I, personally, can't wait until he gets the check. posted by bhance at 8:19 AM on March 29, 2005
" Could he not face, in many jurisdictions, fraud charges in connection with his actions here?"
If so, I suggest that we mefites do our best to make sure that he is punished. As he deserves. He should have considered his actions more carefully. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:20 AM on March 29, 2005
in which yest another self-absorbed blogger of limited comedic ability foists yet another 'i scammed teh stoopit IM stranger' entry on the masses.
save my spot in the yawnosphere. posted by quonsar at 8:23 AM on March 29, 2005
She done did bad.
He done did much worse.
Egomaniac. posted by peacay at 8:25 AM on March 29, 2005
I'm rather amused by that thing, although I'm shocked at how much hatin' Nate is getting over this. I'm guessing that there must be a lot of people out there who, like Laura K. Pahl, have bought pre-made papers in the past and are appalled that anyone could think there is something wrong with the practice. posted by clevershark at 8:29 AM on March 29, 2005
Without nudie pictures, this story is useless. posted by jsavimbi at 8:29 AM on March 29, 2005
I'm guessing that there must be a lot of people out there who, like Laura K. Pahl, have bought pre-made papers in the past and are appalled that anyone could think there is something wrong with the practice.
Or they just think he went a little too far to prove a point, which is entirely more likely.
I watched people plagiarize their way through university and can safely say that I think that some form of stringing her along until her paper is due and then handing over the rubbish paper would have sufficed. Let her fail the paper; she'l learn quickly.
This was someone doing something so that they could blog it, which is pretty low for both blogging and comedy standpoints. posted by dflemingdotorg at 8:31 AM on March 29, 2005
This is an almost unbelievably vicious thing to do to someone. I'm with peacay; this guy's a jerk. So's the girl, but she's simply hurting herself. He's crossed over into something far, far worse. posted by mediareport at 8:34 AM on March 29, 2005
Why is this fellow he did worse? I also am shocked about how many people are crying over this "poor girl", who had obviously done this before; her constant checking up on the writer for progress reports, the laughable excuses to not pay up front, etc. In the beginning of every class the syllabus notes that plagiarism is grounds for a zero grade. Anyone who can't write a couple of pages in graduate school deserves the wrath of Nate. posted by uni verse at 8:37 AM on March 29, 2005
This is hilarious. Laura K. Pahl the plagiarist deserves everything she gets, and I think that this Nate is a fine, fine person.
Why are the rest of you so hung up on exposing cheaters? Is this how you got your degree, mediareport? Peacay? EB?
Why not turn the tables on someone who is without any sense of honor or fair play? Fuck Laura K. Pahl the plagiarist; defend those who are worth defending. posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:38 AM on March 29, 2005
He gets points for keeping this little shenanigan down to a single blog post, rather than milking it for twenty or so ad-heavy pages. posted by George_Spiggott at 8:39 AM on March 29, 2005
[what he did] sorry posted by uni verse at 8:39 AM on March 29, 2005
From the blog:
so I started making up my plan. Which was real simple: Take her money and cut and paste a paper together from the internet that was so obviously plagiarised that she'd be guaranteed to get caught. And then, if I was able to get the information out of her, I'd report her to whatever her school was, and who knows, maybe even pump her for double money in exchange for not turning her in. Either way, I'd eventually be writing the story up in this blog, and sending her the link to it.
I've never plagarized a paper in my life, and I find this guys attitude horrible. Who the fuck does he think he is? I agree with the premise that if Laura did something bad, Nathan did something much much worse; and not least because he trespasses on the need of a stranger. Even if that need isn't something that he (or I) sympathizes with, there's no need to do anything other than tell her that he can't help her. But then what do I know, I always forget to kick the junkies I don't give money to on the street. posted by OmieWise at 8:40 AM on March 29, 2005
i couldn't make myself read half of that. i'll find it endlessly amusing if it turns out to be a different laura pahl than the one he thinks it is and after causing her problems with the school, she sues the hell out of him. posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 8:41 AM on March 29, 2005
I'm with Nate, too, though it would probably have been a better punchline if he'd not notified the school, and just let the paper stand on its own. I mean, come on, she IMed a stranger to get him to write a paper for her; we want her to get a degree? posted by MrMoonPie at 8:41 AM on March 29, 2005
Nathan did something much much worse
What, pray tell, is that? Tell the truth?
Would you give safe harbor to a felon? Would you look away as an employee dipped into the till? Any college student knows that plagiarism is unethical. She chose to do it anyway. Why the pity? posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:43 AM on March 29, 2005
I'm guessing that some sympathetic person will track Laura down and warn her before she turns the paper in.
Out of curiousity, though, I did some quick digging, and I didn't find an easy way to discover her phone number/email address. Anybody else have better luck?
But I'm with MrMoonPie. Scamming somebody who's trying to scam their school? Funny. Vindictively naming your entry (for Google) "Laura K. Pahl is a plagarist" and notifying the school and deliberately not notifying Laura - that's just cruelty, pure and simply. It's ugly. posted by gd779 at 8:43 AM on March 29, 2005
Well negating a wrong isn't always right. I guess the other thing to do might have been to email her right before the time the paper was due with a note saying "If you turn that paper in, you'll have hell to pay."
I'm torn. It's certainly being a vigilante, but in a place where the law is few and far between which may be where vigilantes are called for. On her side, there is also some license to act badly in cases where no one else is being caught for acting badly. But the risk is there, and even if you speed with the rest, "everyone does it" isn't a good reason to expect that society will let you out of the ticket.
I believe her punishment would fit the crime if she was flunked or kicked out -- but being THE public face of plagiarism is a little harsh. We don't deserve to be publicly mocked for personal failings. To print T-shirts is a bit much.
The paper, however, is a classic. posted by ontic at 8:43 AM on March 29, 2005
If Nate cashes the cheque, then he may be entering the sphere of jerkness. If he gives that cheque to charity, I guess it depends on your personal value system whether or not it cancels out.
However, as long as the cheque isn't cashed, he's basically a person who was approached with an offer to commit a crime, and instead of just saying "Count me out" and letting the criminal try with someone else, instead tried to sabotage the crime and get the criminals caught. Thumbs up.
(yes, I realize it isn't a "criminal offence", but I believe the analogy is generally valid). posted by bugbread at 8:43 AM on March 29, 2005
Actionable tort, thy name is Nate Kushner! posted by MaxVonCretin at 8:43 AM on March 29, 2005
Oh please, uni verse, I'm not crying over "this poor girl"; I said I think she's a jerk (and a very stupid one, at that). But Nate's public shaming is so holier-than-thou it's a wonder his head's not pinned to the ground under the weight of his halo. Emailing the president of Lewis University?
Someone who buys papers like this deserves to receive the kind of obviously plagiarized paper she did.
However, the public mocking is indeed a little over-the-top. But I'm not past a little good ol' schadenfreude.
And yes, legally speaking, cashing that check would be a bad idea. posted by mek at 8:47 AM on March 29, 2005
If she agreed, upon entering the University, to a code of conduct which includes expulsion upon discovery of plagiarism, then the blog guy is doing nothing wrong and she has brought the entire problem upon herself. I don't see anything wrong with what he has done. posted by Fantt at 8:48 AM on March 29, 2005
Optimus Chyme writes"Nathan did something much much worse
"What, pray tell, is that? Tell the truth?
"Would you give safe harbor to a felon? Would you look away as an employee dipped into the till? Any college student knows that plagiarism is unethical. She chose to do it anyway. Why the pity?"
What felony? Look, I'm not defending this girl. I think what she did stunk and she doesn't seem like someone I would want to spend time with. You've listed two crimes and then admitted that plagarism is 'unethical'. Nate decided somewhere along the lines that his mission was to seriously hurt this girl. And the defenses that are offered here for that don't really come from his entry. He seems pretty blasé about the plagarism, although he does say that he doesn't like it. He mostly seems to want a good blog entry. At least to me.
