Skip to content

Sen. Pia Cayetano: Another Plagiarist in the PH Senate? How About Miriam Santiago?

August 22, 2012

As former campus editor of the most widely circulated student paper in the Philippines, I was aware that in the writing business, plagiarism is a cardinal sin. In college campuses, any student found guilty of copy-pasting

Pro-RH bill Senator Pia Cayetano (Photo by NPPA Images/ Senate pool)

Pro-RH bill Senator Pia Cayetano (Photo by NPPA Images/ Senate pool)

other people’s works could face serious penalties, such as failing grade, suspension, or even expulsion. For intellectuals and public servants, a possible case of plagiarism could mean loss of credibility, reputation, integrity, and employment.

In the Philippines, a number of public figures recently faced accusations of plagiarism. For instance, Sen. Tito Sotto’s purportedly plagiarized speech became more controversial than the socially divisive RH bill itself. For some people, Sotto’s case is just a tempest in a teapot, but for those who strongly support the bill, the Senator’s ‘act of dishonesty’ was more than enough justification to pass the population control measure.

However, it appears that the anti-RH bill solon is not the only plagiarist in the upper house, which recently ousted an Arroyo appointee chief justice for misdeclaring his statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.

Now there’s this persistent rumor about a very high possibility that another senator- this time a lady solon- could also be guilty of stealing other people’s ideas. Yes, I’m talking about pro-RH bill Senator Pia Cayetano.

How about her colleague Senator Miriam Defensor Santiago?

But first, I believe it is important to know the concept of plagiarism and what constitutes plagiarism. I personally believe that a lot of people don’t know how this act of stealing or dishonesty is committed. To these people, the mere mention of sources in an article or literary work is enough to avoid plagiarism. They’re wrong. Poor, careless paraphrasing of borrowed words and phrases may constitute plagiarism. This is why it’s very important for people, particularly students, journalists, professional writers and bloggers, to know the concept and types of plagiarism, and how it is committed.

There are several types of plagiarism, which include word-for-word plagiarism, word switch plagiarism, sentence rearrangement plagiarism, metaphor plagiarism, organizational plagiarism, organizational plagiarism, and idea plagiarism.

Intellectually lazy writers or politicians are prone to committing ‘sentence rearrangement plagiarism’, which is done by simply rearranging key words of their borrowed phrases and ideas. So even if the writer provided information of his/her literary sources at the end of his/her paper, that writer may still be liable for plagiarism charges if he/she committed any of the aforementioned types of dishonesty.

According to this online source, intentional plagiarism is committed if the writer or author:

  • Asked someone to write a research or writing work for him;
  • Stole another person’s writing work;
  • Purchased someone else’s research;
  • Intentionally lifted portions of another person’s work without attribution;
  • Intentionally paraphrased another person’s work without acknowledging the source.

However, accidental or unintentional plagiarism is committed if the author:

  • Forgot to put quotation marks around an exact quote from another person’s work;
  • Failed to paraphrase correctly another person’s work;
  • Forgot to cite the source;
  • Incorrectly referenced the main source of information.

The source explains that anyone can use or borrow other people’s works or ideas so long as the sources are properly acknowledged or cited. Thus, proper citation or documentation of sources is necessary to avoid plagiarism.

Also from this source, the following are considered plagiarism:

  • turning in someone else’s work as your own
  • copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
  • failing to enclose borrowed words in quotation marks
  • giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
  • changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
  • copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on “fair use” rules)

A mere mention of a source, say, “Social Watch” or United Nations, is NOT enough to avoid plagiarism. Thus, even if the writer mentioned his/her source but copied ideas or words from that source without enclosing the borrowed words in quotation marks, that is still considered plagiarism. Also, poor paraphrasing of borrowed words without giving due credit to the source is considered plagiarism. Again, just the mere mention of a source in the writer’s article cannot exculpate him/her from plagiarism charges. So, it’s very important to know how the definition of this act of stealing or dishonesty or what constitutes plagiarism before accusing anyone of not knowing how it is committed.

In February 2011, Cayetano delivered a privilege speech on “The Status of the Philippines Achieving the Millennium Development Goals”. The lady senator is now facing allegations that she simply used borrowed passages from online or written sources without proper attribution. She then turned to Twitter to defend herself.

“Citing authors and sources is part of the writing process. I am happy to do (this) because it shows the depth of research done,” Cayetano tweeted.

She added: “I tweeted before, our Intellectual Property Code states that [one’s] literary work is protected [from] the time of creation.”

But did she really cite her sources? Let’s find out.

From her 2011 speech:

On September 2000, the Philippines, together with member states of the United Nations, affirmed its commitments towards reducing poverty and the worst forms of human deprivation. The Member States adopted the Millennium Declaration which embodies specific targets and milestones in eliminating extreme poverty worldwide.

That statement was apparently lifted from this UNESCO site, which shows almost identical passages:

In   September    2000,  member   states  of  the United Nations gathered at the Millennium Summit to affirm commitments towards reducing poverty and the worst forms of human deprivation. They adopted the Millennium Declaration which embodies specific targets and milestones in eliminating extreme poverty worldwide.

From Cayetano’s speech:

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions -income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion-while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability.

That line was copied almost verbatim from this site:

The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions: incomes, poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion, while promoting gender equality, education, and  environmental sustainability. They are also basic human rights: the rights of each person on the  planet to health, education, shelter, and security.

From Cayetano:

In the past, there was a time when the Philippines used to be the top education performers in Asia, along with Sri Lanka, Thailand and South Korea. Sadly, we are now left far behind by are our Asian neighbors. The following numbers would show us why.

That statement looks almost identical to the following passage from this blog article that quotes the work of an author named Rene Raya:

There was a time when the Philippines, along with Sri Lanka, Thailand and South Korea, used to be the top education performers in Asia. Today [2008], the country is among the lowest performers in Asia and the rest of the developing world.

From Cayetano’s speech:

In SY 2005-2006, participation rate in elementary education went down to 84.41% from 90.10% recorded in SY 2001-2002. Meanwhile, elementary cohort survival in SY 2005-2006 went down to 58.36% while the completion rate declined further to 56.76%.

That statement was undeniably borrowed from this site, although the act of dishonesty is in the form of patchwork copy-pasting:

In SY 2005-2006, participation rate in elementary education went down to 84.4 percent from 90.10 percent recorded in SY 2001-2002. Elementary cohort survival in SY 2005-2006 went down to 58.36 percent while completion rate declined further to 56.76 percent.

Several statements and passages from Cayetano’s speech were also lifted from this Social Watch article. Consider the following paragraphs from the senator’s speech:

The increases in test results only show marginal improvement while the scores fall far short of the desirable level.

The low quality of education delivered by the public school system can also be gleaned from the poor performance of teachers in assessment tests, with some of them scoring no better than the students they teach.

School enrolment and performance indicators tell only half of the story of the current state of basic education in the Philippines. The other half tells about the continuing problem of illiteracy and the increasing number of children missing education.

Those were copied verbatim from this Social Watch article titled “The Missed Education of the Filipino People” by Raya:

The increases in test results show only marginal improvement and the scores fell far short of the desirable level. The low quality of education delivered by the public school system can also be gleaned from the poor performance of teachers in assessment tests, with some of them scoring no better than the students they teach. School enrolment and performance indicators tell only half of the story of the current state of basic education in the Philippines. The other half tells about the continuing problem of illiteracy and the increasing number of children missing an education.

This paragraph was also copied from another source:

According to the Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey (FLEMMS) conducted in 2003, over half of Filipinos have had at most only elementary education while some 9% have not attended school at all. Only 34.7% of Filipinos had completed high school or had achieved higher education levels.

The source? This time a PCIJ article:

Over half (51%) of Filipinos have had at most only elementary education while some 9% have had no education at all. Only 34.7% of Filipinos had  completed high school or had achieved higher educational levels.

This paragraph was also copied from the same PCIJ article:

A significant number of Filipino children are outside the school system. There are about 11.6 million children and youth aged 6 to 24 years old not attending school. About half of them or 5.6 million belong to the age group 15-21 years old. Poverty and related factors are the main reasons cited for not attending school. Some 30.5 % cited employment as the reason for not attending school and 20% cited the high cost of education as the reason for not attending school; while another 11.8% cited housekeeping work.

From the PCIJ:

A significant number of Filipino children are outside the school system. Based on the FLEMMS  2003, 11.6 million children and youth aged 6 to 24 years old were not attending school. About half of them or 5.6 million belong to the age group 15-21 years old. Poverty and related factors  were the main reasons cited for not attending school. Some 30.5% cited employment as the  reason for not attending school. One of every five (20%) cited the high cost of education as the  reason for not attending school while another 11.8% cited housekeeping work.

And then Sen. Cayetano asked: “Mr. President, is this the kind of education we want for our future leaders and citizens of this country?”

No, that line was not plagiarized. With the senator’s good ‘research’ output, perhaps the most appropriate answer to her question is: YES.

