方舟子说berstein不懂啥叫剽窃，看berstein的公开信 (转载)# Returnee - 海归
s*n
1 楼
【 以下文字转载自 Military 讨论区 】
发信人: smokinggun (硝烟), 信区: Military
标 题: 方舟子说berstein不懂啥叫剽窃，看berstein的公开信
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 25 01:47:24 2011, 美东)
Dear Shi-min Fang,
Thank you for admitting your error in failing to cite my article in your
initial online essay, and for the apology regarding it. I do not, however,
believe that your response adequately addresses the points I made in my open
letter. The issue is not a matter of a missing citation, which, since you
have corrected it, would be a minor matter indeed. The issue is that you
have appropriated my entire argument and most of the examples that I use to
support it. Whether we want to label this "plagiarism" or "copyright
infringement" or some combination of the two is irrelevant. The fact is that
you did not alter my argument in any way; you did not mix it or modify it
with other peoples's arguments; and you presented it in exactly the same
order and (and here I must insist on this) using the same language. Now you
add the additional insult in arguing that I am mis-using the concepts of
plagiarism and copyright infringement in making my accusations. And you do
so without justifying this attack upon my supposed ignorance. So how,
exactly, do you define plagiarism and copyright infringement? At what point
did you inquire of me or of Oxford University Press the right to use a large
portion of my article, or even to popularize it?
Please note that I am sending this to all of the people who have expressed
interest in this issue. As I said in my open letter to you, I want to use
this as an educational forum. Your attempt to prevent those who you consider
your "enemies" from having a voice in this discussion undermines the
openness with which I approached you and is counter-productive.
Sincerely,
Bob Root-Bernstein
发信人: smokinggun (硝烟), 信区: Military
标 题: 方舟子说berstein不懂啥叫剽窃，看berstein的公开信
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Thu Aug 25 01:47:24 2011, 美东)
Dear Shi-min Fang,
Thank you for admitting your error in failing to cite my article in your
initial online essay, and for the apology regarding it. I do not, however,
believe that your response adequately addresses the points I made in my open
letter. The issue is not a matter of a missing citation, which, since you
have corrected it, would be a minor matter indeed. The issue is that you
have appropriated my entire argument and most of the examples that I use to
support it. Whether we want to label this "plagiarism" or "copyright
infringement" or some combination of the two is irrelevant. The fact is that
you did not alter my argument in any way; you did not mix it or modify it
with other peoples's arguments; and you presented it in exactly the same
order and (and here I must insist on this) using the same language. Now you
add the additional insult in arguing that I am mis-using the concepts of
plagiarism and copyright infringement in making my accusations. And you do
so without justifying this attack upon my supposed ignorance. So how,
exactly, do you define plagiarism and copyright infringement? At what point
did you inquire of me or of Oxford University Press the right to use a large
portion of my article, or even to popularize it?
Please note that I am sending this to all of the people who have expressed
interest in this issue. As I said in my open letter to you, I want to use
this as an educational forum. Your attempt to prevent those who you consider
your "enemies" from having a voice in this discussion undermines the
openness with which I approached you and is counter-productive.
Sincerely,
Bob Root-Bernstein