On preview: I would have no problem if he just sent her a ridiculous paper, that would seem appropriate to me. It's the attempt to get her into real trouble, and to expand that to everyone who knows her or might come to know her in future, that I've got a problem with. posted by OmieWise at 8:50 AM on March 29, 2005
If Nate cashes the cheque, then he may be entering the sphere of jerkness.
he's already a member in good standing of the jerkosphere. if he cashes the check, then he's a criminal. posted by quonsar at 8:50 AM on March 29, 2005
Any teacher worth his or her salt would catch the plagiarism, but it would be truly classic if the paper passed -- highlighting the other side of the equation (professorial lack of concern for students).
To those of you who think she will learn a lesson -- why is this? If her entire life is reduced to this act by the Internet, is there any reason to learn the lesson? posted by ontic at 8:50 AM on March 29, 2005
Did anyone else notice the phrase "I made a doody"stuck in the middle of the third paragraph? I laughed. Doody. hehe.
Whose actions were more wrong? The one who pagarizes? The one who set out to expose and defraud the plagarist? Or the multitudes who judge them both?
Maybe I am worst, who judges those who judge! Or, even better yet, those who are sure to come after to judge me for judging those who judge.
The word "judge" starts to look weird when you read it over and over again. posted by leapfrog at 8:51 AM on March 29, 2005
and not least because he trespasses on the need of a stranger This is not a need that they can't fill, like heroin. She could've written the paper in less time it took to communicate with the blogger. What she didn't have was creativity and integrity: and I don't want anyone like that becoming a teacher and/or holding a master's degree in their field. posted by uni verse at 8:52 AM on March 29, 2005
*sigh* This isn't plagiarism, it's a work for hire- this makes her no more of a plagiarist than it makes a celebrity a plagiarist when their name is put onto a ghostwritten "autobiography."
Of course, that doesn't make it any more ethical in the grand scheme of her education, but for all the howling about how the Blair Hornstines of the world shouldn't hide behind the "I didn't know it was plagiarism" flag, people seem to be really, really fuzzy on what plagiarism actually is. posted by headspace at 8:53 AM on March 29, 2005
That check deserves to be framed not cashed. Comedic genius? No. However, she deserved everything she got. This girl is obviously too stupid to deserve a degree anyway. I would like to see her try to sue him for failing to do a good job helping her commit academic fraud (but he would be wise not to cash the check). It would be like the morons you hear about who called the police to report their dope being stolen. This is not entrapment; she initiated the contact. All Nate did was string her along. Good for him, and she gets first hand Karma experience. posted by caddis at 8:53 AM on March 29, 2005
Remember, plagarism is one of those things (like driving on the right side of the road) that is only unethical by convention. Many, many societies do not view plagarism the way that America does. I know it's going to be hard for some of you to make a rational, neutral value-judgment on something you feel so strongly about, but that's only because of the environment in which you were raised. posted by gd779 at 8:53 AM on March 29, 2005 [1 favorite]
University e-mail address used to take a couple possible forms that could be easy to guess based on information in that blog entry.
Personally, I worked my ass off for my degree and I hate with a seething passion people who cheat. This chick totally and completely deserves everything she's going to reap from this. Besides, if you haven't so much as cracked an eyelid in your World Religions class, you should know that Chivas has exactly as much to do with Hinduism as teetotalling has to do with frat houses: zero. Pay to play. If you want to to take the chance that someone's going to screw you, then you're going to take that chance. Don't be surprised, or expect sympathy, when you get screwed for being a dishonest cheater. (Besides, the paper is totally laughable. If she has two brain cells to rub together, she won't turn it in. It might have been *slightly* upsetting if he wrote a good paper, rather than what she actually got.) posted by Medieval Maven at 8:55 AM on March 29, 2005
Two wrongs clearly make a right.
Vigilante justice is a good thing.
As long as you're doing something to be able to blog about it then it's okay. posted by thedevildancedlightly at 8:55 AM on March 29, 2005
He resizes images using height and width parameters in his HTML instead of saving me the bandwidth and thumbnailing them. I think I will report him to his employer who should know he's a lazy twit.
Bitch didn't know he was fucking with a web geek... posted by theFlyingSquirrel at 8:57 AM on March 29, 2005
Pure and simple - what she did is grounds for expulsion. But she is a private figure, and inasmuch as there is evident malice in his intent, what he did is grounds for a defamation suit. posted by MaxVonCretin at 8:57 AM on March 29, 2005
If her entire life is reduced to this act by the Internet, is there any reason to learn the lesson?
Money is no object to her, remember? She'll be fine.
He mostly seems to want a good blog entry.
Things can serve dual purposes. You got your justice in my blog entry! You got your blog entry in my justice! posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:58 AM on March 29, 2005
headspace: She passed off work that was not her own as her own. Doesn't matter if it was hired work or not. It's plagiarism by any reasonable definition. posted by ontic at 8:58 AM on March 29, 2005
I don't see any winners here.
The girl is a) stupid/lazy for not doing her own damn work and b) Amazingly stupid for asking a complete stranger to write it for her.
On the other hand, Nate deserves no "atta boy"s either. He actively took action to snare the girl and then totally fuck with her. It was unnecessary and Dick-Cheney-Mean. Better to let the girl fail on her own, rather than be the one who kicks her off the ledge.
This is sort of like giving counterfeit money to a panhandler and then turning the bum into the cops. posted by Thorzdad at 8:58 AM on March 29, 2005 [1 favorite]
Good on him. If she's not in school to learn, she shouldn't be in school at all. May her name be smeared as long as Google exists to remember it. posted by Hildago at 8:59 AM on March 29, 2005
Alll this grief for a guy who turns in a thief? If Nate had turned in, say, a tobacco company, you'd be calling him a whistle-blower.
The only thing I disagree with is Nate's unsubstantiated observation that, "if a Shudra watches dharma and greg, it will have a positive effect on his karma..." posted by sixpack at 8:59 AM on March 29, 2005
what he did is grounds for a defamation suit.
I'm pretty sure you can't defame someone by telling the truth about them. posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:00 AM on March 29, 2005
The one who set out to expose and defraud the plagarist?
There's a lot of implication out there that Nate is "defrauding" that girl. That is just false. He certainly made no representation that the paper would be any good, nor did he advertise himself as an expert on the matter. On the contrary it's that Laura K. Pahl girl that has been insistent on having him do the paper, in no uncertain term.
Saying that he wants to "defraud" her is like saying that any cop who's ever done a sting is a con artist (because in those situations they were out to "defraud" other people).
As for those who want to warn Ms. Pahl, do you seriously think for a second that she won't just turn around and buy a paper from another source? She obviously knows SFA about the subject matter. posted by clevershark at 9:00 AM on March 29, 2005
Won't someone think of the feelings of the plagiarists too lazy to cut and paste their own papers off the internet?
I'm operating on the supposition that Nate isn't making anything up. All of it's true. So all the internet knows she bought a paper. Well, that's because she did. So her dean and her professor will probably find out that she bought a paper. She did. If she gets in trouble, she will get in trouble for things that she herself willingly chose to do.
If Nate was the one randomly IMing people and asking THEM if they wanted to buy papers off of him, I'd think we was a jerk. But he's doing things that Laura thought up first, and then telling people what she did. Good for him. posted by 23skidoo at 9:01 AM on March 29, 2005
Out of curiousity, though, I did some quick digging, and I didn't find an easy way to discover her phone number/email address. Anybody else have better luck?
If she gave out her phone number to him or his caller ID captured it, then it would be easier on his end investigating her further. Does her e-mail address have the university name in it? There is drama in his blog so he may have inflated the hows for better reading.
