Report, edit, etc...Posted by Slyence on 2006-04-23 at 10:41:29
QUOTE
Israelis prepare to strike
12dec05
PRIME Minister Ariel Sharon has ordered Israel's army to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on Iran's secret uranium enrichment sites.
London's The Sunday Times reported that the order came after Israeli intelligence warned the Government Iran was operating small enrichment plants hidden in civilian areas.
The report came as chief UN nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei used his speech accepting the Nobel peace prize to warn the risk of nuclear disaster was as great as ever with terrorists zealously pursuing atomic arms.
"We are in a race against time," the 63-year-old Egyptian said yesterday.
"In four years, we have completed perhaps 50 per cent of the work. But this is not fast enough."
To stop the world self-destructing, atomic weapons had to be considered as taboo as slavery or genocide, Dr ElBaradei said in his speech in Stockholm.
As Dr ElBaradei received his peace award, Iran's top nuclear official said his country would enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel, despite an international drive to curb such efforts.
Iran's stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, has caused mounting concern.
The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Dr ElBaradei will present his next report on Iran.
A senior White House source said the threat of a nuclear Iran was moving to the top of the international agenda.
Defence sources in Israel believe the end of March to be the point of no return after which Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich enough uranium to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years.
"Israel . . . cannot accept a nuclear Iran," Mr Sharon warned recently. "We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."
The order to prepare for a possible attack went through the Israeli Defence Ministry, The Sunday Times reported.
Cross-border operations and signal intelligence from an Israeli base in northern Iraq are said to have identified a number of Iranian uranium enrichment sites unknown to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Since Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, the White House believes the lesson has been: don't have one nuclear reactor, have 50.
Gholamreza Aghazadeah, head of the Atomic Organisation of Iran, warned yesterday that his country would produce nuclear fuel.
"There is no doubt that we have to carry out uranium enrichment," he said. – AP
12dec05
PRIME Minister Ariel Sharon has ordered Israel's army to be ready by the end of March for possible strikes on Iran's secret uranium enrichment sites.
London's The Sunday Times reported that the order came after Israeli intelligence warned the Government Iran was operating small enrichment plants hidden in civilian areas.
The report came as chief UN nuclear inspector Mohamed ElBaradei used his speech accepting the Nobel peace prize to warn the risk of nuclear disaster was as great as ever with terrorists zealously pursuing atomic arms.
"We are in a race against time," the 63-year-old Egyptian said yesterday.
"In four years, we have completed perhaps 50 per cent of the work. But this is not fast enough."
To stop the world self-destructing, atomic weapons had to be considered as taboo as slavery or genocide, Dr ElBaradei said in his speech in Stockholm.
As Dr ElBaradei received his peace award, Iran's top nuclear official said his country would enrich uranium and produce nuclear fuel, despite an international drive to curb such efforts.
Iran's stand-off with the International Atomic Energy Agency over nuclear inspections and aggressive rhetoric from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian President, who said last week that Israel should be moved to Europe, has caused mounting concern.
The crisis is set to come to a head in early March, when Dr ElBaradei will present his next report on Iran.
A senior White House source said the threat of a nuclear Iran was moving to the top of the international agenda.
Defence sources in Israel believe the end of March to be the point of no return after which Iran will have the technical expertise to enrich enough uranium to build a nuclear warhead in two to four years.
"Israel . . . cannot accept a nuclear Iran," Mr Sharon warned recently. "We have the ability to deal with this and we're making all the necessary preparations to be ready for such a situation."
The order to prepare for a possible attack went through the Israeli Defence Ministry, The Sunday Times reported.
Cross-border operations and signal intelligence from an Israeli base in northern Iraq are said to have identified a number of Iranian uranium enrichment sites unknown to the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Since Israel destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981, the White House believes the lesson has been: don't have one nuclear reactor, have 50.
Gholamreza Aghazadeah, head of the Atomic Organisation of Iran, warned yesterday that his country would produce nuclear fuel.
