1.6 KiB
id, aliases, title, tags, dg-publish, date-created, daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, yearly
| id | aliases | title | tags | dg-publish | date-created | daily | weekly | monthly | quarterly | yearly | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-02-27T17:48:43-05:00 | 2026-02-27 17:48:43 |
|
true | 2026-02-27T17:48:43-05:00 | 2026-02-27 | 2026-W09 | 2026-02 | 2026-Q1 | 2026 |
2026-02-27 17:48:43
I've meant to ask my peers who read these notes how they feel about my using "my peer" rather than their names, even when my paraphrasing is so specific as to leaves no doubt of authorship.
I'd figured I'd respect their wishes on the matter, but thinking about what my reasoning must have been (before it became consistency) I'll probably keep doing it anyway, however I feel I owe them an explanation.
These peers sound like you, but they are not. They are characters of my imagining, their actions and beliefs subject to the whims of the narrative. You'll find that they tend to reinforce my own beliefs more often than you would. Ambiguous attribution is how I hint that an interaction is embellished without harshing the whimsy.
And another thing:
The people that I do this for I think aloud with, speaking with the understanding that I will say things that are ill advised or poorly reasoned. I've said before I'd rather not be credited for my ideas, not least because ideas are free and I am nothing if not frugal. If y'all properly cited me on some of the dumb shit I say in implied confidence, I'd cry.
In conclusion: You could call it plagiarism, but I'd disagree. Intellectual dishonesty I'll grant, so long as you agree it's tasteful, or at least fun.