ornamental

ILLNESS

 

..::Previous entry: "Dinner"::.. ..::Main Index::.. ..::Next entry: "A List of Plagiarised Entries and the Original, Real Entry"::..

01:06:2005 Entry: "Ann : No Sh*t Sherlock!"

No Sh*t Sherlock!

Just for the hell of it I decided to check out the plagiaristic stylings of little bRyan. Two new entries since I last visited. Since those weren't my writings he's plagiarized this time (could I be boring the little pantyboy?), I decided I'd Google a few select phrases to see what comes up. Yup, dressing up in other women's bloggies again:
bRyan's December 17th entry

and the original at Xenogears. (Scroll down to the last entry on the page)


And here's bRyan's December 16th entry

and the original at Jan's and John's London Adventure.

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one he steals from.

17 Comments

What a little f***. That is just disgusting. Did you tell the others they were plagiarized? Fredcq at sentencedtowrite.blogspot.com recently posted a question on blog ethics- is it ok for people to make up a tragedy and post it as real? (he has a friend that did that)

Does everyone know that all blogs are fiction? Am I out of the loop? Should I fake it, too?

BTW, your two links are backwards, 17 goes with xenogears, and vice versa.

Posted by Dawn @ 12:18:2005:12:05 AM CST

Thanks for pointing out my post swap Dawn, it should be fixed now.

I will try to contact them when I'm awake enough to compose something coherent that doesn't make *me* sound like the offending party. You never know how people will react to somethng like this being brought to their attention as I've encountered a full range of emotions in past in similar cases.

And if you're out of the loop on blogs being fiction, then I'll join you on that. The way I see it, if you make up a fictitious character and he/she has a fictitious blog, that's one thing (unless it's being used to take money from people or scam them). But when you fabricate fictitious things in your life when it's your blog just because your own life is "dull", it's like padding a resume with fake jobs. What you should do is pad it with good writing instead. A loveless marriage (in the case of fred's friend's blog) could be written about by said blogger in a way that could be very emotionally stirring without having to make up exciting fake situations.

I don't know, it's a real grey area. Do you remember back in the early 90s there was some 17-year old girl who was supposedly dying of cancer? She had a blog and wrote daily and had this endless "strength in face of death" cheery attitude. I think her name was Casey or something...it was too long ago. But some blogger sleuthed her out and found out it was all fraud. She'd accumulated lots of gifts from people who felt sorry for her, and then they wanted their gifts back. I think it might've even gotten some natinal coverage because it was one of the first big internet scams that wasn't coming from Nigeria, but instead a small town in the USA. I guess the person writing it didn't actually start out to take gifts from people, but it just happened.

I was always a little suspicous because despite all the shit "Casey" was going through with her treatments, her attitude was just a little too sunny. I guess I wasn't that surprised when the real writer was exposed.

Posted by Ann @ 12:18:2005:09:18 AM CST

Here it is. It was "Kaycee" instead of "Casey." No wonder why my usual übergooglesleuthing abilities were a bit sub-par on that one.

Posted by Ann @ 12:18:2005:09:26 AM CST

I guess I have nothing against fictitious blogs as long as they don't take other people in on it. If you put up a fake blog and people enjoy it as a good read, there's no harm done. It's when people start getting emotionally or financially invested in something that's not real, that's when the harm is done. Like if someone wrote a fake blog, but all it was was a read, i.e., it wasn't interactive, you couldn't leave comments or contact "the person" behind the blog through email, or buy them items from their amazon with list, I don't see the harm in it. But if it crosses the line on any of those, that's when I believe it becomes unethical. But of course some people out there don't give a damn about ethics. (leaving out a political rant here ;-))

Posted by Ann @ 12:18:2005:10:27 AM CST

I guess I can't shut up! Back about 4 years ago I gave my Boston Terrier Plato his own blog. Now everyone knows a dog can't blog, so in a way it was a fake blog, but precisely because people knew a dog couldn't blog, there was no harm being done. And if people "emailed" Plato, they knew it was going to his owners, not to him. (I know there are other animal blogs on the internet too) So no one was being harmed. But by pretending to be Brian Molko (as this little bRyan character is doing), he is leading on a bunch of Placebo fans and screwing with their emotions because they think they are interacting with the real deal.

Posted by Ann @ 12:18:2005:10:37 AM CST

re post of 10:27 I think blogs should be clear whether fiction or fact because even if a person could not make gifts or respond, they could be making an emotional investment, not realizing that what they are emotionally investing in is fiction. (i.e., they could be praying for the person, crying "with" them, cheering them on, etc.)

I agree completely with your last statement (10:37 post re screwing with emotions).

