A quick count-up until boredom set in found over 20 articles in The
Guardian. Any particular reason the paper wasn't listed in the survey mentioned above?
Perhaps it's just a case of The Guardian not being included in 'the top of the market'?
All off topic for ULM so posted on here. (Get out of that one ! )
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
A quick count-up until boredom set in found over 20 articles in The
Guardian. Any particular reason the paper wasn't listed in the survey
mentioned above?
Perhaps it's just a case of The Guardian not being included in 'the top of >> the market'?
Indeed. The "Guardian" were among the most assiduous with the
follow-ups.
Although possibly some people missed the "Guardian" "exclusive" on Weds, three days ago now, when they had the bright idea of interviewing some of Arday's former school friends so as to prove he could actually talk
at an earlier age than he claimed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/12/jason-arday-cambridge-claim-non-verbal-child
They were also assiduous in digging up interviews they had with him
from years back concerning his charity runs. "None" of which
actually stacked up at the time, either
The guy was a fantasy merchant; but he is hardly alone in that . Indeed
ULM has one of its very own.
Others are far more guilty.
It was rather unfortunate that it was an avowed racist who first identified the initial plagiarised* passages. Including at least one whole paragraph in his PhD thesis.
Quite how Liverpool John Moores University, the awarding Institution, could have "subsequently" cleared him of plagiarism, after the offending
material had already been published, is yet to be explained.
As is Arday's claim that his mis-steps were the result of inadequate supervision from LJMU
* While it's no real excuse, plagiarism is far easier in the days of
"copy and paste"than it was previously. When its far easier to insert
copied passages and miss off attributions than it was when
writing everything out by hand,. Where you'd get the general
gist with your notes, and then fill out the details in your own
words.
In which respect, Arday made a rather sophisticated sounding--- Synchronet 3.22a-Linux NewsLink 1.2
point about the use of mimicry
In Arday's case he may have already have genuinely shared all
the conclusions drawn by those he was plagiarising and so
lost track of the boundaries. If he was 100% bogus its unlikely
he could have bullshitted colleagues for that long, IMHO.
Unlike say when posting on Usenet. When someone boasting
of a career which is crucially dependant on being able to get along
with people - proves over 20 years of posting that they are totally
unable to get along with anyone at all !
Work that one out !
* While it's no real excuse, plagiarism is far easier in the days of
"copy and paste"than it was previously. When its far easier to insert
copied passages and miss off attributions than it was when
writing everything out by hand,. Where you'd get the general
gist with your notes, and then fill out the details in your own
words.
I don't know that I can agree with that.
It's far easier now to check a potentially offending passage by searching for
it on t'internet. And by appealing to a larger and wider expert audience (online) than it ever could have been in the past, when cut'n'paste was an accurate description of part of the process of preparing a document for typing
by "one of the typists who held the mysteries of the keyboard".
On 16/08/2026 09:29 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
All off topic for ULM so posted on here. (Get out of that one ! )
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
A quick count-up until boredom set in found over 20 articles in The
Guardian. Any particular reason the paper wasn't listed in the survey
mentioned above?
Perhaps it's just a case of The Guardian not being included in 'the top of >>> the market'?
Indeed. The "Guardian" were among the most assiduous with the
follow-ups.
Although possibly some people missed the "Guardian" "exclusive" on Weds,
three days ago now, when they had the bright idea of interviewing some of
Arday's former school friends so as to prove he could actually talk
at an earlier age than he claimed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/12/jason-arday-cambridge-claim-non-verbal-child
They were also assiduous in digging up interviews they had with him
from years back concerning his charity runs. "None" of which
actually stacked up at the time, either
The guy was a fantasy merchant; but he is hardly alone in that . Indeed
ULM has one of its very own.
Others are far more guilty.
It was rather unfortunate that it was an avowed racist who first identified >> the initial plagiarised* passages. Including at least one whole paragraph in >> his PhD thesis.
Quite how Liverpool John Moores University, the awarding Institution, could >> have "subsequently" cleared him of plagiarism, after the offending
material had already been published, is yet to be explained.
As is Arday's claim that his mis-steps were the result of inadequate
supervision from LJMU
* While it's no real excuse, plagiarism is far easier in the days of
"copy and paste"than it was previously. When its far easier to insert
copied passages and miss off attributions than it was when
writing everything out by hand,. Where you'd get the general
gist with your notes, and then fill out the details in your own
words.
I don't know that I can agree with that.
It's far easier now to check a potentially offending passage by
searching for it on t'internet. And by appealing to a larger and wider
expert audience (online) than it ever could have been in the past, when cut'n'paste was an accurate description of part of the process of
preparing a document for typing by "one of the typists who held the
mysteries of the keyboard".
In which respect, Arday made a rather sophisticated sounding
point about the use of mimicry
In Arday's case he may have already have genuinely shared all
the conclusions drawn by those he was plagiarising and so
lost track of the boundaries. If he was 100% bogus its unlikely
he could have bullshitted colleagues for that long, IMHO.