"There is no doubt that we have to carry out uranium enrichment," he said. – AP
Personally, I support Israel 100% in this matter. I don't think a nuclear Iran is anywhere close to being a good thing for the middle east, and I don't think it would be safe for Israel, either. Do you think any of this will actually come to terms? What do you think this will mean for U.S. troops in the area? Discuss.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-23 at 10:50:19
Israel does not want any conflicts now, cuz otherwise all the muslim in that region will unite against him, leading to bloody war. Israel must get help from such countries like USA in destroying Iran's nuclear program.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Aikanaro on 2006-04-23 at 10:51:15
QUOTE(Slyence @ Apr 23 2006, 09:41 AM)
Personally, I support Israel 100% in this matter. I don't think a nuclear Iran is anywhere close to being a good thing for the middle east, and I don't think it would be safe for Israel, either. Do you think any of this will actually come to terms? What do you think this will mean for U.S. troops in the area? Discuss.
[right][snapback]471038[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]471038[/snapback][/right]
Doesn't Israel have nuclear capabilities? Oh right, it does.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snake)Ling on 2006-04-23 at 11:09:02
A nuclear Iran would be bad, but it would actually help stabilize the region. As things currently stand. Iran has jets and tanks and soldiers, sure. Israel, however, has all that, a bag of nukes, and American support. Iran getting nukes would make the two powers of Israel and the rest of the Middle East more even.
And, Jammed, let's not be too discriminative, eh? How about we stop being meanies to muslims and say something real? If a country was attacked, not only would the Muslims go out and fight in defense of their homes, Christians and Buddhists and Jews and Scientologists and what-have-you would get up in arms as well. Half the reason the Middle East is so unstable was because of unfair, slaughters in the name of "Christianity" during the Crusades. So, in fact, Arab nationalists would go out and kick Israeli ass, not just Muslims.
Wanna here a revolutionary idea that might change the world? Muslims just might be decent people. I know, it's a truly shocking idea. Especially when you note that some countries with large Muslim countries are democracies. And, when you note that these Muslim countries have had woman presidents unlike a large country called the USA.
And, Jammed, let's not be too discriminative, eh? How about we stop being meanies to muslims and say something real? If a country was attacked, not only would the Muslims go out and fight in defense of their homes, Christians and Buddhists and Jews and Scientologists and what-have-you would get up in arms as well. Half the reason the Middle East is so unstable was because of unfair, slaughters in the name of "Christianity" during the Crusades. So, in fact, Arab nationalists would go out and kick Israeli ass, not just Muslims.
Wanna here a revolutionary idea that might change the world? Muslims just might be decent people. I know, it's a truly shocking idea. Especially when you note that some countries with large Muslim countries are democracies. And, when you note that these Muslim countries have had woman presidents unlike a large country called the USA.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by BeeR_KeG on 2006-04-23 at 12:28:25
I believe that this source of information is wrong. A few weeks ago, I saw a program on the History Channel about a Russian General who went to visit Iran's Nuclear Program and to give advice about it, to both Iran and the countries concerned about this. His estimates showed that Iran isn't capable of producing an atomic weapon during the next 20 years.
They have produced enriched Uranium, which is the first step, but they have so little that it wouldn't produce a nuclear reaction, and that the countrie's economy can't produce enough surplus to produce those amounts of enriched Uranium.
And the fact that the Irani goverment says that the Nuclear Program is for fuel makes perfect sense. Iran doesn't have a large amount or petrolium, like Iraq, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. This means that Iran would no longer need to consume vast quantities of Petrolium, instead, it can export it, compete with the major petrolium exporters of the world, and most of all, make profit for it's economy.
Also, Israel has no right to mobilize it's Armed Forces just because some scientist made a little bit of Enriched Uranium. If this was the fact, then Israel would've mobilized against Russia or in the time, the Soviet Union, which is supporting the Arab Nations since the late 1970's. If Israel can mobilize for war, why can't the Arab states also do the same?
