Copyright vs C& P

I looked up what exactly is a blog and I was surprised the definition actually left these C&P scholars in the clear. You can just leave a link, or C&P the text of that link, and get away with calling it your blog. Perhaps that is why some have managed to post over a 1000 blogs. Prolific arent he/she/T?

But... have they ever posted anything original? Something that actually shows they think instead of link? I liken it to being kind of like a voter. Every
moron gets a chance to have a small part in the process without ever having to perform any task other then pushing buttons. Nobrainers.

OK....what got me thinking of this was a C&P blog(?) that was posted and the OP proceeded to question the comments he was getting as not up to the standards for a reply on an article he/she/or T (?) didnt write. Can you do that, plagiarize, and then censor comments you don't like because they have ideas you dont have.
Knuckleheads!

If I wrote an article, I should have the right to make sure some moron doesn't decide to adopt it as his own and defend it with his own spin/perspectives. It's my intellectual property and I dont want some blowhard buffoon misinterpreting it because he/she/T lacks the mental capacity to put his position in his own words. He/she/T lacks the capacity for original thought so they camelback on someone else's intellectual property.

Its copyright.....not copy wrong.

As ever was,
Drcoctail