Unlike say when posting on Usenet. When someone boasting
of a career which is crucially dependant on being able to get along
with people - proves over 20 years of posting that they are totally
unable to get along with anyone at all !
Work that one out !
I've never really understood the objection to plagiarism. Selecting, assessing
and adopting a valid argument is surely just as useful an activity if you leave the original wording as if you reword it in your own words.
I predict
that the adoption of AI agent use for almost all discourse, even in science, will lead to the abandonment of the whole concept of plagiarism within the near future.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nede56Fg0emU1@mid.individual.net...
* While it's no real excuse, plagiarism is far easier in the days of
"copy and paste"than it was previously. When its far easier to insert
copied passages and miss off attributions than it was when
writing everything out by hand,. Where you'd get the general
gist with your notes, and then fill out the details in your own
words.
I don't know that I can agree with that.
It's far easier now to check a potentially offending passage by searching for
it on t'internet. And by appealing to a larger and wider expert audience
(online) than it ever could have been in the past, when cut'n'paste was an >> accurate description of part of the process of preparing a document for typing
by "one of the typists who held the mysteries of the keyboard".
Jason Arday submitted his thesis* to LJMU in 2015
Nathan Cofnas, who was the first to identify plagiarism in Arday's
work, did so 11 years later in 2026.
Whereas had anyone else done so in tbe interim, between
Arday's initial submission in 2015, and Cofnas's discovery
11 years later, then clearly this whole sorry business could
have been avoided.
Except that they obviously didn't.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
* While it's no real excuse, plagiarism is far easier in the days of
"copy and paste"than it was previously. When its far easier to insert
copied passages and miss off attributions than it was when
writing everything out by hand,. Where you'd get the general
gist with your notes, and then fill out the details in your own
words.
I don't know that I can agree with that.
It's far easier now to check a potentially offending passage by searching for
it on t'internet. And by appealing to a larger and wider expert audience
(online) than it ever could have been in the past, when cut'n'paste was an >> accurate description of part of the process of preparing a document for typing
by "one of the typists who held the mysteries of the keyboard".
Jason Arday submitted his thesis* to LJMU in 2015
Nathan Cofnas, who was the first to identify plagiarism in Arday's
work, did so 11 years later in 2026.
Whereas had anyone else done so in tbe interim, between
Arday's initial submission in 2015, and Cofnas's discovery
11 years later, then clearly this whole sorry business could
have been avoided.
Except that they obviously didn't.
Your point being, exactly ?
On 16 Aug 2026 at 10:28:05 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/08/2026 09:29 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
All off topic for ULM so posted on here. (Get out of that one ! )
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
A quick count-up until boredom set in found over 20 articles in The
Guardian. Any particular reason the paper wasn't listed in the survey
mentioned above?
Perhaps it's just a case of The Guardian not being included in 'the top of >>>> the market'?
Indeed. The "Guardian" were among the most assiduous with the
follow-ups.
Although possibly some people missed the "Guardian" "exclusive" on Weds, >>> three days ago now, when they had the bright idea of interviewing some of >>> Arday's former school friends so as to prove he could actually talk
at an earlier age than he claimed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/12/jason-arday-cambridge-claim-non-verbal-child
They were also assiduous in digging up interviews they had with him
from years back concerning his charity runs. "None" of which
actually stacked up at the time, either
The guy was a fantasy merchant; but he is hardly alone in that . Indeed
ULM has one of its very own.
Others are far more guilty.
It was rather unfortunate that it was an avowed racist who first identified >>> the initial plagiarised* passages. Including at least one whole paragraph in
his PhD thesis.
Quite how Liverpool John Moores University, the awarding Institution, could >>> have "subsequently" cleared him of plagiarism, after the offending
material had already been published, is yet to be explained.
As is Arday's claim that his mis-steps were the result of inadequate
supervision from LJMU
* While it's no real excuse, plagiarism is far easier in the days of
"copy and paste"than it was previously. When its far easier to insert
copied passages and miss off attributions than it was when
writing everything out by hand,. Where you'd get the general
gist with your notes, and then fill out the details in your own
words.
I don't know that I can agree with that.
It's far easier now to check a potentially offending passage by
searching for it on t'internet. And by appealing to a larger and wider
expert audience (online) than it ever could have been in the past, when
cut'n'paste was an accurate description of part of the process of
preparing a document for typing by "one of the typists who held the
mysteries of the keyboard".
In which respect, Arday made a rather sophisticated sounding
point about the use of mimicry
In Arday's case he may have already have genuinely shared all
the conclusions drawn by those he was plagiarising and so
lost track of the boundaries. If he was 100% bogus its unlikely
he could have bullshitted colleagues for that long, IMHO.
Unlike say when posting on Usenet. When someone boasting
of a career which is crucially dependant on being able to get along
with people - proves over 20 years of posting that they are totally
unable to get along with anyone at all !
Work that one out !
I believe that at least in America even schools routinely run students' essays
through software to detect plagiarism automatically.
