Home Messages Index
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index

Re: See *The COLA Gang* Spring Into Action!!

  • Subject: Re: See *The COLA Gang* Spring Into Action!!
  • From: Edwards <edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:39:17 GMT
  • Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
  • Organization: The University of Chicago
  • References: <pan.2006.06.08.04.00.52.266095@linuxmail.org> <slrne8grpe.1do.edwards@trurl.bsd.uchicago.edu> <pan.2006.06.08.19.57.50.701711@linuxmail.org>
  • Reply-to: edwards@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: slrn/0.9.8.1 (Linux)
  • Xref: news.mcc.ac.uk comp.os.linux.advocacy:1118563
On 2006-06-08, flatfish+++ <flatfish@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 18:40:46 +0000, Edwards wrote:
>
>>
>> Full of _contrafactual_ allegations, i.e. "criminal" infringement.
>
> I don't see Roy contradicting it.

The "are you still beating your wife" argument?  That's the _best_ you
can do?

Once more, _criminal_ copyright infringement has a very specific
definition, neither you nor Erik nor anyone else here has provided any
evidence of it.  That's _independent_ of the question of whether Roy
has or has not provided any defense against the allegations.

> Why doesn't Roy post the Email where the author of the works gave him
> permission to use them?

Irrelevant.  Again, the word _criminal_ is what I'm disputing, and is
what has not been supported in _any_ way by you or Erik or anyone
else.

>>> 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 not my field

Then keep your mouth shut.  Accusations of plagiarism, particularly in
an academic (and especially scientific) setting, demand certain
standards of proof.  If you can't meet them you very much need to keep
quiet about the issue, wouldn't want to find yourself committing libel
for example.

>>  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?
>
> That is boring as all hell which is why you are getting no responses.

So MS Word 2007 will be just as vulnerable to macro viruses as
previous versions?  What a shame.

-- 
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!}

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Author IndexDate IndexThread Index