I imagine that there are literally thousands of legitimate, online, interactive outlets for creative writing and fantasies of every variety. (I'm not referring to sex here, but fantasy football games, medevial jousting, games, finish my romantic novel etc.)

re dull lives - I like to read about the routine just fine, because my own life is pretty darn pedestrian! If I want to read something out of the ordinary, then I can find out about the first blind person to climb Mtn Everest. He probably had a braille laptop with him.

Posted by greenthumb @ 12:18:2005:11:13 AM CST

the above should read *a bunch of NAIVE Placebo fans*

Not all fans of a band would be taken in on something like this.

Posted by Ann @ 12:18:2005:11:15 AM CST

You make a good point greenthumb, re: the emotional investment, 'cause it's not just external investments, i.e., corresponding with the person or buying them gifs, but internally too, what's going on in the reader's head.

I don't know, I guess maybe the whole internet along with its phishing schemes has made us all a bit skeptical and cynical about what we read on websites and what we receive in our inboxes. I guess maybe we just need to rely on our intuition as far as what is real and what is not. With ebay and paypal phishing emails we can easily go to our accounts to see if anything we receive is legitimate, but with a blog, we can't actually check to see if the writer is real or not, so I suppose it's made a lot of people very skeptical about everything, which is unfortunate too because when one is real and legitimate and not trying to pull anything off on anyone, and then not taken seriously as being legitimate, it's bad for them too.

I guess we just need to have our eyes open as far as possible to the frauds as well as to genuine people. It's very hard in a medium where both exist side by side.

Posted by Ann @ 12:18:2005:11:29 AM CST

Well, I wrote to "Brian" to ask why he stole from my blog and was pretending to be me and he wrote back and said someone else posted that to his blog (um... ok) and he would remove it or attribute it correctly (yea, like that's gonna happen).

BTW, *my* blog is not ficticious.

Posted by Jan Hanford @ 12:18:2005:03:14 PM CST

Jan, I'm glad you found this. I am in the process of compiling a list of all the sites of all the people he's stolen from (that is, if the searched phrases bring up anything on google) and will try to contact as many of them as I can. I have about 9 blogs/journals he's stolen from so far, not including myself who he's stolen the vast majority from. I'm still in the process of composing my thoughts on this before I start contacting the rest.

And I *finally* fixed the link problem.

Posted by Ann @ 12:18:2005:03:41 PM CST

I read the blogs that you referenced above, and I think an unfortunate part of this is that this plageriser takes the feedback and credit that is rightfully the original authors. I would assume that part of the reason that people blog is for the feedback and conversational aspects, and if that is being syphoned off, so to speak, well there's just not as much for the true author. (Although this may not be true, as I don't fully understand if the same person who is reading, Jan Hanford's would necessarily be reading "Brian's".)

But regardless, it's wrong. Afterall, someone could read "Brian's" first and then read Jan Hanford's and think that Jan is the person with no life!

Posted by greenthumb @ 12:18:2005:04:42 PM CST

Greenthumb, I completely agree! People reading bRyan's blog will think he came up with those posts originally, when obviously that is NOT the case. That's what angers me so much about these thieves is that they are getting credit that is due ME (or Jan, or Denise, or whoever originally wrote it). This has been a thorn in my side since 1996 when um...someone...that I emailed you about the other day started doing that to me, except it was with my graphics site (and eventually other women's graphics sites).

That is why I am posting about this whole event. Not that this blog is well-read by the blog community, but if I can get the word out little by little, word will hopefully travel over the internet and hopefully somehow this jerk can be weeded out and exposed for the fraud he is.

But I think someone with a discerning eye would be able to tell that it was bRyan who ripped off the other author's content, after all, his dates are later, and he doesn't have any supporting pictures that Jan and some of the other authors (like me in a few instances, and the person who wrote the Ken doll topic (see my later entry with a more thorough list of links), use to illustrate their blogs with.

Posted by Ann @ 12:18:2005:04:56 PM CST

I'm not too worried about anyone reading my blog and thinking I don't have a life. Anyone who reads it can see that I do.

And the supporting blog photos do make a difference. I'm not really upset or concerned about "Brian". He's obviously some kind of freak so I can only sigh and move on.

Posted by Jan Hanford @ 12:18:2005:05:13 PM CST

Jan, that is a good attitute because Brian likes a "dramatic response."

Posted by greenthumb @ 12:18:2005:05:33 PM CST

I never heard of kaycee, I didn't get online until 96? I believe and not really into it until 99.

What I thought of was advice! What right to people have to offer advice to others who are really in the situation? Just by posting about the way they handle these fake problems is offering advice- do you know how much harm they can do?

I wonder if some of these, not this bRyan guy, but the others who fake tragedy or illness have a form of internet munchhousen? (I have no idea how to spell it, but people fake being sick to get attetnion from hospital staff, etc)

Posted by Dawn @ 12:18:2005:10:52 PM CST

Dawn, I agree with you about the "Munchhaussen by Internet" diagnosis--I think that term was floating around regarding "Kaycee" back in 2001.

