K4YZ wrote:

The statement said that Lennie has a history of taking other
people's work. He proved it in his warping of your "endearment". He
didn't even give you, his one and only NG "buddy", credit for the
work.

That single act will cause a rift between Len and me that can never be
healed.

So....What does YOUR lack of publishing credits have to do with
Lennie's irresponsible and unprofessional behaviour.

Everything. Had I been published in a professional journal, can you be
sure that he would have stolen my work?

In article .com, "bb"
writes:

K4YZ wrote:

The statement said that Lennie has a history of taking other
people's work. He proved it in his warping of your "endearment". He
didn't even give you, his one and only NG "buddy", credit for the work.

That single act will cause a rift between Len and me that can never be
healed.

Poor Stebie da Avenging Angle sees only the WRONG in his
opponents. Tsk.


So....What does YOUR lack of publishing credits have to do with
Lennie's irresponsible and unprofessional behaviour.

Everything. Had I been published in a professional journal, can you be
sure that he would have stolen my work?

Brian, you have to realize that any printed article to Stebie is new
to him, therefore everything he reads is a "first principles" topic.
He imagines all those articles are stand-alone and cannot ever be
commented upon...therefore the slightest act of just mentioning
them are what he considers plagiarism. :-)

Coupled with his mindset of "all opponents do wrong in anything,"
he is constantly in outrage that opponents exist.

==========

In printed publications sold all over the USA and worldwide, many
are involved in viewing and checking any submitted work. Every
publisher is subject to copyright laws and prosecution thereof if
court action is taken. Publishers don't want that. Authors don't
want that.

Stebie wants to feed on his perceived "wrongness" of fair-use
mentions or references of other works. That's just ignorance on
his part (or his sense of right/wrong is so warped by hatred of
opponents that he cannot tell which is which)...since fair-use
mentions and references have long been a part of published papers
and articles. [at least over the last century] As to what constitutes
fair-use, that is covered in Copyright Law under Title 17, United
States Code. So is references and mentions of other published
works.

For periodicals, the common convention is for publishers to
request "first rights" as part of compensation of authors. That
means the publishers have "first dibs" on publishing that work and
can reprint that work as many times as they wish. Authors can
publish or get published that same work once the publisher-
puchaser has printed it the first time. There are many variations
on the author compensation and some may include sole
proprietorship of an author's work. [pecuniary compensation falls
under "work for hire" rules by the IRS and is therefore taxable
income...mentioned as a sidelight] Some authors can cut a deal
with publishers so that authors have free rein on republishing, but
that is rare.

What most readers overlook is that a published work can be changed
in many ways. Schematics can be redrawn, diagrams can be done
differently, different accompanying photographs used, and text rewritten.
That changes the nature of the "work." Determination of whether such
work is a "copy" of the original published (and copyrighted) is a very
long, studious, and arduous proceeding (not to mention expensive)
which is hardly ever done. It isn't worthwhile unless it involves millions
of dollars.

The ARRL gets away with a benign sort of plagiarism (but isn't such,
per se) by getting ALL rights to publishing (usually) for article in their
periodicals. They do reprint periodical articles in changed form in
the Handbook and other book-form publications...and the original
author gets NO money under that compensation form...and usually
is uncredited for the work in the ARRL's republishing. That's not a
"slam" at the League but is standard practice by them and has been
so for years. It's business...and worthwhile to them...but seldom so
to the authors.

Do you think Hartley, Pierce, or Colpitts (or their estates) get anything
for all the repeated articles on the whichness of the what in oscillators?
Nothing. Nada. Zip. Yet the articles pop up now and then and are
found in all kinds of electronics texts. Anyone can mention those
names, draw schematics for them, make them, measure them and
it is NOT "plagiarism" to do so...unless such work is a direct copy
of a previously-published article on same.

In tutorial articles, basic circuits can be explained in a number of
ways. Tutorials are far from "first principles" kind of subject and are
done for the benefit of readers who wish to further their knowledge
of a particular subject. Tutorial articles aren't plagiarism of any sort
unless they are an obvious copy of something already published.
Each presentation in a tutorial, the explanations, are unique. The
uniqueness can be copyrighted.

That's the way part of publishing works and it's been that way for
some time. Some hatred-clouded "avengers" want to redefine all
rules on uniqueness or writing skill and say their hate-subject is
a plagiarist. No proof. Just a hollered pejorative by someone who
can't think straight in his rage.

In article .com, "K4YZ"
writes:

Len Anderson wrote:
In article , Dave Heil Kolonel Klunk uff
das uber-amateur staffel put on his newly cleaned uniform and polished
boots, adjusted his monocle and swacked the podium with his riding
crop to silence all conversation, get attention to bark out daily orders:

Yet more assinine, childish analogies to the Nazis.

Just like we've been saying all along.

Nope, you have it wrong again. The rest of us may discuss amateur radio
policy here or on the amateur bands. You may not.

