Clubhouses, headlines and plagiarism | Edmonton Blog Watch

Share us!

Heat came to the city last week, in more ways than one. This week’s Edmonton Blog Watch features controversial posts involving the Edmonton airport lands, Greenpeace, Ralph Klein, nerds, a Taste of Edmonton, and even the horrific triple murder at the U of A. There’s lots of excellent commentary for you to digest, maybe over your morning coffee? Or afternoon snack? Late-evening comestible? Night cap? Whatever you’re jamming into your mouth right now, you should jam some great content into your eyes while you’re doing it.

Remember: if you know of a post that should be included in the Edmonton Blog Watch, please use this handy submission form. I’m looking for stuff that is interesting, well-written and coherent — and, of course, written by someone from or in Edmonton. Those are my only criteria.

Here are my choices for must-read blog posts by Edmonton bloggers from last week, in no particular order:

Image by Matthew Black on Flickr. Used under Creative Commons License.

, , , , , , , , ,

6 Responses to “Clubhouses, headlines and plagiarism | Edmonton Blog Watch”

  1. Not Leask
    June 25, 2012 at 10:09 am #

    In the wake of yet another snubbing, prepare for this week’s crackerjack article from me, “Why the Unknown Studio can lick a goat.”

    • Adam Rozenhart
      June 25, 2012 at 10:19 am #

      It should actually just be “Why the Unknown Studio licks goats.” Because we have. For science.

  2. Jeff
    June 25, 2012 at 10:46 am #

    My eyes are now full. Full!

    Also, more goat licking please.

    • Adam Rozenhart
      June 25, 2012 at 10:53 am #

      Sure thing, Jeff. We just need to, uh, double-check with city bylaws before we do anymore of that.

  3. Anonymous
    June 25, 2012 at 6:42 pm #

    Adam. Accusing a person or organization of plagiarism is serious. You might wish to set the record straight in relation to your promotion of a blog based, in large part, on a groundless allegation from Kikiplanet about Mike Hudema and Greenpeace. Turns out he did seek permission from a California group for using part of its slogan for an ad recently rejected by the Pattison Group. Although I realize bloggers are not held to any sort of ethical standards, I would think that, in the absence of any definitive evidence, basic fairness would dictate at least checking with Greenpeace or Mr. Hudema before making a serious public allegation that directly questions their integrity and honesty.

    • Adam Rozenhart
      June 26, 2012 at 7:50 am #

      Hi anonymous,

      Thanks for your comment — you’ll note in the post above I note that this is only an allegation. But given the information you’ve provided I have corrected the post.