Good article for Access beginners by Arvin Meyer
Larry Linson
It was a "generic" description of a class of individual that
I'm sure Don does not respect, and of which I do not
consider Arvin a member (as I already said), and that was
the point.
As you are not paid for speaking, then you know that you are
not among "the gurus" of whom I wrote, so there's no need to
state your position.
I am perfectly happy to state for the record that I did not
have you in mind when I wrote it. But, I am not going to
confirm any other individual as being on or off my mental
list -- I am not going down the road of "Well, who _did_ you
have in mind, Larry?".
"Michael (michka) Kaplan"
<mic...@spamless.trigeminal.nospamcom> wrote in message
news:3d54821a$1...@news.microsoft.com...
> "Larry Linson" <larry....@ntpcug.org> wrote...
>
> > Hey, "live and let live". Arvin, after all, is not one
of
> > the gurus, promoting his image so people will pay to
read
> > his books and attend his speaking engagements. He's just
an
> > ordinary joe, working for somebody else, trying to make
a
> > living, and donating some time and effort to helping
people.
>
> Hmmmm. I do not promote my image so people will read my
books -- I do not
> give a shit whether people read 'em or not! If they want
to they will, if
> not they will skip it. I hang out and answer questions
either way.
>
> As for speaking engagements, I do not speak at any where I
get paid for the
> time, so not sure why I would try to push people to the
events? :-)
>
> I get requests for paid consulting daily that I am forced
to turn away -- no
> availability. I have not taken a job by email in over 18
months with only
> *one* exception.
>
> My "newsgroup time" is entirely separate from my work
life, at this point.
>
>
> --
> MichKa
>
> Michael Kaplan
> Trigeminal Software, Inc. -- http://www.trigeminal.com/
>
> International VB? -- http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
> C++? MSLU --
http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/10/
>
>
Don P. Mellon
"Michael (michka) Kaplan" <mic...@spamless.trigeminal.nospamcom> wrote in
message news:3d54821a$1...@news.microsoft.com...
>
> give a shit whether people read 'em or not!
"
"Let me know if you have any questions or comments about the book.... I
would love to hear from you!"
--Michael Kaplan
TomG
that Arvin is not 'honest'. It would seem to me that without knowing how the
subject article came to be published, your attack is totally unwarranted.
-who suggested/asked who
-what discussions took place regarding content
-what was edited out
Certainly much of the article is very close to sections in Access Help, but
that may well be by design and agreement between Arvin and MS. Indeed that
approach may well have been exactly what MS wanted.
It could also be that Arvin's submission(s) did include something to give
credit to Access Help, but that it was removed by MS editors.
MS seems to be very protective of their intellectual property, which adds a
certain level of credence to the possibility, probability, that MS either
agreed with a proposal from Arvin or made the proposal to him.
I certainly do not have answers to any of these issues, but as you have
suggested and/or implied in this thread, neither do you.
I must also add that given that Arvin has shown the class and dignity to not
take part in this thread, and given the lack of those same qualities in many
of your comments, he is certainly coming across as the better man.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Make a Great Day
TomG
"Don P. Mellon" <pig...@3rivers.net> wrote in message
news:aiuelm$16ls7h$1...@ID-89436.news.dfncis.de...
>
> I notice you have left out "honest" in your description.
>
> "Lyle Fairfield" <lyle...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9264936D4C4F3...@216.221.81.119...
> > I think this is mean, Don, and detracts from the reputation you have (I
> think)
> > as a person who selects his targest carefully, choosing the rude, the
> > arrogant, and the pedantic. There is nothing rude, arrogant, or pedantic
> about
> > Arvin. He's an expert in Access. I will attest to that. And he's a good
> > person. I will attest to that, too.
> > How would you have defined these things in an MS article? Would you have
> found
> > some new and original defintion that clashed with MS?
> >
> > Color me .. disappointed.