* ACHTUNG * ACHTUNG * ACHTUNG *

Effective immediately, ALL persons without a valid amateur radio
licenses are FORBIDDEN to discuss, write, or even think about
amateur radio subjects!

ACHTUNG ACHTUNG ACHTUNG

Effective since the creation of the FRC and the institution of
Amateur Radio licensing, it has been forbidden for unlicensed persons
to use the Amateur Bands.

Another Regulatory matter you skipped over, Lennie.

Sorry, little feldwebel, but notice that das Kolonel done said "here"
and that can only mean the newsgroup.

No amateur license is needed to access this here newsgroup. :-)

What's with you, Your Scumminess? Didn't they teach you radio
rules at professional radio school?

What "professional radio school?" :-)

Tsk, tsk, not all amateur bands are allocated now or in the past
to be exclusively for amateurs. :-)


Your age might get you off of jail time, but your income, alleged
summer home, etc, will ensure that the price of the NAL sticks. Too
many assets to claim poverty.

So...you are still under the impression that this newsgroup is
elite, exclusive, and can only be accessed by licensed amateurs?

I'm not impressed.

Those rules apply even to the UNlicensed (alleged) professionals
such as yourself.

Tsk, I have no allegiances with the UN. And, I am licensed as
well as a professional in electronics-radio. TS, boobie.


...only from all the PCTA extras shooting themselves in the foot
with their arrogant, dictatorial manner!

Not from THIS "PCTA extra". If I dicharge a firearm, I can
promise one and all that whatever I am aiming at will get hit WHERE I
am aiming at.

The first time.

Poor nursie. Must be a paraplegic many times over by now.

Hope you got a good buy on a wheelchair...


Oh Lennie! You KNEW how long I've been waiting to see "RIP" over
your name! Thanks!

Tsk, Tsk, TSK! A "healthcare professional" always wishing an
opponent will die! Not a healthy attitude.

You must be a riot around those in ICU, running around and pinching
the I-V tubes and canulas of all those who don't smile at you...

We'll just put you in the same category as Elfren Saldivar the 2nd.

In article .com, "bb"
writes:

K4YZ wrote:

The statement said that Lennie has a history of taking other
people's work. He proved it in his warping of your "endearment". He
didn't even give you, his one and only NG "buddy", credit for the work.

That single act will cause a rift between Len and me that can never be
healed.

Poor Stebie da Avenging Angle sees only the WRONG in his
opponents. Tsk.


So....What does YOUR lack of publishing credits have to do with
Lennie's irresponsible and unprofessional behaviour.

Everything. Had I been published in a professional journal, can you be
sure that he would have stolen my work?

Brian, you have to realize that any printed article to Stebie is new
to him, therefore everything he reads is a "first principles" topic.
He imagines all those articles are stand-alone and cannot ever be
commented upon...therefore the slightest act of just mentioning
them are what he considers plagiarism. :-)

Coupled with his mindset of "all opponents do wrong in anything,"
he is constantly in outrage that opponents exist.

==========

In printed publications sold all over the USA and worldwide, many
are involved in viewing and checking any submitted work. Every
publisher is subject to copyright laws and prosecution thereof if
court action is taken. Publishers don't want that. Authors don't
want that.

Stebie wants to feed on his perceived "wrongness" of fair-use
mentions or references of other works. That's just ignorance on
his part (or his sense of right/wrong is so warped by hatred of
opponents that he cannot tell which is which)...since fair-use
mentions and references have long been a part of published papers
and articles. [at least over the last century] As to what constitutes
fair-use, that is covered in Copyright Law under Title 17, United
States Code. So is references and mentions of other published
works.

For periodicals, the common convention is for publishers to
request "first rights" as part of compensation of authors. That
means the publishers have "first dibs" on publishing that work and
can reprint that work as many times as they wish. Authors can
publish or get published that same work once the publisher-
puchaser has printed it the first time. There are many variations
on the author compensation and some may include sole
proprietorship of an author's work. [pecuniary compensation falls
under "work for hire" rules by the IRS and is therefore taxable
income...mentioned as a sidelight] Some authors can cut a deal
with publishers so that authors have free rein on republishing, but
that is rare.

What most readers overlook is that a published work can be changed
in many ways. Schematics can be redrawn, diagrams can be done
differently, different accompanying photographs used, and text rewritten.
That changes the nature of the "work." Determination of whether such
work is a "copy" of the original published (and copyrighted) is a very
long, studious, and arduous proceeding (not to mention expensive)
which is hardly ever done. It isn't worthwhile unless it involves millions
of dollars.

The ARRL gets away with a benign sort of plagiarism (but isn't such,
per se) by getting ALL rights to publishing (usually) for article in their
periodicals. They do reprint periodical articles in changed form in
the Handbook and other book-form publications...and the original
author gets NO money under that compensation form...and usually
is uncredited for the work in the ARRL's republishing. That's not a
"slam" at the League but is standard practice by them and has been
so for years. It's business...and worthwhile to them...but seldom so
to the authors.