I've never really understood the objection to plagiarism. Selecting, assessing
and adopting a valid argument is surely just as useful an activity if you leave the original wording as if you reword it in your own words.
I predict
that the adoption of AI agent use for almost all discourse, even in science, will lead to the abandonment of the whole concept of plagiarism within the near future.
On 16/08/2026 10:51 AM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Aug 2026 at 10:28:05 BST, "JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote:
On 16/08/2026 09:29 AM, billy bookcase wrote:
All off topic for ULM so posted on here. (Get out of that one ! )
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
A quick count-up until boredom set in found over 20 articles in The
Guardian. Any particular reason the paper wasn't listed in the survey >>>>> mentioned above?
Perhaps it's just a case of The Guardian not being included in 'the
top of
the market'?
Indeed. The "Guardian" were among the most assiduous with the
follow-ups.
Although possibly some people missed the "Guardian" "exclusive" on
Weds,
three days ago now, when they had the bright idea of interviewing
some of
Arday's former school friends so as to prove he could actually talk
at an earlier age than he claimed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/12/jason-arday-cambridge-claim-non-verbal-child
They were also assiduous in digging up interviews they had with him
from years back concerning his charity runs. "None" of which
actually stacked up at the time, either
The guy was a fantasy merchant; but he is hardly alone in that . Indeed >>>> ULM has one of its very own.
Others are far more guilty.
It was rather unfortunate that it was an avowed racist who first
identified
the initial plagiarised* passages. Including at least one whole
paragraph in
his PhD thesis.
Quite how Liverpool John Moores University, the awarding
Institution, could
have "subsequently" cleared him of plagiarism, after the offending
material had already been published, is yet to be explained.
As is Arday's claim that his mis-steps were the result of inadequate
supervision from LJMU
* While it's no real excuse, plagiarism is far easier in the days of
"copy and paste"than it was previously. When its far easier to insert
copied passages and miss off attributions than it was when
writing everything out by hand,. Where you'd get the general
gist with your notes, and then fill out the details in your own
words.
I don't know that I can agree with that.
It's far easier now to check a potentially offending passage by
searching for it on t'internet. And by appealing to a larger and wider
expert audience (online) than it ever could have been in the past, when
cut'n'paste was an accurate description of part of the process of
preparing a document for typing by "one of the typists who held the
mysteries of the keyboard".
In which respect, Arday made a rather sophisticated sounding
point about the use of mimicry
In Arday's case he may have already have genuinely shared all
the conclusions drawn by those he was plagiarising and so
lost track of the boundaries. If he was 100% bogus its unlikely
he could have bullshitted colleagues for that long, IMHO.
Unlike say when posting on Usenet. When someone boasting
of a career which is crucially dependant on being able to get along
with people - proves over 20 years of posting that they are totally
unable to get along with anyone at all !
Work that one out !
I believe that at least in America even schools routinely run
students' essays
through software to detect plagiarism automatically.
I've never really understood the objection to plagiarism. Selecting,
assessing
and adopting a valid argument is surely just as useful an activity if you
leave the original wording as if you reword it in your own words.
AND as long as you cite and credit the original author!
As we both know, cited quotation is not plagiarism.
I predict
that the adoption of AI agent use for almost all discourse, even in
science,
will lead to the abandonment of the whole concept of plagiarism within
the
near future.
In the meantime, it may help in identifying cheats and their collaborators.
Someone didn't get that chair at Cambridge but SHOULD have.
Some students' work was marked and assessed by someone without the
necessary qualifications and skills. One of them reported that her marks (previously all around 35% - 90%) took a sudden nose-dive when Arday
marked her work and when she complained, was told that she was
exhibiting "white privilege".
All off topic for ULM so posted on here. (Get out of that one ! )
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:nebm2qF7lvvU1@mid.individual.net...
A quick count-up until boredom set in found over 20 articles in The
Guardian. Any particular reason the paper wasn't listed in the survey
mentioned above?
Perhaps it's just a case of The Guardian not being included in 'the top of >> the market'?
Indeed. The "Guardian" were among the most assiduous with the
follow-ups.
Although possibly some people missed the "Guardian" "exclusive" on Weds, three days ago now, when they had the bright idea of interviewing some of Arday's former school friends so as to prove he could actually talk
at an earlier age than he claimed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/12/jason-arday-cambridge-claim-non-verbal-child
They were also assiduous in digging up interviews they had with him
from years back concerning his charity runs. "None" of which
actually stacked up at the time, either
The guy was a fantasy merchant; but he is hardly alone in that . Indeed
ULM has one of its very own.
Others are far more guilty.
It was rather unfortunate that it was an avowed racist who first identified the initial plagiarised* passages. Including at least one whole paragraph in his PhD thesis.
Quite how Liverpool John Moores University, the awarding Institution, could have "subsequently" cleared him of plagiarism, after the offending
material had already been published, is yet to be explained.