> >
> > Lyle
> >
> >
> > "Don P. Mellon" <pig...@3rivers.net> wrote in news:aiubr3$15vaq1$1@ID-
> > 89436.news.dfncis.de:
> >
> > >
> > > "Michael Blake" <mbl...@netzero.net> wrote in message
> > > news:aiu0vb$176ins$1...@ID-24746.news.dfncis.de...
> > >> Good starting point for Access beginners.
> > >>
> > >> http://www.microsoft.com/office/using/column06.asp
> > >>
> > >> Well done Arvin.
> > >>
> > >> Michael
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > I honestly do not know who is more stupid, you, Microsoft, or Arvin
> Meyer.
> > >
> > > 1. Michael Blake is stupid because he does not use Access Help, or
> > > 2. Microsoft is stupid because it has no idea what is Access Help, or
> > > 3. Arvin Meyer is stupid because he thinks nobody uses Access Help.
> > >
> > > Let us take a quick peek at what Arvin Meyer has written and compare
it
> to
> > > what is written in Access 2002 Help. Below are some representative
> quotes
> > > from Meyer's article followed directly by quotes from Access Help.
> > >
> > > ***
> > > Meyer:
> > > A database is a container or collection of information that has a
> specific
> > > subject or purpose. Examples of a typical database include a phone
book,
> a
> > > Rolodex, or even a file cabinet.
> > >
> > > Access Help:
> > > A database is a collection of information that's related to a
particular
> > > subject or purpose....
> > > For example, suppose the phone numbers of your suppliers are stored in
> > > various locations: in a card file containing supplier phone numbers,
in
> > > product information files in a file cabinet....
> > >
> > > ***
> > > Meyer:
> > > A table is a container for data about a single type of entity, such as
> > > persons or products. Using a separate table for each type of
information
> > > means that you store data only once....
> > >
> > > Access Help:
> > > A table is a collection of data about a specific topic, such as
products
> or
> > > suppliers. Using a separate table for each topic means that you store
> that
> > > data only once.
> > >
> > > ***
> > > Meyer:
> > > Relationships match data in key fields-usually a field with the same
> name in
> > > both tables. In most cases, you will define a relationship between
the
> > > primary key (which provides a unique identifier for each record from
one
> > > table) and a foreign key in the other table.
> > >
> > > Access Help:
> > > A relationship works by matching data in key fields - usually a field
> with
> > > the same name in both tables. In most cases, these matching fields are
> the
> > > primary key from one table, which provides a unique identifier for
each
> > > record, and a foreign key in the other table.
> > >
> > > ***
> > >
> > > 1. Michael Blake says: "Well done Arvin."
> > > 2. Microsoft says: "Learn the Basics from Access Expert and
Microsoft
> MVP
> > > Arvin Meyer."
> > > 3. Arvin Meyer says: (FILL IN)
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Lyle
> >
>
>
>
Michael (michka) Kaplan
edited by PSS, especially in the latest versions (things like the Security
and Replication FAQs). A lot of text was inserted by them, and some text was
removed. Much was changed. Those changes were mostly unattributed....
As for PAID articles, the articles I wrote like the SQLS international white
paper were COMPLETELY changed by marketing.
The points you make here are entirely valid, and its too bad that Don will
not be willing to see thye simple truth here -- he does not understand very
much about Microsoft, or its products.
--
MichKa
Michael Kaplan
Trigeminal Software, Inc. -- http://www.trigeminal.com/
International VB? -- http://www.i18nWithVB.com/
C++? MSLU -- http://msdn.microsoft.com/msdnmag/issues/01/10/
"TomG" <tger...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_D859.137997$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
Don P. Mellon
"TomG" <tger...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:_D859.137997$s8.26...@twister.tampabay.rr.com...
> that Arvin is not 'honest'. It would seem to me that without knowing how
the
> subject article came to be published, your attack is totally unwarranted.
