Ultracrepidarian: someone who has no <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/special" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(29, 42, 87);">special</a> <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/knowledge" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(29, 42, 87);">knowledge</a> of a <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/subject" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(29, 42, 87);">subject</a> but who <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/express" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(29, 42, 87);">expresses</a> an <a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/opinion" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank" style="color: rgb(29, 42, 87);">opinion</a> about it:

<a href="https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ultracrepidarian" rel="noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/ultracrepidarian</a>

Intercourse can be used to describe communications or interactions of people in a group or individually. Put simply, intercourse means to engage in talk or to socialize either one-on-one or in a group. [ This is a commonly - known definition. Therefore no attribution to a source is needed. ]

So if you're having a conversation with a friend at the coffee shop, you're engaged in intercourse with that person. If you are having drinks at a cocktail party and the partygoers are talking, they're engaged in intercourse.

Recently there was a multi-part [ I think it was a four-part ] discussion on these pages. The information was laid out very nicely in rows and columns. Knowing how difficult it is to lay out type like that I decided to Google one of the tables and see if it was original work. It was not shocking to me to see that the information had been lifted nearly verbatim from another site. A few words had been changed. The text on all of the submissions that the italki contributor used was substantially the same as the original.

I would argue that most people know that you must cite work product that you borrow from others. In fact, some rights holders require that you receive written permission to use their work. Usually a simple citation in the form of a link that leads to the original work will suffice in online situations. A link is certainly better than nothing and I would imagine that would satisfy most rights holders.

If I haven't been clear enough, I'll state it another way. Do you believe that you could take the work of a bestselling author and change 25% of the words and then publish that book under your name as an original work?

Are you struggling with idea generation for posts? Here are a few suggestions that might help you come up with more-interesting ideas.

#1 Think about the offbeat. Examples: What animal would you like to rename? Why?

#2 Sheer Randomness. Would you like to have a road named after you?

#3 Name some products with funny-sounding names. Example: Who here has heard of the body powder called Anti Monkey Butt? [ It's a real product. ] And through their site I learned that each June 21st is Swamp A*s Awareness Day. You can enter to be crowned King or Queen of Swamp A*s. 

#4 Embarrassing stories about yourself. After all, there's no better ice breaker than to admit that you aren't perfect. Example: What's the biggest social blunder you've made? Maybe you once left the department store restroom with toilet paper stuck to your shoe? [ Then you can tell about the time that you did and how you were wondering why people were staring at you. How did you finally become aware of this long white, wispy ghost that was following you everywhere? ]

So the next time you're at your wit's end with idea generation try to think more broadly than maybe you have been. Not that there's anything wrong with posts about linguistics or language acquisition, it's good to stretch the old gray matter sometimes and get the creative juices flowing. Good luck.