quod erat demonstrandum

A continuation / follow-up to the previous post.


Now: I thought those idiotic statements about mineral oil sounded pre-fabricated.

Stylistic differences compared to other things said by the same person suggested a high probability of unattributed copy-pasting off the internet. Which is plagiarism. It’s neither good practice nor useful. Depending on circumstances, it’s somewhere between rudeness and theft. Mind you, this is in keeping with Lamia’s other observed behaviour: a failure to summon up the minimal courtesy of acknowledging an email of apology or apologies on a public forum–a simple curt “received” in response to any of them would have done the job. So I’m not exactly surprised that credit isn’t given where credit is due, elsewhere, in the area of crediting one’s sources. [Edited: see next post for why. I omitted the obvious reason: busy person doing other things… ]

Compare the following:

Mineral oil ++
Used in many personal-care products (baby oil is 100% mineral oil), this ingredient actually coats the skin just like a plastic wrap, disrupting the skin’s natural immune barrier and inhibiting its ability to breathe and absorb the Natural Moisture Factor (moisture and nutrition). As the body’s largest organ of elimination, it is vital that the skin be free to release toxins. But the mineral oil impedes this process, allowing toxins to accumulate, which can promote acne and other disorders. It also slows down skin function and normal cell development, resulting in premature aging of the skin.


There’s studies either way. But basically mineral oil creates a film preventing cell turnover. I talked to a dermatologist and he said that unless you have intensely lipid deficient skin you shouldn’t use it.

mineral oil is the cheapest oil available and a by product of petroleum..it’s waste oil.

See what I mean? Compare the first item with the others for language–word-choice, sentence structure, punctuation, mis-spelled “by product ” [sic], use of “basically” that suggests the speaker doesn’t understand what they’re parroting, rather than that they’re translating something complex and abstract into layman’s terms.

So I though to myself, “bet that’s just been copy-pasted off the old interweb.”

I did what I usually do in such circumstances: copy-pasted the text and ran it back through Google.

It was indeed a copy-paste job.

Up came a number of sources (by which I mean: “places where this was found”; not “reliable providers of information”) that use that exact same wording. There were seven pages of results. Sixty-one in total. Of which screenshots follow below for fifty-eight of them–I skipped three results (on pages 5-6) that didn’t use the whole chunk of text. [Also, aren’t screenshots bloody brilliant? Blog posts practically write themselves.]

The screenshots are linked to the Google search performed, so anyone who feels like it can go and check for themselves, and go through the sites, and see how fiable and sensible they are, and make up their own minds from the same available evidence. As is right and proper.

Care to reply?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s