> -who suggested/asked who
> -what discussions took place regarding content
> -what was edited out
> Certainly much of the article is very close to sections in Access Help,
but
> that may well be by design and agreement between Arvin and MS. Indeed that
> approach may well have been exactly what MS wanted.
>
Your speculations are quite creative, and I am sure if you wanted to invest
the time, you could probably come up with a dozen more theories about what
happened. But you cannot avoid a simple fact: The article is plagiarism.
In an earlier post, I offered six links to authorities on plagiarism. There
are hundreds more. There are entire handbooks written on the subject.
Everyone who works with the written word--writiers, editors, proofreaders,
printers, etc.--is familiar with the rules. You are not. Becuase if you
were familiar with the rules you would not have suggested Microsoft and
Meyer agreed to use previously published material without attribution. That
is known as "collusive plagiarism." Can Microsoft publish an "original
article" and include material from one of its previous works without
attribution? Of course. But that is known as "self-plagiarism."
> It could also be that Arvin's submission(s) did include something to give
> credit to Access Help, but that it was removed by MS editors.
>
Of all your musing and ponderings, I find the Meyer-as-victim idea the most
fascinating. If such were true, an honest man--once he discovered what had
been done to his work--would have demanded that the attributions be replaced
or the article withdrawn.
> MS seems to be very protective of their intellectual property, which adds
a
> certain level of credence to the possibility, probability, that MS either
> agreed with a proposal from Arvin or made the proposal to him.
>
Again, the foregoing is collusive plagiarism or self-plagiarism, depending
on whether you view the article as belonging to Meyer or Microsoft. Or are
you saying the devil made him do it?
> I certainly do not have answers to any of these issues, but as you have
> suggested and/or implied in this thread, neither do you.
>
Of course. Only Microsoft and Meyer know the answers.
> I must also add that given that Arvin has shown the class and dignity to
not
> take part in this thread, and given the lack of those same qualities in
many
> of your comments, he is certainly coming across as the better man.
>
Nonsense. For all you know, he could be cowering in a closet somewhere.
J. David Suttin
news:JlZ49.585$uO4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> Aw, Don, haven't you made your point by now? Can't you give
> it a rest? Am I really supposed to get all worked up over
> this?
>
I think beneath all the smoke and mirrors of his noble anti-plagiarism
crusade, Don is really a desperate man feverishly trying to earn to the
required credits to get his Ranger Beach Pass reinstated. Apparently, last
year it was revoked after he tried to take a shortcut to nude ranger beach
and accidentally showed up at South Padre Island a la natural.
Don P. Mellon
"J. David Suttin" <Davi...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:eBb59.72064$Yd.31...@twister.austin.rr.com...
>
> I think beneath all the smoke and mirrors of his noble anti-plagiarism
> crusade, Don is really a desperate man feverishly trying to earn to the
> required credits to get his Ranger Beach Pass reinstated. Apparently,
last
> year it was revoked after he tried to take a shortcut to nude ranger beach
> and accidentally showed up at South Padre Island a la natural.
>
>
My Ranger Beach Pass was never revoked. I quit going because of the sand
fleas, or whatever they were.
J. David Suttin
We both know that I had not testified on your behalf as character witness
the judge never would have bought your story. Honestly, those
hastily-adorned "Brazilian" speedos you were suspicially sporting by the
time the beach police arrived did look an awful lot like an eyepatch.
Mike Preston
<pig...@3rivers.net> wrote:
>For example, Meyer wrote: "A database is a container or collection of
>information that has a specific subject or purpose. Examples of a typical
>database include a phone book, a Rolodex, or even a file cabinet."
>
>When we compare the above passage, in context, to the below passage from
>Access Help, we immediately see that the first lines correlate to a very
>high degree, and we are thus alerted to the possibility of plagiarism. When
>we come to the example lines, we see that Meyer has used telephone numbers
>and a file cabinet in his example, and that those examples compare well with
>the mention of telephone numbers and a file cabinet in the Access Help file:
>
> "A database is a collection of information that's related to a particular
>subject or purpose.... For example, suppose the phone numbers of your
>suppliers are stored in various locations: in a card file containing
>supplier phone numbers, in product information files in a file cabinet...."
