From: Larry Sarner ([email protected])
Date: Thu Sep 16 1999 - 08:18:28 MST
>> Question #1 to you: Do you agree with these definitions, or do you wish to
>> modify them in some material way?
>They look fine to me. I would simply observe that plagiarism comes in
>degrees, and may be intentional or unintentional. Presenting an entire
>work of another as one's own is about the worst possible case;
>unintentionally repeating an idea or story thinking that it is one's own
>(e.g., as a result of cryptomnesia) would be about the best. The case as
>you've described it would fall somewhere between these extremes
I think not. I have alleged that Mr. Scheiber "intentionally or
recklessly" made his ScRAM review a "presentation of the documented words
or ideas of another as his...own, without attribution appropriate for the
medium of presentation". The particular ideas at issue is the "entire
work" of analysis of Janet Quinn's bibliography. If the analysis is
entirely mine, and he reported it as his own in ScRAM, that seems to me
your "worst possible case". Why do you say otherwise? I need to know in
advance that you regard the alleged misconduct as a serious enough matter
to be worth the time to continue this thread.
>> Question #2 to you: When and if proven to be true, are my allegations
>> sufficient to make a case of plagiarism against Mr. Scheiber?
>I think that if you can substantiate prior sole authorship of content
>(either exact or substantially similar) which appears in writings by Mr.
>Scheiber without attribution, citation, or acknowledgment, then you will
>have made a case for plagiarism.
Though I thank you for your guidance in how to make my case, that's not
what I asked for. You've read my allegations in ScRAM. If true, are they
sufficient? I'm not trying to be dilatory here. I need to know in advance
that, if I go to the effort to prove my allegations, you won't come back
and say something like, "OK, that's all true, but..." In other words, no
fair moving the goalposts.
>> 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.
>That's interesting. It was your wife who brought up the Scheiber/Selby
>article and the UAB researcher's report which contained those charges, yet
>you accuse me of creating the diversion into that subject.
Penultimate comment on this off-topic: This is an illustration of why I'm
being so careful to get your agreement on the "preliminaries". I did NOT
accuse you of creating the diversion into the subject of the UAB
researcher's report. I do regard bringing up the researchers'
unsubstantiated _charges_ against NTTSG as a diversion. YOU brought THOSE
>> 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
>You won't even reveal the content of an advertisement published in a daily
>newspaper, a matter of public record?
Final comment on this off-topic: I should have said in the above,
"everything NTTSG did _or did not do_ with UAB ..." I will neither confirm
nor deny that NTTSG placed any advertisements. But you should consider the
veracity of the source of the charges. For example, that same source said
Watchman Fellowship formed NTTSG. That, at least, is not true. A former
regional director of Watchman Fellowship was and is valued as one of the
50+ members of NTTSG, nothing more. Anticipating the next question, I will
also say that Watchman Fellowship has not been a source of funds for NTTSG
or for any of its activities. Further, the chairman sayeth not.
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