I demand credit from Gerry Thornley - another case of "lifting"

thomond2006

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=78812289#post78812289

GT just quoted my post on Off The Ball, I will put up a link to the audio when it's released.

I'd just like to say to Gerry, we know what you're up to, this isn't the first time.

Edit: http://media.newstalk.ie/podcast/63022/popup - 13:30 in.

irishbucsfan

In fairness if I was a pro journalist I'd run around just robbing stats off you and guys like Doc and CatFromHue.

danthefan

Darwin and Wallace both independently came up with Natural Selection. Just saying like.

durkadurka

danthefan wrote: »

Darwin and Wallace both independently came up with Natural Selection. Just saying like.

Paddy or David?

Quint2010

Did he even refer to his source ie Boards.ie..?

durkadurka

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I give you this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76446686&postcount=7

marienbad

danthefan wrote: »

Darwin and Wallace both independently came up with Natural Selection. Just saying like.

And Liebnitz and Newton , it happens.

Fishooks12

Quint2010 wrote: »

Did he even refer to his source ie Boards.ie..?

Journalist is under no obligation to name his source

bossa_nova

danthefan wrote: »

Darwin and Wallace both independently came up with Natural Selection. Just saying like.

Gerry Thornly is nowhere near that level of intelligence. Just saying like :P

durkadurka

The podcast is there now

GerM

Quite possibly, Thomond. In the same piece, he quoted a statistic I posted on LF yesterday about teams that have won the double. Not the first time the broadsheet journalist has taken items from LF, MF or Boards.ie. I've seen full posts lifted once or twice with one paper quoting a regular LF poster entirely a couple of weeks ago.

this is public domain guys. Unless you post it as a photo with a C on it, you're liable to have anyone say it, anytime.

And as we've seen, if you make sense enough, you'll get your opinion stolen plenty.

.ak

GT could be any one of us... An alien shape-shifter with the ability to mimic any boards poster at any time. A terrifying abomination that could only be described as....

Fishooks12

Lads it could be a coincidence too. With the high volume of retirees in the last few weeks I would think something Gerry would do is look at how many of the 08 team are left standing!

keith16

Quint2010 wrote: »

Did he even refer to his source ie Boards.ie..?

Because boards.ie is the definitive source for widely available information like this :rolleyes:

durkadurka

I can't remember the context but jackass had a pretty plausible case for his work being plagiarised a few months ago.

durkadurka

And George hook lifted a whole paragraph off Wikipedia before. It was blatant.


Edit: here it is .

http://thingsgeorgehooklikes.tumblr.com/post/9795982625/george-likes-wikipedia-is-it-plagiarism-or-is

irishbucsfan

durkadurka wrote: »

I can't remember the context but jackass had a pretty plausible case for his work being plagiarised a few months ago.

That seemed pretty convincing!

Blut2

To be fair your post is a pretty general list of Munster's retirees. No individual opinion/analysis really. Its entirely possible that GT did the same research himself to come up with that. Its a pretty weak claim to be demanding credit for I think.

(not that I'm defending GT/other print journalists in general - just in this specific case. In the past I've seen examples of relatively unique things posted here/on MF/on LF that mysteriously appeared slightly re-worded in the papers shortly afterwards)

keith16

Blut2 wrote: »

To be fair your post is a pretty general list of Munster's retirees. No individual opinion/analysis really. Its entirely possible that GT did the same research himself to come up with that. Its a pretty weak claim to be demanding credit for I think.

(not that I'm defending GT/other print journalists in general - just in this specific case. In the past I've seen examples of relatively unique things posted here/on MF/on LF that mysteriously appeared slightly re-worded in the papers shortly afterwards)

In any case, the Rugby forum on boards is hardly the place to be making such weak accusations, take it up with news talk.

.ak

Lads, I think thomond's post is supposed to be a tad tongue-in-cheek ...

durkadurka

Does anyone have that post where someone who totally wasnt Hugh farrelly ( I swear) logged on to defend his articles?

Clegg

Farrelly has had digs at posters on rugby message boards too. He's mentioned them quite a few times in his articles.