Many people say that the Jewish state hasn't done anything to deserve such hatred from other countries. I'm not trying to be racist or anything, but what happened during the Crusades, the Holocaust, the war in which Israel was involved in after WWII? During the Crusades they took advantage of the situation and allied with the Europeans, of course Arabs are going to hate you for that. After WWI, you took control of the Central and Eastern European Economies as major bankers, merchants and likes, then came the Great Depression and you had almost total control. During those 2 wars, which I believe was the 6 day war of 1948, when Israel was winning, the inmediately pleaded the UN to put a stop to the war while they had an advantage. Why can't they win it for themselves?
Politically and Moraly speaking, the Arabs have their reason to be against the state and people of Israel, as Israel is already against the Arabs.
They have produced enriched Uranium, which is the first step, but they have so little that it wouldn't produce a nuclear reaction, and that the countrie's economy can't produce enough surplus to produce those amounts of enriched Uranium.
And the fact that the Irani goverment says that the Nuclear Program is for fuel makes perfect sense. Iran doesn't have a large amount or petrolium, like Iraq, Kuwait or Saudi Arabia. This means that Iran would no longer need to consume vast quantities of Petrolium, instead, it can export it, compete with the major petrolium exporters of the world, and most of all, make profit for it's economy.
Also, Israel has no right to mobilize it's Armed Forces just because some scientist made a little bit of Enriched Uranium. If this was the fact, then Israel would've mobilized against Russia or in the time, the Soviet Union, which is supporting the Arab Nations since the late 1970's. If Israel can mobilize for war, why can't the Arab states also do the same?
Many people say that the Jewish state hasn't done anything to deserve such hatred from other countries. I'm not trying to be racist or anything, but what happened during the Crusades, the Holocaust, the war in which Israel was involved in after WWII? During the Crusades they took advantage of the situation and allied with the Europeans, of course Arabs are going to hate you for that. After WWI, you took control of the Central and Eastern European Economies as major bankers, merchants and likes, then came the Great Depression and you had almost total control. During those 2 wars, which I believe was the 6 day war of 1948, when Israel was winning, the inmediately pleaded the UN to put a stop to the war while they had an advantage. Why can't they win it for themselves?
Politically and Moraly speaking, the Arabs have their reason to be against the state and people of Israel, as Israel is already against the Arabs.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-23 at 13:13:08
QUOTE(Snake)Ling @ Apr 23 2006, 06:08 PM)
And, Jammed, let's not be too discriminative, eh? How about we stop being meanies to muslims and say something real? If a country was attacked, not only would the Muslims go out and fight in defense of their homes, Christians and Buddhists and Jews and Scientologists and what-have-you would get up in arms as well.
[right][snapback]471061[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]471061[/snapback][/right]
i'm not discriminative, about 90% of people in Iran are muslims, so i said it like that. there are allmost no Christians, Buddists & Jews in Iran.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kashmir on 2006-04-23 at 13:31:54
actually theres a decent amount. There is enough for a christian community.
Btw... amen snake amen. Also loving that picture. Really describes the situation.
Btw... amen snake amen. Also loving that picture. Really describes the situation.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Stalingrad on 2006-04-23 at 14:38:18
Ugh, provide a proper source or it's plagiarism! I doubt Israel would even make a move Iran with its current situation with Palestine.
ADDITION:
Ugh, provide a proper source or it's plagiarism! I doubt Israel would even make a move Iran with its current situation with Palestine.
ADDITION:
Ugh, provide a proper source or it's plagiarism! I doubt Israel would even make a move Iran with its current situation with Palestine.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kellodood on 2006-04-23 at 17:28:36
Sorry to burst your bubble, double poster, but he quoted it. Therefore, it's not plagiarism.
Twit
Twit
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snake)Ling on 2006-04-23 at 18:12:24
QUOTE(Jammed @ Apr 23 2006, 12:12 PM)
i'm not discriminative, about 90% of people in Iran are muslims, so i said it like that. there are allmost no Christians, Buddists & Jews in Iran.
[right][snapback]471156[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]471156[/snapback][/right]
Would it be discriminative then, if I said that Christians have invaded Iraq in a modern crusade? See, America is 85% christian, and the original invasion was named "Freedom Crusade." According to you, not discrimination against christians.
