From: Linda Rosa ([email protected])
Date: Wed Sep 15 1999 - 10:22:00 MST
You seem to be questioning more like a guardhouse lawyer for your friend
than an impartial investigator. If you were the judge in this case, I
would move to have you recused.
Most of your comments indicate you have put the cart before the horse. It
has been a very disorderly process which you've launched. Let's get it
back on track.
I accused Mr. Scheiber of plagiarism (a form of scientific misconduct) in
an LTE to ScRAM, though I did not use the word. I have now. Let me start
with definitions of plagiarism. From the NAS report, "Responsible
Science," quoted by the Ryan Commission, plagiarism in a scientific context
is "...using the ideas or words or another without giving appropriate
credit. Plagiarism includes the unacknowledged use of text and ideas from
published work..." The Ryan Commission specifically broadened the term
"plagiarism" into the term "misappropriation," which it defined thusly: An
investigator or reviewer shall not intentionally or recklessly a)
plagiarize, which shall be understood to mean the presentation of the
documented words or ideas of another as his or her own, without attribution
appropriate for the medium of presentation..."
Question #1 to you: Do you agree with these definitions, or do you wish to
modify them in some material way?
If we cannot agree even on what is plagiarism, we will spin our wheels
When making a charge of plagiarism, the accuser must make a case for it.
This means alleging a coherent set of facts from which a logical argument
can be drawn that plagiarism occurred. In other words, the alleged facts
must be relevant to, and sufficient for, the charge. In my LTE to ScRAM, I
alleged my case against Mr. Scheiber, as precisely, narrowly, and factually
as I understood it.
Question #2 to you: When and if proven to be true, are my allegations
sufficient to make a case of plagiarism against Mr. Scheiber?
If you think there is a deficiency in my argument, our time is best spent
either setting you right or plugging the logical holes you claim to find.
Jumping ahead to proving the allegations would be a waste of time for both
of us if we cannot even agree that I have a case with my allegations proven
Just considering relevancy, the Scheiber/Selby article should not have been
brought into the discussion. I'm dropping it for the time being. (Though
I would like to hear an explanation why the Parascope site
http://www.parascope.com/articles/1196/finalrpt.htm -- the one showing the
"final progress report" -- has suddenly been taken off the web.)
As to the question of the UAB researchers' charges against NTTSG. That is
totally off-topic. I've noticed this is a tactic of yours and Long's, and
it's a great time-waster pursuing endless diversions from a bottomless
gunnysack of grievances. Let's do one thing at a time. I will say this
much, though: everything NTTSG did with UAB was part of an investigation
into scientific misconduct and no aspect of that investigation will be
discussed in public, or with anyone outside it, until the investigators are
-- Larry Sarner
MyPoints-Free Rewards When You're Online.
Start with up to 150 Points for joining!
eGroups.com home: http://www.egroups.com/group/beliefs
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Tue Mar 18 2003 - 12:49:47 MST