I think he's intimidated by people that know more about the game than he ever will.

wonton

thought it might have been a coincidence till I listened to it, actually sounded like he had tried to recite it from memory.

ambid

Anyone else have the mental image of Thomond and Gerry Thornley as Dr. Evil and Mini Me?! (Which is which could be a whole other thread!)

durkadurka

ambid wrote: »

Anyone else have the mental image of Thomond and Gerry Thornley as Dr. Evil and Mini Me?! (Which is which could be a whole other thread!)

Which one is which ?

Morf

If I knew a place where various people were creative with their opinion and freely giving of their researched posts I would be "borrowing" as much as possible. Seems like a lot of the rugby journalists are at it.

dregin

No better reason for a few of you to get together, start a blog, write a few articles and throw a few ads on it to generate a bit of revenue.

Also, you say public domain is grand. I thought boards rules now ban you from even quoting an external source. Is that not because of the changes to the law?

I'm honestly not one bit surprised that a "journalist" would come here in search of information. Many of the posters here are spot on the mark with their observations and paint a fair clearer picture of reality than most of the rugby articles I've read recently.

Tox56

dregin wrote: »

No better reason for a few of you to get together, start a blog, write a few articles and throw a few ads on it to generate a bit of revenue.

Also, you say public domain is grand. I thought boards rules now ban you from even quoting an external source. Is that not because of the changes to the law?

I'm honestly not one bit surprised that a "journalist" would come here in search of information. Many of the posters here are spot on the mark with their observations and paint a fair clearer picture of reality than most of the rugby articles I've read recently.

I'd agree on that, I'd be far more interested in what some people here have to say than some so called 'journalists'.

PhatPiggins

durkadurka wrote: »

Does anyone have that post where someone who totally wasnt Hugh farrelly ( I swear) logged on to defend his articles?

That one was a classic. Guy went above and beyond trying to claim that the Indo wasn't really a tabloid.

Can't remember when that was. Time has no meaning on boards

PhatPiggins

Tox56 wrote: »

I'd agree on that, I'd be far more interested in what some people here have to say than some so called 'journalists'.

Problem is you probably won't pay for it :pac:

thomond2006

Blut2 wrote: »

To be fair your post is a pretty general list of Munster's retirees. No individual opinion/analysis really. Its entirely possible that GT did the same research himself to come up with that. Its a pretty weak claim to be demanding credit for I think.

(not that I'm defending GT/other print journalists in general - just in this specific case. In the past I've seen examples of relatively unique things posted here/on MF/on LF that mysteriously appeared slightly re-worded in the papers shortly afterwards)

Of course, but given there's evidence of him 'lifting' longer or more advanced posts, it really wouldn't surprise me if it was copied. But fair enough, I could be wrong, anyone could have come with what I said.

.ak wrote: »

Lads, I think thomond's post is supposed to be a tad tongue-in-cheek ...

yup, just a sly dig is all

ambid wrote: »

Anyone else have the mental image of Thomond and Gerry Thornley as Dr. Evil and Mini Me?! (Which is which could be a whole other thread!)

JustinDee

Clegg wrote: »

Farrelly has had digs at posters on rugby message boards too. He's mentioned them quite a few times in his articles

I asked him about this following a thin-skinned thread reactionary thread here. Posters took offence to his having a go at anonymous internet monikers attacking players/coaches etc.
Actually don't think he's far wrong in this respect. Any old duffer can have a go behind the safety of a firewall.

He wrote "across the boards" in an article about abusive attacks via Twitter etc and away with Tonto some posters here went! The moaning about "no right of reply" despite there being an editorial email address, a direct email address, a comments section and a letters to editor address and email lol
Seriously . . .

JustinDee

JustinDee wrote: »

I asked him about this following a thin-skinned thread reactionary thread here. Posters took offence to his having a go at anonymous internet monikers attacking players/coaches etc.
Actually don't think he's far wrong in this respect. Any old duffer can have a go behind the safety of a firewall.

He wrote "across the boards" in an article about abusive attacks via Twitter etc and away with Tonto some posters here went! The moaning about "no right of reply" despite there being an editorial email address, a direct email address, a comments section and a letters to editor address and email lol
Seriously . . .

And he got called out massively on this on the independent comments section, where many posted using real names, their facebooks, their twitter pages etc.

His piece was akin to Captain Blackbeard coming on here and giving out that nobody listens to his opinions on Leinster, and that they're all just keyboard warriors, and what do they know.

