Classically, to situate an utterance rhetorically, one must understand "purpose, audience, and occasion." As research into citations patterns has demonstrated, I believe (not that I can cite much of it), the purposes for which we cite are multiple. To approach the issue of referencing (which is perhaps a positive term for the contrary of plagiarism) rhetorically, one should think about purposes (and occasions) as well as readers. As Russ points out, we often reference to borrow authority, to locate our writing intertextually, and for various other reasons that don't involve "ownership" or giving "credit." How many of us--experts, teachers--can list the main purposes for which academic writers reference? Not me, tho I can list a few more than the handbooks do. I guess I do believe that telling students referencing (and, for that matter, effective writing) is a rhetorical variable, which can be explored by asking about rhetorical situations and contexts of situation, is a minimal first step. It saves them from trying to understand in ways that are bound to prove inadequate. How much more we need to do before they believe this--I mean, it would be much simpler if there were a few simple, hard-and-fast rules--and are able to apply it in a particular situation . . . well, that takes us back to the whole question of authenticity and learning we were discussing in the fall. [I think that last clause is a "cf.") As for the kind of "plagiarism" that my university's policy on "academic dishonesty" is supposed to regulate (i.e., immorality, cheating, trying to gain an academic credential without learning all the stuff that credential signifies--or, in some cases, just trying to survive in a mystifying situation), in my experience it is considerably less frequent, occurs mostly in required courses (there's that word again, Russ, REQUIRE), and is best dealt with by knowing my students and asking them to write stuff that can't easily be copied. Anyhow, I do agree with Russ: for me to talk about "plagiarism" without offsetting the dominant tendency to think of it as a moral issue was dangerous rhetoric (i.e., likely to allow misunderstanding, which according to IA Richards is what rhetorical studies should help us reduce). (I've noticed that the less awake I am the more complex my syntax is.)