On 2006-06-08, flatfish+++ <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Notice: Erik posts a FACTUAL MESSAGE,
Full of _contrafactual_ allegations, i.e. "criminal" infringement.
> that has not been disputed, concerning a Linux advocate, Roy
> S.Schestowitz, violating a copyright on an image (IOW STEALING IT)
I _am_ disputing that any _criminal_ infringement took place. I even
posted a link:
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html#506
So, got anything to back Erik's allegation of _criminal_ copyright
infringement as specifically defined there, or are you gonna concede
that Erik was full of crap on that one?
> Hopefully his thesis and all that video he was offloading today is
> original.
Ah, got some crap of your own to spew I see. I couldn't find a draft
of his thesis on his website, but perhaps you'd care to offer a
detailed critique of, say,
http://www.schestowitz.com/Research/Papers/2006/ISBI_2006/Final/isbi_2006.pdf
to pick one at random. I don't see anything unoriginal in the above,
do you? _Details_ please.
> It's amazing what passes for Linux advocacy these days.
Damn straight, responding to the utter crap spewed by Linux's
detractors is far less fun than the good stuff that gets posted here
occasionally. So let's get back to some objective discourse -- here's
a question I've asked a lot here recently (since the announcement of
MS Word 2007), but haven't gotten an answer to yet. What's the macro
language like? Substantially similar to that of previous MS Word
versions? Something really different? Why all the tight-lippedness?
--
Darrin
\typeout{This .cls file has an "honor system" macro virus for \LaTeX.}
\typeout{Please close your eyes and overwrite bits of your .tex file.}
\typeout{Oh, and if you could delete your .bbl file that'd be great. Thx!}
|
|
