Meghan Markle and Prince Harry News and Updates

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ That's why it sounded so hackneyed and false.

They were not her own words.

Plagiarism. Add that to her list of recent triumphs! Wow.

Will it need to get worse before it gets better?

There’s a difference between plagiarism and bad and unoriginal writing. I’ve never heard of that book and doubt Meghan has as well. I think it’s just the most obvious, overwrought, and unimaginative imagery anyone could come up with.

I was a literary agent for many years, I know exactly the differences between bad writing and plagiarism. Unfortunately this is a case of both things. The original writing is hallmark card like in its saccharine wording and her own rendition, far too close to the original not to qualify as plagiarism.

This is not right. Whether or not you were a literary agent. To be plagiarism, it has to be actually copied. Being similar is evidence of plagiarism, but it's not enough to "qualify" as plagiarism; for that, there has to be actual exposure to the underlying source material. This is one short passage of stereotypical hackneyed writing that two people could ABSOLUTELY have come up with on their own. I don't actually believe for a second that Megan read this random book at all, much less copied it.

based on what evidence? if there are instances of multiple overlaps, it is indeed plagiarism. I cannot be bothered to educate you however, you sound singularly bovine.

Not PP. Overlaps=/= plagiarism. Plagiarism is intentionally copying someone else’s work without attribution. Literally in the definition of the word. You have no evidence that she intentionally copied anything you just are repeating there are portions that are similar but PP is trying to explain to you that the items being similar is not the same thing as establishing that she copied something. Also, I’m pretty sure that there is editorial staff who review her work before hitting publish.

Plagiarism does not have to be intentional to still be considered plagiarism.

çe

You can be sued for unintentional plagiarism. Do you think it's ok to just say "well I didn't mean it, wasn't intentional, oopsies!" That's not going to get you off the hook.

+1 and hilarious that someone posted the Merriam Webster "definition" of plagiarism for us all. Hurrah!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ That's why it sounded so hackneyed and false.

They were not her own words.

Plagiarism. Add that to her list of recent triumphs! Wow.

Will it need to get worse before it gets better?

There’s a difference between plagiarism and bad and unoriginal writing. I’ve never heard of that book and doubt Meghan has as well. I think it’s just the most obvious, overwrought, and unimaginative imagery anyone could come up with.

I was a literary agent for many years, I know exactly the differences between bad writing and plagiarism. Unfortunately this is a case of both things. The original writing is hallmark card like in its saccharine wording and her own rendition, far too close to the original not to qualify as plagiarism.

This is not right. Whether or not you were a literary agent. To be plagiarism, it has to be actually copied. Being similar is evidence of plagiarism, but it's not enough to "qualify" as plagiarism; for that, there has to be actual exposure to the underlying source material. This is one short passage of stereotypical hackneyed writing that two people could ABSOLUTELY have come up with on their own. I don't actually believe for a second that Megan read this random book at all, much less copied it.

based on what evidence? if there are instances of multiple overlaps, it is indeed plagiarism. I cannot be bothered to educate you however, you sound singularly bovine.

Not PP. Overlaps=/= plagiarism. Plagiarism is intentionally copying someone else’s work without attribution. Literally in the definition of the word. You have no evidence that she intentionally copied anything you just are repeating there are portions that are similar but PP is trying to explain to you that the items being similar is not the same thing as establishing that she copied something. Also, I’m pretty sure that there is editorial staff who review her work before hitting publish.

Paraphrase without citation/indication of source is plagiarism. Did you not take high school English?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ That's why it sounded so hackneyed and false.

They were not her own words.

Plagiarism. Add that to her list of recent triumphs! Wow.

Will it need to get worse before it gets better?

There’s a difference between plagiarism and bad and unoriginal writing. I’ve never heard of that book and doubt Meghan has as well. I think it’s just the most obvious, overwrought, and unimaginative imagery anyone could come up with.