JustinDee

Deleted User wrote: »

And he got called out massively on this on the independent comments section, where many posted using real names, their facebooks, their twitter pages etc

Hey, I'm just saying that anyone can act the galah on the net.

If you want to tell a journalist how you feel, you can go to their offices or approach them in the street. If they want to find you and reply themselves, they can . . . well, they can . . . erm . . . look up your facebook or Twitter accounts. Hardly the same.

Somebody (I'm guessing from here) rang my office last year and was put through to me. Would love to know who this brave person was. The actions and reactions of a child but judging from the voice, allegedly an adult.

Some people take this stuff and even the sport, way too seriously.

JustinDee

JustinDee wrote: »

Hey, I'm just saying that anyone can act the galah on the net.

and we all know that plenty do! The issue is in separating the chaff from the wheat.

If someone's posts on here are constant bs, they either get put on ignore or get called out on it (or both).

If someone's pieces are being printed weekly in national papers, and are being paid to do the job, then criticism is more than likely going to come. The "media of the Irish rugby media" (I think that makes sense?) is far less forgiving of poor results than the Irish rugby media itself.

The comments section that Farrelly whined and pissed about was put up by his employers, to invite discussion on the piece. If he expected a gold star on every article, then he should work harder, and be less of a sycophant. simple as!

nc6000

Anyone brave enough to admit that Neil Francis copied their ideas?

lologram

durkadurka wrote: »

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury I give you this:

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=76446686&postcount=7

PhatPiggins wrote:

He's not the only one. Which one of the following are the boards posters and which one is the professional sports journo:

Did they have to convene an Irfu sub committee to allow nacewa on in the centre?
The preliminary hearing is set for Monday, with the decision due Tuesday. Leinster will then have 3 days to appeal, if they so wish. Pending the decision, Leinster must play with 14 men.

So, in the brave new dawn which the IRFU hierarchy have outlined, what with their “position specific” edict regarding all foreign imports, will Joe Schmidt have to ring Eddie Wigglesworth, the union’s director of rugby, mid-way through the second half say, to ask for permission to play Nacewa at outhalf? Or would that require a committee meeting?

This is one of my comments

PhatPiggins wrote:

The boardsies were 3 days earlier then the journo and lets be honest far better written

durkadurka

Ha ha the (slightly funnier) comment just above yours is mine!

Teferi

JustinDee wrote: »

Actually don't think he's far wrong in this respect. Any old duffer can have a go behind the safety of a firewall.

The "hurr anonymous internetz ppls are totes bad" is the lowest common denominator type stuff that regularly pops up in the newspapers by terrible journalists who are criticised online and I would hate to see an intelligent man such as yourself go down the same line.

Anonymity is important on the internet and you need to educate yourself on it more if you don't understand it. Moot, the founder of 4Chan has a good TedTalk about it and their are plenty of good articles about it on the googles.

Obviously one or two dopes, like the one who rang you, slip through the net and no system is perfect but anonymity promotes honest discussion at the cost of letting one or two eejits through the gate.

Of course, this forum doesn't necessarily need or even have anonymity. It is pseudo-anonymous at best, especially for regular contributors but there are topics and discussions worth having out their on the wild internet where anonymity is key.

Also, it allows us to annoy journalists. If that is the only reason for it then it is something beautiful.

leftleg

4 years ago when GT was somewhat cool with his open shirts, dexys midnight runners cool hair and ear piercings; not to mention his stinging attacks on EOS, one might have taken this type of thiefing as a compliment;

Now that hes been outed as a complete kidney bum wipe, and his hair and outward appearence looked dated and more in tune with 1982; It can only make one feel angry and insulted to the core;

plus he wears shades in the office;

JustinDee

Teferi wrote: »

The "hurr anonymous internetz ppls are totes bad" is the lowest common denominator type stuff that regularly pops up in the newspapers by terrible journalists who are criticised online and I would hate to see an intelligent man such as yourself go down the same line

I don't think it is. The majority of bilge that gets posted on social media and comment forums tends to be by folks who are unaccountable for what they post.