This paragraph was also lifted from a Social Watch article written by Merci Fabros:

The Philippines is considered the country that has the worst health performance in Asia, with maternal mortality rate being among the highest in the region. It is said that the state of maternal health in the country is alarming with the MMR barely moving in the last five years and even worsening in many poor provinces.

From the Social Watch article:

The Philippines has the worst health performance in the Asia, with infant mortality rate (IMR) and maternal mortality rate (MMR) being among the highest in the region. The state of maternal health is alarming,
with MMR barely moving in the last five years and worsening in many poor provinces.

For the following paragraph the Senator provided a source, however she copied the entire paragraph almost word for word:

Mothers do not routinely choose to deliver in health facilities and avail of professional services due to several barriers such as (1) hostile hospital system, (2) poor interpersonal skills of staff, and (3) financial, physical, social and cultural constraints.

From “Accelerating a Unified Strategy to Save Mothers, Newborns and Children” by Mario C. Villaverde:

¨Mothers do not routinely choose to deliver in health facilities and avail of professional services due to several barriers–hostile hospital system, poor interpersonal skills of staff, financial, physical, social and cultural constraints are deterrents to actual service utilization.

Is the good Senator guilty of plagiarism? You be the judge.

But how about the genius Miriam Defensor Santiago? Did she also steal passages from other sources without proper citation or attribution?

I strongly disagree with Sen. Santiago on a number of things and political issues. Well, disagreement is simply the essence of what they call ‘democracy’. For instance, I passionately reject the senator’s strong endorsement of the Reproductive Health bill, as well as her understanding of the concepts of rights and RH rights. I believe that rights, which should not impose any form of obligation on others, do not require government funding and state’s ‘positive’ intervention. I am a classical liberal so I honestly think Santiago’s interpretation of rights and of government function is strongly hinged on egalitarianism and neo-liberal (which can either be leftist or semi-leftist) perspective. But this is another story.

The lady solon once said that plagiarism, in politics, is not a mortal sin. In her statement in defense of Senator Sotto’s alleged plagiarism, Santiago said: “Speechwriter must have overlooked/forgot to include the word ‘allegedly’.  But this is not the academe where plagiarism is a mortal sin.  We should give leeway in politics, as long as later on the source is acknowledged,” she said.

Santiago’s September 15, 2011 speech on Reproductive Health Bill: Logic 101 is one of the most used, cited information in support of the population control measure. However, several passages from Santiago’s speech appear

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago

to have been lifted or borrowed from online sources without proper acknowledgement.

Consider the following paragraph:

In the human rights movement, the mechanisms and processes for the delivery of health services are themselves morally compelling.  Evaluation of health programs emphasizes distribution in outcomes, not only averages.  We are concerned about the entire distribution, because reproductive rights theories take seriously the idea that every human being is worthy of respect.

That somehow bears a strong resemblance to the following passage from this World Bank article. The possibly copied passage is as follows:

[I}n the rights approach, evaluations of health and education programs emphasize distributions in outcomes, not only averages. The entire distribution is of concern because rights theories take seriously the idea that every human being is worthy of respect.

How about the following sentence from the anti-RH bill senator’s speech?

Advocates of human rights pay particular attention to disaggregated data among women and the poor, because they are particularly liable to practices and prejudices that weaken their agency and the social basis of their self-esteem.

Apparently, that was lifted from a book titled “International Human Rights in Context” by Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman. A particular passage from page 300 of their book states:

Rights advocates pay particular attention to disaggregated data among ethnic and religious minorities, women, and the poor because they are particularly liable to practices and prejudices that weaken their agency and the social basis of their self-esteem.

How about this one?

 Finally, reproductive rights approaches accommodate adoptive preferences.  Many poor women do not receive information on how to receive reproductive health care.  In addition, our underprivileged women have to accept standards lower than what they need, want, or deserve.

The problem with that passage is that it was poorly paraphrased. It was poorly paraphrased or reworded that it still somehow looks the same as its main source. Again, that passage appears to have been copied from the book of Alston and Goodman:

[R]ights approaches accommodate adaptive preferences. Some constraints to the fulfillment of rights are external. For example, many cannot afford the direct or opportunity costs of schooling, do not receive information about how to receive medical care, or live in communities where collective action is costly or impossible.

Is Senator Santiago guilty of plagiarism, too? Again, you be the judge.

NOTE: Obviously Sen. Cayetano made a few changes on her website. The following notice was also posted on her website: “UNDELIVERED DRAFT SPEECH“.

OTHER CASES OF PLAGIARISM:

The Highly Appalling Plagiarism of the Filipino Free-farters

In Defense of Absolute Rights and Free Speech Against Absolute Ignorance

Plagiarist Supreme Court?

To Filipino Freethinkers: Your Plagiarism is INCURABLE!

114 Comments leave one →
  1. Danilo Santos permalink
    August 22, 2012 3:38

    This is indeed a very important research. Plagiarism strikes the proRH camp

  2. Alejandro C. Patagnan permalink
    August 22, 2012 3:38

    Good job Vincent. Masipag kang magresearch.

    • August 22, 2012 3:38

      LOL. Thanks. Sumakit actually ang ulo ko dito…😉

  3. GabbyD permalink
    August 22, 2012 3:38

    actually they arent that identical. There are only so many ways you can write a sentence that is direct and readable.

    • August 22, 2012 3:38

      The term used is “almost identical”. Of course Pia or one or two of her researchers did some minor paraphrasing.

  4. August 22, 2012 3:38

    Hey this is great research. Have you cross-checked this speech with the one published on the Senate Journal of February 2011? I tried it, but I can’t find it…

    • August 22, 2012 3:38

      Nope. I did this one without any looking at other similar plagiarism cases.

      • August 22, 2012 3:38

        I mean this speech should also be on the official Senate Journal of Feb 2011 on the Senate website. I tried to look for it so I could match the texts, but funny, I couldn’t find it. A mystery, i think, i wonder why. Thanks.

      • August 22, 2012 3:38

        Really? But it’s still posted on Cayetano’s website.

      • Ken-Ken permalink
        August 23, 2012 3:38

        For someone who did an extensive research on this subject, why didn’t you check if the speech was actually delivered?:/

      • August 23, 2012 3:38

        Look Kuya! I think binago po yata ang speech on the Senate Journal! This is what I discovered with my research. Look po, Kuya, sa page 4 at page 9 po ng Journal No.72: http://www.senate.gov.ph/lisdata/109519340!.pdf which could mean baka di nga naideliver yung speech na in-analyze nyo…

      • August 23, 2012 3:38

        Look I also discovered this din po. Binago po nga yata ang speech kuya http://www.senate.gov.ph/press_release/2011/0308_cayetano1.asp

  5. August 22, 2012 3:38

    Hala ka, i-credit mo photo source mo! Baka ikaw ang habulin ng may-ari ng copyright nyan, tropapips ko!🙂 http://ph.news.yahoo.com/photos/how-they-voted-slideshow/how-they-voted-photo-1338277040.html

    • August 22, 2012 3:38

      Well, thanks for the suggestion. Just found that photo online.😉

      • August 22, 2012 3:38

        Haha, ang kasabihan nga, pag naka-post na sa internet, pag nasa online na yung photo, wala nang copyright dyan. Pwede na ring gamitin without credit.

      • August 22, 2012 3:38

        Unless they’re strictly for sale…

      • des permalink
        September 10, 2012 3:38

        ugh. you have the tenacity to post about plagiarism and yet pick a picture you found randomly on the internet, use it, without proper credit. that’s copyright infringement, it’s like the kettle calling the pot back

      • September 10, 2012 3:38

        LOL!!!

    • August 23, 2012 3:38

      So if a photo is not for sale but posted online, OK lang to copy without credit. Di ba copyright infringement din yun? Jaz asking.

      • August 23, 2012 3:38

        It’s copyright infringement if the photo is “copyrighted”. If it’s copyrighted you have to credit its owner.😉

      • August 24, 2012 3:38

        You used so many photos lifted from other sites where the photographers and/or owners are duly credited. That’s the proper thing to do di ba? Kahit nga di ka na formally magpaalam sa kanila, basta mag-credit ka. But you didn’t. Walk ur talk ika nga. That’s all professor, I’m resting my case, in spirit of healthy discussion.🙂

    • August 24, 2012 3:38

      Photographers like myself lament that our work is readily copied and re-posted by others on their blog/website as if these were their own. Sir we’re not after the money, just respect. Food for thought lang po as a fellow blogger din. Thanks.

      • August 24, 2012 3:38

        do you know who own those photos? perhaps you could just simply inform the author so he could do your request.😉

      • August 24, 2012 3:38

        are you saying you own those photos? curious lang po hehehe.

      • August 24, 2012 3:38

        Nikkon,

        As you can see, I first got that that photo (Pia Cayetano) from thepinoycatholic.blogspot.com. The link you provided shows a more detailed image of the senator. Who should I credit then? The Catholic blogsite? But thanks for your concern.