As is Arday's claim that his mis-steps were the result of inadequate supervision from LJMU
bb
* While it's no real excuse, plagiarism is far easier in the days of
"copy and paste"than it was previously. When its far easier to insert
copied passages and miss off attributions than it was when
writing everything out by hand,. Where you'd get the general
gist with your notes, and then fill out the details in your own
words.
In which respect, Arday made a rather sophisticated sounding
point about the use of mimicry
In Arday's case he may have already have genuinely shared all
the conclusions drawn by those he was plagiarising and so
lost track of the boundaries. If he was 100% bogus its unlikely
he could have bullshitted colleagues for that long, IMHO.
Unlike say when posting on Usenet. When someone boasting
of a career which is crucially dependant on being able to get along
with people - proves over 20 years of posting that they are totally
unable to get along with anyone at all !
Work that one out !
bb
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
All off topic for ULM so posted on here. (Get out of that one ! )
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nebm2qF7lvvU1@mid.individual.net...
A quick count-up until boredom set in found over 20 articles in The
Guardian. Any particular reason the paper wasn't listed in the survey
mentioned above?
Perhaps it's just a case of The Guardian not being included in 'the top of >>> the market'?
Indeed. The "Guardian" were among the most assiduous with the
follow-ups.
Although possibly some people missed the "Guardian" "exclusive" on Weds,
three days ago now, when they had the bright idea of interviewing some of
Arday's former school friends so as to prove he could actually talk
at an earlier age than he claimed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/12/jason-arday-cambridge-claim-non-verbal-child
They were also assiduous in digging up interviews they had with him
from years back concerning his charity runs. "None" of which
actually stacked up at the time, either
The guy was a fantasy merchant; but he is hardly alone in that . Indeed
ULM has one of its very own.
Others are far more guilty.
It was rather unfortunate that it was an avowed racist who first identified >> the initial plagiarised* passages. Including at least one whole paragraph in >> his PhD thesis.
Quite how Liverpool John Moores University, the awarding Institution, could >> have "subsequently" cleared him of plagiarism, after the offending
material had already been published, is yet to be explained.
As is Arday's claim that his mis-steps were the result of inadequate
supervision from LJMU
bb
* While it's no real excuse, plagiarism is far easier in the days of
"copy and paste"than it was previously. When its far easier to insert
copied passages and miss off attributions than it was when
writing everything out by hand,. Where you'd get the general
gist with your notes, and then fill out the details in your own
words.
In which respect, Arday made a rather sophisticated sounding
point about the use of mimicry
In Arday's case he may have already have genuinely shared all
the conclusions drawn by those he was plagiarising and so
lost track of the boundaries. If he was 100% bogus its unlikely
he could have bullshitted colleagues for that long, IMHO.
Unlike say when posting on Usenet. When someone boasting
of a career which is crucially dependant on being able to get along
with people - proves over 20 years of posting that they are totally
unable to get along with anyone at all !
Work that one out !
bb
I understand from reading comments about Arday that he was a nice guy who liked to get on with people.
Note the following from his paper rCLDismantling Power and Privilege through Reflexivity: Negotiating Normative Whiteness, the Eurocentric Curriculum
and Racial Micro-aggressions within the Academy,rCY Whiteness and Education (2018):
Quote
Arday states that, when a white colleague of his, rCLDebbie,rCY committed microaggressions against him, he came up with a plan to rCLcollate evidencerCY
of her wrongdoing. He expounds:
Within me a confidence emerged knowing that I would one day have my rCyday of reckoningrCO where I would be able to recite every racial micro-aggression I had encountered from Debbie and her colleagues, thereby becoming empowered rather than disempowered. (p. 152)
Unquote
On 16 Aug 2026 at 14:18:02 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
I understand from reading comments about Arday that he was a nice guy who
liked to get on with people.
Note the following from his paper rCLDismantling Power and Privilege through
Reflexivity: Negotiating Normative Whiteness, the Eurocentric Curriculum
and Racial Micro-aggressions within the Academy,rCY Whiteness and Education >> (2018):
Quote
Arday states that, when a white colleague of his, rCLDebbie,rCY committed
microaggressions against him, he came up with a plan to rCLcollate evidencerCY
of her wrongdoing. He expounds:
Within me a confidence emerged knowing that I would one day have my rCyday of
reckoningrCO where I would be able to recite every racial micro-aggression I >> had encountered from Debbie and her colleagues, thereby becoming empowered >> rather than disempowered. (p. 152)
Unquote
Do you think that intrinsically unreasonable? Or incompatible with being a "nice guy"? Or do you think he should simply know his place and keep quiet?
On 16/08/2026 02:39 PM, Roger Hayter wrote:
On 16 Aug 2026 at 14:18:02 BST, "Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
I understand from reading comments about Arday that he was a nice guy who >>> liked to get on with people.