When she used the phone and e-mail, she should have hid her information on his receiving side.
As to her being "spoiled little rich girl", this is perplexing since she offered 60 bucks for a paper which seems fairly cheap. posted by thomcatspike at 9:01 AM on March 29, 2005
Who the hell IM's someone at random to write them an essay? "Eating Hindu Sculpture," WTF? Perhaps her University needs to review it's entrance requirements. posted by fire&wings at 9:02 AM on March 29, 2005
is there any reason to learn the lesson?
If she's not learning in college, she doesn't get the M.S.! If she doesn't learn integrity from this episode, I don't care, I'm tired of people scamming the system. posted by uni verse at 9:02 AM on March 29, 2005
Junkies don't need heroin, they want it. Alcoholics (if they're far enough gone) need alcohol. posted by OmieWise at 9:02 AM on March 29, 2005
Is Pahl her real name? posted by caddis at 9:03 AM on March 29, 2005
I'm baffled by the sympathy you people are pouring out to Laura K. What she's doing is grounds for expulsion, and she'd deserve it. Nate's engaging in a sting operation, pure and simple.
Otoh, while cashing the cheque almost certainly wouldn't be illegal, it definitely does strike me as unethical. But you're all missing the fact that Nate describes himself as a comic writer and his remarks about the money can probably be taken with a chunk of salt. As far as I'm concerned, three cheers to Nate for getting Laura her just desserts... posted by simra at 9:03 AM on March 29, 2005
I really can't see why people think he committed the more egregious sin. posted by drezdn at 9:05 AM on March 29, 2005
thedevildancedlightly :" Vigilante justice is a good thing."
Vigilante justice is taking the law into your own hands.
From what I can see, Nate is informing the university, allowing them to administer justice themselves.
It's the difference between shooting a robber and calling 911. Nate just put a paint bomb in the bag of cash and called the police about the robbery. Being upset about the cheque, I can understand, but I'm surprised you find the "writing a bum paper and turning her in" part to be a bad thing.. posted by bugbread at 9:05 AM on March 29, 2005
Could he not face, in many jurisdictions, fraud charges in connection with his actions here?
He wrote the paper, where's the fraud? She didn't have him sign an NDA posted by delmoi at 9:07 AM on March 29, 2005
I'm pretty sure you can't defame someone by telling the truth about them.
Actually, you can. Public disclosure of private facts, especially when maliciously intended to elicit public contempt or ridicule, still falls squarely in defamation territory. posted by MaxVonCretin at 9:07 AM on March 29, 2005
Wait, didn't we all jump on Blair Hornstein when her plagiarism was discovered? posted by robocop is bleeding at 9:08 AM on March 29, 2005
headspace: In that case, i've got some papers that need writing... posted by uni verse at 9:08 AM on March 29, 2005
Undergraduate plagiarism generally doesn't hurt anybody (except the plagiarizer). It is, in that sense, a victimless crime. But deliberately baiting someone and then trying to very publicly and very permanently fuck up their life - that's just ugly.
The irrational anti-plagarism moralizing in this thread makes you all sound like the Religious Right. posted by gd779 at 9:09 AM on March 29, 2005
Color me jaded... but I wouldn't be surprised if this was viral advertising.....
AWEEKOFKINDNESS!!!!
Shows announced, Blog operational!
Appearing Thursday, April 7th, 8:00 PM xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
With: Fearsome - The Scallywags - Skitch, Skatch, Scotch - Monkeys In The Atrium
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Between 8th and 9th Avenues), New York, NY - Cover $10
email xxxxxxxxxxxx@gmail.com with your name and the number of people in your party to make reservations.
(just in case it is... I x'ed out the pertinent info... and I also think the guy is a dick if it is true... so I ain't helpin' him none...) posted by Debaser626 at 9:09 AM on March 29, 2005
Sweeet. I have no sympathy for Laura. Take the rag away from your face, for now ain't the time for your tears.
Plagiarism is ethically wrong. And frankly, if it gets her a good GPA, it means that someone who did his own work doesn't get hired for the job Laura does get.
We're become too used to lies in this country, whether it's petty offenders like Laura, scientists who falsify research, corporations that hide research findings showing their products are dangerous, government agencies that suppress scientific findings that corporations don't like, journalists who lie about taking money from the politicians they cover, or presidents who lie under oath or lie us into war.
I don't know that Bush or Clinton plagiarised in school, but, for all of you who are sympathizing about Laura and calumniating Nate, remembers that liars are emboldened when they get away with lies.
Then we can explain to Grandma Millie, or the mother of a kid on Zoloft who just hanged himself, or the mother of an American soldier blown to pieces in an unnecessary war for Halliburton, that, well, we didn't want to ruin Laura's life by not hiring her, so we chose to make a buck and to ruin yours.
People like Laura grow up to run this country, folks. Save your sympathy for the kids who die so liars can purchase their vacation homes.
It's bright shiny people like Laura K. Pahl who grow up to become bright shining people like Robert S. McNamara and Donald Rumsfeld and whose bright shining lies cost the lives of thousands of Americans. The hell with her, I hope she rots,. posted by orthogonality at 9:09 AM on March 29, 2005 [1 favorite]
Some time ago, we found that a student in a US university had "stolen" dozens of known and less known CG pictures from the internet : he had creatively renamed the images, creatively erased the copyright notices and replaced them by his own name. Then he had built a website around "his" work, that he showed to the other students as a proof of his great graphic abilities (and possibly used to get some graphic jobs on the campus). One of his online nicknames was god.
We had a nice email chat with the university dean and after a few days, the matter was privately and quietly resolved (he got an earful). At no moment we felt that his name had to be publicly exposed, even though his "theft" was quite impressive and the whole story would have made fun reading. Even though I was pissed off (a few images were mine), even though his actions had been quite public, I didn't want the idiot's name to be dragged in the googlemud for the 10 next years. posted by elgilito at 9:10 AM on March 29, 2005
OmieWise: I find this guys attitude horrible. Who the fuck does he think he is? mediareport: This is an almost unbelievably vicious thing to do to someone. I'm with peacay; this guy's a jerk OmieWise: Nate decided somewhere along the lines that his mission was to seriously hurt this girl
What an interesting bit of sociology we've stumbled upon here. I'm squirming in guilty schadenfreude myself, so I won't condemn the above posters too harshly
But let go of your rage. This woman took her own risks, the consequences are hers to bear. Would we all be condemning Nathan if he had been asked to betray his profession's ethic and not reported it?
That said, making a public show out of it is poor taste. Forfeit karma bonus. posted by Popular Ethics at 9:10 AM on March 29, 2005
I'm not sure there's many here who would condone plagiarism. I did all my own work at Uni. And I helped others - not to cheat, just some assistance.
Laura must be punished, according to her University's rules. She may wish to pray that they don't cruise through her previous submissions.
But Nate is a complete and utter wanker - it's one thing to report someone for cheating, but a different ballpark entirely for him to play out punitive, egocentric and sadistic games for his own amusement and supposed blogcred. I want back my click. posted by peacay at 9:11 AM on March 29, 2005
I think it's pretty funny. Mean and more than I would have done, but pretty funny, nonetheless. posted by agregoli at 9:11 AM on March 29, 2005
Many, many societies do not view plagarism the way that America does.
So if I wanted to go to a university that doesn't mind if I pay someone else write my papers, there ought to be lots to choose from. Can you name a few? posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:11 AM on March 29, 2005
She passed off work that was not her own as her own. Doesn't matter if it was hired work or not. It's plagiarism by any reasonable definition.
No, it's not. She hired Nate to write a paper for her. Nate agreed to write a paper for her. It is a work for hire, and providing that both ends of the contract are met (Nate gives her the paper, she gives Nate the money,) she can do anything she wants with it, including claim it as her own. Again, this works exactly the same way ghostwriting contracts work- ghostwriters don't even get to claim those works on their CVs because the work-for-hire author sold the entire thing, including the right to call oneself the author.