In the case of bRyan, it's what we call it when my Boston starts whining and pawing at us and demanding attention, we say, "Baby needs love!" in as snotty a voice as possible.

Baby needs love. Poor baby doesn't have enough love. All of Daddy's money didn't get baby enough love. Baby needs love.

Hmm...maybe it is a Munchaussen by Internet, but instead of "my poor daughter Kaycee is dying of cancer," it's a "I'm insane! I have multiple personalities! Look at me!"

Posted by Ann @ 12:19:2005:08:21 AM CST

Hmmm, annoying dog mocking... I'll have to try that when Rocksy starts shoving her cold nose all over me. And when my daughter keeps asking me to do everything for her like get her a drink and do this and that and dress me I'm a baby not an 8 yr old. Annoying drama queen mocking.

I agree, bRyan is a nutcase.

Posted by Dawn @ 12:19:2005:09:21 AM CST

By Ann @ 13:06 PM CST:01:06:05 ..::Link::..

read more entries→


January 2005

S M T W T F S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Archives

01.01.2006 - 01.07.2006
12.25.2005 - 12.31.2005
12.18.2005 - 12.24.2005
12.11.2005 - 12.17.2005
12.04.2005 - 12.10.2005
11.27.2005 - 12.03.2005
11.20.2005 - 11.26.2005
11.13.2005 - 11.19.2005
11.06.2005 - 11.12.2005
10.30.2005 - 11.05.2005
10.23.2005 - 10.29.2005
10.16.2005 - 10.22.2005
10.09.2005 - 10.15.2005
10.02.2005 - 10.08.2005
09.25.2005 - 10.01.2005
09.18.2005 - 09.24.2005
09.11.2005 - 09.17.2005
09.04.2005 - 09.10.2005
08.28.2005 - 09.03.2005
08.21.2005 - 08.27.2005
08.14.2005 - 08.20.2005
08.07.2005 - 08.13.2005
07.31.2005 - 08.06.2005
07.24.2005 - 07.30.2005
07.17.2005 - 07.23.2005
07.10.2005 - 07.16.2005
07.03.2005 - 07.09.2005
06.26.2005 - 07.02.2005
06.19.2005 - 06.25.2005
06.12.2005 - 06.18.2005
06.05.2005 - 06.11.2005
05.29.2005 - 06.04.2005
05.22.2005 - 05.28.2005
05.15.2005 - 05.21.2005
05.08.2005 - 05.14.2005
05.01.2005 - 05.07.2005
04.24.2005 - 04.30.2005
04.17.2005 - 04.23.2005
04.10.2005 - 04.16.2005
04.03.2005 - 04.09.2005
03.27.2005 - 04.02.2005
03.13.2005 - 03.19.2005
03.06.2005 - 03.12.2005
02.27.2005 - 03.05.2005
02.20.2005 - 02.26.2005
02.13.2005 - 02.19.2005
01.30.2005 - 02.05.2005
01.23.2005 - 01.29.2005
01.16.2005 - 01.22.2005
01.09.2005 - 01.15.2005
01.02.2005 - 01.08.2005
12.12.2004 - 12.18.2004
12.05.2004 - 12.11.2004
11.21.2004 - 11.27.2004
11.14.2004 - 11.20.2004
11.07.2004 - 11.13.2004
10.31.2004 - 11.06.2004
10.10.2004 - 10.16.2004
10.03.2004 - 10.09.2004
09.26.2004 - 10.02.2004
09.19.2004 - 09.25.2004
09.12.2004 - 09.18.2004
09.05.2004 - 09.11.2004
08.22.2004 - 08.28.2004
08.15.2004 - 08.21.2004
08.08.2004 - 08.14.2004
07.25.2004 - 07.31.2004
07.18.2004 - 07.24.2004
07.11.2004 - 07.17.2004
07.04.2004 - 07.10.2004
06.27.2004 - 07.03.2004
06.20.2004 - 06.26.2004
06.06.2004 - 06.12.2004
05.30.2004 - 06.05.2004
05.23.2004 - 05.29.2004
05.16.2004 - 05.22.2004
05.09.2004 - 05.15.2004
05.02.2004 - 05.08.2004
04.25.2004 - 05.01.2004
04.11.2004 - 04.17.2004
03.28.2004 - 04.03.2004
03.21.2004 - 03.27.2004
03.14.2004 - 03.20.2004
03.07.2004 - 03.13.2004
02.29.2004 - 03.06.2004
02.22.2004 - 02.28.2004
02.08.2004 - 02.14.2004
02.01.2004 - 02.07.2004
01.25.2004 - 01.31.2004
01.18.2004 - 01.24.2004
01.11.2004 - 01.17.2004
01.04.2004 - 01.10.2004