Note the following from his paper rCLDismantling Power and Privilege through
Reflexivity: Negotiating Normative Whiteness, the Eurocentric Curriculum >>> and Racial Micro-aggressions within the Academy,rCY Whiteness and Education >>> (2018):
Quote
Arday states that, when a white colleague of his, rCLDebbie,rCY committed >>> microaggressions against him, he came up with a plan to rCLcollate evidencerCY
of her wrongdoing. He expounds:
Within me a confidence emerged knowing that I would one day have my rCyday of
reckoningrCO where I would be able to recite every racial micro-aggression I
had encountered from Debbie and her colleagues, thereby becoming empowered >>> rather than disempowered. (p. 152)
Unquote
Do you think that intrinsically unreasonable? Or incompatible with being a >> "nice guy"? Or do you think he should simply know his place and keep quiet?
My thoughts on the subject:
Nice guys don't plot against their colleagues.
Nice guys don't judge the world (and other people) purely from a self-serving standpoint.
And those who do are among the first to complain if they think others
are doing it to them.
I've never really understood the objection to plagiarism. Selecting, assessing and adopting a valid argument is surely just as useful an
activity if you leave the original wording as if you reword it in your
own words.
On 8/16/26 10:49, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nede56Fg0emU1@mid.individual.net...
* While it's no real excuse, plagiarism is far easier in the days of
"copy and paste"than it was previously. When its far easier to insert
copied passages and miss off attributions than it was when
writing everything out by hand,. Where you'd get the general
gist with your notes, and then fill out the details in your own
words.
I don't know that I can agree with that.
It's far easier now to check a potentially offending passage by searching >>> for
it on t'internet. And by appealing to a larger and wider expert audience >>> (online) than it ever could have been in the past, when cut'n'paste was an >>> accurate description of part of the process of preparing a document for >>> typing
by "one of the typists who held the mysteries of the keyboard".
Jason Arday submitted his thesis* to LJMU in 2015
Nathan Cofnas, who was the first to identify plagiarism in Arday's
work, did so 11 years later in 2026.
Allegations of plagiarism predate Cofnas' involvement. This is a matter of record with defamation litigation threats by Arday against the Times.
Confnas' claims he was told in confidence about suspicions w.r.t Arday. Cofnas
just seems to be the one who said it aloud.
Whereas had anyone else done so in tbe interim, between
Arday's initial submission in 2015, and Cofnas's discovery
11 years later, then clearly this whole sorry business could
have been avoided.
Except that they obviously didn't.
Except that they did. The issue should have been dealt with earlier more carefully. It wasn't dealt with, because Cambridge is politically motivated.
Arday wasn't exceptional for being a bullshitter, it was just that he was more
high profile, more obvious than others.
I would like to claim it just exists in arts departments, but similar bullshit
has been demonstrated in STEM subjects. I don't know if it has always been this way, or if new increased financial pressure has encouraged it.
We don't know that. Someone else might have suspected plagiarism but been too
cowed by the ongoing process to make a complaint. I'm not saying it happened.
I'm not saying it didn't happen. I'm saying that we don't know that it didn't
happen. A bit of a Popperian logical positivism for you there.
Your point being, exactly ?
My point was limited to a commentary on the relative ease with which plagiarism may nowadays be detected, as opposed to the pre-internet days.
That's all.
Note the following from his paper "Dismantling Power and Privilege through Reflexivity: Negotiating Normative Whiteness, the Eurocentric Curriculum
and Racial Micro-aggressions within the Academy," Whiteness and Education (2018):
Quote
Arday states that, when a white colleague of his, "Debbie," committed microaggressions against him, he came up with a plan to "collate evidence"
of her wrongdoing. He expounds:
Within me a confidence emerged knowing that I would one day have my 'day of reckoning' where I would be able to recite every racial micro-aggression I had encountered from Debbie and her colleagues, thereby becoming empowered rather than disempowered. (p. 152)
Unquote
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message news:nedrkaFi12cU1@mid.individual.net...
Note the following from his paper "Dismantling Power and Privilege through >> Reflexivity: Negotiating Normative Whiteness, the Eurocentric Curriculum
and Racial Micro-aggressions within the Academy," Whiteness and Education
(2018):
Quote
Arday states that, when a white colleague of his, "Debbie," committed
microaggressions against him, he came up with a plan to "collate evidence" >> of her wrongdoing. He expounds:
Within me a confidence emerged knowing that I would one day have my 'day of >> reckoning' where I would be able to recite every racial micro-aggression I >> had encountered from Debbie and her colleagues, thereby becoming empowered >> rather than disempowered. (p. 152)
Unquote
Any chance of a link ?
Sounds like a really fun read
bb
[snip]
Nobody thus far seems to have commented on,. plagiarism apart
how good a teacher or lecturer he actually was. How well did his
students go on to perform in examinaions - not just at Cambridge
but in his previous posts.
Were there ever any complaints from his students or from his
colleagues ? That sort of thing.
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
All off topic for ULM so posted on here. (Get out of that one ! )
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nebm2qF7lvvU1@mid.individual.net...
A quick count-up until boredom set in found over 20 articles in The
Guardian. Any particular reason the paper wasn't listed in the survey
mentioned above?