Pahl is completely unethical (and a fraud if she doesn't actually send payment to Nate,) but she's not a plagiarist. posted by headspace at 9:12 AM on March 29, 2005 [1 favorite]
Cheaters deserve to get caught. Nate merely helped her reap her karmic reward. If what he did is wrong, he'll reap his, too. posted by five fresh fish at 9:12 AM on March 29, 2005
Undergraduate plagiarism generally doesn't hurt anybody (except the plagiarizer).
Not true at all. It hurts everyone who goes to her school for the same degree. On the outside, it hurts everyone who has (or is getting) an undergrad degree. It lowers the standards required to receive the degree, making everyone else's worth less. I worked hard for my degree, and I'll be damned if it's OK for someone else to get the same respect by buying theirs. posted by PantsOfSCIENCE at 9:12 AM on March 29, 2005
The irrational anti-plagarism moralizing
Where the fuck do you live where this sort of thing isn't frowned upon? posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:15 AM on March 29, 2005
orthogonality: That's what I'm talking about! There are consequences even for "victimless crimes". posted by uni verse at 9:15 AM on March 29, 2005
Armitage Shanks :"Many, many societies do not view plagarism the way that America does."
Many, many societies do not view college the way that America does. However, I don't think that your professors will pay much attention when you say, "Hey, I haven't been to class in 4 years, but you should give me a diploma anyway, because, hey, in Japan, you get your diploma pretty much automatically!" posted by bugbread at 9:17 AM on March 29, 2005
Your legal definitions of 'plagarism' may be interesting and correct and all, but in the end, I'm fairly sure a given professor isn't exactly going to be swayed by your Clintonesque squirming.. now, my favorite subject of castrated punishment avenues available to professors, that's another subject. I would be suprised if, all things considered, she even failed the class -- likely, she was offered a zero on the assignment or even a re-do. posted by kcm at 9:20 AM on March 29, 2005
I think some people are misreading headspace (hopefully, I'm not one of them).
From what I gather, headspace is just pointing out that plagiarism is not the right word in this case. It's similar to discussions where someone commits slander and other people talk about their commission of "libel".
Presumably, her college's conduct policy prohibits plagiarism and includes a statement that "all work submitted by students must be their own". I'm pretty sure my uni's policy was something like that. So in this case, her work is not plagiarism (after all, she used it with permission), but it's just as against college policy. posted by bugbread at 9:20 AM on March 29, 2005
Nate's engaging in a sting operation, pure and simple.
if nate is so goddamnably dedicated to academic honesty, he'd simply have informed the proper university authority of the solicitation. nate is instead using the situation to advance his own notoriety and puffing himself up in a veritable hurricane of bloated nobility, self-righteousness and narcissism. he comes off, by far, as the most gaping asshole extant in this sad little anecdote. posted by quonsar at 9:23 AM on March 29, 2005 [1 favorite]
But deliberately baiting someone and then trying to very publicly and very permanently fuck up their life - that's just ugly.
She was anything BUT deliberately baited. She contacted him, and had every opportunity to back out. And I doubt this will permanently fuck up her life. Remember, "Money's not a problem." posted by boymilo at 9:23 AM on March 29, 2005
I actually am even MORE leaning towards viral marketing for this guys comedy troupe... Lewis University is a Christian College...
and the only course they offer in Ethnic/Cultural studies (which is the only field I can see them discussin Hinduism... as there's no possible reference in either the Philosophy or Theology degree branches) is a course which concerns itself with U.S. race and religion to reduce intolerance....
I'd put my two dollars on the fact that this is bullshit. FUCK YOU NATHAN!!!! posted by Debaser626 at 9:24 AM on March 29, 2005
quonsar :"he comes off, by far, as the most gaping asshole extant in this sad little anecdote."
It must hurt to have that limelight taken from you, quon. posted by bugbread at 9:25 AM on March 29, 2005
uni verse writes"orthogonality: That's what I'm talking about! There are consequences even for 'victimless crimes'."
Plagiarism isn't victimless. It's fraud, pure and simple. It's a lie that victimizers the whole society, by claiming a knowledge one doesn't have.
Plagiarists who get into medical school will eventually operate on your or your family. Plagiarists accepted to law school will (mis)represent you. Plagiarists hired by Enron will destroy your pension fund. And plagiarists who get into the White House will destroy your country.
Give me a pothead any day. Shooting heroin is victimless (that is, the only victim is user). Smoking pot is victimless. Drinking booze is victimless. Smoking cigarettes is victimless. Looking at porn is victimless. Man-on-man sex is victimless.
And if you think man-on-dog sex victimizes the dog (which I grant it may) what do you think of rodeos or barbecues?
I'd much rather jail plagiarists and legalize pot. Stupid potheads won't ever destroy my country. Amoral plagiarists will. posted by orthogonality at 9:26 AM on March 29, 2005
headspace: plagiarism n 1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own.
so, while, no, the act of commissioning the paper might not be plagiarism, turning it in as her own most certainly is.
besides, "Laura K. Pahl is a plagiarist" reads so much better than "Laura K. Pahl commissioned a paper with the intent to commit an act of plagiarism."
but hey, maybe she'll learn something of Hinduism after all, though karma, if nothing else. posted by stefan at 9:26 AM on March 29, 2005
Wonderful. Good for Nate. I have no sympathy with the lazy little cow and she deserved to be exposed and embarrassed. The public exposure might also help dissuade a few similarly dishonest chancers from going this route.
I find the attitude of those who are attacking the guy for bringing a lousy little cheat to light ... well... revealing, I guess. Why does there seem to be - goddamn, sometimes it's almost like a movement - to excuse bad behaviour or at least to treat it with kid gloves instead of slamming it upside the head, hard? Oh dear, some grubby little cheat got named and shamed. Good. Plagiarists are not only dishonest, they leech off the labours of other people. To hell with them.
And hell yes, Nate was funny. Saying "Chivas" instead of Shiva? Funny. This?
As long as you understand that plagiarism is not going to free you from the painful cycle of death and rebirth any quicker.
Funny. posted by Decani at 9:26 AM on March 29, 2005
While Headspace is correct in that this does not constitute plagiarism as traditionally defined, most academic honor codes now explicitly define plagiarism as also including "submitting work completed by another." So there ya go. posted by MaxVonCretin at 9:26 AM on March 29, 2005
Nate's an asshole. He could quite possibly ruin this girl's life and all in the name of blogging. Sure, plagarism is bad (in this context at least... and really, this isn't plagarism on Larua's part) and cheaters deserve to be punished but this crosses the line. What line? Well, I have no idea. Basically though, we don't know a single thing about Laura, nor does Nate. Any number of variables could change our outlook on Laura's actions. Does the fact that she's trying to cheat her way into a passing grade give us the right to sabotage her? I say no. posted by panoptican at 9:27 AM on March 29, 2005
Undergraduate plagiarism generally doesn't hurt anybody (except the plagiarizer). It is, in that sense, a victimless crime.
Unless the professor grades on a curve, as several of mine did. Anyone who makes a lower grade than Laura is a victim of her plagiarism. posted by MrMoonPie at 9:28 AM on March 29, 2005
Oh and can YOU find any reference to Laura Pahl in this? Besides the bull google description.....
I find the attitude of those who are attacking the guy for bringing a lousy little cheat to light ... well... revealing, I guess. Why does there seem to be - goddamn, sometimes it's almost like a movement - to excuse bad behaviour or at least to treat it with kid gloves instead of slamming it upside the head, hard?
