Please besure to provide a link back to the original article. It's not only a good idea but it is also Choc's Law! ;)

Erm... excuse me if I'm assuming too much here, but I think this may be posted for my benefit. Just to let you know, I've gotten in the habit of NOT linking to nytimes.com because I got sick of people telling me they would have to register to read the articles. Which is why I began cut/pasting them in the first place. I try to always provide the citation.

Just to clear this up, either a citation or a link is what is required. This should clear up any chance of non-attribution. What is to be avoided is simply posting large tracts text without comment in the hope of provoking a response.

If you feel that a press article is interesting enough to be reproduced here, at least tell us why!

P.S. This is not directed at anyone in particular, so any passing paranoiacs should remain calm. ( I'll let you know when I'm really out to get you!) :D

[ 10-03-2003, 02:33 PM: Message edited by: Mouse ]

Sorry TL, it's not directed at you. I hadn't noticed that you had stopped posting links [img]smile.gif[/img] I have noticed that alot of the newer posters to the <strike>Circular Discussions</strike> Current Events forum have been posting articles without links.

A bit [img]graemlins/offtopic.gif[/img] Isn`t that called "plagmarisem" or something like that?

No, it's called providing an article without a source. If the poster had passed off the article as their own work then it would be plagiarism.

No, it's called providing an article without a source. If the poster had passed off the article as their own work then it would be plagiarism. </font>[/QUOTE]Ahh thanks for the explanation!

Know what you mean - the Washington post also has this annoying 'feature' for many of its articles. Still, there is nothing stopping you from pasting the relevant extracts/articles and providing the link...