By the process of intellectual examination followed by elimination, it can be established that a plagiarizer who repeatedly plagiarizes is proving they do not remember much if anything they learned or read. Stated differently, if preferred, they are demonstrating therefore proving they never learned anything by not acknowledging they learned/read about the topic and/or the person. How intelligent (smart as us yokels might say it.) is that? If they cannot remember what they have read, how can it be assured (and demonstrated) they will remember anything? For example......? Can't remember what I was thinking.
Added to Gab. February 25, 2024.
Added to Gettr. February 25, 2024.
Added to Locals. February 25, 2024.
Added to Truth Social. February 25, 2024.
Added to X. February 25, 2024.
To turn my leering leaching eye to the realm of "Notes", for example "Community Notes" and all other sources of information sometimes also called data either for or not for "checking" or any other purpose such as research. Can there be identified anything that is useless before one's encounter with such note (source)?
Requisite condition: How would one know for themself?
Do I hear it now? What you say?
Self-assigned complication rating: <1>). Or maybe zero.
Point: Everything old is always new to some or many.
SG - Free Thought - [Locals] - [June 2026]
Gab: June 2, 2026.
GETTR: June 2, 2026.
Locals: June 2, 2026.
Truth Social: June 2, 2026.
X: June 2, 2026.
What I am quite but not completely sure of is that I would support not preventing anyone from not doing what they do not want to do. However, in some situations I would not recommend such behavior.
SG - Free Thought - [Locals] - [June 2026]
Gab: June 2, 2026.
GETTR: June 2, 2026.
Locals: June 2, 2026.
Truth Social: June 2, 2026.
X: June 2, 2026.
