|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
TO TOM SHERMAN his plagiarism
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
TO TOM SHERMAN his plagiarism
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
TO TOM SHERMAN his plagiarism
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? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
TO TOM SHERMAN his plagiarism
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
TO TOM SHERMAN his plagiarism
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 ***** |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
TO TOM SHERMAN his plagiarism
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
TO TOM SHERMAN his plagiarism
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
TO TOM SHERMAN his plagiarism
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
TO DIRTROADIE his trolling
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. -- TÂșm ShermÂȘn - 42.435731,-83.985007 I am a vehicular cyclist. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tom Sherman - Gone at Last! | bluezfolk | Social Issues | 11 | June 9th 08 01:39 AM |
Tom Sherman - Gone at Last! | Andre Jute[_2_] | Mountain Biking | 1 | June 5th 08 01:46 PM |
Tom Sherman - Gone at Last! | [email protected][_2_] | Techniques | 0 | June 5th 08 01:02 PM |
Plagiarism and Velonews | [email protected] | Racing | 20 | November 22nd 05 04:22 PM |
Velonews and Plagiarism | Joe King | Racing | 0 | November 18th 05 09:31 PM |