NOW THEN, if 90% of Iranians are muslim (the number is actually 95%), that means 5% of 66 million people are not muslim, and thus, are Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Zoroastrian, what-have-you. 5% of 66 million is 3.3 million. Wow! 3.3 million people is "almost nobody." Now, plz stfu, admit your discrimination and apologize for it?
So, ok, maybe you're not discriminative. Maybe you're plain stupid. Which way would you rather have it?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2006-04-23 at 18:14:23
QUOTE(Snake)Ling @ Apr 23 2006, 10:08 AM)
A nuclear Iran would be bad, but it would actually help stabilize the region. As things currently stand. Iran has jets and tanks and soldiers, sure. Israel, however, has all that, a bag of nukes, and American support. Iran getting nukes would make the two powers of Israel and the rest of the Middle East more even.
And, Jammed, let's not be too discriminative, eh? How about we stop being meanies to muslims and say something real? If a country was attacked, not only would the Muslims go out and fight in defense of their homes, Christians and Buddhists and Jews and Scientologists and what-have-you would get up in arms as well. Half the reason the Middle East is so unstable was because of unfair, slaughters in the name of "Christianity" during the Crusades. So, in fact, Arab nationalists would go out and kick Israeli ass, not just Muslims.
Wanna here a revolutionary idea that might change the world? Muslims just might be decent people. I know, it's a truly shocking idea. Especially when you note that some countries with large Muslim countries are democracies. And, when you note that these Muslim countries have had woman presidents unlike a large country called the USA.
[right][snapback]471061[/snapback][/right]
And, Jammed, let's not be too discriminative, eh? How about we stop being meanies to muslims and say something real? If a country was attacked, not only would the Muslims go out and fight in defense of their homes, Christians and Buddhists and Jews and Scientologists and what-have-you would get up in arms as well. Half the reason the Middle East is so unstable was because of unfair, slaughters in the name of "Christianity" during the Crusades. So, in fact, Arab nationalists would go out and kick Israeli ass, not just Muslims.
Wanna here a revolutionary idea that might change the world? Muslims just might be decent people. I know, it's a truly shocking idea. Especially when you note that some countries with large Muslim countries are democracies. And, when you note that these Muslim countries have had woman presidents unlike a large country called the USA.
[right][snapback]471061[/snapback][/right]
The more even they get the more competetive they get.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Stalingrad on 2006-04-23 at 21:29:21
QUOTE(Kellimus @ Apr 23 2006, 05:28 PM)
Sorry to burst your bubble, double poster, but he quoted it. Therefore, it's not plagiarism.
Twit
[right][snapback]471367[/snapback][/right]
Twit
[right][snapback]471367[/snapback][/right]
Bull, when you write a paper and quote someone you have to provide atleast a source (just an example). Why should the internet be any different?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Lyon on 2006-04-23 at 21:47:10
im behind israel...mainly because the first thing Iran will do with a nuclear program is Nuke jerusalem. and i for one do NOT want that to happen.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kashmir on 2006-04-24 at 00:44:36
uh lyon... please provide a source and/or battleplans that that is the first thing they will do. Then provide a source that they are in fact undeniably producing nuclear arms.
and the world is full of twits.. why should the internet be any different. Also this isn't a paper and its not plagiarism if he doesn't claim it to be his.
pla·gia·rism n.
a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work.
If he presented it as his own he wouldn't of quoted it. Pwned. Don't deny it.
QUOTE
Bull, when you write a paper and quote someone you have to provide atleast a source (just an example). Why should the internet be any different?
and the world is full of twits.. why should the internet be any different. Also this isn't a paper and its not plagiarism if he doesn't claim it to be his.
pla·gia·rism n.
a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work.
If he presented it as his own he wouldn't of quoted it. Pwned. Don't deny it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snake)Ling on 2006-04-24 at 07:04:49
QUOTE(Demaris @ Apr 23 2006, 05:14 PM)
The more even they get the more competetive they get.