Perhaps it's just a case of The Guardian not being included in 'the top of >>> the market'?
Indeed. The "Guardian" were among the most assiduous with the
follow-ups.
Although possibly some people missed the "Guardian" "exclusive" on Weds,
three days ago now, when they had the bright idea of interviewing some of
Arday's former school friends so as to prove he could actually talk
at an earlier age than he claimed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/12/jason-arday-cambridge-claim-non-verbal-child
They were also assiduous in digging up interviews they had with him
from years back concerning his charity runs. "None" of which
actually stacked up at the time, either
The guy was a fantasy merchant; but he is hardly alone in that . Indeed
ULM has one of its very own.
Others are far more guilty.
It was rather unfortunate that it was an avowed racist who first identified >> the initial plagiarised* passages. Including at least one whole paragraph in >> his PhD thesis.
Quite how Liverpool John Moores University, the awarding Institution, could >> have "subsequently" cleared him of plagiarism, after the offending
material had already been published, is yet to be explained.
As is Arday's claim that his mis-steps were the result of inadequate
supervision from LJMU
bb
* While it's no real excuse, plagiarism is far easier in the days of
"copy and paste"than it was previously. When its far easier to insert
copied passages and miss off attributions than it was when
writing everything out by hand,. Where you'd get the general
gist with your notes, and then fill out the details in your own
words.
In which respect, Arday made a rather sophisticated sounding
point about the use of mimicry
In Arday's case he may have already have genuinely shared all
the conclusions drawn by those he was plagiarising and so
lost track of the boundaries. If he was 100% bogus its unlikely
he could have bullshitted colleagues for that long, IMHO.
Unlike say when posting on Usenet. When someone boasting
of a career which is crucially dependant on being able to get along
with people - proves over 20 years of posting that they are totally
unable to get along with anyone at all !
Work that one out !
bb
I understand from reading comments about Arday that he was a nice guy who liked to get on with people.
Note the following from his paper rCLDismantling Power and Privilege through Reflexivity: Negotiating Normative Whiteness, the Eurocentric Curriculum
and Racial Micro-aggressions within the Academy,rCY Whiteness and Education (2018):
Quote
Arday states that, when a white colleague of his, rCLDebbie,rCY committed microaggressions against him, he came up with a plan to rCLcollate evidencerCY
of her wrongdoing. He expounds:
Within me a confidence emerged knowing that I would one day have my rCyday of reckoningrCO where I would be able to recite every racial micro-aggression I had encountered from Debbie and her colleagues, thereby becoming empowered rather than disempowered. (p. 152)
Unquote
On 2026-08-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
billy bookcase <billy@anon.com> wrote:
All off topic for ULM so posted on here. (Get out of that one ! )
"Spike" <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nebm2qF7lvvU1@mid.individual.net...
A quick count-up until boredom set in found over 20 articles in The
Guardian. Any particular reason the paper wasn't listed in the survey
mentioned above?
Perhaps it's just a case of The Guardian not being included in 'the top of >>>> the market'?
Indeed. The "Guardian" were among the most assiduous with the
follow-ups.
Although possibly some people missed the "Guardian" "exclusive" on Weds, >>> three days ago now, when they had the bright idea of interviewing some of >>> Arday's former school friends so as to prove he could actually talk
at an earlier age than he claimed.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2026/aug/12/jason-arday-cambridge-claim-non-verbal-child
They were also assiduous in digging up interviews they had with him
from years back concerning his charity runs. "None" of which
actually stacked up at the time, either
The guy was a fantasy merchant; but he is hardly alone in that . Indeed
ULM has one of its very own.
Others are far more guilty.
It was rather unfortunate that it was an avowed racist who first identified >>> the initial plagiarised* passages. Including at least one whole paragraph in
his PhD thesis.
Quite how Liverpool John Moores University, the awarding Institution, could >>> have "subsequently" cleared him of plagiarism, after the offending
material had already been published, is yet to be explained.
As is Arday's claim that his mis-steps were the result of inadequate
supervision from LJMU
bb
* While it's no real excuse, plagiarism is far easier in the days of
"copy and paste"than it was previously. When its far easier to insert
copied passages and miss off attributions than it was when
writing everything out by hand,. Where you'd get the general
gist with your notes, and then fill out the details in your own
words.
In which respect, Arday made a rather sophisticated sounding
point about the use of mimicry
In Arday's case he may have already have genuinely shared all
the conclusions drawn by those he was plagiarising and so
lost track of the boundaries. If he was 100% bogus its unlikely
he could have bullshitted colleagues for that long, IMHO.
Unlike say when posting on Usenet. When someone boasting
of a career which is crucially dependant on being able to get along
with people - proves over 20 years of posting that they are totally
unable to get along with anyone at all !
Work that one out !
bb
I understand from reading comments about Arday that he was a nice guy who
liked to get on with people.