12.28.2003 - 01.03.2004
12.21.2003 - 12.27.2003
12.14.2003 - 12.20.2003
12.07.2003 - 12.13.2003
11.30.2003 - 12.06.2003
11.23.2003 - 11.29.2003
11.16.2003 - 11.22.2003
11.09.2003 - 11.15.2003
11.02.2003 - 11.08.2003
10.26.2003 - 11.01.2003
10.19.2003 - 10.25.2003
10.05.2003 - 10.11.2003
09.28.2003 - 10.04.2003
09.21.2003 - 09.27.2003
09.14.2003 - 09.20.2003
09.07.2003 - 09.13.2003
08.31.2003 - 09.06.2003
08.24.2003 - 08.30.2003
08.17.2003 - 08.23.2003
08.10.2003 - 08.16.2003
08.03.2003 - 08.09.2003
07.27.2003 - 08.02.2003
07.20.2003 - 07.26.2003
07.13.2003 - 07.19.2003
07.06.2003 - 07.12.2003
06.29.2003 - 07.05.2003
06.22.2003 - 06.28.2003
06.15.2003 - 06.21.2003
06.08.2003 - 06.14.2003
06.01.2003 - 06.07.2003
05.25.2003 - 05.31.2003
05.18.2003 - 05.24.2003
05.11.2003 - 05.17.2003
05.04.2003 - 05.10.2003
04.27.2003 - 05.03.2003
04.20.2003 - 04.26.2003
04.13.2003 - 04.19.2003
04.06.2003 - 04.12.2003
03.30.2003 - 04.05.2003
03.23.2003 - 03.29.2003
03.16.2003 - 03.22.2003
03.09.2003 - 03.15.2003
03.02.2003 - 03.08.2003
02.23.2003 - 03.01.2003
02.16.2003 - 02.22.2003
02.09.2003 - 02.15.2003
02.02.2003 - 02.08.2003
01.26.2003 - 02.01.2003
01.12.2003 - 01.18.2003
01.05.2003 - 01.11.2003
12.29.2002 - 01.04.2003
12.22.2002 - 12.28.2002
12.15.2002 - 12.21.2002
12.08.2002 - 12.14.2002
12.01.2002 - 12.07.2002
11.24.2002 - 11.30.2002
11.17.2002 - 11.23.2002
11.10.2002 - 11.16.2002
11.03.2002 - 11.09.2002
10.27.2002 - 11.02.2002
10.20.2002 - 10.26.2002
10.13.2002 - 10.19.2002
10.06.2002 - 10.12.2002
09.29.2002 - 10.05.2002
09.22.2002 - 09.28.2002
09.15.2002 - 09.21.2002
09.08.2002 - 09.14.2002
09.01.2002 - 09.07.2002
08.25.2002 - 08.31.2002
08.18.2002 - 08.24.2002
08.11.2002 - 08.17.2002
08.04.2002 - 08.10.2002
07.28.2002 - 08.03.2002
07.21.2002 - 07.27.2002
07.14.2002 - 07.20.2002
07.07.2002 - 07.13.2002
06.30.2002 - 07.06.2002
06.23.2002 - 06.29.2002
06.16.2002 - 06.22.2002
06.09.2002 - 06.15.2002
06.02.2002 - 06.08.2002
05.26.2002 - 06.01.2002
05.19.2002 - 05.25.2002
05.12.2002 - 05.18.2002
05.05.2002 - 05.11.2002
04.28.2002 - 05.04.2002
04.21.2002 - 04.27.2002
preincarnations

Latest Achives (April 2006–Present)

Four Years of old entries before this journal blew up the second time (April 2002–April 2006)

even older entries before this journal blew up the first time (December 2001–April 2002)

even moldier eyeblog archives (November 2000–December 2001)

←Back to the Main Menu

Dictionary of Frequently Used Words and Cast of Characters


rings

Screen Dream
< ? # >
the 1% ring
<< ? # >>
BelleBlogs
< # ? >
blogs by women
<< ? # >>
pawed
:: # ? ::
Blog × Philes
<< × × >>
self expression
< ? # >
< ? wiscoblogs # >



Writings Copyright 2000-2006 Ornamentalillness. Artistic Contents Copyright 2000-2005 Ornamentalillness. All Rights Reserved. No part of this web log may be copied or reproduced without written permission first (except link-back buttons). Please check the links to Ann's Ann-S-Thesia site for web graphics if that is what you need.

Please note that any comments made that are irrelevant to or off-topic from the post, an attempt to spam or promote your own website, or just plain stupid, will be removed. The definition of "stupid" is made at my sole discretion.



Search Entries