Teferi wrote: »

Anonymity is important on the internet and you need to educate yourself on it more if you don't understand it. Moot, the founder of 4Chan has a good TedTalk about it and their are plenty of good articles about it on the googles

???
I'm fine with this subject and understand what anonymity entails. Thanks all the same. I prefer to post as I am and exactly how I would approach the subject face to face with the subject or the person I'm discussing with.
As for the brave soul who called, at least I got a laugh from it. Next time, they go on speaker phone so I can share the fun.

Teferi wrote: »

Obviously one or two dopes, like the one who rang you, slip through the net and no system is perfect but anonymity promotes honest discussion at the cost of letting one or two eejits through the gate

I'd disagree. Anonymity does not promote honest discussion. In fact, the absolute polemic.
People pretend to know a subject thoroughly while sifting through wikis or articles retroactively and cherry-picking information to back up an argument they wish to chime in on, flaggin opinion as fact.
I read the media punditry then its done with. It is only opinion and might be disagreed with or agreed with. Doesn't really matter which. Its just out there and unless libelous or harmful, I wouldn't really warrant a reply.
This is just a discussion forum where in this forum, sportoes have a natter about rugby union. No biggie. Just a natter.
Folks tend to like being outraged and love getting the last word in. Like me . . . just there (over to you now . . . )

leftleg

JustinDee wrote: »

I'd disagree. Anonymity does not promote honest discussion. In fact, the absolute polemic.

Any chance of those stats Justin??

JustinDee

leftleg wrote: »

Any chance of those stats Justin??

I told you already. I'm lucky enough to get a peek at match analysis stats myself. Its not my brief and it is most certainly not within my remit to ship out to an anonymous Joe Soap on an internet forum.
You don't have to take what I say on board at all but calling me a liar/dishonest about it is off-colour, to put it mildly.

leftleg

JustinDee wrote: »

I told you already. I'm lucky enough to get a peek at match analysis stats myself. Its not my brief and it is most certainly not within my remit to ship out to an anonymous Joe Soap on an internet forum.
You don't have to take what I say on board at all but calling me a liar/dishonest about it is off-colour, to put it mildly.

When did i call you a liar? All I did was point out that your point on anonymity is entirely untrue and that trust is trust anonymously or not. I take your word on the stats, i always have, but its not because your name is Justin D or Justin C. Its because your a regular poster on here who for the most part talks a good talk.

JustinDee

leftleg wrote: »

When did i call you a liar? All I did was point out that your point on anonymity is entirely untrue and that trust is trust anonymously or not. I take your word on the stats, i always have, but its not because your name is Justin D or Justin C. Its because your a regular poster on here who for the most part talks a good talk.

Sorry for that. Thats how I read your post. Apols.

I still disagree on the honesty part when posting anonymously. From other threads and other forums on boards I read (I don't bother with any other forum apart from one I manage for IRSC), there are some keen bullsh*tters out there.

Podge_irl

There are keen bull****ters out everywhere, online and in the real world.

Shelflife

I asked him about this following a thin-skinned thread reactionary thread here. Posters took offence to his having a go at anonymous internet monikers attacking players/coaches etc.

Justin when you try to link posters having a go at an article of your own to situations where the abuse is so vile that peoples lives are destroyed to the point of suicide you can expect to be called out on it by the "thin skinned duffers"

JustinDee

Shelflife wrote: »

I asked him about this following a thin-skinned thread reactionary thread here. Posters took offence to his having a go at anonymous internet monikers attacking players/coaches etc.

Justin when you try to link posters having a go at an article of your own to situations where the abuse is so vile that peoples lives are destroyed to the point of you can expect to be called out on it by the "thin skinned duffers"

Like I say, just making a point. You can be subjective and go by some sort of abuse gauge if you wish. I'm just saying, in my view, there isn't that much difference.

Shelflife wrote: »

You then go on to say
Folks tend to like being outraged and love getting the last word in

and in a subsequent post complain at being called a liar when you clearly were not. maybe you should read your own posts

I apologised for misreading their post.
Now, over to you for the last word . . .

Shelflife

As regards the whole anonimity of the internet i feel that theres good and bad on it.

it allows one to post on situations such as work where to say what you really believe as opposed to toe the party line.

It also as you said justin allows some woeful crap to be spouted by people who wouldnt stand over what they say in public.

Shelflife

I apologised for misreading their post.
Now, over to you for the last word . . .


I did edit as soon as i saw the apology , bit of a slow typist