tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post787939327742165859..comments2023-10-20T05:51:51.625-04:00Comments on The THINK 3 INSTITUTE: The People's WordsSamuel Wilsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00934870299522899944noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8820814198873126054.post-5579508581610473732016-07-20T20:02:10.342-04:002016-07-20T20:02:10.342-04:00My standard for that is whether the message is mor...My standard for that is whether the message is more important than the messenger. If not, then plagiarism it is - as long as it is the original creator who complains, and <i><b>ONLY</b></i> the creator of that particular set of words who complains, and it can't be proven that someone else said the exact same thing earlier in time.<br /><br />If, on the other hand, the original creator doesn't care, or is dead, why is it important?<br /><br />And if the message is more important than the messenger, it should be self-evident. After all, is someone going to whine about plagiarism when the instructions being given them to keep them safe are "plagiarized"? But then, I don't put much stock in the idea of "intellectual property" when it's a corporation claiming ownership.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com