  6. August 22, 2012 3:38

    This blog has been updated to accommodate Sen. Miriam Santiago’s possible case of plagiarism…

    • August 22, 2012 3:38

      Astig! Just keep it on, kuya, sir…

    • November 15, 2012 3:38

      Sen. MDS in her speeches, which are always written by her, when she quotes or uses a reference, one will find it in the footnotes..and Miriam said..“I don’t accept that because as I’ve said in the academe, whether you translate or not, whether you interpret or not, it makes no difference. You have to attribute,” Santiago said in a news conference following a speaking engagement on Saturday.

      “In this event, the Sotto event, he can be allowed a certain freedom, although I wish that he would adopt the general attitude that it’s always best to attribute whether it’s specific or general,” she said.”http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/266678/saying-it-in-pilipino-is-still-plagiarism-santiago … The keyword is ATTRIBUTE… Thank you for admitting that you “passionately reject the senator’s strong endorsement of the Reproductive Health bill”…obviously, your blog is just plain propaganda against the RH Bill proponents…”This blog has been updated to accommodate Sen. Miriam Santiago’s possible case of plagiarism…” …possible??? So if you think Sen. MDS plagiarized, why don’t you file a complaint??! One more thing…Have you written for any publication? Have you ever been an editor-in-chief??

    • November 15, 2012 3:38

      oh so you were a former campus editor…but have you ever written for a national paper/magazine that’s widely read?

  7. humanaso permalink
    August 22, 2012 3:38

    Too bad no one among government is plagiarizing some of the content on this site.

    • August 22, 2012 3:38

      Haha!

  8. Ken-Ken permalink
    August 23, 2012 3:38

    Check the Senate Journals if Cayetano’s speech was indeed delivered on February 2011.

  9. August 23, 2012 3:38

    Do you know the meaning of plagiarism? Pano naging plagiarism yung kay Sen. Miriam Santiago, she cited the source and even paraphrased it??

    • August 23, 2012 3:38

      Yes, I know and you don’t.

      Here’s my reply to OfMakati, which is also applicable to your comment.

      That’s funny. Please read the blog again. I included how plagiarism is and can be committed. Clearly, it’s you who doesn’t know the concept of plagiarism.

      The blog states:

      intentional plagiarism is committed if the writer or author:

      Asked someone to write a research or writing work for him;
      Stole another person’s writing work;
      Purchased someone else’s research;
      Intentionally lifted portions of another person’s work without attribution;
      Intentionally paraphrased another person’s work without acknowledging the source.
      However, accidental or unintentional plagiarism is committed if the author:

      Forgot to put quotation marks around an exact quote from another person’s work;
      Failed to paraphrase correctly another person’s work;
      Forgot to cite the source;
      Incorrectly referenced the main source of information.

      Did you read your own source? It states:

      “to “plagiarize” means

      to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own
      to use (another’s production) without crediting the source
      to commit literary theft
      to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
      In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else’s work and lying about it afterward.”

      Also your source states:

      All of the following are considered plagiarism:

      turning in someone else’s work as your own
      copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
      failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
      giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
      changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
      copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on “fair use” rules)

      Did you read those?

      Did Pia Cayateno and Miriam Santiago FAIL to “enclose their borrowed words in quotation marks”, CHANGE “words but COPIED the sentence structure of a source without giving credit”, and COPY “so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of their works”?

      YES, THEY DID!!!

      Every second year college student knows that plagiarism is simply the copying of other people’s ideas or works without PROPER ATTRIBUTION and CITATION.

      Know how plagiarism can be committed and don’t make a fool of your self.

    • English Prof permalink
      August 23, 2012 3:38

      Christine Ong,

      Really, what makes you think Santiago’s case is not plagiarism?

  10. OfMakati permalink
    August 23, 2012 3:38

    The author is severely misled. I don’t think he even knows what ‘plagiarism’ means.

    Please refer to this: http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html

    Both Pia and Miriam cited and mentioned the sources and proceeded to either quote the passages word per word or paraphrased them. That is the scholarly and intellectually honest way of doing it.

    The author also proceeds to link to Miriam’s speech WHICH HAS CITATIONS IN THE END NOTES, particularly the bit about Philip Alston and Ryan Goodman. He might as well overlooked that detail much like what Sotto’s speechwriters did.

    The problem here is that the authors writes about plagiarism when he doesn’t even know how to use the word. http://youtu.be/G2y8Sx4B2Sk

    • August 23, 2012 3:38

      OfMakati,

      That’s funny. Please read the blog again. I included how plagiarism is and can be committed. Clearly, it’s you who doesn’t know the concept of plagiarism.

      The blog states:

      intentional plagiarism is committed if the writer or author:

      Asked someone to write a research or writing work for him;
      Stole another person’s writing work;
      Purchased someone else’s research;
      Intentionally lifted portions of another person’s work without attribution;
      Intentionally paraphrased another person’s work without acknowledging the source.
      However, accidental or unintentional plagiarism is committed if the author:

      Forgot to put quotation marks around an exact quote from another person’s work;
      Failed to paraphrase correctly another person’s work;
      Forgot to cite the source;
      Incorrectly referenced the main source of information.

      Did you read your own source? It states:

      “to “plagiarize” means

      to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own
      to use (another’s production) without crediting the source
      to commit literary theft
      to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source.
      In other words, plagiarism is an act of fraud. It involves both stealing someone else’s work and lying about it afterward.”

      Also your source states:

      All of the following are considered plagiarism:

      turning in someone else’s work as your own
      copying words or ideas from someone else without giving credit
      failing to put a quotation in quotation marks
      giving incorrect information about the source of a quotation
      changing words but copying the sentence structure of a source without giving credit
      copying so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of your work, whether you give credit or not (see our section on “fair use” rules)

      Did you read those?

      Did Pia Cayateno and Miriam Santiago FAIL to “enclose their borrowed words in quotation marks”, CHANGE “words but COPIED the sentence structure of a source without giving credit”, and COPY “so many words or ideas from a source that it makes up the majority of their works”?

      YES, THEY DID!!!

      Every second year college student knows that plagiarism is simply the copying of other people’s ideas or works without PROPER ATTRIBUTION and CITATION.

      Know how plagiarism can be committed and don’t make a fool of your self.

      • Hot_Skaterboi permalink
        August 24, 2012 3:38

        Hi, Froi! Una sa lahat gusto kita batiin sa masusi mong pagsasaliksik. Alam kong mahabang oras ang ginugol mo para sa blog post na ito dahil ako din ay isang blogger. Naniniwala ako na mali ang pangongopya ng gawa/ideya ng iba without proper attribution. Kahit ano pang pagjujustify ang gawin, mali talaga ang plagiarism. Sna iniba na lang ng chief of staff ni sotto ung approach nila kc u cannot justify a mistake with another mistake.

        Parang late na yata ako sa discussion na ito kasi dami na comments. Ngayong araw lang na ito, ngbrowse through aq sa mga sites mentioned and I did a little research of my own. Anyhow, I thought na dapat natin malaman na the MDG speech of Sen. Pia was, in fact, never delivered. Sa halip na i-deliver ung original speech, ngdecide sya na mg-impromtu speech na lang dahil hiniling sa kanya na huwag na muna mgspeech para mbigyang daan ang interpellation sa GOCC Act of 2011. Kaya pala hindi natin mhanap sa journal ung exact speech na posted sa website ni Sen. Pia Here is the link: http://senatorpiacayetano.com/?p=174

        Kaya lang kahit hindi nadeliver, that does not excuse her from the alleged plagiarism kc the intent was still there. Froi, binasa ko ung entire speech ni Sen. PIa and I noticed na sa first part, she cited a source — 2007 report of Social Watch Philippines, entitled “Missing Targets, An alternative MDG midterm report”. Napansin ko na sa blog mo you also cited social watch as the pinagkopyahan ni Sen. Pia without proper attribution. Nalaman ko na ung source na minention ni Sen. Pia is actually a book. I know this kc I have a friend who happens to work there. Kaya lang nung chineck ko ung source na sinabi mo na from Mr. Raya, nakita ko iba nga siya sa book but both are from social watch. Then, I noticed na ung kay Mr. Raya article did not start at page 1, instead ung paging nya started at page 21. So I checked again the book cited by Sen. Pia. There, I discovered na ung Raya article pala is part (page 21) of the book cited by Sen. Pia. Froi, I just want to help you and bring clarity to the entire issue. With regard sa social watch, hindi naman pala un plagiarized kc cited naman cya.

        Here is the link of Mr. Raya’s article: http://www.socialwatch.org/sites/default/files/pdf/en/05_missingtargets.pdf

      • August 24, 2012 3:38

        I advice you to read the blog again and know how plagiarism is and can be committed. Thanks!

