TO TOM SHERMAN his plagiarism

Hey Tom:
Save everyone some trouble by learning how ignorant you are about
plagiarism.

Start he

http://tinyurl.com/32cjsmh

Get back to us when you have a report ready.

DR

over in IDEAS there's a device wraps around the leg. when sensors eg
bloodpressure adrenal output rise above a given level, six steel
spikes slowly insert into the leg tissue from said device.

kolldata wrote:
over in IDEAS there's a device wraps around the leg. when sensors eg
bloodpressure adrenal output rise above a given level, six steel
spikes slowly insert into the leg tissue from said device.

So mere 'cramps' are 'low tech' ?

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org/
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:16:36 -0800, DirtRoadie wrote:

Hey Tom:
Save everyone some trouble by learning how ignorant you are about
plagiarism.

Start he

http://tinyurl.com/32cjsmh

Get back to us when you have a report ready.

DR

OK, I followed the first link brought up by Google and the page confirmed
my impression that copying for the sake of parody, which is clearly what
Tom was doing, falls under the fair use exception. Have you even read
your references?

On Dec 20, 11:16*pm, Gary Young wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:16:36 -0800, DirtRoadie wrote:
Hey Tom:
Save everyone some trouble by learning how ignorant you are about
plagiarism.

Start he

http://tinyurl.com/32cjsmh

Get back to us when you have a report ready.

DR

OK, I followed the first link brought up by Google and the page confirmed
my impression that copying for the sake of parody, which is clearly what
Tom was doing, falls under the fair use exception. Have you even read
your references?

Interesting.
Clearly?
OK. Anything you say.
But Tom also had a huge difficulty with the concept of parody when it
being explained to him, so please explain it to him. He is personally
outraged at the concept and wastes substantial bandwidth with his
obsession for attacking it at every chance he gets.

Why was Tom so unaware of this concept? He keeps muttering something
nonsensical about "implied attribution."
Do you have any grasp of what he might mean by that?

But in any case, also note that you have conceded that Tom "cut-and-
paste" Sherman lazily "copied" the material in question in its
entirety rather than creating his own original expression to disagree
with or critique with the copied material.

Thanks for your input.

DR

On Dec 20, 9:16*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:
Hey Tom:
Save everyone some trouble by learning how ignorant you are about
plagiarism.

Start he

http://tinyurl.com/32cjsmh

Get back to us when you have a report ready.

DR

Hey, come on now, Tom is a good guy.

If you don't like his posts you don't have to read them.

Lewis

*****

On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 01:48:36 -0800, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Dec 20, 11:16Â*pm, Gary Young wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:16:36 -0800, DirtRoadie wrote:
Hey Tom:
Save everyone some trouble by learning how ignorant you are about
plagiarism.

Start he

http://tinyurl.com/32cjsmh

Get back to us when you have a report ready.

DR

OK, I followed the first link brought up by Google and the page
confirmed my impression that copying for the sake of parody, which is
clearly what Tom was doing, falls under the fair use exception. Have
you even read your references?

Interesting.
Clearly?
OK. Anything you say.
But Tom also had a huge difficulty with the concept of parody when it
being explained to him, so please explain it to him. He is personally
outraged at the concept and wastes substantial bandwidth with his
obsession for attacking it at every chance he gets.

Why was Tom so unaware of this concept? He keeps muttering something
nonsensical about "implied attribution." Do you have any grasp of what
he might mean by that?

Yeah, I think anyone with some common sense would know what he meant by
that. You accused him of plagiarism. One defense of plagiarism is that
you give credit to the person from whom you're copying. I think Tom is
making the common sense point that since his statement was directly below
the statement that he was copying, anyone with half a brain would know
where he got it from.

Of course, this whole conversation is muddled because you don't seem to
know the difference between plagiarism and copyright violation.

I suppose you have a right to be an ignoramus, but do you really have to
reinforce the point with one message after another?


But in any case, also note that you have conceded that Tom "cut-and-
paste" Sherman lazily "copied" the material in question in its entirety
rather than creating his own original expression to disagree with or
critique with the copied material.

Thanks for your input.

DR

On Dec 21, 3:44*am, " wrote:
On Dec 20, 9:16*pm, DirtRoadie wrote:

Hey Tom:
Save everyone some trouble by learning how ignorant you are about
plagiarism.

Start he

http://tinyurl.com/32cjsmh

Get back to us when you have a report ready.

DR

Hey, come on now, Tom is a good guy.

If you don't like his posts you don't have to read them.

Ah, if only ....
Perhaps you are unaware of Tom Sherman's stalking behavior. Look back
through any recent thread and note how many times a post of his
follows a post of mine.