I was a literary agent for many years, I know exactly the differences between bad writing and plagiarism. Unfortunately this is a case of both things. The original writing is hallmark card like in its saccharine wording and her own rendition, far too close to the original not to qualify as plagiarism.

This is not right. Whether or not you were a literary agent. To be plagiarism, it has to be actually copied. Being similar is evidence of plagiarism, but it's not enough to "qualify" as plagiarism; for that, there has to be actual exposure to the underlying source material. This is one short passage of stereotypical hackneyed writing that two people could ABSOLUTELY have come up with on their own. I don't actually believe for a second that Megan read this random book at all, much less copied it.

based on what evidence? if there are instances of multiple overlaps, it is indeed plagiarism. I cannot be bothered to educate you however, you sound singularly bovine.

Not PP. Overlaps=/= plagiarism. Plagiarism is intentionally copying someone else’s work without attribution. Literally in the definition of the word. You have no evidence that she intentionally copied anything you just are repeating there are portions that are similar but PP is trying to explain to you that the items being similar is not the same thing as establishing that she copied something. Also, I’m pretty sure that there is editorial staff who review her work before hitting publish.

Paraphrase without citation/indication of source is plagiarism. Did you not take high school English?

There was another genius on here that didn't know which hemisphere England is in and thought England to LA was only 3000 miles. It's not surprising the people adamantly supporting the Dim Duo have an elementary education.

[Anonymous]

They weren't in the news today. I found this notable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ That's why it sounded so hackneyed and false.

They were not her own words.

Plagiarism. Add that to her list of recent triumphs! Wow.

Will it need to get worse before it gets better?

There’s a difference between plagiarism and bad and unoriginal writing. I’ve never heard of that book and doubt Meghan has as well. I think it’s just the most obvious, overwrought, and unimaginative imagery anyone could come up with.

I was a literary agent for many years, I know exactly the differences between bad writing and plagiarism. Unfortunately this is a case of both things. The original writing is hallmark card like in its saccharine wording and her own rendition, far too close to the original not to qualify as plagiarism.

This is not right. Whether or not you were a literary agent. To be plagiarism, it has to be actually copied. Being similar is evidence of plagiarism, but it's not enough to "qualify" as plagiarism; for that, there has to be actual exposure to the underlying source material. This is one short passage of stereotypical hackneyed writing that two people could ABSOLUTELY have come up with on their own. I don't actually believe for a second that Megan read this random book at all, much less copied it.

based on what evidence? if there are instances of multiple overlaps, it is indeed plagiarism. I cannot be bothered to educate you however, you sound singularly bovine.

Not PP. Overlaps=/= plagiarism. Plagiarism is intentionally copying someone else’s work without attribution. Literally in the definition of the word. You have no evidence that she intentionally copied anything you just are repeating there are portions that are similar but PP is trying to explain to you that the items being similar is not the same thing as establishing that she copied something. Also, I’m pretty sure that there is editorial staff who review her work before hitting publish.

Paraphrase without citation/indication of source is plagiarism. Did you not take high school English?

I’m guessing PP failed it and was pushed through anyway. Don’t you just love the confidently stupid?

[Anonymous]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9024607/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-launch-awards-rivaling-Queens-gongs.html

These two jokers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9024607/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-launch-awards-rivaling-Queens-gongs.html

These two jokers.

I know. How much worse can it get??

I think they should quieten down for a bit, get some solid advice, and relaunch themselves. At the moment they are staggering from one knee-jerk reaction to the next and just digging their own graves deeper and deeper.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9024607/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-launch-awards-rivaling-Queens-gongs.html

These two jokers.

I know. How much worse can it get??

I think they should quieten down for a bit, get some solid advice, and relaunch themselves. At the moment they are staggering from one knee-jerk reaction to the next and just digging their own graves deeper and deeper.

Ha! Would you rather be awarded by the Queen or these 2 jokers??

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ That's why it sounded so hackneyed and false.

They were not her own words.

Plagiarism. Add that to her list of recent triumphs! Wow.

Will it need to get worse before it gets better?