      • August 24, 2012 3:38

        As I said:

        A mere mention of a source, say, “Social Watch” or United Nations, is NOT enough to avoid plagiarism. Thus, even if the writer mentioned his/her source but copied ideas or words from that source without enclosing the borrowed words in quotation marks, that is still considered plagiarism. Also, poor paraphrasing of borrowed words without giving due credit to the source is considered plagiarism. Again, just the mere mention of a source in the writer’s article cannot exculpate him/her from plagiarism charges. So, it’s very important to know the definition of this act of stealing or dishonesty or what constitutes plagiarism before accusing anyone of not knowing how it is committed.

        I have provided links that would somehow inform you what constitutes plagiarism. Sadly, a lot of people, mostly Filipinos, do not know how this act of dishonesty is committed.

        May I ask you at least two HONEST QUESTIONS?

        1. In your opinion, what constitutes plagiarism?

        2. I have provided pieces of evidence that show Pia Cayetano could be guilty of plagiarism. Now, kindly tell my why you think all or some of those ‘pieces of evidence’ do not fall within the definition or types of plagiarism.

        Thank you.

      • August 24, 2012 3:38

        @ Hot_Skaterboi,

        palusot hehe. are you a staff of pia cayetano?

      • OfMakati permalink
        August 31, 2012 3:38

        But they gave proper attribution and citation. You contradict yourself. You don’t understand the meaning of the things you cite. You are no different from Sen. Sotto because you misinterpret what you read to twist it into what you stubbornly think is right, which is completely opposite of the arbitrary and scholarly definition of plagiarism.

        And your blog name is a copy of Huffington Post.

      • English Prof permalink
        August 31, 2012 3:38

        OfMakati,

        Know what constitutes plagiarism and stop embarrassing yourself. Check my discussion my gabbyd below.

        So in your own understanding, it’s OK to copy-paste or poorly paraphrase other people’s works WITHOUT enclosing those copied words or phrases in QUOTATION MARKS so long as you cite them? Is that your understanding?

      • English Prof permalink
        August 31, 2012 3:38

        OfMakati,

        Are you Pia Cayetano herself? Or are you one of her paid lackeys?

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        perhaps OfMakati thinks it’s just ok copy someone else’s ideas or work without parenthetical quotations or using direct quotations as long as you mention the author hihihihi! kalokohan!

        here’s a good source. learn how plagiarism is committed. http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase.html

        it appears piagiarist cayetano committed what they call word-for-word plagiarism and patchwork paraphrasing.

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        if OfMakati the paid troll of piagiarist cayetano could just properly explain how and why her amo (or baka siya mismo si pia) didn’t commit plagiarism. i’m waiting…

      • OfMakati permalink
        August 31, 2012 3:38

        English Prof:

        Let me know your definition of “poorly paraphrased”. Educate me. Please paraphrase those passages better, then let’s tell both the senators how to do it. I’m not being sarcastic. I just want to gauge how subjective your assessment of proper paraphrasing is, if you are indeed an English Prof.

        Does it all boil down to some missed quotation marks for you? Do you mean you prioritize it above attribution, citation, and paraphrasing? My stand is that the most important is proper attribution and citation. Use quotation marks all you like, but without proper attribution and citation, quotation marks are just

        Also, what is embarrassing is that you accuse me of actually BEING Pia Cayetano or her paid lackeys. Does this warrant me to accuse of being Tito Sotto or Hector Villacorta? You embarrass yourself for using an ad hominem argument. You embarrass yourself as an “English Prof”.

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        OfMakati

        pinagpilitan ang kabobohan.

        sabi mo: “Let me know your definition of “poorly paraphrased”. Educate me.”

        let me show you. poor paraphrasing can either be “word-for-word plagiarism” with very minor changes and “patchwork paraphrasing”.

        example of word-for-word plagiarism” from this site http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase.html

        ORIGINAL: “Critical care nurses function in a hierarchy of roles. In this open heart surgery unit, the nurse manager hires and fires the nursing personnel. The nurse manager does not directly care for patients but follows the progress of unusual or long-term patients. On each shift a nurse assumes the role of resource nurse. This person oversees the hour-by-hour functioning of the unit as a whole, such as considering expected admissions and discharges of patients, ascertaining that beds are available for patients in the operating room, and covering sick calls. Resource nurses also take a patient assignment. They are the most experienced of all the staff nurses. The nurse clinician has a separate job description and provides for quality of care by orienting new staff, developing unit policies, and providing direct support where needed, such as assisting in emergency situations. The clinical nurse specialist in this unit is mostly involved with formal teaching in orienting new staff. The nurse manager, nurse clinician, and clinical nurse specialist are the designated experts. They do not take patient assignments. The resource nurse is seen as both a caregiver and a resource to other caregivers. . . . Staff nurses have a hierarchy of seniority. . . . Staff nurses are assigned to patients to provide all their nursing care. (Chase, 1995, p. 156)”

        PLAGIARISM: “Critical care nurses have a hierarchy of roles. The nurse manager hires and fires nurses. S/he does not directly care for patients but does follow unusual or long-term cases. On each shift a resource nurse attends to the functioning of the unit as a whole, such as making sure beds are available in the operating room, and also has a patient assignment. The nurse clinician orients new staff, develops policies, and provides support where needed. The clinical nurse specialist also orients new staff, mostly by formal teaching. The nurse manager, nurse clinician, and clinical nurse specialist, as the designated experts, do not take patient assignments. The resource nurse is not only a caregiver but a resource to the other caregivers. Within the staff nurses there is also a hierarchy of seniority. Their job is to give assigned patients all their nursing care.”

        EXAMPLE OF PATCHWORK PARAPHRASING: “Chase (1995) describes how nurses in a critical care unit function in a hierarchy that places designated experts at the top and the least senior staff nurses at the bottom. The experts — the nurse manager, nurse clinician, and clinical nurse specialist — are not involved directly in patient care. The staff nurses, in contrast, are assigned to patients and provide all their nursing care. Within the staff nurses is a hierarchy of seniority in which the most senior can become resource nurses: they are assigned a patient but also serve as a resource to other caregivers. The experts have administrative and teaching tasks such as selecting and orienting new staff, developing unit policies, and giving hands-on support where needed.” –CHECK THE LINK, PLEASE!

        TAKE NOTE SA EXAMPLE SA TAAS: the author CITED HIS/HER SOURCE but he/she is still LIABLE because of PATCHWORK PARAPHRASING.

        sensiya na sa all-caps. gusto ko lang ipaintindi ng mabuti sa ‘yo kasi medyo may problema ka sa pag-aanalisa.

        now, gamitim natin ang KABOBOHAN NI PIAGIARIST CAYETANO.

        i-plagiarize ko na lang ung comment ni English Prof sa baba…

        From Cayetano’s blog: “Over half (51%) of Filipinos have had at most only elementary education while some 9% have had no education at all. Only 34.7% of Filipinos had completed high school or had achieved higher educational levels.”

        Did she make proper citation or attribution? It seems she merely borrowed ‘most’ of those words here:

        “In September 2000, member states of the United Nations gathered at the Millennium Summit to affirm commitments towards reducing poverty and the worst forms of human deprivation. They adopted the Millennium Declaration which embodies specific targets and milestones in eliminating extreme poverty worldwide.”

        Another one from Cayetano: “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions -income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion-while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability.”

        Again, Did she make proper citation or attribution? It seems she merely borrowed ‘most’ of those words here:

        “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions: incomes, poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion, while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability. They are also basic human rights: the rights of each person on the planet to health, education, shelter, and security.”

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        tanungin ulit kita, OfMakati…

        explain how and why piagiarist cayetano didn’t commit plagiarism. i’m waiting…

      • OfMakati permalink
        August 31, 2012 3:38

        Weird. I thought I was talking to English Prof and not Gregorio Angeles. Maybe they’re the same person. Or maybe Froi Vincenton AND English Prof AND Gregorio Angeles are the same person.

        Anyway, just to nitpick: Gregorio Angeles, you always misspell ‘plagiarist’. Sorry, I cannot get over it. Much like you and your quotation marks and your beautiful paraphrasing powers.

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        haha! i’m subscribed to this blog so i get notification. you can tell me your real name and i’ll tell you my real account. is that a deal?

        it’s PIAGIARIST. as in PIAGIARIST PIA CAYETANO hehehehe

      • OfMakati permalink
        August 31, 2012 3:38

        Good to know you edited your blog, admitting your mistakes, and clarifying plagiarism because some people here, including me called you out for that. But I still think you’re missing the whole point of the plagiarism issue. Sen. Sotto thinks you’re wrong anyway.

        On the other hand, have you acknowledged Huffington Post for copying their name? I assume this blog is a parody of that site because of that.

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        All I can say is, you, people, don’t know what constitutes plagiarism. Everything you said here merely exposes your ignorance, political partisanship, disgusting patronizing politics, and intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty.

        Tell that to PLAGIARIST PIA CAYETANO. The mere fact that she edited her blogpost to cover up her intellectual bankruptcy and dishonesty cannot and will not exculpate her from plagiarism allegations.