>
>Out of context, therefore, Meyer's use of the file cabinet image would not
>raise a suspicion of plagiarism. But when taken within the context of the
>larger piece, all doubt should evaporate.
Nah. Only to the simple-minded who refuse to believe that he is
capable of dashing off such from memory, based on experience. I dare
say if you put 10 competent Access programmers in a room with no
source materials and asked them to draft a response to the questions
at hand, you would declare that most of them were guilty of something.
>> That [identity] is in the eye of the beholder. I meant similarities.
>>
>Interesting avoidance of the evidence on your part.
Nah, still mean similarities.
Let me refresh your
>memory:
>
>1. "Using a separate table for each type of information means that you store
>data only once...."
>2. "Using a separate table for each topic means that you store that data
>only once."
>
>That is what I call similar. Here is what I call identical:
>
>1. "Using a separate table for each... ...means that you store... ...data
>only once"
>2. "Using a separate table for each... ...means that you store... ...data
>only once"
>
>[But you were joking, right, Mike?]
Nope. Try the above test. Ply Larry with some spirits before you
begin, though. It is the weekend. Texans have their standards.
>> Show my a technical writing or legal authority, and not a "students
>> are subject to this definition" authority. I would venture to say
>> that you will be very hard pressed to find the word plgiarism
>> juxtaposed on anything dealing with publishing by the original
>> authors!
>>
>
>I am not required to produce authorities to support your argument. That is
>your job.
Untrue. It is you who is doing the accusing. Your citations are
off-point and therefore amount to dead air. Fill the air with life on
your own nickel. I'm sure there is a quote from Learned Hand that I
could find if I needed to which would make it obvious to you that the
burden falls squarely on the accuser, not on the defender.
But you know that.
Nice try, though.
>> You started with:
>>
>> "I honestly do not know who is more stupid, you.."
>>
>> That doesn't fall under the definition of merely pointing out.
>
>But it *was* honest.
True. At least it seemed so. But I wonder if there isn't the
possibility that you quoted some poor soul on a plagiarism newsgroup?
Someday I'll check. Until then I can just cast the aspersion. Seems
eminently fair in this thread.
>> Having just watched somebody march across the stage to pick up their
>> well-deserved college degree, and after having many discussions
>> regarding the rampant plagiarism that infects this country's campuses,
>> I could just as easily have posted the url's that you did. Sorry, but
>> no shattering knowledge has been gained.
>>
>You are not allowed to rely upon any academic sources of authority because
>you have already stated they are worthless. Be that as it may, "shattering
>knowledge" referred to your discovery that your hero had feet of clay.
No, my hero remains a demi-god in the Access/vb world. He will no
doubt be somewhat embarrased to read that, but I'm sure I'm not alone.
>> I am unambigously stating that your attempt to describe that series of
>> Q&A's as plagiarism is misguided and foolish, tainted by some past
>> history that I probably could find if I felt like searching google and
>> otherwise a particularly silly use of bandwidth.
>>
>
>The time is out of joint: O cursed spite,
>That ever I was born to set it right!
>
>
>[I stole that, by the way.]
But since you didn't identify from whence it came, shouldn't you grab
the seat next to Arvin in the ethereal confessional?
mike
Don P. Mellon
"Chuck Grimsby" <c.gr...@worldnet.att.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:dc0blu4hjenebrm78...@4ax.com...
>
>
> IMHO, this newsgroup would be a better place if *everyone* just
> plonked him, or refused to reply to his posts. Much, if not all, his
> posts are much akin to a "troll", this whole thread being one prime
> example.
>
The human mind is such that it craves the truth even when it is glutted with
lies.
Your nefarious scheme is doomed.