There’s a difference between plagiarism and bad and unoriginal writing. I’ve never heard of that book and doubt Meghan has as well. I think it’s just the most obvious, overwrought, and unimaginative imagery anyone could come up with.

I was a literary agent for many years, I know exactly the differences between bad writing and plagiarism. Unfortunately this is a case of both things. The original writing is hallmark card like in its saccharine wording and her own rendition, far too close to the original not to qualify as plagiarism.

This is not right. Whether or not you were a literary agent. To be plagiarism, it has to be actually copied. Being similar is evidence of plagiarism, but it's not enough to "qualify" as plagiarism; for that, there has to be actual exposure to the underlying source material. This is one short passage of stereotypical hackneyed writing that two people could ABSOLUTELY have come up with on their own. I don't actually believe for a second that Megan read this random book at all, much less copied it.

based on what evidence? if there are instances of multiple overlaps, it is indeed plagiarism. I cannot be bothered to educate you however, you sound singularly bovine.

Not PP. Overlaps=/= plagiarism. Plagiarism is intentionally copying someone else’s work without attribution. Literally in the definition of the word. You have no evidence that she intentionally copied anything you just are repeating there are portions that are similar but PP is trying to explain to you that the items being similar is not the same thing as establishing that she copied something. Also, I’m pretty sure that there is editorial staff who review her work before hitting publish.

Plagiarism does not have to be intentional to still be considered plagiarism.

çe

You can be sued for unintentional plagiarism. Do you think it's ok to just say "well I didn't mean it, wasn't intentional, oopsies!" That's not going to get you off the hook.

You can be sued for anything. Plagiarism as a legal action has a mens rea requirement. You are confusing an implausible defense with the meaning of plagiarism. Another example if I murdered someone and say that my twin brother did it that doesn’t change the elements of murder itself.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c43d/7da84a82121a9510d0e81421ea99024b5c4f.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ That's why it sounded so hackneyed and false.

They were not her own words.

Plagiarism. Add that to her list of recent triumphs! Wow.

Will it need to get worse before it gets better?

There’s a difference between plagiarism and bad and unoriginal writing. I’ve never heard of that book and doubt Meghan has as well. I think it’s just the most obvious, overwrought, and unimaginative imagery anyone could come up with.

I was a literary agent for many years, I know exactly the differences between bad writing and plagiarism. Unfortunately this is a case of both things. The original writing is hallmark card like in its saccharine wording and her own rendition, far too close to the original not to qualify as plagiarism.

This is not right. Whether or not you were a literary agent. To be plagiarism, it has to be actually copied. Being similar is evidence of plagiarism, but it's not enough to "qualify" as plagiarism; for that, there has to be actual exposure to the underlying source material. This is one short passage of stereotypical hackneyed writing that two people could ABSOLUTELY have come up with on their own. I don't actually believe for a second that Megan read this random book at all, much less copied it.

based on what evidence? if there are instances of multiple overlaps, it is indeed plagiarism. I cannot be bothered to educate you however, you sound singularly bovine.

Not PP. Overlaps=/= plagiarism. Plagiarism is intentionally copying someone else’s work without attribution. Literally in the definition of the word. You have no evidence that she intentionally copied anything you just are repeating there are portions that are similar but PP is trying to explain to you that the items being similar is not the same thing as establishing that she copied something. Also, I’m pretty sure that there is editorial staff who review her work before hitting publish.

Paraphrase without citation/indication of source is plagiarism. Did you not take high school English?

I’m guessing PP failed it and was pushed through anyway. Don’t you just love the confidently stupid?

Yep pushed right through to an Ivy League undergrad and T14 law school. I guess I’ll never impress the “literary agents” of dcum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ That's why it sounded so hackneyed and false.

They were not her own words.

Plagiarism. Add that to her list of recent triumphs! Wow.

Will it need to get worse before it gets better?

There’s a difference between plagiarism and bad and unoriginal writing. I’ve never heard of that book and doubt Meghan has as well. I think it’s just the most obvious, overwrought, and unimaginative imagery anyone could come up with.

