3 ms·
I am flabbergasted. How self-absorbed does one have to be to be offended by someone re-using sections of a paper one has done earlier in a later paper? No, se
by bborud 3mo ago
I am flabbergasted. How self-absorbed does one have to be to be offended by someone re-using sections of a paper one has done earlier in a later paper?
No, seriously. If I write 5.000 words on a topic and then re-use 500 words I myself have written earlier without attribution because they are appropriate to the current article, how do you make that «bad manners».
I meant what I said about people who can’t see this without help earlier.
- bawolff 3mo agoI mean, i dont know how things work in academia, but if i was reading a fiction novel, and it turns out half of it was copied from some other novel i already read, i would feel a bit cheated. So i could imagine the same thing applying to academic works.
- jubilanti 3mo agoHow about you take that stick out of your ass and stop assuming that norms which have existed for generations are, what, just some kind of mass mental illness?
- bborud 3mo agoYou do understand that you look somewhat ridiculous when engaging in the very behavior that the accusation of wooden matter up one’s rectum implies? You are arguing my point for me by way of self-parody.
- MengerSponge 3mo agoIf it's a new article it should say something new. You can save your reader's time and your own effort by quoting some of those words, or by citing all of them. That trims almost 500 superfluous words from your paper, and what's left will be better, which respects your reader.