It's not excusing bad behavior, it's condemning the actions of Nate. They weren't justified. posted by panoptican at 9:30 AM on March 29, 2005
besides, "Laura K. Pahl is a plagiarist" reads so much better than "Laura K. Pahl commissioned a paper with the intent to commit an act of plagiarism."
And it'll fit better on a t-shirt, too. posted by 23skidoo at 9:30 AM on March 29, 2005
Yeah...yeah....not plagiarism.........but it would be academic fraud nonetheless were she to hand it in as her own work.
(some might say that the greater crime against intelligence was not the solicitation of the paper but handing it in after reading it - but mind you, he offered $60 and she countered with $75 - we are not looking at a future Nobel LAUReAte methinx) posted by peacay at 9:30 AM on March 29, 2005
It must hurt to have that limelight taken from you, quon.
palpable envy becomes you. posted by quonsar at 9:30 AM on March 29, 2005
Y'know, my sophomore year, I wrote a 5-page paper about the Hindu castes for a 101 Cult. Anthro class. The paper sucked ass, but I pounded it out in the three hours before class.
I have to sit next to girls (and guys) like these in my classes, and they devalue the education of everyone. They don't contribute, they ask stupid questions that were well explained in the reading, and they don't come up with anything interesting.
Not everyone should be in college. It sounds like if Laura can't be asked to pound out a shitty paper, and instead tries to weasel her way around by buying one, she deserves to be pilloried publicly and sent to a trade school. Blacklisted? ITT will still take her.
And for the "You guys sound like the religious right" bullshit above, I say: You sound like George W. Bush, wanting to use money and low standards to succeed. posted by klangklangston at 9:31 AM on March 29, 2005
Smoking pot is victimless. Drinking booze is victimless. Smoking cigarettes is victimless. Looking at porn is victimless.
disconnection from humanity is hardly victimless. posted by quonsar at 9:32 AM on March 29, 2005
This story needs an ending.
Maybe one of her friends will come up to her and be like, "Laura! You're all over the internet!"
And she'll find the closest internet cafe and to her shock and horror, IS all over the internet.
Then she will go home and hang herself.
Comedy gold, indeed. posted by Sully at 9:33 AM on March 29, 2005
The irrational anti-plagarism moralizing
Where the fuck do you live where this sort of thing isn't frowned upon?
MaxVonCretin and stefan, thanks for the terminology clarification.
I've never been very surprised at the politics, or gender, or syntax, or vocabulary, or pony, or other disagreements on Mefi. This is probably the first where I'm pretty surprised. If the argument were over his taking the money / not taking the money, I wouldn't be so surprised. It were over the "putting her name all over the net, screwing her up far more than a single incident of plagiarism would warrant", I wouldn't be surprised. But the fact that there are people who are (apparently) taking the position that helping bust someone for fraud is in itself a bad thing has really, really surprised me.
I won't engage you in a battle of wits, because, quite frankly, I'll lose. Suffice it to say we have a personality conflict, but it isn't based on envy. And you are certainly good at what you do. Sorry about the derail. posted by bugbread at 9:36 AM on March 29, 2005
So there's this:
Final-Recipient: rfc822;[redacted]@lewisu.edu
Action: failed
Status: 5.2.2
X-Display-Name: pahl, laura k.
I think the right address was found (a couple minutes on Google should find ya the format), but delivery failed, maybe because of a full mailbox? posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:36 AM on March 29, 2005
Wonder if Stephen Ambrose ever taught at the girl's university. Wonder if Don Quixote taught at his. posted by thehippe at 9:37 AM on March 29, 2005
Nate or Laura are both such crappy human beings that I have no interest in classifying them exactly, but I am interested to see how this turns out. posted by orange swan at 9:37 AM on March 29, 2005
Then she will go home and hang herself.
Comedy gold, indeed
yes! and then all the internet will honor the comedic stylings of nathan the putz and his blog shall be spoken about in hushed, awed whispers the world over. msnbc will give him his own show. posted by quonsar at 9:38 AM on March 29, 2005
Debaser626 " Oh and can YOU find any reference to Laura Pahl in this? Besides the bull google description.....
I was up late last night getting drunk, and now I have a headache. Can someone write up a comment for me to post to this thread? It has to be witty, poignant and reflect the moral indignation I have for all parties involved. I'll send you a rubber check as soon as I see the finished product. I promise. posted by terrapin at 9:39 AM on March 29, 2005
Suffice it to say we have a personality conflict
apparently, you have a conflict. i hadn't noticed one. posted by quonsar at 9:39 AM on March 29, 2005
Correction taken. posted by bugbread at 9:39 AM on March 29, 2005
bugbread said:
From what I gather, headspace is just pointing out that plagiarism is not the right word in this case. It's similar to discussions where someone commits slander and other people talk about their commission of "libel".
That's all I'm saying, exactly. She did an unethical thing and she deserves to be punished for it (I have no idea where you got the idea that I thought it was kosher, kcm,) but her unethical thang ain't plagiarism. posted by headspace at 9:42 AM on March 29, 2005
Does the fact that she's trying to cheat her way into a passing grade give us the right to sabotage her? I say no.
Well, I say "Hell yes!" posted by boymilo at 9:42 AM on March 29, 2005
The worst bit about this is that she probably won't be expelled, even if her school has an expulsion policy for this kind of situation. Litigation possibilities, you know... posted by Beansidhe at 9:42 AM on March 29, 2005
Correction taken
thank you.
*blows out of the room on a veritable hurricane of bloated nobility, self-righteousness and narcissism* posted by quonsar at 9:43 AM on March 29, 2005
There are a lot of wild exclamations going on here, and while I'm not a lawyer or an ethisist, I figured I might as well add my two cents.
As far as I see nothing illegal here, and definetly nothing criminal. When you enroll at a school, you enter in to an agreement that says, basicaly, you won't plagerize anything. Laura K. probably broke her agreement. Most likely she'll need to rewrite the paper, or retake the class. In most cases she is simply not going to be expelled, unless she's goin to some high-end ivy-leauge school.
Nate, I think, is skirting with some illegality. For one thing, he re-sold other people’s copyrighted work as his own. That goes a bit beyond pure plagiarism into copyright infringement. however, the copyright owners are only entitled to compensation if they’ve registered their copyright with the Library of Congress. If not, all they can get him to do is stop. And since this was obviously a one-time thing, it’s not a big deal. (They might also ask him to take the article off his website). That said, I think it’s very unlikely that that any of the copyright holders are going to come after him.
On the other hand, I think it’s clear that the agreement called for an original work By passing off other people’s writing as his own to Laura, that might be fraud of some sort, since the implication is that the copyright would go to Laura (as a work for hire) or at least that she would have an exclusive license to it. But Nate never had that license.
Unless you could say that the essay was a derivative work, for which Laura has the rights too.
---
But um, who knows. like I said I'm not a lawyer posted by delmoi at 9:43 AM on March 29, 2005
orthogonality: I was agreeing with you. posted by uni verse at 9:43 AM on March 29, 2005
Oh and can YOU find any reference to Laura Pahl in this? Besides the bull google description.....
NOPE
Debaser: Look at the cache'd version of the page. Obviously, the paper has revised their website, and the Google cache has yet to catch up. Time to unwrap your keyboard from all that tinfoil... posted by thanotopsis at 9:44 AM on March 29, 2005
Plagiarism is ethically wrong. And frankly, if it gets her a good GPA, it means that someone who did his own work doesn't get hired for the job Laura does get.
Is there a difference between hiring someone to write a paper for you (like a ghost writer), and copying someone else's published work? I was under the impression that hiring a writer was a common and acceptable practice for university students. But maybe that's because that's what I was told in the late 1970s when I ended up writing several papers for the son of the chairman of the board at the company where I worked. Sonny simply tape recorded all his class lectures, then brought the tapes in and various secretaries transcribed them on their dictaphones. Then, through a series of circumstances, I was presented with stacks of transcripts, and instructions to put it all together into a coherent term paper, including table of contents, footnotes and bibliography. And this was before computers; I had to format all that crap manually on a typewriter. I didn't get "paid", per se - I was allowed to do it on company time, and when I stayed late to finish my actual company work, I got time and a half.
