Ron Borges - Plagiarist?

What are you freaking babbling about?
All I said was you should chortle on your own, and not drag in pathetic Pats fanboys to help make your case here.
And if Belichick's adultery gets half as much derision as Clinton's has, I'll be more than happy.

 

Fenian - your response was basically "well yeah but Belichick had an affair!" All you had to do was add a "nana-nana-boo-boo" and the childishness of the response would have been complete.

Borges is guilty of cheating, stealing, lazy work - whatever you want to call it (the Globe called it plagiarism by the way) but you try and divert the issue to Belichick somehow? You want to man up and say that you don't think what Borges did was wrong - fine. However, don't start making it look like it was others who are in the wrong here.

Equating Borges stealing with Belichick's affair should be beneath you as a self-appointed guardian of moral standards around here. But you seem to be the king of the double standard.

 

No, it's not.
My response was that, if you want to dance and sing and howl at the moon for Ron Borges's scalp, you should go ahead and do that. I don't care. But you should not be dragging in a bunch of fanboys as your cyber-chorus, and that's all I said. Otherwise, enjoy yourself.
However, if we're being transparent and all, shouldn't the whole board know that guy who runs CHFF works, you know, for the Herald?
http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/1033549
Or that, for years, the Herald, Providence Journal and Quincy Patriot-Ledger beat writers used to have an agreement that they would share information and not scoop each other. Or that the Herald's editorial editor actively helped Bob Kraft try to get a stadium built in South Boston and, when confronted at a secret meeting of the people involved in the effort, refused to talk to the Herald reporter assigned to cover it.
I mean, since we're all in this only for better journalism, and not just for settling scores, shouldn't we all know these things?

 

Not sure how bringing up Belichick's alleged affair (has it been confirmed anywhere other than the Page 6 girls?) comes into the picture at all. You brought it up - what does it have to do with fanboys as a cyber-chorus? And who has responded to this thread do you consider to be in this chorus that you refer to?

Kerry Byrne puts his name on what he writes. Who he is and who he writes for is no secret. That an anonymous guy on a web chat board wants to make it somehow sinister is a bit ironic.

Finally - by bringing up past Boston media transgressions - are you somehow trying to play the "two wrongs make a right" card? You seem to be doing all sorts of dancing around just coming out and saying what Borges did was just plain wrong (and stupid).

 

Not at all.
I'm just pointing out, a) that Byrne's affiliation hasn't been noted anywhere else, to my knowledge, during this whole controversy, and b) that the "sharing information/notebook networking" aspect is neither sui generis to this story, nor particularly new.
There isn't an ounce of defense for anyone in any of my post, except in your febrile imaginations.

 

Fenian - is that dance you're doing a jig or a hornpipe? What is the point of saying "that the "sharing information/notebook networking" aspect is neither sui generis to this story, nor particularly new" if not to backdoor defend Borges' actions?

 

It is to point out historical context, not to justify anything.
Come on, think with your head, not your spleen.

 

Historical context? You mean like pointing out that most reporters who work for papers who care about ethics and who get caught plagiarizing usually get fired. You mean that sort of historical context?

 

That would also be historical context, yes, although in your case, I suspect "most reporters" would mean "three or four I'm aware of." And, as Ace pointed out above, two months without pay is not a slap on the wrist.
And I would ask Deadspin why it hasn't mentioned Byrne's day-job in its coverage. I'm fairly sure nobody else here knew about it, nor would they consider it mitigation of the facts at had. Just an additional bit of information that adds to the story.


Here is some more historical context:
http://www.regrettheerror.com/2006/06/ny_post_reporte.html
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940CE5DB1738F936A25751C1A965948260
http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=574
http://archives.cjr.org/year/95/4/plagiarize.asp

You can do your victory dance as long as you want, but there's ample precedent outside of Boston for suspension, not termination, being the punishment in these cases.

 

evil, borges obviously whomped you on a few stories - had you for lunch

and probably intimidated you - so you peed in your pants

and now you're getting revenge -

on a message board

what a man

 

That can't be true.

Chris_L wears diapers.

 

Henry - I don't walk with a cane so why would I be afraid of Borges? Nice tough talk from an anonymous guy on a Internet board though. You stay classy Mr. Borges henry hecht.

Fenian - first you bring up examples of Boston journalistic inbreeding to point that this is nothing new and now you bring up examples outside of Boston to show that 2 months are plenty punishment? And you still insist that you aren't trying to defend Borges?

This isn't even a jig or hornpipe you're dancing - its point and point or a lead-around.