[right][snapback]471413[/snapback][/right]
The less even they get, the more hatred it breeds.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-24 at 09:00:00
QUOTE(Snake)Ling @ Apr 24 2006, 01:12 AM)
Would it be discriminative then, if I said that Christians have invaded Iraq in a modern crusade? See, America is 85% christian, and the original invasion was named "Freedom Crusade." According to you, not discrimination against christians.
NOW THEN, if 90% of Iranians are muslim (the number is actually 95%), that means 5% of 66 million people are not muslim, and thus, are Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Zoroastrian, what-have-you. 5% of 66 million is 3.3 million. Wow! 3.3 million people is "almost nobody." Now, plz stfu, admit your discrimination and apologize for it?
So, ok, maybe you're not discriminative. Maybe you're plain stupid. Which way would you rather have it?
[right][snapback]471410[/snapback][/right]
NOW THEN, if 90% of Iranians are muslim (the number is actually 95%), that means 5% of 66 million people are not muslim, and thus, are Christian, Buddhist, Jew, Zoroastrian, what-have-you. 5% of 66 million is 3.3 million. Wow! 3.3 million people is "almost nobody." Now, plz stfu, admit your discrimination and apologize for it?
So, ok, maybe you're not discriminative. Maybe you're plain stupid. Which way would you rather have it?
[right][snapback]471410[/snapback][/right]
-muslims don't like christians
-christians/jews don't like muslims (in that region, there is hatered between those cultures)
(i'm not saying that's in general, it apply only to that region.)
i think the christians are not in the Iran army as well. (allthow i might be wrong)
i just pointed out THE MAJORITY, & you made a discrimanation out of that. you are just like the goverment in my country, they allso make discrimination out of anything, an & they "make an elephant out of a fly". according to your words, i don't like muslims, allthow i don't feel like that.
Christians INVADED - bad meaning, cuz INVADING is bad <== discrimination
Muslims UNITED - not a bad thing, cuz UNITING is not bad
you should look up what is discrimination is the dictionary. it means doing bad to other people according to race/culture/belief. where did i show hatered or disrecpect to muslims ?
if Israel starts a war, it will be like putting a match in explosives. the explosives is the hatered between those 2 cultures.
you will not proove your opinion to me by saying "stfu & admit that u're wrong or if you don't admit than you're stupid". there is another better method, called discussion.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kashmir on 2006-04-24 at 09:51:01
No offense but you need to check the dictionary or spellcheck or something. You have some serious grammer issues.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by JaFF on 2006-04-24 at 13:48:43
i know 
sometimes i use the dictionary... but not allways, so you see what you see
sometimes i use the dictionary... but not allways, so you see what you seeReport, edit, etc...Posted by Stalingrad on 2006-04-24 at 16:32:04
QUOTE
and the world is full of twits.. why should the internet be any different. Also this isn't a paper and its not plagiarism if he doesn't claim it to be his.
pla·gia·rism n.
a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work.
If he presented it as his own he wouldn't of quoted it. Pwned. Don't deny it.
pla·gia·rism n.
a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work.
If he presented it as his own he wouldn't of quoted it. Pwned. Don't deny it.
Still need a source. When you quote something not yours in a speech and even quote something on the internet you need a source. Believe it or not people do quote themselves, so when you quote anyone or anything someone else said, you need to provide a source be it the person's name or the webpage whatever. This is the only forum I've ever seen to not support this formal idea.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Snake)Ling on 2006-04-24 at 17:33:25
Well, I gave you a choice: Either you discriminated, or you were plain stupid. I guess the latter.
That was pretty easy, I cut through all that bullshiz to get this. You didn't point out that muslims were the "majority" in the post I originally responded to. Reread it, idiot. You said "cuz all the muslim in the region will unite against him, leading to bloody war." That's bullshiz. Why? As I pointed out in my response, Arab nationalists including christians and even Jewish extremists would rise up against Israel as well. Now, shut the fark up. You painted Muslims particularly as warmongers, instead of the truth that Arab nationalists of many religions would rise up in defense of their homelands. It's pretty easy to back out and just apologize right now.