Sonny did graduate and get his degree, and got a cushy executive position at the company. I got laid off in 1981 with 80 percent of the rest of my department. posted by Oriole Adams at 9:45 AM on March 29, 2005
Remember, plagarism is one of those things (like driving on the right side of the road) that is only unethical by convention. Many, many societies do not view plagarism the way that America does.
Um, when she was accepted into the school it was made perfectly clear that plagarism is not tolerated, and that the punishment is expulsion (or whatever they end up doing to her). So it is unethical in that she already agreed to abide by that rule.
As far as I'm concerned, I hope she's expelled and blacklisted from getting into any other universities. This isn't a "mis-quoting/referencing a work that she used" plagarism, it is straight up "someone else do my work and I'll take credit for it" plagarism, so I hope she gets the full force and gets booted. This is the same as paying someone to take the SATs for you. It's wrong, and I hope she gets straight fucked for trying it.
This guy, well, he did a lot more than I would have. But I don't have any particular problem with what he did. It's just not what I would have done. posted by scottymacten at 9:45 AM on March 29, 2005
Wow,
All the attacks on Nate and his motives for this prank really surprised me. She deserves whatever happens to her as a result of her actions. I'm not going to feel sorry for her because she might fail a class, be put on academic suspension, or kicked out of school on top of being shamed on most of the internet all because she didn't work hard enough at cheating to evade detection.
If I am caught deceiving someone for my gain, or stealing from someone, do you fault my victim for telling all their friends about it and hurting my reputation? What about taking out a full page ad in the paper about what they caught me doing? So because Nate wasn't going to that school he doesn't have the right to expose a dishonest person as dishonest and do society a favor at the same time? Do you honestly think scaring her and not reporting her would have made her pause in doing this again?
Reputation is the most basic security mechanism for a social network. Members of the network have a responsibility to punish those that violate the networks conventions by reporting them to the other members. Nate did his duty as a member of the network. The fact that he took satisfaction from doing so or went further than you think he should have is irrelevent.
If he went too far by the networks standards then he will be punished or ignored, the harm to her will be negligible, and his reputation will suffer. If he did not go too far then she is punished correctly. If he did not go far enough then she should count herself lucky. 2 out of 3 outcomes benefit her.
But the fact that there are people who are (apparently) taking the position that helping bust someone for fraud is in itself a bad thing has really, really surprised me.
It isn't at all that helping bust someone for fraud is bad. Given this specific set of circumstances, the manner in which Nate responded is bad. Not knowing a single thing about this girl, he deemed this specific case of fraud so egregious that he had to do everything in his power to (a) humiliate the girl and (b) possibly ruin the girls life (you can get expelled for something like that). Why did he do that? So he could have a good blog post. Simply telling the girl that he couldn't help or sending an e-mail to the school would have sufficed. posted by panoptican at 9:45 AM on March 29, 2005
But the fact that there are people who are (apparently) taking the position that helping bust someone for fraud is in itself a bad thing has really, really surprised me.
I haven't gleaned that sentiment from a single post. Rather, I think you might be confusing that with "putting her name all over the net, screwing her up far more than a single incident of plagiarism would warrant." That is what Nate the Kooky Komedy Boy has done, and he has definitely crossed a LEGAL line in the process.
What has surprised ME is how many people here seemingly have no respect for the notion of privacy - even in the internet age. Yes, she committed academic fraud, and yes, they communicated digitally. But this twit still has a right to not be ridiculed by hundreds of thousands of people. That is simply cruel and unusual punishment. Vigilante punishment, no less. posted by MaxVonCretin at 9:46 AM on March 29, 2005
He took advantage of the trust of an untrustworthy person. May she learn something from the experience and become a better person for it. posted by ZenMasterThis at 9:47 AM on March 29, 2005
For one thing, he re-sold other people’s copyrighted work as his own.
He made proper citations in a research paper that he then sold. Is that really illegal? posted by thanotopsis at 9:47 AM on March 29, 2005
I've never plagarized a paper in my life, and I find this guys attitude horrible. Who the fuck does he think he is? I agree with the premise that if Laura did something bad, Nathan did something much much worse; and not least because he trespasses on the need of a stranger. Even if that need isn't something that he (or I) sympathizes with, there's no need to do anything other than tell her that he can't help her. But then what do I know, I always forget to kick the junkies I don't give money to on the street.
Wow. What a horrible analogy. Someone who knows that they are contravening the rules of the course and the university is the same as an addict? Get your head right.
My policy with my students is that the first time they plagiarize (it happens too often) we have a conference where I allow the benefit of doubt and go over (again) how to incorporate others work into your own. I also I explicitly and openly explain school's policies. The second time, which has only happened to me once, I have a "come to Jesus" meeting where I ask the student to detail the extenuating circumstances that caused the breech of trust and then we meet with the program director or the department chair to discuss appropriate measures. No one wants to see a student's life ruined by such an action as expulsion, but we do put a high price on one doing onne's own work.
But, I teach at a fairly enlightened school. An adjunct friend teaches at a for-profit school. There, the student's fees are the most important factor--the admin bends over backwards to ensure the student stays enrolled. My freind was asked to allow the student an incomplete after the THIRD plagiarized paper. Any questions on why I value for-profit degrees less than I value used Charmin?
btw, Lewis University is a well respected Catholic University. Some of the most ethically grounded people I knew in business went to school there. Perhaps the table was turned on Nate, folks? What if her prof actually assigned a paper that asked her to find a shill whho would go to great lengths to provide work to a college student, knowing that it would be wrong to provide such work for hire. What if they are having a great chuckle at Nate's complicity? I'd give her an A for that....Or,Nate may have made this entire story up--if so, it was entertaining to me; I grade over 300 5 page papers a semester (and I have a light load). My advice to Laura, if she is a plagiarist: enroll in a marketing program--there, you will be rewarded for "stealing shamelessly" (an actual business buzzword that privileges takinng a competitors work rather than invent new work), and you won't have to take any classes where u'd havta, u-no, rite sumthin bout hindu.
But those of you above who think that plagiarism hurts no one? You are misguided and misinformed. posted by beelzbubba at 9:47 AM on March 29, 2005
What has surprised ME is how many people here seemingly have no respect for the notion of privacy - even in the internet age. Yes, she committed academic fraud, and yes, they communicated digitally. But this twit still has a right to not be ridiculed by hundreds of thousands of people. That is simply cruel and unusual punishment. Vigilante punishment, no less.
Yes, yes and yes. Exactly what I was trying to get at (to some extent). posted by panoptican at 9:48 AM on March 29, 2005
I don't feel sorry for the girl because she may get kicked out of school. I feel sorry for Nate, though, because he's such a smug, unfunny cockhead. posted by item at 9:48 AM on March 29, 2005
Headspace wrote:
"No, it's not (plagiarism). She hired Nate to write a paper for her. Nate agreed to write a paper for her. It is a work for hire, and providing that both ends of the contract are met (Nate gives her the paper, she gives Nate the money,) she can do anything she wants with it, including claim it as her own. Again, this works exactly the same way ghostwriting contracts work- ghostwriters don't even get to claim those works on their CVs because the work-for-hire author sold the entire thing, including the right to call oneself the author.
Pahl is completely unethical (and a fraud if she doesn't actually send payment to Nate,) but she's not a plagiarist."
This is what dictionary.com calls plagiarism:
plagiarism
n 1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own [syn: plagiarization, plagiarisation, piracy]
She is a plagiarist (if she turns the paper in). It's quite simple, and if you can't see that, then you're either being willfully ignorant or obtuse. Also, she gets what she deserves, hopefully.