        As to Huffington Post thingy, did they copy that from Washington Post? Are you crazy? What the heck is your point, creature? Will you give me reason why I should acknowledge Huffington Post?

      • OfMakati permalink
        August 31, 2012 3:38

        So you mean you copied it from Washington Post, and not from Huffington Post? My bad, sorry.

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        You know, I’m very interested in how you think… To know what inside your skull.

        Do you really believe Pia Cayetano did not plagiarize? Why?

      • OfMakati permalink
        August 31, 2012 3:38

        And can I also say that you that the mere fact that you edited your blog post to cover up your lackadaisical work cannot and will not exculpate you from missing the entire point of the larger public debate you are direly missing, i.e. the RH Bill?

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        LOL! That’s funny. You know why and what, creature? Will you tell me who you are so that you’ll be the subject of my next blog on plagiarism?

        I added more information on how PLAGIARISM IS COMMITTED or WHAT CONSTITUTES PLAGIARISM in order to EDUCATE MORONS LIKE YOU.

        Now if you can post here the particular EDITED PASSAGES, which you think “will not exculpate you from missing the entire point of the larger public debate” I am missing.

        So, will you tell me now: WHAT IS THAT POINT OF THE PUBLIC DEBATE I AM MISSING? Tell me…

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        AGAIN, I want your answer to this question:

        Do you really believe Pia Cayetano did not plagiarize? OR: DO YOU REALL BELIEVE PIA CAYETANO IS NOT A PLAGIARIST??? ANSWER!

        I intend to publish a PART II of this debate, Mr. whoeveryouare.

      • OfMakati permalink
        August 31, 2012 3:38

        As if your name really is Froi Vincenton.

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        Just answer the questions above…

  11. August 23, 2012 3:38

    Again, the blog has been updated for those who do NOT know how plagiarism is and can be committed. Don’t make a fool of yourselves. I am ready to engage in a very long argument so long as you IDENTIFY YOURSELF. I won’t waste my time on paid or clueless TROLLS. I need you to identify yourself for my FUTURE BLOGS on PLAGIARISM.

    Here’s an update:

    A mere mention of a source, say, “Social Watch” or United Nations, is NOT enough to avoid plagiarism. Thus, even if the writer mentioned his/her source but copied ideas or words from that source without enclosing the borrowed words in quotation marks, that is still considered plagiarism. Also, poor paraphrasing of borrowed words without giving due credit to the source is considered plagiarism. Again, just the mere mention of a source in the writer’s article cannot exculpate him/her from plagiarism charges. So, it’s very important to know the definition of this act of stealing or dishonesty or what constitutes plagiarism before accusing anyone of not knowing how it is committed.

    • GirlNextDoor permalink
      August 24, 2012 3:38

      @Froi: I dont agree with you that a mere mention of the source will not do. Let us remember that the Senate is not an academic setting. Your strict rule may apply to scholarly writings in universities and other educational institutions, but not in the Senate. Let us not get so anal about the entire ‘proper attribution issue’ here. Mentioning the source is enough. It shows that there is no intention to claim the others person’s work/ideas. Imagine if we redundanly mention the source in every paragraph or sentence. How would the speech look and sound?

      • August 24, 2012 3:38

        “I dont agree with you that a mere mention of the source will not do.”

        — Then what’s your idea of plagiarism?

        “Let us remember that the Senate is not an academic setting.”

        — Are you saying senators are IMMUNE from plagiarism raps? But this is not just about filing a plagiarism complaint against INTELLECTUALLY LAZY, DISHONEST, PLAGIARIST POLITICIANS. It’s about one’s integrity, decency, intellectual honesty, respect for the works of others, propriety, principles, and proper moral values.

        For writers and bloggers like me, we take plagiarism VERY SERIOUSLY. We don’t have to be senators or lawmakers to know that plagiarism is theft. That it is wrong! Every time we post our articles online, we do our best to comply with plagiarism laws and to follow ‘moral laws’. Plagiarism is not just an academic matter. It should not merely concern literary writers and journalists. It should concern us all.

        If plagiarism is OK– or if we should exempt our intellectually lazy and dishonest politicians from plagiarism, then, I think we should just all break our pen and stop writing.

        The concept of plagiarism is not merely an arbitrary social invention or convention. In fact I can say that plagiarism is one of the most important IP rights laws or ideas ever conceived by man, for it protects our civilization from intellectual thieves and parasites. The purpose of this idea is to protect creative people’s and intellectuals’ right to their intellectual property. In other words, plagiarism protects the products of man’s mind and creativeness or inventiveness. That’s how important plagiarism is. Your favorite books, the newspaper that you read in print or online, or anything creative that you see or read, were made possible by the noble idea that man’s creative creation must be protected at all cost by law. And that’s the reason why we have laws against plagiarism.

        A senator, or any politician in this country, is supposed to be a law abiding citizen. He/she is supposed to be a man of INTEGRITY, of moral principles, of probity, of HONESTY (especially INTELLECTUAL HONESTY), and of good moral values.

        And this plagiarism issue is NOT supposed to be a POLITICAL PARTISAN ISSUE. Just because I am against RH bill I’m not supposed to criticize Senator Sotto? Or just because you’re in favor of the bill you’re supposed to BLINDLY defend Cayetano and Santiago? What kind of mentality is that?

        If senators and top-notch politicians could just copy or plagiarize other people’s works, then let’s just all plagiarize! But how about the intellectual property rights of those others whose works have been plagiarized?

        Like I said, this issue serves as a litmus test exposing the intellectual bankruptcy of our society.

  12. GabbyD permalink
    August 23, 2012 3:38

    your ideas on plagiarism is wrong. this is wrong — “A mere mention of a source, say, “Social Watch” or United Nations, is NOT enough to avoid plagiarism. Thus, even if the writer mentioned his/her source but copied ideas or words from that source without enclosing the borrowed words in quotation marks, that is still considered plagiarism.”

    from: http://myrin.ursinus.edu/help/resrch_guides/plagiarism_avoid.htm

    Verbatim quotation of a passage, Undocumented use of the main ideas,Undocumented paraphrasing

    –> paraphrasing is ok, you dont have to use quotes, as long as you indicate the source.

    Ex: “The eighteenth century was the age of wonderful country houses. In 1722 the most beautiful one in England was built for Marlborough, the general who had won over France. When Voltaire saw the Malborough house, called Blenheim Palace, he said it was a great heap of stone….”

    see? this example didnt have to “” what voltaire originally wrote.

    • English Prof permalink
      August 23, 2012 3:38

      @ gabbyd, read my reply below. The term “verbatim quotation of a passage” from your own source, is actually what the blogger is describing here.

      From your link: “Verbatim quotation of a passage: (read it aloud word for word). To avoid plagiarism: “Kenneth Clark, in his 1969 book, Civilisation: A Personal View, said the following about the architecture of great country estates in eighteenth-century England: [then quote the paragraph].” ”

      That is what the blogger is describing in his statement which you quoted.

      • GabbyD permalink
        August 24, 2012 3:38

        “The term “verbatim quotation of a passage” from your own source, is actually what the blogger is describing here.

        no, its NOT what froi is describing in my quotation. the quotation:
        “…, even if the writer mentioned his/her source but copied ideas or words from that source without enclosing the borrowed words in quotation marks..”

        copied words. or ideas. =/ “verbatim quotation”.

      • English Prof permalink
        August 24, 2012 3:38

        @ gabbyd

        Let me ask you something: How do you understand the phrase ” copied ideas or words from that source without enclosing the borrowed words in quotation marks”?

  13. English Prof permalink
    August 23, 2012 3:38

    The blogger said: “A mere mention of a source, say, “Social Watch” or United Nations, is NOT enough to avoid plagiarism. Thus, even if the writer mentioned his/her source but copied ideas or words from that source without enclosing the borrowed words in quotation marks, that is still considered plagiarism.”

    This phrase needs to be stressed, emphasized, or highlighted: “even if the writer MENTIONED his/her SOURCE but COPIED ideas or words from that source WITHOUT ENCLOSING THE BORROWED WORDS IN QUOTATION MARKS, that is still considered plagiarism.”

    The context of that statement is that the writer, in that example, mentioned the source and simply copied the “borrowed word”, perhaps word-for-word, without “ENCLOSING THE BORROWED WORDS IN QUOTATION MARKS”.

    So the blogger is right. That is still plagiarism. You’re simply taking the blogger’s statement out of context.

    • English Prof permalink
      August 23, 2012 3:38

      This is my reply to GabbyD.

      • English Prof permalink
        August 24, 2012 3:38

        @ gabbyd

        Let me ask you something: How do you understand the phrase ” copied ideas or words from that source without enclosing the borrowed words in quotation marks”?

    • GabbyD permalink
      August 24, 2012 3:38

      English Prof,

      clearly u agree with Froi. lets push this further. name an authoritative source that says EXACTLY what you wrote here:
      ““A mere mention of a source, say, “Social Watch” or United Nations, is NOT enough to avoid plagiarism. Thus, even if the writer mentioned his/her source but copied ideas or words from that source without enclosing the borrowed words in quotation marks, that is still considered plagiarism.””