Don P. Mellon
"Mike Preston" <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3d559681....@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> >
>
> I dare say if you put 10 competent Access programmers in a room with no
> source materials and asked them to draft a response to the questions
> at hand, you would declare that most of them were guilty of something.
>
Would all of them be MVPs?
>
> Texans have their standards.
>
Obviously, you do not know any Texans.
>
> Your citations are
> off-point and therefore amount to dead air. Fill the air with life on
> your own nickel. I'm sure there is a quote from Learned Hand that I
> could find if I needed to which would make it obvious to you that the
> burden falls squarely on the accuser, not on the defender.
>
To help alleviate your serious confusion, see: "Evidence in a Nutshell:
State and Federal Rules," Paul F. Rothstein, West Publishing (1981)
And: "Civil Procedure in a Nutshell," Mary K. Kane, West Publishing (1979)
>
> But I wonder if there isn't the
> possibility that you quoted some poor soul on a plagiarism newsgroup?
> Someday I'll check. Until then I can just cast the aspersion. Seems
> eminently fair in this thread.
>
Sarcasm--the tongue that dogs the wag.
>
> No, my hero remains a demi-god in the Access/vb world. He will no
> doubt be somewhat embarrased to read that, but I'm sure I'm not alone.
>
[Hey, no giggling out there!]
> >The time is out of joint: O cursed spite,
> >That ever I was born to set it right!
> >
> >
> >[I stole that, by the way.]
>
> But since you didn't identify from whence it came, shouldn't you grab
> the seat next to Arvin in the ethereal confessional?
>
Maybe I should have started you with, "See, Spot," then moved you up to,
"Out, damned spot!"
Wayne Gillespie
<c.gr...@worldnet.att.net.invalid> wrote:
>IMHO, this newsgroup would be a better place if *everyone* just
>plonked him, or refused to reply to his posts. Much, if not all, his
>posts are much akin to a "troll", this whole thread being one prime
>example.
>
I agree entirely.
As I've said before, the majority of his posts say the same thing.
"Look at me"
Ignoranus: "A person who is both ignorant and an asshole."
Wayne Gillespie
Bestfit Software Solutions
Gosford NSW Australia
Mike Preston
<pig...@3rivers.net> wrote:
>> Your citations are
>> off-point and therefore amount to dead air. Fill the air with life on
>> your own nickel. I'm sure there is a quote from Learned Hand that I
>> could find if I needed to which would make it obvious to you that the
>> burden falls squarely on the accuser, not on the defender.
>>
>
>To help alleviate your serious confusion, see: "Evidence in a Nutshell:
>State and Federal Rules," Paul F. Rothstein, West Publishing (1981)
>
>And: "Civil Procedure in a Nutshell," Mary K. Kane, West Publishing (1979)
Gee, do you buy any books that aren't nutshell oriented? Or that are
published for _this_ generation?
That which is properly admitted as evidence isn't particularly
relevant. I will grant you the opportunity to introduce all that you
want, that doesn't in any way mean that just because you can present
it that the similarities result in the conclusion you have reached.
The issue of passive versus active defense is always a fascinating
one. No active defense is necessary against a baseless claim.
>> But I wonder if there isn't the
>> possibility that you quoted some poor soul on a plagiarism newsgroup?
>> Someday I'll check. Until then I can just cast the aspersion. Seems
>> eminently fair in this thread.
>>
>Sarcasm--the tongue that dogs the wag.
>
TY. TYVM.
>>
>> >The time is out of joint: O cursed spite,
>> >That ever I was born to set it right!
>> >
>> >
>> >[I stole that, by the way.]
>>
>> But since you didn't identify from whence it came, shouldn't you grab
>> the seat next to Arvin in the ethereal confessional?
>>
>
>Maybe I should have started you with, "See, Spot," then moved you up to,
>"Out, damned spot!"
There you go again. ;-)
mike
Don P. Mellon
"Wayne Gillespie" <bes...@NObestfitsoftwareSPAM.com.au> wrote in message
news:i5dblu4okn9hpaekb...@4ax.com...
