile behavior and vicious personal attacks on other members.


Calling someone a thief when he claims that he condones stealing from others isn't a vicious personal attack.

In the same way LB has claimed that he condones stealing someone else's work if you unable to produce such work all by yourself. That in my opinion amounts to a pathetic person who wants what others have (hence Wanna-B) but is unwilling to commit the actual work for it.
One who steals may be called a thief, one who condones theft should not be presumed a thief, and one who is a thief need not condone theft.

I think we should return to the old meanings of "thief" and "steal" whereby a thief is a person who steals into hard-to-reach places to recover artefacts, not necessarily to take what belongs to another, but to access what is inaccessible to most people. Several historical artefacts have been recovered by thieves, such as the "Gospel of Judas" (not written by him, but written with him as the only disciple who understood that Jesus' mission was to die for mankind's sins).

Under the old meanings, a person taking property which "belongs" to another is committing larceny, not theft. (I put "belongs" in quotes because Max Stirner would argue that when one takes that which one considers another's property, the property becomes one's own: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property.")
Last edited on
Max Stirner would argue that when one takes that which one considers another's property, the property becomes one's own: "Whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property.")


By this definition we should not then label mugging and robbing a crime - or is it only a crime when done by not a large enough or influential enough entity - reeks of corporate dogma again.
Stirner would probably say it's much worse when done by large, influential entities (which he liked to call "spooks").
Pages: 1234