I was a literary agent for many years, I know exactly the differences between bad writing and plagiarism. Unfortunately this is a case of both things. The original writing is hallmark card like in its saccharine wording and her own rendition, far too close to the original not to qualify as plagiarism.

This is not right. Whether or not you were a literary agent. To be plagiarism, it has to be actually copied. Being similar is evidence of plagiarism, but it's not enough to "qualify" as plagiarism; for that, there has to be actual exposure to the underlying source material. This is one short passage of stereotypical hackneyed writing that two people could ABSOLUTELY have come up with on their own. I don't actually believe for a second that Megan read this random book at all, much less copied it.

based on what evidence? if there are instances of multiple overlaps, it is indeed plagiarism. I cannot be bothered to educate you however, you sound singularly bovine.

Not PP. Overlaps=/= plagiarism. Plagiarism is intentionally copying someone else’s work without attribution. Literally in the definition of the word. You have no evidence that she intentionally copied anything you just are repeating there are portions that are similar but PP is trying to explain to you that the items being similar is not the same thing as establishing that she copied something. Also, I’m pretty sure that there is editorial staff who review her work before hitting publish.

Paraphrase without citation/indication of source is plagiarism. Did you not take high school English?

I’m guessing PP failed it and was pushed through anyway. Don’t you just love the confidently stupid?

Yep pushed right through to an Ivy League undergrad and T14 law school. I guess I’ll never impress the “literary agents” of dcum

Well a PP has insisted MM definitely did not read this random book so clearly there is no issue for anyone to discuss. It is impossible for her to have plagiarized. Just ignore the obvious similarities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9024607/Meghan-Markle-Prince-Harry-launch-awards-rivaling-Queens-gongs.html

These two jokers.

WTF is wrong with these two?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:^^ That's why it sounded so hackneyed and false.

They were not her own words.

Plagiarism. Add that to her list of recent triumphs! Wow.

Will it need to get worse before it gets better?

There’s a difference between plagiarism and bad and unoriginal writing. I’ve never heard of that book and doubt Meghan has as well. I think it’s just the most obvious, overwrought, and unimaginative imagery anyone could come up with.

I was a literary agent for many years, I know exactly the differences between bad writing and plagiarism. Unfortunately this is a case of both things. The original writing is hallmark card like in its saccharine wording and her own rendition, far too close to the original not to qualify as plagiarism.

This is not right. Whether or not you were a literary agent. To be plagiarism, it has to be actually copied. Being similar is evidence of plagiarism, but it's not enough to "qualify" as plagiarism; for that, there has to be actual exposure to the underlying source material. This is one short passage of stereotypical hackneyed writing that two people could ABSOLUTELY have come up with on their own. I don't actually believe for a second that Megan read this random book at all, much less copied it.

based on what evidence? if there are instances of multiple overlaps, it is indeed plagiarism. I cannot be bothered to educate you however, you sound singularly bovine.

Not PP. Overlaps=/= plagiarism. Plagiarism is intentionally copying someone else’s work without attribution. Literally in the definition of the word. You have no evidence that she intentionally copied anything you just are repeating there are portions that are similar but PP is trying to explain to you that the items being similar is not the same thing as establishing that she copied something. Also, I’m pretty sure that there is editorial staff who review her work before hitting publish.

Paraphrase without citation/indication of source is plagiarism. Did you not take high school English?

I’m guessing PP failed it and was pushed through anyway. Don’t you just love the confidently stupid?

Yep pushed right through to an Ivy League undergrad and T14 law school. I guess I’ll never impress the “literary agents” of dcum

Who? Are you writing about yourself? This is a "news and updates" thread on MM and Harry. Move along now grandma.

[Anonymous]

Their own awards?!?! Omg. Who the heck wants an award from them?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Their own awards?!?! Omg. Who the heck wants an award from them?!

It's absurd. Two talentless people who happen to be very rich and have no real accomplishments? smh.