>
>
> Ignoranus: "A person who is both ignorant and an asshole."
>
>
Ignoranus: "To look the other way when confronted by an asshole."
Wayne Gillespie
Sorry, didn't see you there.
Don P. Mellon
>
> Gee, do you buy any books that aren't nutshell oriented? Or that are
> published for _this_ generation?
>
Nutshells are not for nutcases. Hornbooks are.
> That which is properly admitted as evidence isn't particularly
> relevant.
Wrong. If it were irrelevant, then it would not get in. Once a fact is
admitted into evidence, the only thing left is to consider its weight.
> I will grant you the opportunity to introduce all that you
> want, that doesn't in any way mean that just because you can present
> it that the similarities result in the conclusion you have reached.
>
Not sure about that one. [Is it Saturday night where you are, or are you
studying law under Zacarias Moussaoui?]
> The issue of passive versus active defense is always a fascinating
> one. No active defense is necessary against a baseless claim.
>
Try not defending against a "baseless claim" and see what happens to you in
court.
> There you go again. ;-)
>
See you tomorrow!
Don P. Mellon
> On Sat, 10 Aug 2002 19:38:33 -0700, "Don P. Mellon"
> <pig...@3rivers.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Wayne Gillespie" <bes...@NObestfitsoftwareSPAM.com.au> wrote in message
> >news:i5dblu4okn9hpaekb...@4ax.com...
> >>
> >>
> >> Ignoranus: "A person who is both ignorant and an asshole."
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Ignoranus: "To look the other way when confronted by an asshole."
> >
>
> Sorry, didn't see you there.
>
>
That's because I am a little asshole.
Mike Preston
<pig...@3rivers.net> wrote:
>> I will grant you the opportunity to introduce all that you
>> want, that doesn't in any way mean that just because you can present
>> it that the similarities result in the conclusion you have reached.
>>
>
>Not sure about that one. [Is it Saturday night where you are
It is Saturday night. [flame bait ignored]
>> The issue of passive versus active defense is always a fascinating
>> one. No active defense is necessary against a baseless claim.
>>
>
>Try not defending against a "baseless claim" and see what happens to you in
>court.
Repeat after me: Summary Judgement. It assumes that all facts
presented are admissable and that all assumptions are resolvable in
favor of the opposite side. That is, the decision is viewed under the
light most favorable to the opposite side. If, after that, the rules
of the court in question would result in a decision that does not
favor said opposite side, the result is that there is no need for
futher proceedings.
There are many articles and books written on the appropriate timing of
shelving the passive defense in favor of the active one. In the real
world, the lawyers argue for active as early in the process as is
possible, while the poor client (who has to pay the bill) pushes the
other way. Who wins is dependent on many factors, including potential
damages.
In the instant case, we providentially grant you your evidence, but
nonetheless determine that the venue of publication renders the
accusation baseless. Self-plagiarism simply does not exist in the
marketplace of technical/help descriptions. Otherwise, for example,
you would need to see same in the help files of A2K citing the help
files of A97. Totally and completely preposterous. OK, maybe that is
a bad example, since the existence of A2k help files is itself in
question. ;-)
The only one being dishonest in this entire discussion is you. If'n I
were you, I'd hightail it to a lawyer out there in that great big
state and see if frivilously accusing somebody of plagiarism on a
newsgoup is grounds for them taking my play toys away.
mike
Rick
Kinda off-topic this is but whatever. Don, as much as I think you have a
tendency to digress from the basic thread of this newsgroup, I find your
posts amusing, provocative, and generally rather insightful. There are
several people in this group - while very knowledgeable - whose
arrogance shines through in their posts (LL NOT being one of them) and
need to be reminded that they aren't the king of the heap in an
anonymous setting like this.
I can see it now: Don Mellon, defender of the meek and ignorant...
