A poster on KH's blog said this "City News this week explains at length points which show the imbalances in the writeup by both the Straits Times and certain bloggers about Pastor’s devotionals... the publishers had given their permission for the reproduction of the content concerned in the devotionals. So rather than go to the publishers who were the correct people to seek clarifications from, bloggers went straight to the authors (wrong party to look for) and sought their own conclusions from there. Nice one. Shouldn’t the paper and the bloggers therefore apologize as well then, at least for their oversight?"
My response is are the reps of KH still claiming they had permission to reproduce the plagiarised articles? City New is CHC's mouthpiece right? I'd be happy if someone can post the article link here! Why not rebut the papers' reports directly then instead of in your own handouts? That would have a wider circulation and lead to total vindication. Why not show CONCRETE PROOF such permission exists? In fact, I am very interested to know HOW MANY ARTICLES they willingly admit to 'lifting from external sources." I sure would like to know if their number of 'permission-granted' articles correspond with the number of copied articles I have found. Furthermore, if KH, his publishers, etc had permission to print PRIOR TO presstime and circulating online the plagiarised articles, that would have been their first arrow in their salvo against the claims of the bloggers and the press. But has it been? Frankly speaking, I would be happy to apologise if such proof is forthcoming. It gives me no pleasure to find that a man of God (as claimed by his devotees) has fallen short of the standard required.
My response is are the reps of KH still claiming they had permission to reproduce the plagiarised articles? City New is CHC's mouthpiece right? I'd be happy if someone can post the article link here! Why not rebut the papers' reports directly then instead of in your own handouts? That would have a wider circulation and lead to total vindication. Why not show CONCRETE PROOF such permission exists? In fact, I am very interested to know HOW MANY ARTICLES they willingly admit to 'lifting from external sources." I sure would like to know if their number of 'permission-granted' articles correspond with the number of copied articles I have found. Furthermore, if KH, his publishers, etc had permission to print PRIOR TO presstime and circulating online the plagiarised articles, that would have been their first arrow in their salvo against the claims of the bloggers and the press. But has it been? Frankly speaking, I would be happy to apologise if such proof is forthcoming. It gives me no pleasure to find that a man of God (as claimed by his devotees) has fallen short of the standard required.
So perhaps now KH's reps can claim this word for word copy of Ken Boa's article is also 'permission-granted' for then to reproduce? Call me a legalist if you want to but perhaps it is time to walk the talk and glorify God with action and now with words.
Like someone posted on that same page, "denial is not a river in Egypt."
Cheat Grace,
ReplyDeleteI think that you are attempting to dig out the past (i.e. that particular devotional dated on 27 Mar 2010) despite Kong Hee has made his apology issue on his blog.
Shalom.
~ Jeremiah
Annabel Soh on June 21st, 2010 2:10 pm ANOTHER allegated plagiarism Commited by KONG HEE!!
ReplyDeleteKong Hee was being accused of plagiarism of his own “Culture Mandate” Message!!
Some claimed that most of the concept and theory of the “Culture Mandate” Message was copied from “Seven Mountains” message originally proposed by Dr. Bill Bright, founder of Campus Crusade, and Loren Cunningham, founder of Youth With a Mission in 1975. For details please refer to
http://www.reclaim7mountains.com/articles.asp?columnid=4347
Again, Kong Hee has changed the names of “Seven Mountains” into “Seven Pillars”, and copycat the whole concept and claimed to be originated by himself.
Kong Hee, don’t say that Dr. Bill Bright and Loren Cunningham has copied your “Cultural Mandate” concept!! They proposed this “Seven Mountains” message in 1975 whereas you were still in Primary School at that time!!
Plagiarism is very unethical, and you has committed so many times!! How can CHCers trust you more for your integrity???
For those who demand evidences: I still have the tapes, books and the website above to prove it!! Hahaha!!
Love,
Shut Up Please!!
Jeremiah, the purpose of this post is to explore what a CHCer posted. All I did was quote the poster who said the publishers have given their permission for the reproduction and implied the bloggers (incl me) and the press should apologise for their 'oversight'
ReplyDeleteI'd be glad to apologise if they can show proof they had permission from the publishers (all of them) to reproduce the said articles BEFORE they published the plagiarised articles. Whether oversight or otherwise, the fact is was any permission sought before printing (online or otherwise)? If not i0t is plagiarism. The fact is Kong Hee's publishers (that must include him since the author is supposed to instruct the publishers) claimed "Copyrght 2009 by Kong Hee" and 'no portion of this book may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the publisher" shows infringement of copyright.