You know why I'm pissed? You insulted me. How did you insult me? You insulted my religion. Why the fark do you think I'm not very open to discussion? Use that brain power, I know you have some!
Now then, since you said that saying "CHRISTIANS INVADING" is discrimination, I say that saying "MUSLIMS WILL GET UP AND GO KILL ISRAELIS" is discrimination. I don't give a shiz if Muslims unite, because if they unite for a bad cause, how the hell is that good?
QUOTE(Jammed @ Apr 24 2006, 07:59 AM)
you should look up what is discrimination is the dictionary. it means doing bad to other people according to race/culture/belief. where did i show hatered or disrecpect to muslims ?
[right][snapback]471741[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]471741[/snapback][/right]
That was pretty easy, I cut through all that bullshiz to get this. You didn't point out that muslims were the "majority" in the post I originally responded to. Reread it, idiot. You said "cuz all the muslim in the region will unite against him, leading to bloody war." That's bullshiz. Why? As I pointed out in my response, Arab nationalists including christians and even Jewish extremists would rise up against Israel as well. Now, shut the fark up. You painted Muslims particularly as warmongers, instead of the truth that Arab nationalists of many religions would rise up in defense of their homelands. It's pretty easy to back out and just apologize right now.
You know why I'm pissed? You insulted me. How did you insult me? You insulted my religion. Why the fark do you think I'm not very open to discussion? Use that brain power, I know you have some!
Now then, since you said that saying "CHRISTIANS INVADING" is discrimination, I say that saying "MUSLIMS WILL GET UP AND GO KILL ISRAELIS" is discrimination. I don't give a shiz if Muslims unite, because if they unite for a bad cause, how the hell is that good?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kellodood on 2006-04-24 at 18:03:41
QUOTE(Stalingrad @ Apr 24 2006, 01:31 PM)
Still need a source. When you quote something not yours in a speech and even quote something on the internet you need a source. Believe it or not people do quote themselves, so when you quote anyone or anything someone else said, you need to provide a source be it the person's name or the webpage whatever. This is the only forum I've ever seen to not support this formal idea.
[right][snapback]471834[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]471834[/snapback][/right]
Where is the rule stating that you need a source? There is no pre-determined rule, stating that you just must have sources. It's nice to have them, but as long as you don't claim the words to be your own, it's not plagiarism.
And not to detriment Jammed, but it's plainly obvious (To people with brains that is) that he did not type that out.
And good for you. We don't care about you and other forums.
I'll quote everyone:
QUOTE(Everyone)
If you don't like it, leave
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Stalingrad on 2006-04-24 at 18:22:10
QUOTE
Where is the rule stating that you need a source? There is no pre-determined rule, stating that you just must have sources. It's nice to have them, but as long as you don't claim the words to be your own, it's not plagiarism.
Worst-Case scenerio? Lawsuit. It's not a rule you have to follow but a good idea if you don't have a lot of money. Yes, people have actually been brought to court when they present someone else's work without giving them credit even if it isn't implied that they are not trying to take the other person's work for their own.
And it's not just the legality issues, providing a source also provide article credibility.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by l)ark_13 on 2006-04-24 at 18:31:53
Iran is gonna die
US is gonna nuke them
US is gonna nuke them
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Stalingrad on 2006-04-24 at 18:36:20
^ That's a rather rash statement, don't ya think?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kellodood on 2006-04-24 at 18:41:17
QUOTE(Stalingrad @ Apr 24 2006, 03:21 PM)
Worst-Case scenerio? Lawsuit. It's not a rule you have to follow but a good idea if you don't have a lot of money. Yes, people have actually been brought to court when they present someone else's work without giving them credit even if it isn't implied that they are not trying to take the other person's work for their own.
And it's not just the legality issues, providing a source also provide article credibility.
[right][snapback]471984[/snapback][/right]
And it's not just the legality issues, providing a source also provide article credibility.
[right][snapback]471984[/snapback][/right]
Awww.. To bad it's the internet, pal. Open-Source information.
Books and PUBLISHED material, yes. But an Open-Sourced form of information: No.