So I am writing a research paper about internet diagnosis and treatment. It is all about how people will google "heart problems" before going to see their doctor (that is if they even go to their doctor at all).
My position is that, the average Joe's who spent 30 minutes on a Wikipedia page about heart conditions and think they are on par with surgeons, are actually a force of good.
Without boring you about the particulars of my paper, I'll get on to what my problem is.
Like any research paper, I need some sources to cite to prove I did some research. First source I find is this awesome article from a UK newspaper called "The Independant". The problem with this awesome article, is it says everything I have to say about my topic.
So what should be "this is what I think, and here is an article that agrees with me", it seems like I am copy-pasta the article...
The reason I hate this, is because I am not one of those retarded idiots with a brain full of mush, that has nothing to say about a topic THEY PICKED. The kind of idiot that spends more time making their copy-pasta look legit instead of actually fine-tuning their own arguments.
Discussion value: Has this ever happened to you?
Has anyone ever said everything you have to say about something, but better?
<url=http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/cyberchondria-the-perils-of-internet-selfdiagnosis-1623649.html>Here is the article if you are interested in reading it. It is actually pretty interesting.
My position is that, the average Joe's who spent 30 minutes on a Wikipedia page about heart conditions and think they are on par with surgeons, are actually a force of good.
Without boring you about the particulars of my paper, I'll get on to what my problem is.
Like any research paper, I need some sources to cite to prove I did some research. First source I find is this awesome article from a UK newspaper called "The Independant". The problem with this awesome article, is it says everything I have to say about my topic.
So what should be "this is what I think, and here is an article that agrees with me", it seems like I am copy-pasta the article...
The reason I hate this, is because I am not one of those retarded idiots with a brain full of mush, that has nothing to say about a topic THEY PICKED. The kind of idiot that spends more time making their copy-pasta look legit instead of actually fine-tuning their own arguments.
Discussion value: Has this ever happened to you?
Has anyone ever said everything you have to say about something, but better?
<url=http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/cyberchondria-the-perils-of-internet-selfdiagnosis-1623649.html>Here is the article if you are interested in reading it. It is actually pretty interesting.