Note the following from his paper rCLDismantling Power and Privilege through
Reflexivity: Negotiating Normative Whiteness, the Eurocentric Curriculum
and Racial Micro-aggressions within the Academy,rCY Whiteness and Education >> (2018):
Quote
Arday states that, when a white colleague of his, rCLDebbie,rCY committed
microaggressions against him, he came up with a plan to rCLcollate evidencerCY
of her wrongdoing. He expounds:
Within me a confidence emerged knowing that I would one day have my rCyday of
reckoningrCO where I would be able to recite every racial micro-aggression I >> had encountered from Debbie and her colleagues, thereby becoming empowered >> rather than disempowered. (p. 152)
Unquote
You should probably have mentioned earlier that you were quoting Cofnas.
On 15:10 16 Aug 2026, billy bookcase said:
[snip]
Nobody thus far seems to have commented on,. plagiarism apart
how good a teacher or lecturer he actually was. How well did his
students go on to perform in examinaions - not just at Cambridge
but in his previous posts.
Were there ever any complaints from his students or from his
colleagues ? That sort of thing.
See here:
Cambridge University could be forced to review the grades given to
students of Jason Arday after graduates unhappy with their results
said they were considering legal action.
A number of Mr ArdayAs former students have complained that they
received lower grades than expected after oinadequateo supervision by
the professor. In one case, a student who asked to change supervisor
was accused of being racist.
Separately, Prof Deborah Prentice, the universityAs vice-chancellor, is
facing demands to refund the tuition fees of students who were taught
by Mr Arday after they were odeceived about the nature of their
educationo.
A mass refund or large-scale retrospective grade changes would be
unprecedented in the universityAs 800-year history.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/08/07/ardays-students-think- cambridge-failed-them-now-they/ [paywall]
On 2026-08-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
I understand from reading comments about Arday that he was a nice
guy who liked to get on with people.
Note the following from his paper rCLDismantling Power and Privilege
through Reflexivity: Negotiating Normative Whiteness, the
Eurocentric Curriculum and Racial Micro-aggressions within the
Academy,rCY Whiteness and Education (2018):
Quote
Arday states that, when a white colleague of his, rCLDebbie,rCY
committed microaggressions against him, he came up with a plan to
rCLcollate evidencerCY of her wrongdoing. He expounds:
Within me a confidence emerged knowing that I would one day have my
rCyday of reckoningrCO where I would be able to recite every racial
micro-aggression I had encountered from Debbie and her colleagues,
thereby becoming empowered rather than disempowered. (p. 152)
Unquote
You should probably have mentioned earlier that you were quoting Cofnas.
The quote was from ArdayrCOs paper.
ItrCOs the part between the words Quote and Unquote, preceded by the title of
the paper.
No it isn't. The bits between Quote and Unquote are a quote from Cofnas. Cofnas has then allegedly chosen a quote from Arday's paper in *part* of
what you've quoted.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:The quote was from ArdayrCOs paper.
I understand from reading comments about Arday that he was a nice
guy who liked to get on with people.
Note the following from his paper rCLDismantling Power and Privilege >>>>> through Reflexivity: Negotiating Normative Whiteness, the
Eurocentric Curriculum and Racial Micro-aggressions within the
Academy,rCY Whiteness and Education (2018):
Quote
Arday states that, when a white colleague of his, rCLDebbie,rCY
committed microaggressions against him, he came up with a plan to
rCLcollate evidencerCY of her wrongdoing. He expounds:
Within me a confidence emerged knowing that I would one day have my
rCyday of reckoningrCO where I would be able to recite every racial
micro-aggression I had encountered from Debbie and her colleagues,
thereby becoming empowered rather than disempowered. (p. 152)
Unquote
You should probably have mentioned earlier that you were quoting Cofnas. >>>
ItrCOs the part between the words Quote and Unquote, preceded by the
title of the paper.
No it isn't. The bits between Quote and Unquote are a quote from Cofnas.
Cofnas has then allegedly chosen a quote from Arday's paper in *part* of
what you've quoted.
Well, the paper was referenced. If you think there has been misquoting of Arday, you just need to find the original paper and check.
A bit of a Popperian logical positivism for you there.
On 2026-08-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:[...]
On 2026-08-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
[...]
No it isn't. The bits between Quote and Unquote are a quote from
Cofnas. Cofnas has then allegedly chosen a quote from Arday's
paper in *part* of what you've quoted.
Well, the paper was referenced. If you think there has been
misquoting of Arday, you just need to find the original paper and
check.
Unfortunately, being a bona fide academic paper rather than someone's
blog ramblings, it appears to be firmly ensconced behind paywalls.
Apologies for the missing link:
<https://ncofnas.com/p/dei-fraud-and-cover-up-at-cambridge>
It's a fairly long read.and tiresome.
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message news:nedm2sFh6iqU1@mid.individual.net...
A bit of a Popperian logical positivism for you there.
Although by birth a Viennese, Karl Popper totally rejected
Logical Positivsm as first espoused by the Vienna Circle.
And then by our very own A.J.Ayer.