      … in the context of a speech.

      go ahead. I’ll check back again later. I named an academic source. Please, go ahead and name yours.

      same with you froi. what is the source of your ideas on plagiarism.

      ngayon, kung ikaw lang ang nag-isip ng sarili mong definition — no problem! just admit that you made up your own definition.

      but if you claim that this is the current understanding of speech plagiarism, you had better come with more than assertions.

      • English Prof permalink
        August 24, 2012 3:38

        @gabbyd

        Very clearly you don’t know what constitutes plagiarism. The statement of the blogger is very clear. It says that the writer simply mentioned his/her source yet failed to enclose the BORROWED WORDS or IDEAS in quotation marks. This is very basic knowledge in Plagiarism 101. It means that if you BORROW (not paraphrase) words from your source, you have to enclose those BORROWED WORDS in quotation mark. If you don’t understand this very basic principle, I can no longer help you.

      • Aliya permalink
        September 13, 2012 3:38

        Thank you, Gabby D. I echo your sentiments here. While there are common rules on what constitutes plagiarism, they are by no means absolute or rigid because written works and speeches require different forms of attribution. Even APA format allows the omission of quotation marks for direct quotations longer than 40 words. I would think that attribution and crediting the source hold more water than mere quotation, just as you said. One of the sources this Froi Vincenton guy cited even acknowledges this statement on plagiarism:

        Simply acknowledging that certain material has been borrowed, and providing your audience with the information necessary to find that source, is usually enough to prevent plagiarism (‘What is Plagiarism’, 2012).

        Reference:
        What is plagiarism?. (2012). In plagiarism.org. Retrieved on September 12, 2012 from http://www.plagiarism.org/plag_article_what_is_plagiarism.html

        I actually think it is quite funny that the blogger here mentioned he was a former campus editor of a widely circulated student paper in the Philippines, considering the grammatical errors I observed in his writing. Oh well. All I’m saying is that let’s not be too quick to lecture people on things that we ‘think’ are absolute truths. Judge Pia or Sotto or Defensor all you want, but spare ‘these people’ (as the blogger calls the masses, I guess?) your condescending and pompous tone. I won’t even mention English Prof here. I hope he or she chooses a more appropriate handle though.

  14. seclaudio permalink
    August 24, 2012 3:38

    The problem also is this article lacks some transparency. While it talks about several tyoes of plagiarism, it does not really give us sufficient data to judge what type of plagiarism occurred, if at all. Some of the examples cited above would be attributed to “accidental plagiarism”. I haven’t had time to look into all the examples. This very different from not attributing at all, which is what Sotto did. Beyond plagiarism, Sotto has also committed several other forms of intellectual dishonesty as I attempt to show in the second half of my article: http://www.rappler.com/thought-leaders/10850-the-other-sins-of-senator-vicente-sotto

    • Anti-RH permalink
      August 24, 2012 3:38

      You said you “haven’t had time to look into all the examples” yet you know that the ” article lacks some transparency”? How is that possible? If you don’t know what constitutes plagiarism, clearly you wouldn’t know if one is guilty of it.

      “This very different from not attributing at all, which is what Sotto did.”

      That is exactly what Cayetano and Santiago did.

  15. George Andrews permalink
    August 24, 2012 3:38

    A lot of commenters here who defend some senators’ plagiarism obviously don’t know what constitutes plagiarism.

    A parallel case which they should consider, if they want to know how plagiarism is committed, is the case of CNN host and Time editor-at-large Fareed Zakaria, who was recently suspended for breach of ethical standards.

    Here’s a paragraph from Zakaria’s Time article:

    “Adam Winkler, a professor of constitutional law at UCLA, documents the actual history in Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America. Guns were regulated in the U.S. from the earliest years of the Republic. Laws that banned the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813. Other states soon followed: Indiana in 1820, Tennessee and Virginia in 1838, Alabama in 1839 and Ohio in 1859. Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas (Texas!) explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.””

    Here’s where Zakaria copied that paragraph (from Jill Lepore’s New Yorker article):

    “As Adam Winkler, a constitutional-law scholar at U.C.L.A., demonstrates in a remarkably nuanced new book, “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America,” firearms have been regulated in the United States from the start. Laws banning the carrying of concealed weapons were passed in Kentucky and Louisiana in 1813, and other states soon followed: Indiana (1820), Tennessee and Virginia (1838), Alabama (1839), and Ohio (1859). Similar laws were passed in Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. As the governor of Texas explained in 1893, the “mission of the concealed deadly weapon is murder. To check it is the duty of every self-respecting, law-abiding man.””

    That is exactly what the senators, Cayetano and Santiago, did. Both Cayetano and Santiago mentioned their sources, yet they simply copied and/or paraphrased words without proper attribution or acknowledgement.

    • GabbyD permalink
      August 24, 2012 3:38

      There is a huge difference: zakaria DID NOT make the correct attribution to lepore’s article.

      cayetano DID attribute her ideas to the various agencies.

      sotto DID NOT attribute to the blogger pope.

      its so simple.

      • English Prof permalink
        August 24, 2012 3:38

        Haha.

        That shows you really don’t know what plagiarism means and what constitutes plagiarism. If a college student in the United States or Britain followed your line of thinking, that student would definitely get a failing grade.

        From Cayetano’s blog: “Over half (51%) of Filipinos have had at most only elementary education while some 9% have had no education at all. Only 34.7% of Filipinos had completed high school or had achieved higher educational levels.”

        Did she make proper citation or attribution? It seems she merely borrowed ‘most’ of those words here:

        “In September 2000, member states of the United Nations gathered at the Millennium Summit to affirm commitments towards reducing poverty and the worst forms of human deprivation. They adopted the Millennium Declaration which embodies specific targets and milestones in eliminating extreme poverty worldwide.”

        Another one from Cayetano: “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions -income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion-while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability.”

        Again, Did she make proper citation or attribution? It seems she merely borrowed ‘most’ of those words here:

        “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions: incomes, poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion, while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability. They are also basic human rights: the rights of each person on the planet to health, education, shelter, and security.”

        Just look at the examples posted above. You actually don’t know what you’re talking about. It’s useless arguing with you.

      • GabbyD permalink
        August 24, 2012 3:38

        Ah, finally we agree yes she didnt do “inline” attributions.

        But made references/attributions via footnotes.This is something that sotto did NOT do — this we can agree on as well.

      • English Prof permalink
        August 24, 2012 3:38

        Hahaha. No, there’s no agreement there. You still don’t know how plagiarism is committed. If you did, you wouldn’t be wasting time talking about nonsense. The problem is not that she didn’t just make proper attribution. The problem is POOR PARAPHRASING.

        This link shows how poor paraphrasing could lead to plagiarism:( http://www.library.spscc.ctc.edu/electronicreserve/read9192/swanson/ParaphrasingtoAvoidPlagiarism.pdf )

        Original: “Contrary to popular belief, exercise has never been demonstrated
        conclusively to lengthen life.”

        Poor Paraphrase: Contrary to popular thinking, exercise has never been
        demonstrated conclusively to lengthen life.

        Good Paraphrase: No one has ever proved that exercise lengthens life.

        Compare that to what Cayetano’s plagiarism.

  16. GabbyD permalink
    August 24, 2012 3:38

    @english prof

    so i’ve provided a resource for plagiarism in a speech. what you have done is repeat the same arguments again and again.

    i have more evidence:
    http://academics.hamilton.edu/occ/citations.pdf

    read it — it is sufficient to mention the sources when you paraphrase.

    • English Prof permalink
      August 24, 2012 3:38

      @gabbyd

      Yes, you did. But the problem is you don’t understand what your source actually tells you. You don’t know what constitutes plagiarism. The post by George Andrews is very instructive. You may learn something from it.

      • GabbyD permalink
        August 24, 2012 3:38

        OK. what did i NOT understand. lets get real specific.

      • English Prof permalink
        August 24, 2012 3:38

        The whole thing. You don’t know how plagiarism is committed. That’s the reason why your arguments are so hilarious that it’s almost impossible to deal with them.

        There are examples of Cayetano’s plagiarism above. Will you show me why some or all of those examples do not constitute plagiarism?

      • Aliya permalink
        September 13, 2012 3:38

        “You don’t know what constitutes plagiarism.”
        “You don’t know how plagiarism is committed.”

        Such haughty attitude! You really don’t mean the person does NOT know anything about what constitutes plagiarism, right? I would think that someone who knows ‘inline attribution’ would know a thing or two about plagiarism. Have you ever thought that maybe the person was leading you to illustrate/specify Pia’s error by asking you questions, but instead of explaining you freely offer your unfounded judgments of the person’s ability to comprehend your notion of plagiarism. Isn’t it clear that what he/she is pointing out is the difference between Pia and Sotto’s ways? Pia’s method was not perfect but Sotto was way off the charts. It is hard to judge Pia’s writing as it was meant to be spoken so although she could improve upon her attribution or citation (now that we are reading it), her alleged speech is nowhere near as bad as Sotto’s.

