Comments on: The Labour Party in its present incarnation is governed by underclass amorality

By: Ramon Manion.gion

Ramon Manion.gion — Wed, 17 Aug 2011 14:53:32 +0000

In reply to Catherine Jones. Get a life

By: ciccio2011

ciccio2011 — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 18:04:02 +0000

In reply to Tac-cercura. Ronnie, Primark does not sell gentlemen's coats.

By: Joseph (Not Muscat)

Joseph (Not Muscat) — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:52:48 +0000

With Labour in government in 18 months, the underclass will be happy cause their hatred towards PN and proper governance is greater than the progress of their personal life and that of the country. This is what I fear about the PL, they commit the same mistake all over again just to fuel their ignorance and hatred.

By: Carmel Scicluna

Carmel Scicluna — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 16:25:18 +0000

Dawn l-affarijiet tal-misthija. U tal-misthija aktar li dan hu pajjiz fejn il-kotra tghidlek ‘u iwa’ u ‘mur ara’ u ftit huma n-nies li tabilhaqq ghandhom deep insight fil-karattri baxxi ta’ nies bhal Jason Micallef u bella kumpanija.

By: Grezz

Grezz — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:48:12 +0000

In reply to Catherine Jones. Taz-zb*b

By: La Redoute

La Redoute — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:26:31 +0000

In reply to Christian.

Nikita Alamango didn’t refer to other writers, nor did she quote them. She poached their ideas and ‘paraphrased’ (her term) their words. And she still claimed she did nothing wrong. Worse still, she said that it’s not wrong because other people got away with doing the same thing.

If Nikita Alamango had no problem referencing her article, then she really has no excuse for what she did. In her latest blog, there was a cursory mention of CNN and David Buick. There was no mention of Gillian Tett and no mention of the Financial Times.

Incidentally, Gillian Tett is not ‘another writer’. She is US managing editor and an assistant editor for the Financial Times. And because I know this sort of thing impresses a certain type of person, it’s necessary to point out that she’s Cambridge educated and holds a PhD in social anthropology.

If we are to take lessons on what is or what is not plagiarism, I’d listen to Gillian Tett any day, rather than Nikita Alamango:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/cfb9c43a-48b7-11df-8af4-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1VCsxWfN5

“During the past couple of decades, the world of finance has certainly borrowed heavily from disciplines such as maths and science, and some of this plagiarism has produced disastrous results.”

So there you have it. Plagiarism is the borrowing of ideas and using them as one’s own. It is not a minor ‘mistake’. It is deliberate deceit. The tragedy is that Nikita Alamango thinks that that is acceptable. And this comes from a member of the Labour Party’s executive, no less.

By: Grezz

Grezz — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:06:17 +0000

In reply to La Redoute. And with a surname like "Bassom" ...

By: Grezz

Grezz — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:04:26 +0000

In reply to Bob. Now, now, Bob, let's not be nasty. It's probably hiding something.

By: Grezz

Grezz — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:02:05 +0000

Look on the bright side: at least the rubber-puppet fancier ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DJ34MOu_yQ ) was not wearing his tweed jacket.

By: Christian

Christian — Tue, 16 Aug 2011 15:01:12 +0000

I honestly believe that this Nikita’s story was simply an oversight from her side. If I’m not mistaken, and please correct me if I’m wrong, in the same article, as well as others before it, she did quote, and referred to other writers as well as websites. I wouldn’t think she had a problem referencing this one.
So we are simply creating a storm in a tea-cup – maybe because she is involved in politics?

All she needs to do is acknowledge the minor mistake and move on.

[Daphne – Don’t be ridiculous.]