Being positivists they claimed that all scientific knowledge
results from the verification of existing theories.
Whereas Popper, by way of contrast, made the by now rather
commonplace observation that all scientific knowledge in fact
results from the falsification of existing theories; and their
replacement by more refined versions.
This was also the basis of his criticsm of Marxism. Given
that it's impossible to falsify Marxists claims; such
as that the Mass Media, along with almost everything
else, will always end up being owned by rich bastards.
On 2026-08-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:The quote was from ArdayrCOs paper.
I understand from reading comments about Arday that he was a nice
guy who liked to get on with people.
Note the following from his paper rCLDismantling Power and Privilege >>>>>> through Reflexivity: Negotiating Normative Whiteness, the
Eurocentric Curriculum and Racial Micro-aggressions within the
Academy,rCY Whiteness and Education (2018):
Quote
Arday states that, when a white colleague of his, rCLDebbie,rCY
committed microaggressions against him, he came up with a plan to
rCLcollate evidencerCY of her wrongdoing. He expounds:
Within me a confidence emerged knowing that I would one day have my >>>>>> rCyday of reckoningrCO where I would be able to recite every racial >>>>>> micro-aggression I had encountered from Debbie and her colleagues, >>>>>> thereby becoming empowered rather than disempowered. (p. 152)
Unquote
You should probably have mentioned earlier that you were quoting Cofnas. >>>>
ItrCOs the part between the words Quote and Unquote, preceded by the
title of the paper.
No it isn't. The bits between Quote and Unquote are a quote from Cofnas. >>> Cofnas has then allegedly chosen a quote from Arday's paper in *part* of >>> what you've quoted.
Well, the paper was referenced. If you think there has been misquoting of
Arday, you just need to find the original paper and check.
Unfortunately, being a bona fide academic paper rather than someone's
blog ramblings, it appears to be firmly ensconced behind paywalls.
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
On 2026-08-16, Spike <aero.spike@mail.com> wrote:
I understand from reading comments about Arday that he was a nice >>>>>>> guy who liked to get on with people.
Note the following from his paper rCLDismantling Power and Privilege >>>>>>> through Reflexivity: Negotiating Normative Whiteness, the
Eurocentric Curriculum and Racial Micro-aggressions within the
Academy,rCY Whiteness and Education (2018):
Quote
Arday states that, when a white colleague of his, rCLDebbie,rCY
committed microaggressions against him, he came up with a plan to >>>>>>> rCLcollate evidencerCY of her wrongdoing. He expounds:
Within me a confidence emerged knowing that I would one day have my >>>>>>> rCyday of reckoningrCO where I would be able to recite every racial >>>>>>> micro-aggression I had encountered from Debbie and her colleagues, >>>>>>> thereby becoming empowered rather than disempowered. (p. 152)
Unquote
You should probably have mentioned earlier that you were quoting
Cofnas.
The quote was from ArdayrCOs paper.
ItrCOs the part between the words Quote and Unquote, preceded by the >>>>> title of the paper.
No it isn't. The bits between Quote and Unquote are a quote from Cofnas. >>>> Cofnas has then allegedly chosen a quote from Arday's paper in *part* of >>>> what you've quoted.
Well, the paper was referenced. If you think there has been misquoting of >>> Arday, you just need to find the original paper and check.
Unfortunately, being a bona fide academic paper rather than someone's
blog ramblings, it appears to be firmly ensconced behind paywalls.
Well, it just could be that people have fronted up, got the paper, and
quoted from it.
On 16/08/2026 06:55 PM, billy bookcase wrote:
"JNugent" <JNugent73@mail.com> wrote in message
news:nedm2sFh6iqU1@mid.individual.net...
A bit of a Popperian logical positivism for you there.
Although by birth a Viennese, Karl Popper totally rejected
Logical Positivsm as first espoused by the Vienna Circle.
And then by our very own A.J.Ayer.
Being positivists they claimed that all scientific knowledge
results from the verification of existing theories.
Whereas Popper, by way of contrast, made the by now rather
commonplace observation that all scientific knowledge in fact
results from the falsification of existing theories; and their
replacement by more refined versions.
Logical Positivism is about a little more than the falsification of posited theories.
This was also the basis of his criticsm of Marxism. Given
that it's impossible to falsify Marxists claims; such
as that the Mass Media, along with almost everything
else, will always end up being owned by rich bastards.
Not a Popper observation that I recognise, I'm afraid.
What does that have to do with anything I've said, or the fact that
you should've admitted sooner that you were quoting an extremely
biased source?
On Sun, 16 Aug 2026 22:15:53 -0000 (UTC)
Jon Ribbens <jon+usenet@unequivocal.eu> wrote:
What does that have to do with anything I've said, or the fact that
you should've admitted sooner that you were quoting an extremely
biased source?
Spike, it's impossible to win an argument with people like this, black
is white and then someone will be run over on a zebra crossing.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 53:40:38 |
| Calls: | 1,101 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,196 |