On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 16:55:20 +0000, Edwards wrote:
> On 2006-06-12, flatfish+++ <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Uh, then feel free to shut up anytime now. _Without_ direct proof,
> you're not supposed to toss out allegations willy-nilly. Particularly
> allegations of _criminal_ behavior.
Criminal.
It's still an ethics issue.
>> One of two things is happening here.
>
> Neither of which provides any support for the _specific_ allegation
> Erik made of criminal conduct on Roy's part. For all your florrid
> prose on "shooting straight" and "drinking Koolaid" you sure aren't
> contributing much of substance here.
There is no substance in COLA.
You should know that.
>> Nobody here really knows.
>
> So maybe "nobody" should toss out allegations of criminal conduct on
> Roy's part until they _do_ know, hmm?
It's an ethics issue.
>> I don't think I said it was criminal?
>> If I did, I take it back.
>
> You've been supporting Erik very loudly (and without qualification) so
> far, but if you're starting to wise up on this aspect of the issue
> (the only one I was pursuing) then good for you.
Erik is correct in that the artwork is being used without the author's
permission.
It's that simple.
>> My point is that the behavior is unethical and that very few of the
>> Linux advocates will admit it but instead prefer to defend Roy which in
>> and of itself says a lot about their character as well.
>
> And of course alleging criminal conduct without evidence says _nothing_
> about one's character. Funny how it always seems to work that way
> around here.
Erik claims to have an email from the author of the image.
He offered to email a copy to anyone who asks, so why not take your head
out of your zeal ass and ask him for a copy instead of trying to defend
Roy?
>> I didn't accuse him of anything.
>> I simply said the fruit doesn't fall far from the tree. Draw your own
>> conclusions.
>
> That's not how it works. You don't get to say "Maybe his academic work
> isn't original" and then turn around and say "but I'm not _accusing_
> anybody of anything". The former is _already_ an accusation, and a very
> serious one in an academic context.
The fruit doesn't fall far from the tree.
His behavior isn't winning him any points with people who have an open
mind towards things like this.
If he had any sense of decency he would have removed the images pending
permission from the author to use them.
Maybe he has already gotten permission, nobody but him and the author
know.
You know what they say:
Those that can't........ teach.
--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
|
|