Of course, she may be writing her own blog post right now about how she tricked some stupid dude into writing a fake 'paper' for her. posted by geekhorde at 9:50 AM on March 29, 2005
But the fact that there are people who are (apparently) taking the position that helping bust someone for fraud is in itself a bad thing has really, really surprised me.
That's like interpreting that "we think cutting people's hands off is wrong" is saying "we think busting people for stealing is wrong".
The punishment should fit the crime. posted by dflemingdotorg at 9:51 AM on March 29, 2005
Most recent Missive from Nate: We got the Lewis University part from a newspaper article where she made the Dean's List there. We had to go into the google cache to get it. And not being able to find something on google is not proof that someone doesn't exist. So, you know.
Ok, please, people. I have unfortunately had to delete some comments from someone who thought they had Laura's e-mail address, and those of Lewis faculty.
Let's please have nobody e-mailing her before I have. And the same with clogging up the emails of Lewis University people. We could ruin everything if we get too aggressive right now. Updates to this story will probably be up real late tonight. Keep snarking!
Undergraduate plagiarism generally doesn't hurt anybody (except the plagiarizer). It is, in that sense, a victimless crime.
BS. I agree with what orthogonality and everyone else wrote about cheating and the standards of education. I am in academics and I think this girl deserves everything that is coming to her and then some. I wish this would happen more often. Not everyone "deserves" a college education just because they can afford it.
It's not going to ruin her life. At worst she will be expelled and have to go to JC and re-apply to university in a few years. And even that is unlikely, she'll probably just re-write the paper and become some kind of cheaters hero on the internet.
You wouldn't be so forgiving of her "little indiscretion" if it hurt you directly, I guarantee it. posted by fshgrl at 9:52 AM on March 29, 2005
Laura K. Pahl - Idiot, plagiariast, deserves whatever she gets.
Nate - Nark, tattle-tale, deserves whatever he gets.
Neither of which recieve any sympathy from me. posted by afroblanca at 9:52 AM on March 29, 2005
OmieWise: I find this guys attitude horrible. Who the fuck does he think he is?
mediareport: This is an almost unbelievably vicious thing to do to someone. I'm with peacay; this guy's a jerk
OmieWise: Nate decided somewhere along the lines that his mission was to seriously hurt this girl
What an interesting bit of sociology we've stumbled upon here. I'm squirming in guilty schadenfreude myself, so I won't condemn the above posters too harshly
But let go of your rage. This woman took her own risks, the consequences are hers to bear. Would we all be condemning Nathan if he had been asked to betray his profession's ethic and not reported it?
Maybe they see Nate's jealousy and or profit here. Nate labeling the girl, tells me more about him than her actual actions. posted by thomcatspike at 9:53 AM on March 29, 2005
MaxVonCretin: privacy? This brainless little twonk solicits an essay from someone she doesn't know from Adam, offers to pay 75 bucks for it and... you're concerned about her privacy? Man, next time I send an email offering to pay a complete stranger to do something unethical for me, I'll be sure to squeal like a bitch if that person disrespects my privacy by revealing it. That'd be really smart of me.
Priorities, anyone? posted by Decani at 9:53 AM on March 29, 2005
What item said. As a Hindu, Nate should realize that this is not great for his karma.
And the URL name supposed to be an ironic joke?
Finally-
"if I was able to get the information out of her, I'd report her to whatever her school was, and who knows, maybe even pump her for double money in exchange for not turning her in"
Should be "If I were able". Contrary to fact condition. (And he calls himself an English major.)
He knew she was a college student who would IM a complete stranger and offer to pay him to write a paper for her, on the basis that he mentioned on his profile that his hobby is "Eating Hindu Sculpture." I'd say he knew a lot about her. posted by MrMoonPie at 9:57 AM on March 29, 2005
Armitage Shanks : "Many, many societies do not view plagarism the way that America does."
I didn't write this. I put it in italics to make it clear that I was quoting gd779, not plagiarizing. posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:58 AM on March 29, 2005
They're both idiots.
She, obviously, for randomly IMing strangers to write papers for her.
He, for finding himself so damn funny. Because he's not. I didn't even chuckle reading that.
So I think the hate should be equally distributed across the two involved parties because they are both retarded. posted by aGreatNotion at 9:59 AM on March 29, 2005
You know, someone IMed me the other day, asking me if I could tell them how to smuggle pipe bombs into Manhattan. I could have gone and taken pictures of the Lincoln Tunnel and described the security checks I've seen, but instead I decided to respect their privacy.
(for the sarcasm-impaired, no, I didn't.) posted by Vidiot at 9:59 AM on March 29, 2005
MetaFilter: because they are both retarded posted by feloniousmonk at 10:00 AM on March 29, 2005
As a Hindu, Nate should realize that this is not great for his karma.
Here's what Nate said: "And since I don't use it except when I'm home, I just haven't bothered to change the profile, where apparently, about 8 or 9 years ago, I had listed one of my hobbies as "Eating Hindu Sculpture.""
Please read the link before posting. posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:01 AM on March 29, 2005
When I was in university, I got this roomful of one thousand monkeys to write my papers for me. It usually took a while, but boy...when they came through, they came through. And all it cost me was a bunch of bananas. posted by The Card Cheat at 10:01 AM on March 29, 2005
In re: the definition of plagiarism: in this case, Nate didn't actually write the paper, he said he copied and pasted various bits from around the internet, including Wikipedia, and threw in some ridiculous jokes and such ("I made a doody" and the reference to Dharma and Greg). So technically, you could say that Nate plagiarized.
Even if this case would be classifed as work for hire, the paper is still almost entirely composed of the writing of other people, not even the person hired to do the writing, and not attributed. As the person claiming to be the writer of the paper, if she turns it in and it is determined that it was entirely composed of other people's readily available and signed work, regardless of where she got it, she's on the hook for plagiarizing.
Aside from that, most universities take a clear stand on turning in work that is not your own, regardless of its provenance, and I somehow doubt that the "I paid a ghost-writer" defense would hold much water. posted by jennaratrix at 10:02 AM on March 29, 2005
Oriole Adams writes"I was under the impression that hiring a writer was a common and acceptable practice for university students. But maybe that's because that's what I was told in the late 1970s when I ended up writing several papers for the son of the chairman of the board at the company where I worked. "
Fuck no! Not if the son turned it in as his own work.
And it was a violation of the chairman's fiduciary responsibility to the company's shareholders, to use company resources for his son's personal benefit. posted by orthogonality at 10:02 AM on March 29, 2005
The only proper ending to this story is for Laura K. Pahl to turn out to be an investigative journalist working on a piece about the ease of obtaining fake term papers via the Internet. Having exhausted the avenues provided by duenow.com, she decided to explore the novel angle of roll-yer-own plagiarism. Can't wait to read the write-up about Nathan in Newsweek. posted by junkbox at 10:04 AM on March 29, 2005
"The caste system is based upon the principle that human society is like a huge, complex machine, with the individuals and communities being like its parts. If the parts are weak and broken, the machine will not work. The body can only work efficiently if its parts and organs are in sound and strong condition. And lubricated. But if there is pain in any part of the body, if there is disease in any organ or part of the body, this human machine will go out of order. It will not perform its usual function or work. Likewise, no organ can fulfill any other organ’s function."
MaxVonCretin: privacy? This brainless little twonk solicits an essay from someone she doesn't know from Adam, offers to pay 75 bucks for it and... you're concerned about her privacy? Man, next time I send an email offering to pay a complete stranger to do something unethical for me, I'll be sure to squeal like a bitch if that person disrespects my privacy by revealing it. That'd be really smart of me.