Even if 1 million voices lift up in prayer to God, he still will not hear if they walk in unrighteouness
Cheat Grace,
ReplyDeleteAs for your post dated on June 20, 2010 11:15 PM, I'm so sorry to ask you:
From the 1st paragraph:
- Who is the CHCer (poster)? General or specific?
- How come you know that this poster was the one who said that "the publishers have given their permission for the reproduction and implied the bloggers (incl me) and the press should apologise for their 'oversight'"? ==> This statement does not mention how many publishers. All or some?
From the 2nd paragraph:
- Based on the 1st sentence, how do you know about the quantity of the publishers (i.e. all of them?) All or some?
- I don't have comment about those posters who claimed that they had got permission from the publishers.
- After the result of the publicised news about Kong Hee's plagiarised work, he has placed his apology on his blog and agreed to credit those who wrote original information next time.
From the 3rd paragraph:
- It is an affirmative response. In other words, yes. I don't have further comment on this paragraph.
- Moreover, God will not hear/answer any prayers from people if they do not make specific prayers and walk the way that is sinful/unrighteous.
Pls correct me if I'm wrong.
Learn to be teachable.
Thank you.
Shalom.
Dear Jeremiah, please refer to the comments made by a CHC-er on Kong Hee's blog. I am merely responding to it.
ReplyDeleteI am unteachable.. but only to those who talk down by telling me to learn to be teachable. And since you believe I am unteachable then maybe you need not waste your time posting here. I defintely will not waste my time responding to you since any contrary response not in line with your accepted mindset only means I must still be unteachable until I can get you to agree with me. Have a nice day :)
Jeremiah,
ReplyDeleteCheat grace has posted many facts. And most of his posts deal with hard facts and dates that can be verified. Can you truly dispute the facts he has put up and defend your position based on the facts that you have? Or do you just intend to just shift the argument from substance to tone/intention/motives/etc?
wcwhitecell3,
ReplyDeleteI have read Cheat Grace's blogs. Chronological dates corresponding to the articles and actions are considered.
I'm coming here to comment as an individual.
As you see Cheat Grace's (original?) motive/purpose/intention, what is the blog for?
Nevertheless, no point of blaming others.
I placed my 1st comment to refer the post here just now.
God bless.
wcwhitecell3,
ReplyDeleteOh yeah, one more thing to tell you. You are aware that Cheat Grace is not teachable, aren't you?
Grace be with you.
Just saw New Paper report, they contacted two of the three authors whose works were allegedly plagiarized, and they said no permission was given to reproduce the works.
ReplyDeleteJeremiah,
ReplyDeleteLet's suppose Cheat Grace is unteachable. In fact, let's suppose he is the worst person who ever walked to the face of the Earth and that there are no depths that he wouldn't sink to. How does that alter any of the facts he has put up? It still does not mean that what he says isn't true. So his motives, character, intention are all besides the point.
(Cheat Grace, not that I am insinuating any of the above against you, I'm just making a point about substance vs tone)
You must have your reasons to support your cause, and so do others have reasons for criticizing. But without facts all that's left is arguments fuelled by emotion and sentiment. At the end of the day it does not matter who is right, it only matters what is right. The facts will speak for themselves.
wcwhitecell3,
ReplyDeleteLet's assume that if Cheat Grace is Christian/Roman Catholic, he/she should be teachable to his/her pastor/priest. It is separable from what he/she has done (i.e. showing the facts whether he/she originally put these facts or alter them).
Facts speak the truths whereas opinions without reliable sources may be seen as conjectures while opinions with reliable sources could be verified-supported statements. There are grey areas around the mixture of the media reports which can find the skeletons in the cupboards.
As for the motives/purpose/characters of Cheat Grace, it is yet to find out the reliable things to describe him/her.
As for my cause, what is my cause? Is it related to any events or any justification? Pls clarify about it.
Thank you.
~ Jewish salutation
>Let's assume that if Cheat Grace is Christian/Roman Catholic, he/she >should be teachable to his/her pastor/priest. It is separable from what >he/she has done (i.e. showing the facts whether he/she originally put >these facts or alter them).
ReplyDeleteYour point is?
>Facts speak the truths whereas opinions without reliable sources >may be seen as conjectures while opinions with reliable sources >could be verified-supported statements. There are grey areas >around the mixture of the media reports which can find the >skeletons in the cupboards.
Facts don't speak the truth, they point to it. Subtle but important difference. I suppose you can highlight which are the grey areas systematically so that people here can discuss?
>As for the motives/purpose/characters of Cheat Grace, it is yet to >find out the reliable things to describe him/her.
I'm sorry, man. I can't understand that sentence at all. Does this make sense to anyone here?
>As for my cause, what is my cause? Is it related to any events or >any justification? Pls clarify about it.
I said "You must have your reasons to support your cause, and so do others have reasons for criticizing." That basically means what it says. I'm not interested in your "whys". I'm only interested in any new facts that you can bring to the table, if any.
wcwhitecell3,
ReplyDeleteThanks for your response.
As for your late post dated on June 21, 2010 9:44 AM,
1st paragraph:
Humility? Willingness? Meekness? Or pride and prejudice?
2nd paragraph:
I don't say that facts speak all truth. Facts speak truth; not that facts speak all truth. Grey areas are like mixtures of facts, truths, lies, conjectures, opinions, statements (sourced/unsourced). No one is perfect to make perfect decisions.
3rd paragraph:
I'm so sorry to say that we may know about Cheat Grace little. That's why I'm very curious about him/her. Care to add him/her as Facebook or Tweet?
4th paragraph:
I'm not interested to peel off the banana to find any new facts. I'm coming here to see if necessary, just comment.
Cheat Grace,
ReplyDeleteSorry for posting many comments.
Anyway, I believe (as in regard) that you are male and already married. I'm not sure whether you are either Mr Tee Kay Hetch or Mr Tay Ban Guan. I assume that I take both names.
I received this information from unclassified sources.
My truly apology if I make inconsistent information. Pls correct me if I'm wrong.
Thank you.
May God's grace bless and protect you. ♥
Sorry for the error.
ReplyDeleteI mean:
My truly apology if I receive (not make) inconsistent information. Pls correct me if I'm wrong.
Instead of:
My truly apology if I make inconsistent information. Pls correct me if I'm wrong.
Thank you for taking your time to read many comments here.
Jesus loves you ♥
Wow you gotta be careful about pictures you post up. This Tay Ban Guan's gonna have people asking him lots of questions whether he's the blogger or not.
ReplyDeleteAllow me to share my understanding as a published writer. It is simply not enough to ask publishers for permission as the copyrights belong to authors. This means that authors remain the ones with the final say on any use. Publishers cannot make deals without authors' knowledge or they are also liable to being sued too.
ReplyDeletewcwhitecell3, Thanks for the reinforcement :). But as you can see, there will be people who love only the sound of their own voices instead of an exchange of ideas. Or is that the sight of their own squiggles? Anyway, as you can see I have grown very good at ignoring such people. Cheers and Blessings :))
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteEngageinGrace, I have deleted your post here because it can deemed seditious to Muslims. I will keep on deleting any posts you make that refer to other religions than Christianity here. I might even consider moderating this blog if you persist in your gibberish. Call it a lack of freedom of speech, I don't care
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteEngageinGrace, Welcome to Oblivion
ReplyDeletehey Cheat Grace,
ReplyDeleteGlad to see you're deleting some of the more imbecilic comments. At least now we do not have to sift through useless posts in order to read legitimate posts with substance.
I am new to this blog. As I looked at the postings I noticed argument that degenerate into ad hominem exchanges. This is a sure sign that one has lost the argument. Issues are then confused.
ReplyDeleteTo be clear, plagiarism is wrong, dishonest and does not glorify God. It is intellectual thievery. Whatever the intention of Cheat Grace is, plagiarism is still wrong, period. The issue here is for each one to decide without prejudice, if Cheat Grace’s allegation based on what he has presented is true.
If Cheat Grace’s allegation is true, some many want to question his intention. On that issue, only Cheat Grace and God knows. If his/her intention is to call out sinners to repentance without ulterior evil motive, then God will bless him/her. If the intention is evil, then he/she is accountable before God. If anyone has evidence that Cheat Grace in fact harbours bad intention, then by all means call him out. Making accusation without evidence is bearing false witness. That applies to all.
luo ht