      • Gregorio Angeles permalink
        September 13, 2012 3:38

        Aliya,

        You’re another mindless commenter who doesn’t know how plagiarism is committed. Good try but that’s an epic fail…

  17. English Prof permalink
    August 24, 2012 3:38

    To GabbyD and others who don’t know how plagiarism is committed.

    I’ll show you how Cayetano should have paraphrased one of her plagiarized sources.

    Here’s the original: “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions: incomes, poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion, while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability. They are also basic human rights: the rights of each person on the planet to health, education, shelter, and security.”

    Here’s an example of good paraphrasing (BY ME):

    — Extreme poverty is one of the pressing socio-economic issues that demands government’s proactive intervention. This necessary intervention was laid down in the Millennium Development Goals designed not merely to combat poverty but also to reduce its effects, such as social inequality, diseases, homelessness, lack of education, among others. Thus, the government must play a proactive role in promoting the common good, since every human being is entitled to his basic human rights (e.g., food, shelter, clothing, security, medical services, etc.).

    • OfMakati permalink
      August 31, 2012 3:38

      You forgot to cite your sources. I see no footnote or endnote. Plagiarism.

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        ^^^ hahahahahahahahaha!!! wala talagang alam. didn’t he mention the “Millennium Development Goal”? that’s the source itself. bopols hahaha.

      • OfMakati permalink
        August 31, 2012 3:38

        The proper citation should be this:

        United Nations, Millennium Development Goals Report 2011, June 2011, ISBN 978-92-1-101244-6, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4e42118b2.html [accessed 31 August 2012]

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        hahahahahahahahahaha!!! that should be at the end of the paper. the better referencing tool for this one is turabian. but APA or Harvard is ok.

        you see now?

        yes, piagiarist cayetano mentioned some of her sources like social watch at kung anu-ano pa. but she copied several paragraphs without even using DIRECT QUOTATION or PROPER PARAPHRASING. hindi pwedeng banggitin mo ‘yong source mo pero kinopya mo almost verbatim ang ilang paragraph sa paper o gawa niya without using DIRECT QUOTATION or INDIRECT QUOTATION. claro?

      • OfMakati permalink
        August 31, 2012 3:38

        You spelled ‘plagiarist’ wrong.

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        PIAGIARIST? that’s a new term. we’re going to popularize it. so that’s no wrong spelling at all. we’re introducing a new WORD: piagiarist.

        PIAGIARIST: noun. a schooled female politician who commits plagiarism.

      • August 31, 2012 3:38

        OfMakati,

        ang tindi mo rin no? die hard ang pagtatanggol mo kay PIAGIARIST cayetano. this is no longer about rh bill. this is about integrity and honesty.

      • OfMakati permalink
        August 31, 2012 3:38

        Please cite your sources on your “new term”.

      • Gregorio Angeles permalink
        August 31, 2012 3:38

        hahahaahahhahaha!!! gaano ka ba kabobo ha, OfMakati? Ikaw ata si PIAGIARIST CAYETANO! am i right?

        source?

        I AM THE SOURCE! may angal ka? now you may quote me on that.

      • Aliya permalink
        September 13, 2012 3:38

        I agree with OfMakati. Since English Prof is being technical, where is his/her footnote or endnote after his ‘good’ paraphrasing?

        To Gregorio Angeles, RE: hindi pwedeng banggitin mo ‘yong source mo pero kinopya mo almost verbatim ang ilang paragraph sa paper o gawa niya without using DIRECT QUOTATION or INDIRECT QUOTATION

        Your point is actually not quite right either. Copying verbatim a paragraph or several paragraphs constitutes plagiarism, even if you put them in quotes or use indirect quotation, if they make up the bulk of your work. You see, all of us here could go on and on about rules, but that just goes to show that there are no absolute truths when it comes to plagiarism, only general guidance. This is not to say that Pia or Defensor are scot-free, only that our attitude needs taking down a notch. Drop the name-calling.

      • Gregorio Angeles permalink
        September 13, 2012 3:38

        Aliya,

        It’s not being technical… Just look at the examples given above. Pia Cayetano lifted the borrowed or copied words or paragraphs almost verbatim WITHOUT ENCLOSING THEM IN QUOTATION MARKS.

        There is what we call DIRECT QUOTATION and INDIRECT QUOTATION rules in plagiarism.

        Ang bobobo ninyo!

  18. Jaime permalink
    August 31, 2012 3:38

    Incorrect paraphrasing or not, both legislators acknowledge their sources. Most parts of their speeches that involve paraphrasing involve numbers and statistics. There’s minimal room for changing when you deal with numbers. Both senators acknowledge their sources, and Pia apologized when she had a mistake once in quoting a source.

    • August 31, 2012 3:38

      LOL! these are PIAGIARIST PIAGIARIST CAYETANO’S lackeys…

      • Aliya permalink
        September 14, 2012 3:38

        Gregorio Angeles,

        Do you feel happy when you use the word ‘lackeys’ because you think it is esoteric and it makes you feel self-important? Such a quaint word to use, which must mean you are a phony. Actually, the biggest joke of all, is you and your ilk (Froi and English Prof), because YOU just don’t get it. Nobody said anything about Pia or Santiago being innocent. In fact, I even mentioned somewhere that Pia could have done a better job of attributing, so could have Miriam. Sotto is just beyond reprieve. The joke is on YOU, because you think that simply adding quotation marks gets you off the hook. That IS the point I am making. If I have to choose between A)using quotation marks without attribution or citation OR B)no quotation marks but with attribution or citation, then I would go with the LATTER option –B– because the intention to credit the source tells you that there is AT LEAST no intent to steal, only that perhaps either the person did not know how to cite or was lazy. Not perfect but definitely the lesser of the two evils. I am taking about relativity, you idiot. Simply arguing that one has to use quotation marks in order not to be guilty of plagiarism is the DUMBEST argument made here, because intentional plagiarism constitutes INTENT to steal. Are you familiar with APA rules, for example? I urge you to check Purdue Owl for a quick glance at the rules that guide APA style writing. Quotation marks are NOT enough – is my english clear enough for you? Please, I urge you to clear your head of your hatred for Pia, so that you can actually argue the merits of what constitutes plagiarism. I don’t care for Pia. In fact, I don’t care for a lot of these senators. I can argue the merits of my points without dragging my political leanings into the conversation, because this topic is about plagiarism, not about whether I like Pia or Santiago or Sotto. I frankly don’t care for them – again, do you want me to translate that? Make me choose among the three and I would tell you that the biggest moron of all is Sotto, but only after YOU, because Sotto is simply ignorant who does not even know that he is ignorant. You, on the other hand, are not only ignorant but an arrogant moron with an inflated ego, which is perhaps a scarier attribute. Go back and check my arguments about plagiarism and tell me that I am wrong. And while you are at it, go back and read Gabby D, Jaime, OfMakati, or Seclaudio and think about what they have been saying all along, but outside of any judgment about their political association. This isn’t about Pia or Santiago or Sotto being scot-free. This is about acknowledging that plagiarism can occur in many ways, and that the rules CAN be relative to the form of the communication or the writing style. Ikaw yata ang bobo eh.

      • Gregorio Angeles permalink
        September 14, 2012 3:38

        LOL! Nakakatawa yang reasoning mo. Nakapag-college ka ba? You don’t know how plagiarism is committed?