Do you think Hartley, Pierce, or Colpitts (or their estates) get anything
for all the repeated articles on the whichness of the what in oscillators?
Nothing. Nada. Zip. Yet the articles pop up now and then and are
found in all kinds of electronics texts. Anyone can mention those
names, draw schematics for them, make them, measure them and
it is NOT "plagiarism" to do so...unless such work is a direct copy
of a previously-published article on same.

In tutorial articles, basic circuits can be explained in a number of
ways. Tutorials are far from "first principles" kind of subject and are
done for the benefit of readers who wish to further their knowledge
of a particular subject. Tutorial articles aren't plagiarism of any sort
unless they are an obvious copy of something already published.
Each presentation in a tutorial, the explanations, are unique. The
uniqueness can be copyrighted.

That's the way part of publishing works and it's been that way for
some time. Some hatred-clouded "avengers" want to redefine all
rules on uniqueness or writing skill and say their hate-subject is
a plagiarist. No proof. Just a hollered pejorative by someone who
can't think straight in his rage.

Len Anderson wrote:

Oh Lennie! You KNEW how long I've been waiting to see "RIP"
over
your name! Thanks!

Tsk, Tsk, TSK! A "healthcare professional" always wishing an
opponent will die! Not a healthy attitude.

Let's get something straight, Lennie.

We're NOT "opponents". That would suggest that we were mutual
combatants, equal to the task of said combat.

You are not remotely qualified to engage me on ANY aspect of any
subject except electronics theory, and I've already "given" you that.
But that's where your knowledge and "experience" stop. You've been
disproven on every other rant you've cared to partake in. You look
foolish.

Perhaps YOU fancy yourself an "opponent", but that is all you will
ever do.

You're a liar. You're deceitful. You're a loser.

Sucks to be you.

Putz.

Steve, K4YZ

Len Anderson wrote:
In article .com,
"K4YZ"
writes:

Len Anderson wrote:
In article , Dave Heil Kolonel
Klunk uff
das uber-amateur staffel put on his newly cleaned uniform and
polished
boots, adjusted his monocle and swacked the podium with his riding
crop to silence all conversation, get attention to bark out daily
orders:

Yet more assinine, childish analogies to the Nazis.

Just like we've been saying all along.

Nope, you have it wrong again. The rest of us may discuss
amateur radio
policy here or on the amateur bands. You may not.

* ACHTUNG * ACHTUNG * ACHTUNG *

Effective immediately, ALL persons without a valid amateur
radio
licenses are FORBIDDEN to discuss, write, or even think about
amateur radio subjects!

ACHTUNG ACHTUNG ACHTUNG

Effective since the creation of the FRC and the institution of
Amateur Radio licensing, it has been forbidden for unlicensed
persons
to use the Amateur Bands.

Another Regulatory matter you skipped over, Lennie.

Sorry, little feldwebel, but notice that das Kolonel done said
"here"
and that can only mean the newsgroup.

No amateur license is needed to access this here newsgroup.

Nope.

But one sure is necessary to be an active Amateur Radio operator,
hence being able to acquire PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE in BEING an Amateur.

You've aggressively avoided getting a license, yet your lack of
experience routinely leaves you with your wrinkled buns in the air for
all to see.

What's with you, Your Scumminess? Didn't they teach you radio
rules at professional radio school?

What "professional radio school?"

That's my point, Lennie. You don't have the training.

Tsk, tsk, not all amateur bands are allocated now or in the past
to be exclusively for amateurs.

That's not the issue now, is it, Lennie?

The issue is your lack of qualifcations to wield an informed
opinion on Amatuer Radio matters.

Your age might get you off of jail time, but your income,
alleged
summer home, etc, will ensure that the price of the NAL sticks. Too
many assets to claim poverty.

So...you are still under the impression that this newsgroup is
elite, exclusive, and can only be accessed by licensed amateurs?

We weren't talking about "only" the newsgroup.

Maybe your pretend shrink wife is impressed with your shuffling,
but we know better.

I'm not impressed.

And you're not very impressive, either.

Big talk. No facts. Frequent errors.

Those rules apply even to the UNlicensed (alleged)
professionals
such as yourself.

Tsk, I have no allegiances with the UN. And, I am licensed as
well as a professional in electronics-radio. TS, boobie.

You are not a licensed Amateur. That is a fact.

And I doubt you have ANY "allegiances" to anyone but you, Lennie.

And that incudes the Veterans that you shamefully humiliate with
your pitiful personal use of thier sacrifices for YOUR glorification.

...only from all the PCTA extras shooting themselves in the
foot
with their arrogant, dictatorial manner!

Not from THIS "PCTA extra". If I dicharge a firearm, I can
promise one and all that whatever I am aiming at will get hit WHERE
I
am aiming at.

The first time.

Poor nursie. Must be a paraplegic many times over by now.

Hope you got a good buy on a wheelchair...

The only wheelchair I have ever or will ever have a need for was
my daughters.

She's gone.

I can get one for YOU though. Cheap.

Steve, K4YZ