I think you need to seriously fuck off.

This time you completely ripped off text from this web site.

I'm going to star reporting you to the original authors for copyright infringement from now on.

Hello steelstuds:
Not bothering you, I try to create a debate in this page using information taken from another site.
Since the web has linked to this has no comments.
Not that is what bothers you, the link to another page or the information, it seems incredible that this is Internet, and that freedom to enrage information is not free.
Just trying to disseminate information, which explains perfectly where it comes, nobody gives the credit to say that this information is yours.
Could I explain well what is bothering you? thanks.

We just want difuncir information (taken from the Internet) are not journalists, not tried. To create a discussion between people of the same work.

Sharing information is enrage and learning.

Hope you can understand this:

Someone else did a bunch of work. They spent a bunch of time writing it.

You copied and pasted it to your website. You gave no credit to the original author.

You came to this site and advertised your website as your own original work.

It is not.

You are a lazy thief.

Copying architecture is a form of flattery. Architectural copyright is hard to define though.

Plagiarism is easy to define. You want to build a website of information? Fine. Credit your sources.

And stop posting your crap here.

Thanks for answering.
Do not worry, put no thoughtful debate in this forum.
I still do not know if you understand, but the question is at the top of the news is the reflection that makes it even matter, and that is differentiated view of a person who likes architecture, as each of us another different view on the subject, "while the interior is the same answer, always in command is the original title.
When a newspaper gets a story in its owner's information is different for different newspapers, but the answer is the same, what is news?.
No attempt to detract from the people who develop a story or to discredit the author is that, especially if you have not noticed the first of what is spoken is the author, to give more value.

Speaking of Richard Horden, I've met in person at a conference and I think it's one so sensible and simple in life I do not think that a person cares disseminate and make known their great work, Internet forums.

But what worries me is that to you, what bothers you most is to put a link to another website, but hey the next time I will not link, so you do not bother, just put the question and the issue of which speech.

Thanks for your comment.

I'd like to comment on the issue

You're trying to sound smart, but plagiarism is plagiarism. Cite your sources. It's not hard unless you're really really dumb.

Thanks for your comment, but I do not understand well what is plagiarism, and that it uses information to sell but to the contrary, that is to spread the criteria and the idea, not for profit, but hey, as I said prior to the next otherwise I will not to bother.

google it.