Decani: No doubt you would squeal like a bitch if your ethical lapse (please tell us you've never had one, Mother Theresa) were suddenly fodder for laughter and ridicule for hundreds of thousands of holier-than-thou strangers. And I would call for respect for your privacy then, too. They're called "principles." posted by MaxVonCretin at 10:05 AM on March 29, 2005 [1 favorite]
All the attacks on Nate and his motives for this prank really surprised me.
That's because you assume it means the authors find Laura's actions ok. It doesn't. It just means at some point you grow tired of those insufferable assholes in lines at the mall, on public transportation, wherever who talk LOUDLY JUST SO YOU CAN HEAR HOW COOL THEIR LIFE IS. Everybody else went through that phase too. Once it's over, these kind of things ring "meh" to you. The IM exchange: ok. Going through all the extra work: stupid. Writing up a blog post telling everyone how funny you are: self-indulgent at best.
Plus, no one should have to mention the girl's a tool. It seems stunningly unreflective Nate would whip himself up into a self-righteous fit of a blog post over the subject of karma. posted by yerfatma at 10:05 AM on March 29, 2005
You know, someone IMed me the other day, asking me if I could tell them how to smuggle pipe bombs into Manhattan. I could have gone and taken pictures of the Lincoln Tunnel and described the security checks I've seen, but instead I decided to respect their privacy.
Sarcasm you say? I hope it's double time. posted by panoptican at 10:06 AM on March 29, 2005
From the paper: I made a doody.
They are both assholes. posted by fixedgear at 10:07 AM on March 29, 2005
They're called "principles."
Hey Max, I have a term paper due on "principles". How much would you charge to write it for me? posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:08 AM on March 29, 2005
You know, someone IMed me the other day, asking me if I could tell them how to smuggle pipe bombs into Manhattan. I could have gone and taken pictures of the Lincoln Tunnel and described the security checks I've seen, but instead I decided to respect their privacy.
You fucker! You said you wouldn't tell...noes!!!111! posted by dflemingdotorg at 10:11 AM on March 29, 2005
Hey Max, I have a term paper due on "principles". How much would you charge to write it for me?
Oriole Adams :"I was under the impression that hiring a writer was a common and acceptable practice for university students."
If this statement was made sincerely, my keyboard does not have enough exclamation marks and question marks to communicate my reaction.
panoptican :" It isn't at all that helping bust someone for fraud is bad. Given this specific set of circumstances, the manner in which Nate responded is bad."
Well, as I said, I'm not surprised at all of the disagreement (i.e. the cheque issue, or the public villification issue). I'm just surprised at the "turning in someone for unethical behavior is bad" subsection of response.
panoptican :"Not knowing a single thing about this girl, he deemed this specific case of fraud so egregious that he had to do everything in his power to (a) humiliate the girl and (b) possibly ruin the girls life (you can get expelled for something like that). Why did he do that? So he could have a good blog post. Simply telling the girl that he couldn't help or sending an e-mail to the school would have sufficed."
Well, we disagree on a few things. First, I understand there being disagreement about humiliation, and am relatively undecided on that aspect. As for the "possibly ruin the girl's life (you can get expelled for something like that)", first: generally, being expelled does not ruin someone's life. Second, yes, it could get her expelled, but I cannot understand why this would be seen as a blow against Nate's actions. It's like saying, "Hey, turning in that guy for armed robbery could get him thrown in jail! Why would you call the police without knowing anything about him?" Generally, the answer would be: "TO get him thrown in jail." She's doing something so bad that her university might actually kick her out if they find out. THAT'S how bad it is. I don't understand why it would be a requirement to know the background of someone commiting fraud in order to turn them in, and I'm surprised that the argument seems to be that the bigger and more serious the fraud, the less likely one should be to turn in the fraudster.
As for telling the girl that he couldn't help, I don't see what it would suffice to do. If someone approaches you asking you to do something immoral, I don't believe just not helping them is "sufficient". If someone asks for my help in commiting a murder, I certainly don't think just saying "No, sorry, find someone else, but good luck!" would be sufficient.
As for turning her in, that makes more sense. However, knowing what I do of academia, since there's no proof, it would probably be completely dismissed.
Dflemingdotorg, MaxVonCretin: You may be right, I may be noticing too strongly the parts that focus on how busting her is wrong, and not paying enough attention to the parts talking about how taking her money or publicly shaming her is wrong. I'll try to keep it in mind as I read.
IndigoJones :"As a Hindu, Nate should realize that this is not great for his karma."
She has Nate's address to send the check to, right? What stops her from going to his, or his parents, house and bringing the wrath of revenge with her? If this Laura is really crazy, this might be in the news for something else really soon. posted by gunthersghost at 10:12 AM on March 29, 2005
I think any discussion of principles is moot when the whole thing was started by a girl who couldn't even write a FIVE PAGE PAPER ON CASTE SYSTEMS. How frickin hard would that have been to write??? Not very. FIVE PAGES.
She ought to be kicked out of school not for plagiarism, but on account of her being a lazy idiot.
I do, however, quite like the investigative journalist theory. In that case, it'd be fun to see good old Nate get his. posted by aGreatNotion at 10:14 AM on March 29, 2005
I personally prefer the "Laura Pahl has a website up talking about how she conned someone into writing a 5 page paper overnight in exchange for three photographs of a cheque" possibility. posted by bugbread at 10:16 AM on March 29, 2005
You guys can't be serious.
You are defending the morally bankrupt solicitor, and attacking the exposer?
Really?
It's bizzarro-MeFi. The background should be yellow.
To anyone who actually EARNED a degree, this should come off as absolutely inexcusable.
But those of you above who think that plagiarism hurts no one? You are misguided and misinformed.
posted by beelzbubba at 11:47 AM CST on March 29 [!]
Perfectly stated.
Also, I think there is a bit of "damsel in distress" syndrome going on here. If this were a man soliciting, I think the responses would be a bit different.
Perhaps. Perhaps not. Interesting to think about though. posted by Ynoxas at 10:17 AM on March 29, 2005
generally, being expelled does not ruin someone's life
Word. Every. Single. One. of my high school friends, bar one who was a theatre major, got kicked out of college freshman year. Four of them got kicked out of UC Santa Cruz, which takes work, and one over acheiver even got booted from Harvard. No-one's life was "ruined", in fact I'd say it was a good thing for most of them in the long run. posted by fshgrl at 10:20 AM on March 29, 2005
delmoi: On the other hand, I think it’s clear that the agreement called for an original work
Seriously? Could the same argument be used to sue a smuggler who delivered phony goods?
As someone who studied "Hindu" in college, I have to admit that I found this pretty funny. It would have been a lot funnier if he had filled the paper with outrageous and hilarious lies and made-up Sanskrit, though. That would have required actual creativity on Nate's part. She would be embarrassed and would get an F. She probably wouldn't be expelled, the teacher would just think she's an asshole/idiot, which she indeed seems to be, and she'd most likely think twice before trying to buy a paper off someone again. posted by apis mellifera at 10:20 AM on March 29, 2005
She shouldn't be in college. College degrees are over valued by prospective employers. (I've got one) So a lot of people are studying for degrees that don't significantly benefit them in any way, except that they will be able to get a job where they will be paid more, even if they would have been capable of doing the same job without the degree.
Students that can't perform basic tasks like writing crappy essays should be weeded out, because their very presence at a university contributes to this problem. If academic standards were enforced better, college degrees would really mean something other than the fact that you were somehow able to afford tuition.
I really didn't put forth a whole lot of effort to get my degree, but I would have if it was necessary or mattered. I also never once cheated. In America, it is a popular view that everyone deserves a college education. I think that is the wrong way to look at it. Not everyone needs or wants one. Yet they are needlessly required for all kinds of crappy office jobs.
Subscribe
posted by raysmj at 8:13 AM on March 29, 2005