        pinagpilitan ang kabobohan.
        sabi mo: “Let me know your definition of “poorly paraphrased”. Educate me.”
        let me show you. poor paraphrasing can either be “word-for-word plagiarism” with very minor changes and “patchwork paraphrasing”.
        example of word-for-word plagiarism” from this site http://writing.wisc.edu/Handbook/QPA_paraphrase.html
        ORIGINAL: “Critical care nurses function in a hierarchy of roles. In this open heart surgery unit, the nurse manager hires and fires the nursing personnel. The nurse manager does not directly care for patients but follows the progress of unusual or long-term patients. On each shift a nurse assumes the role of resource nurse. This person oversees the hour-by-hour functioning of the unit as a whole, such as considering expected admissions and discharges of patients, ascertaining that beds are available for patients in the operating room, and covering sick calls. Resource nurses also take a patient assignment. They are the most experienced of all the staff nurses. The nurse clinician has a separate job description and provides for quality of care by orienting new staff, developing unit policies, and providing direct support where needed, such as assisting in emergency situations. The clinical nurse specialist in this unit is mostly involved with formal teaching in orienting new staff. The nurse manager, nurse clinician, and clinical nurse specialist are the designated experts. They do not take patient assignments. The resource nurse is seen as both a caregiver and a resource to other caregivers. . . . Staff nurses have a hierarchy of seniority. . . . Staff nurses are assigned to patients to provide all their nursing care. (Chase, 1995, p. 156)”
        PLAGIARISM: “Critical care nurses have a hierarchy of roles. The nurse manager hires and fires nurses. S/he does not directly care for patients but does follow unusual or long-term cases. On each shift a resource nurse attends to the functioning of the unit as a whole, such as making sure beds are available in the operating room, and also has a patient assignment. The nurse clinician orients new staff, develops policies, and provides support where needed. The clinical nurse specialist also orients new staff, mostly by formal teaching. The nurse manager, nurse clinician, and clinical nurse specialist, as the designated experts, do not take patient assignments. The resource nurse is not only a caregiver but a resource to the other caregivers. Within the staff nurses there is also a hierarchy of seniority. Their job is to give assigned patients all their nursing care.”
        EXAMPLE OF PATCHWORK PARAPHRASING: “Chase (1995) describes how nurses in a critical care unit function in a hierarchy that places designated experts at the top and the least senior staff nurses at the bottom. The experts — the nurse manager, nurse clinician, and clinical nurse specialist — are not involved directly in patient care. The staff nurses, in contrast, are assigned to patients and provide all their nursing care. Within the staff nurses is a hierarchy of seniority in which the most senior can become resource nurses: they are assigned a patient but also serve as a resource to other caregivers. The experts have administrative and teaching tasks such as selecting and orienting new staff, developing unit policies, and giving hands-on support where needed.” –CHECK THE LINK, PLEASE!
        TAKE NOTE SA EXAMPLE SA TAAS: the author CITED HIS/HER SOURCE but he/she is still LIABLE because of PATCHWORK PARAPHRASING.
        sensiya na sa all-caps. gusto ko lang ipaintindi ng mabuti sa ‘yo kasi medyo may problema ka sa pag-aanalisa.
        now, gamitim natin ang KABOBOHAN NI PIAGIARIST CAYETANO.
        i-plagiarize ko na lang ung comment ni English Prof sa baba…
        From Cayetano’s blog: “Over half (51%) of Filipinos have had at most only elementary education while some 9% have had no education at all. Only 34.7% of Filipinos had completed high school or had achieved higher educational levels.”
        Did she make proper citation or attribution? It seems she merely borrowed ‘most’ of those words here:
        “In September 2000, member states of the United Nations gathered at the Millennium Summit to affirm commitments towards reducing poverty and the worst forms of human deprivation. They adopted the Millennium Declaration which embodies specific targets and milestones in eliminating extreme poverty worldwide.”
        Another one from Cayetano: “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions -income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion-while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability.”
        Again, Did she make proper citation or attribution? It seems she merely borrowed ‘most’ of those words here:
        “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions: incomes, poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion, while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability. They are also basic human rights: the rights of each person on the planet to health, education, shelter, and security.”

    • Aliya permalink
      September 14, 2012 3:38

      I find it funny that the pompous ones who dare lecture on plagiarism hate Pia so much. Geez, that kind of negativity is a heavy load to carry. And such fascination with quotation marks! I can use quotation marks but subjectively use them as “air quotes”. “Gregorio Angeles the idiot said…” (*motions air quotes while grinning sarcastically*).. Seriously, the original blogger Froi Vincenton, “English Prof” (air quotes, mind you), and Gregorio Angeles remind me of Fox News. Get over yourselves. LOL. I dare Froi V to properly CITE his sources for this blog, not just add hyperlinks. Go ahead, try it. Otherwise, you are all talk.

      • Gregorio Angeles permalink
        September 14, 2012 3:38

        Wala. Wala ka ngang alam… N-discussed na yan sa taas. Paulit-ulit ka lang.

        Kung hindi eto plagiarism, ewan ko na kung ano ang pagkakaintindi mo ng plagiarism, Pia/Aliya.

        From Cayetano’s blog: “Over half (51%) of Filipinos have had at most only elementary education while some 9% have had no education at all. Only 34.7% of Filipinos had completed high school or had achieved higher educational levels.”

        Did she make proper citation or attribution? It seems she merely borrowed ‘most’ of those words here:

        “In September 2000, member states of the United Nations gathered at the Millennium Summit to affirm commitments towards reducing poverty and the worst forms of human deprivation. They adopted the Millennium Declaration which embodies specific targets and milestones in eliminating extreme poverty worldwide.”

        Another one from Cayetano: “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions -income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion-while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability.”

        Again, Did she make proper citation or attribution? It seems she merely borrowed ‘most’ of those words here:

        “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions: incomes, poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion, while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability. They are also basic human rights: the rights of each person on the planet to health, education, shelter, and security.”

  19. Aliya permalink
    September 14, 2012 3:38

    Gregorio Angeles, ikaw ang bobo. Ikaw ang paulit-ulit ang argument kasi yan lang ang alam mo na form of plagiarism. Yan ang nakakatawa sa yo. Basahin mo uli ang mga posts ko. Never ko sinabi na hindi guilty si Pia Cayetano. Ayan ha tagalog para maintindihan mo. Yung kinukwestyon ko ay ang simplistic rules mo on plagiarism. TANGA! Feel na feel mo na may alam ka sa plagiarism dahil obvious ang example mo? Ikaw etong paulit-ulit eh. Copy paste ka ng copy paste.Do you teach in a so-so institution? Eto ang alam mong examples ng plagiarism kasi yan ang kayang intindihin ng mga nakapaligid sayo? Overt examples? Bobo. Taga-Recto ka ano? Or were you once caught committing the same crime? Bobo ka talaga. Saksakan ng bobo.

    • Gregorio Angeles permalink
      September 15, 2012 3:38

      Aliya, haha! that’s funny. i suggest that you read the blog again… Do you even know how plagiarism is committed? I gave you examples of Pia Cayetano’s plagiarism…

      Uulitin ko…

      From Cayetano’s blog:

      “Over half (51%) of Filipinos have had at most only elementary education while some 9% have had no education at all. Only 34.7% of Filipinos had completed high school or had achieved higher educational levels.”

      Did she make proper citation or attribution? It seems she merely borrowed ‘most’ of those words here:

      “In September 2000, member states of the United Nations gathered at the Millennium Summit to affirm commitments towards reducing poverty and the worst forms of human deprivation. They adopted the Millennium Declaration which embodies specific targets and milestones in eliminating extreme poverty worldwide.”

      Another one from Cayetano:

      “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions -income poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion-while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability.”

      Again, Did she make proper citation or attribution? It seems she merely borrowed ‘most’ of those words here:

      “The Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are the world’s time-bound and quantified targets for addressing extreme poverty in its many dimensions: incomes, poverty, hunger, disease, lack of adequate shelter, and exclusion, while promoting gender equality, education, and environmental sustainability. They are also basic human rights: the rights of each person on the planet to health, education, shelter, and security.”

      Nakikita mo ba? May attribution ba siyang ginawa? Pia Cayetano clearly copied words from her sources almost VERBATIM... What she did is what they call “patch-work plagiarism”. Alam mo ba ang ibig sabihin nun? Palibhasa kasi kayo puro kayo political support ni hindi niyo ginagamit ang utak niyo. Puro kayo kabobohan. This issue is no longer about the RH bill. It’s about Pia Cayetano’s PLAGIARISM and INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY. Claro???

  20. November 20, 2012 3:38

    Yummy!

  21. Anne permalink
    January 11, 2013 3:38

    This thread has a lot of know-it-alls.

    Anyway the worst forms of plagiarism in my opinion is when you claim that an idea is your own original thinking, and when you use someone else’s words but twist it for the purpose quite opposite what the original speaker intended. I will forgive someone if they immediately acknowledge who they quoted from had they forgotten it during a speech. I can imagine Miriam doing so. The bad thing about Sotto is he kept on denying using ideas not of his own. We were more appalled at his behavior I think, than the fact that he copied someone else’s ideas.

    • January 11, 2013 3:38

      Anne,

      First, you must be crazy or lunatic. Nobody is defending Sotto’s plagiarism here. I didn’t and others didn’t as well. He committed plagiarism, period.

      Second, this is no longer about the RH bill. This is about plagiarism committed by Miriam and Pia.

      Yes, unless you’re a moron, Pia and Miriam clearly committed plagiarism. You think that diploma-toting brain-dead Miriam couldn’t commit copy-pasting? LOL!

  22. June 20, 2013 3:38

    Exceptional post but I was wanting to know if you could write a litte more on
    this topic? I’d be very grateful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Kudos!

  23. July 19, 2013 3:38

    Its such as you read my mind! You seem to grasp so
    much about this, like you wrote the e-book in it or something.
    I feel that you simply could do with a few p.c. to force the message house a little bit,
    but other than that, that is magnificent blog.
    A great read. I’ll definitely be back.

Trackbacks

  1. Plagiarism Cases Expose Political Elites’ Intellectual Bankruptcy « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. To Sotto and Colleagues: LEAVE THE INTERNET, BLOGGING WORLD ALONE!!! « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. A Short Remark on Plagiarism « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: