Can Plagiarist Ron Borges Write An Article WITHOUT Factual Errors? - Page 3 - New England Patriots Forums

***Aßßynormal*** · 09-08-2009, 12:16 PM

That's such a blatant, deceptive, error that he should be required to correct it.

lostjumper · 09-08-2009, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lazerlike42

I've been reading these forums for about a week now to get updates and see what people are thinking, and I was planning on registering soon, but this post pushed me to do it today.

I really do not like Ron Borges as a columnist because he is a contrarian, someone who seems at times to be more concerned with being negative then presenting an accurate analysis, and many of the same reasons others don't like him. However, even an "enemy" deserves to be viewed fairly and this accusation is not correct.

First, as far as I can tell, Ron Borges wrote no such thing as this. The quote does come from a Nick Cafardo column from Sunday, August 30: Can Angels earn their wings? - The Boston Globe.

Second, there is no quote that is remotely similar in the blog post that was put up, the unbroken link to which is here: Joe Posnanski Blog Archive The Most Amazing Paragraph Ever

Man, I get Borges and Cafardo confused. Both are terrible reporters who plagarize and take every opportunity to critize the patriots. It's hard to tell them apart anymore

You are correct, that this is Cafardo, and not Borges. I apologize. However, your second point is completely wrong. Below is the original quote from the blog.

Quote:

That’s what makes this paragraph — written by Matt Janus on the Wilmington Blue Rocks Web site — one of the most amazing things I’ve ever seen.

Mike Moustakas and Eric Hosmer both remained out of the Wilmington lineup on Friday. Moustakas has not played since having a batted ball bounce off of his head on Tuesday. He has been suffering from concussion-like symptoms since. Blue Rocks manager Brian Rupp said after the game he was hopeful Moustakas could play on Saturday, and confident he would return by Sunday’s series finale. Hosmer is waiting on a new pair of prescription glasses. He cannot play without them. It is uncertain when he will return.

OK, so … I was about to comment on that amazing paragraph — Moustakas is out because a ball hit him in the head and apparently as of the writing three days later he was still suffering from concussion-like symptoms, whatever that means. Hosmer is out (indefinitely, apparently) because he can’t find a one-hour prescription glasses place.

So, Cafardo copied the paragraph, looked up the 2 names mentioned and added their stats, and then put it into his article as his own. This is a textbook case of plagiarism by Cafardo.

So, I'll amend my first post to say its Cafardo, and then wecan continue ripping Borges, Cafardo, or both.

***Rob0729*** · 09-08-2009, 12:36 PM

Forgive Borges for the mistake. This is the moment he has been waiting for Belichick to do for seven years now. Borges is elated now that the Pats have corrected the "mistake" they made when they drafted Seymour. Remember Borges did correctly say that Seymour is "too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end" and since he is versatile means he isn't really great at anything. Borges is celebrating getting rid of this mistake.

lostjumper · 09-08-2009, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rob0729

Forgive Borges for the mistake. This is the moment he has been waiting for Belichick to do for seven years now. Borges is elated now that the Pats have corrected the "mistake" they made when they drafted Seymour. Remember Borges did correctly say that Seymour is "too tall to play tackle at 6-6 and too slow to play defensive end" and since he is versatile means he isn't really great at anything. Borges is celebrating getting rid of this mistake.

This is what the thread is really about. I'll have to see if I can find that original article. In there he blasted the pats for Drafting Seymour and Matt Light and passing on a clear superstar-in-the-making like David Terrell...

***MoLewisrocks*** · 09-10-2009, 08:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aßßynormal

That's such a blatant, deceptive, error that he should be required to correct it.

And so he has been. But as a result he has been forced to take an additional pot shot at the Patriots and to accomplish that he has enlisted Upshaw's former toadies Berthleson and Tom Condon (Upshaw's personal agent and advisor and uber agent to the rookie QB's whose obscene deals are driving the league to implement a rookie cap - talk about conflict of interest...).

This trio should start their own anti-Patriot support group...

Quote:

Several readers, as well as a representative of the Patriots, quite rightly pointed out that while writing about the contract status of Vince Wilfork [stats] Tuesday, I mistakenly wrote that as a result of a CBA extension in 2006 rookies drafted beyond the first 16 spots could not be signed to contracts longer than four years.

Quote:

The Patriots asked the Herald to print a “clarification” of their role in that change, saying my column implied it was their contracts that led to the change.

Apparently they thought otherwise. Apparently they were wrong.

“The Patriots’ contracts and the way they negotiated were the driving force behind it,” NFL Players Association attorney Richard Berthelsen said. “Their attitude toward those players taken late in the first round at that time was ‘take it or leave it.’

“I remember it well because I argued the issue with the representative from the (NFL) Management Council when we negotiated the change. The arguing point for us was Watson’s contract.

Tom Condon, who was named the most powerful agent in sports by The Sporting News and whose agency represents Peyton and Eli Manning, LaDainian Tomlinson and more than 100 others, also remembered that year and those two contracts. He represented Watson at that time and has not represented a Patriot player since.

“I hadn’t signed anybody else in the second half of the first round to a six-year contract,” Condon said. “Requiring that was nothing less than abusive. I told Ben it was unfair and abusive, but his option was to sign or sit out an entire year, which hadn’t happened in about 20 years. . . .

“Later I talked about it with Gene (Upshaw, then executive director of the NFLPA). I told him it was abusive. We had free agency in four years yet this kid had to give up two more years for what was second-round money. He would have been better off having been drafted in a later round.

“When they did the next extension of the CBA they changed it. Were the Patriots tougher than other teams on that? They certainly were with Watson, and I know they did it with other players. How they did business at the time is what led to that change.”

Patriots’ role in altered CBA ‘clarified’ - BostonHerald.com