Orang Utan
Psychick Worrier Ov Geyoor
well he did go to cambridgeWhy was Hari fast-tracked?
well he did go to cambridgeWhy was Hari fast-tracked?
who are you asking? i don't know. i would imagine he had connections. or he was lucky with his scribblings.And he was in trouble even then for this stuff. Why did he get this fast track?
I'm asking questions out loud mate. Not interrogating.who are you asking? i don't know. i would imagine he had connections. or he was lucky with his scribblings.
What?Don't journo's requote things that are already on the record all the time?
He is.That he's responsible for writing gay incest porn?butchersapron said:Name a single smear
Not really no. But also yes. He built a vast potemkin empire upon that sort of tradition. Here's an idea, fund out what he actually did.Isn't that what he did - lifted quotes from other articles and inserted them in to his own?
New post here: http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/09/johann-hari-debacle.htmlRichard Seymour, the bloke who does lenins tomb confirmed that he knew David Rose in the middle of this. Not that he had met a David Rose, but the David Rose. The one who had done all the stuff Hari has today half-admitted to and who wasn't at that time actually Hari.
Don't journo's requote things that are already on the record all the time?
Ta for that. I hadn't got round to checking his stuff yet. I am on a email list where he defended Hari through this Rose connection most strongly and accused people of having a paedo hunt. (Note, i can back this up)
He lifted quotes from other articles and inserted them in to his own. Perfectly normal behaviour in the world of mainstream journalism.Here's an idea, fund out what he actually did.
No he didn't.Yes you are. You're too late pal. See his teary lying apology.He lifted quotes from other articles and inserted them in to his own. Perfectly normal behaviour in the world of mainstream journalism.
He also, and this I suspect is your gripe, cherry-picked quotes to suit his desired narrative. But he's a shite columnist, not a substantive reporter. And I'm the naive one?
don't we all?He had 'health problems' apparently.
He lifted quotes from other articles and inserted them in to his own. Perfectly normal behaviour in the world of mainstream journalism.
He also, and this I suspect is your gripe, cherry-picked quotes to suit his desired narrative. But he's a shite columnist, not a substantive reporter. And I'm the naive one?
well, his plagiarism was slightly different to the usual kind. he kind of did credit the originial authors, but suggested that they'd said these things directly to him.Loads of people do, even on here. But it's standard accepted etiquette to credit the original authors. Anything else is plagiarism.
martin luther king sighed and looked towards the window when i asked him how he was sleeping.well, his plagiarism was slightly different to the usual kind. he kind of did credit the originial authors, but suggested that they'd said these things directly to him.
There was no kind of credit to the people who had elicited those answers full stop. And this was only half of his thievery the rest was usual plagiarism -see his Orwell winning article on multi-culturalism. He did both.well, his plagiarism was slightly different to the usual kind. he kind of did credit the originial authors, but suggested that they'd said these things directly to him.
well, his plagiarism was slightly different to the usual kind. he kind of did credit the originial authors, but suggested that they'd said these things directly to him.
He did for the Negri thievery and the multi-culturalism one.Sorry, made it clearer in an edit. But perhaps I was wrong anyway, I was under the impression that he lifted the quotes from books that were written in other languages. Can anyone clarify this?