He freely admits this:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...e7a743eb730e83

Worse is that he fabricates a justification to stifle commentary
within the group according to his own VERY flexible "moral
indignation."
He was accurately characterized he
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.b...e46848cf692c1a

In any case you have offered no comment on Tom's plagiarism, the
subject of this thread.

Yup, for a thug and plagiarist he's a good guy.

DR

On Dec 21, 9:33*am, Gary Young wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 01:48:36 -0800, DirtRoadie wrote:
On Dec 20, 11:16*pm, Gary Young wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:16:36 -0800, DirtRoadie wrote:
Hey Tom:
Save everyone some trouble by learning how ignorant you are about
plagiarism.

Start he

http://tinyurl.com/32cjsmh

Get back to us when you have a report ready.

DR

OK, I followed the first link brought up by Google and the page
confirmed my impression that copying for the sake of parody, which is
clearly what Tom was doing, falls under the fair use exception. Have
you even read your references?

Interesting.
Clearly?
OK. Anything you say.
But Tom also had a huge difficulty with the concept of parody when it
being explained to him, so please explain it to him. He is personally
outraged at the concept and wastes substantial bandwidth with his
obsession for attacking it at every chance he gets.

Why was Tom so unaware of this concept? He keeps muttering something
nonsensical about "implied attribution." Do you have any grasp of what
he might mean by that?

Yeah, I think anyone with some common sense would know what he meant by
that. You accused him of plagiarism. One defense of plagiarism is that
you give credit to the person from whom you're copying. I think Tom is
making the common sense point that since his statement was directly below
the statement that he was copying, anyone with half a brain would know
where he got it from.

Interesting. So a parody is obviously a parody if it follows the
original, like in a newsgroup thread?
Just want to make sure we're clear on this so you can explain it to
Tom. He has great trouble with others parodying him and/or Frank
Krygowski.

Of course, this whole conversation is muddled because you don't seem to
know the difference between plagiarism and copyright violation.

Since you are an expert, please explain the difference so that others
may understand, but do not omit the overlap between the terms. I used
"plagiarism" in the broad sense and because of the broad overlap of
the concepts. If it confuses you, I will gladly change to "copying"
and we can continue with the discussion of Tom's illegal wholesale
copying of someone else's "expression." But for the time being, I
will use the term as I have been using it, since it is simpler.
Note that "giving credit" or attribution is NOT a defense to copyright
infringement and in some cases (not this one), the failure to give
attribution is, by itself, a violation of the copyright law.

And to address your concerns about repetitive posting -
I suppose Tom has a right to be an ignoramus, but does he really have
to reinforce the point with one message after another?
And you apparently approve of his stalking behavior? You might want to
look back through any thread you may be referring to. You will be hard
pressed to find an example of him responding to one of my posts
(directed to others) with any substance whatsoever. You will see who
has initiated post-after-post with nothing but thug-like shouting of
the same vacuous mantra over-and-over. It is the one and only TOM
SHERMAN, hypocrite extraordinaire.

But in any case, also note that you have conceded that Tom "cut-and-
paste" Sherman lazily "copied" the material in question in its entirety
rather than creating his own original expression to disagree with or
critique with the copied material.

Again. Thanks for your input.

DR

On 12/21/2010 10:33 AM, Gary Young wrote:
On Tue, 21 Dec 2010 01:48:36 -0800, DirtRoadie wrote:

On Dec 20, 11:16 pm, Gary wrote:
On Mon, 20 Dec 2010 19:16:36 -0800, DirtRoadie wrote:
Hey Tom:
Save everyone some trouble by learning how ignorant you are about
plagiarism.

Start he

http://tinyurl.com/32cjsmh

Get back to us when you have a report ready.

DR

OK, I followed the first link brought up by Google and the page
confirmed my impression that copying for the sake of parody, which is
clearly what Tom was doing, falls under the fair use exception. Have
you even read your references?

Interesting.
Clearly?
OK. Anything you say.
But Tom also had a huge difficulty with the concept of parody when it
being explained to him, so please explain it to him. He is personally
outraged at the concept and wastes substantial bandwidth with his
obsession for attacking it at every chance he gets.

Why was Tom so unaware of this concept? He keeps muttering something
nonsensical about "implied attribution." Do you have any grasp of what
he might mean by that?

Yeah, I think anyone with some common sense would know what he meant by
that. You accused him of plagiarism. One defense of plagiarism is that
you give credit to the person from whom you're copying. I think Tom is
making the common sense point that since his statement was directly below
the statement that he was copying, anyone with half a brain would know
where he got it from.

Of course, this whole conversation is muddled because you don't seem to
know the difference between plagiarism and copyright violation.

I suppose you have a right to be an ignoramus, but do you really have to
reinforce the point with one message after another?

That is why I take no effort beyond a cut and paste response.

--
Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.