Anyone following the Bill Ackman Meltdown?

#1
evillawyer

evillawyer

Have No God Before His Orangeness
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
33,047
Likes
21,715
#1
Bro is bigly mad that Business Insider is truthfully reporting that his wife did the exact same thing as Claudine Gay. Doesn't matter who the messenger is or what the messenger's motivations are. Facts are facts. Who brings them to public attention (or why) is completely irrelevant.

Latest:



Recap:



 
Last edited:
#3
#3
Now I can't unsee it. He really is just Jeff Bezos with a full head of hair.

 
#4
#4
He a mad billionaire. This is straight up, text book Barbara Streisand effect stuff. Had he ignored the original Business Insider story, this all blows over. But nope, he amplifies it ... and just keeps on amplifying it.

 
#5
#5
While he seems to just be a whiney bYtch... he is not wrong about wikipedia... how does that fit into plagiarism giving it's open source and can be changed at will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroverCleveland and Vol8188
#6
#6
whodeycin85 said:
While he seems to just be a whiney bYtch... he is not wrong about wikipedia... how does that fit into plagiarism giving it's open source and can be changed at will.
Click to expand...
You're conflating copyright and plagiarism. Even if copyright is waived or expired, taking someone else's words is still plagiarism. For example, if I'm in a novel writing class and pass off Dickens' Great Expectations as my own, that's plagiarism but not copyright infringement (since there is no longer copyright protection for that work).
 
#8
#8
Apparently plagiarism isn’t that big of a deal these days. The shatbag imbecile currently occupying the White House is an admitted and confirmed plagiarist, so to at least allegedly 81 million fools the sky must be the limit for frauds. Helluva shape this country is in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol since 77, Vol737, hog88 and 3 others
#9
#9
evillawyer said:
You're conflating copyright and plagiarism. Even if copyright is waived or expired, taking someone else's words is still plagiarism. For example, if I'm in a novel writing class and pass off Dickens' Great Expectations as my own, that's plagiarism but not copyright infringement (since there is no longer copyright protection for that work).
Click to expand...
Makes sense....
 
#10
#10
JOEY’S ALL VOL !!! said:
Apparently plagiarism isn’t that big of a deal these days. The shatbag imbecile currently occupying the White House is an admitted and confirmed plagiarist, so to at least allegedly 81 million fools the sky must be the limit for frauds. Helluva shape this country is in.
Click to expand...
The level of guilt is determined by the tribe you identify with.
Sad
 
  • Like
Reactions: Sandman 423, Vol737, hog88 and 1 other person
#12
#12
evillawyer said:
You're conflating copyright and plagiarism. Even if copyright is waived or expired, taking someone else's words is still plagiarism. For example, if I'm in a novel writing class and pass off Dickens' Great Expectations as my own, that's plagiarism but not copyright infringement (since there is no longer copyright protection for that work).
Click to expand...

Unless he was arguing for his wife to run Harvard, what’s the issue here?
 
  • Like
Reactions: creekdipper
#13
#13
@BillAckman

A few questions:

How can one defend oneself against an accusation of plagiarizing Wikipedia for a dissertation written 15 years ago in 2009?

Isn’t the whole point of Wikipedia that it is a dynamic source of info that changes minute by minute based on edits and contributions from around the globe?

Has anyone (other than my wife) ever been accused of plagiarism based on using Wikipedia for a definition of a word?

Is Wikipedia copyrighted? If so which version? The most recent one? The previous version?

Is it plagiarism when you use an online dictionary for a definition of a word or term?

How can one defend oneself when one learns about a 12-page plagiarism accusation at 540pm on Friday night when one celebrates Shabbat and you are told the article would be published shortly, in this case at 7:10pm?
 
#16
#16
CobbVol said:
@BillAckman

A few questions:

How can one defend oneself against an accusation of plagiarizing Wikipedia for a dissertation written 15 years ago in 2009?

Isn’t the whole point of Wikipedia that it is a dynamic source of info that changes minute by minute based on edits and contributions from around the globe?

Has anyone (other than my wife) ever been accused of plagiarism based on using Wikipedia for a definition of a word?

Is Wikipedia copyrighted? If so which version? The most recent one? The previous version?

Is it plagiarism when you use an online dictionary for a definition of a word or term?

How can one defend oneself when one learns about a 12-page plagiarism accusation at 540pm on Friday night when one celebrates Shabbat and you are told the article would be published shortly, in this case at 7:10pm?
Click to expand...
All of these BS deflections demolished here

 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol
#17
#17
Bill Ackman
@BillAckman

It has been the case since as far as I can remember in business and in media that family was off limits, unless of course the family is directly involved in the business.

The code of the road was that you can attack the protagonist as much as you want, but not his wife and not his kids.

The same is true in business dealings. You never go after someone’s family to get at a business person. This is a sacred code that I have never seen violated.

Business Insider broke this sacred code on Thursday and again on Friday when they went after my wife,
@NeriOxman. And they are working on another story about her. They are calling her former students as we speak.

Inspired by the code being broken, a journalist from Bloomberg reached out to my kids on their cell phones this weekend for a story she is working on. The reporter’s name is Kathy Burton. I had respected her until now.

Do we want to live in a world where journalists go after your life partner and your kids?

In that world, one would respond to an attack on one’s wife and family by going after the owner of the media company and his wife and family.

Ask yourself, who would want to advertise on a media property where they go after people’s families?

No one.

Because eventually they will go after your family.

The Editor of the Investigative group of Business Insider who is leading the attack on my wife is John Cook.

He is a known anti-Zionist. My wife is Israeli. That might explain why he was willing to lead this attack and others turned down the source when they were looking for a media outlet.

How would John feel if someone went after his life partner and kids?

How would Joe Bae and Scott Nuttall feel if it was their wives and kids rather than mine?

How would Henry Kravis and George Roberts react to this experience?

How would Mike Bloomberg?

We need to decide what kind of world we want to live in.

I want to know the answer to that question today because it is a really important question, and it affects society at large and our future.
 
  • Like
Reactions: davethevol
#23
#23
PEPPERJAX said:
Who the hell is this guy?
Click to expand...
Ackman is a Democrat mega-donor. Business Insider is a liberal media company. It is an interesting dynamic in that Ackman is Jewish and Business Insider is full of anti-semetic liberals like most other Liberal/Democrat media orgs. How will this play out in the 2024 election? Biden and the Dems are trying to thread the needle so to speak and not piss off either their Jewish base or their largely anti-semetic Palestian/Muslim base.
 
#24
#24
PEPPERJAX said:
Who the hell is this guy?
Click to expand...

The husband of some alleged plagiarist, in other words ... nobody to give a damn about, unless of course you are the partisan hack author of this thread and one that vigorously props up the admitted and confirmed plagiarist piece of scum currently in the White House. The President of the free world being an admitted plagiarist and habitual liar just isn’t thread worthy enough for this hack OP, but Bill By God Ackman is. Go figure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNVOLNAVY and PEPPERJAX
#25
#25
TheDirector said:
Ackman is a Democrat mega-donor. Business Insider is a liberal media company. It is an interesting dynamic in that Ackman is Jewish and Business Insider is full of anti-semetic liberals like most other Liberal/Democrat media orgs. How will this play out in the 2024 election? Biden and the Dems are trying to thread the needle so to speak and not piss off either their Jewish base or their largely anti-semetic Palestian/Muslim base.
Click to expand...

Here we go with the race card, LOL.

Business Insider is a publication about as close to the middle as you can possibly get.
 
  • Like
Reactions: EasternVol, NashVol11 and volfanhill
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top