is it BLASPHEMOUS to take SENTENCES FROM A WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE, REARRANGE THEM INTO AN ESSAY, and say that you wrote that essay?
I'll answer this question first: Of course not, provided that said content came included with Essay Maker 2009, or was created solely by individual users who posted it as a free resource to other budding EM2K9 users. If the sentences were not created or offered in this manner, then they would need to be cited as references or direct quotations; to claim them as one's own work would be unethical. Granted, this theoretical program was only released in Aramaic, so any English speaking users would be in violation of certain laws anyway.
Now, with that out of the way...
it's not so much about me understanding something, because i understand it perfectly well. your analogies are just WRONG. flat, plain out WRONG. thus making them stupid.
If you understood what I was saying perfectly well, you wouldn't have come to the conclusions that you did. I even addressed the "claiming it as your own work" angle in one of my earlier posts, but me repeating or re-quoting the same passage until my keyboard crumbles away in front of me seems pretty pointless at this juncture, as some people would rather play at the role of 'analogy police' than contribute anything that furthers the discussion.
I'm honestly surprised that this thing has had the legs to last this long, considering the original poster subsequently degenerated into a ban hungry troll, and that this, as well as his 'I wanna make a bible game, tell me how' topic, may have been intended to act as a shot across the bow to herald that offensive. Before pouring too much more thought into this charnel pit, someone should post the obvious answer and move on.
Q)Why do people keep using rtp, rips, or someone else's material?
A)Because they want/need/choose to.