;-)
Rick
Larry Linson
> people in this group - while very
> knowledgeable - whose arrogance
> shines through in their posts (LL
> NOT being one of them)
Gosh! It's always _something_! Now I've got to schedule an
appointment with my arrogance coach and tell him I've
somehow just "not got it right yet". :-)
Do you have any _idea_ how much arrogance lessons cost?
<SIGH!>
Rick
<snip>
> Do you have any _idea_ how much arrogance lessons cost?
;-)
I dunno, but I'd ask MK if I had to ask anyone...
Larry Linson
> I dunno, but I'd ask MK if I had
> to ask anyone...
Sorry, I know what MK's minimum rate was for consultation,
several years ago, and can't begin to afford his fees. ;-P
Don P. Mellon
>
>
> Repeat after me: Summary Judgement. It assumes that all facts
> presented are admissable and that all assumptions are resolvable in
> favor of the opposite side. That is, the decision is viewed under the
> light most favorable to the opposite side. If, after that, the rules
> of the court in question would result in a decision that does not
> favor said opposite side, the result is that there is no need for
> futher proceedings.
>
A Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted if the court believes there is
no factual dispute between the parties, i.e., there are only legal issues to
be adjudicated. Thus, I hope you can see, a Motion for Summary Judgment is
a means to expedite the proceeding by focusing the court's attention on
issues of law rather than of fact.
> There are many articles and books written on the appropriate timing of
> shelving the passive defense in favor of the active one. In the real
> world, the lawyers argue for active as early in the process as is
> possible, while the poor client (who has to pay the bill) pushes the
> other way. Who wins is dependent on many factors, including potential
> damages.
>
That is gibberish. If you have some specific procedural tactic in mind,
state it.
> In the instant case, we providentially grant you your evidence, but
> nonetheless determine that the venue of publication renders the
> accusation baseless. Self-plagiarism simply does not exist in the
> marketplace of technical/help descriptions. Otherwise, for example,
> you would need to see same in the help files of A2K citing the help
> files of A97. Totally and completely preposterous. OK, maybe that is
> a bad example, since the existence of A2k help files is itself in
> question. ;-)
>
In the instant case, you were talking about a baseless claim. If that were
so, and if this were a legal proceeding, then the case would likely never
reach the stage of summary judgment. If the claim were prima-facie baseless
("A meteor hit me on the head because Mike Preston made God do it."), the
court would likely dismiss the action on its own motion. Otherwise, if the
claim turned out to be baseless after sufficient discovery had been
conducted, then the opposing party would move for a dismissal, either with
or without prejudice, depending on how egregiously baseless the claim
actually was. In either situation, however, the matter would never reach
the stage of summary judgment.
Either you are incapable of following the argument or you are deliberately
introducing irrelevant and specious elements into the argument.
Self-plagiarism has nothing to do with the marketplace or intellectual
property rights, obviously. It is a matter of ethics. It is a matter of
intellectual honesty.
Many types of plagiarism harm no one. If I plagiarize Shakespeare, he will
probably not mind, mainly because he is dead, but also because he liked to
do a little plagiarizing himself. (In all fairness to Bill, I should note
that such practice was common in his time because there was little or no
recognition of intellectual property rights. Everything in print was
considered fair game.) When someone copies Microsoft's work, it is up to
Microsoft to do something if they do not like being copied. I cannot see
how Microsoft could claim harm if was Microsoft who published the work! But
you can bet they would go after you if they found their stuff pasted into an
article with your name on it. [Adapted from a message by Don P. Mellon to
Larry Linson, 8/9/02]
"No, this type of plagiarism only harms the plagiarist. It hurts him
because it calls into question his competence and honesty. It undermines
the very authority and reputation he is trying to establish. Of course, he
has no one to blame but himself. And that is the exquisite justice of it
all." [Ibid.]
> The only one being dishonest in this entire discussion is you. If'n I
> were you, I'd hightail it to a lawyer out there in that great big
> state and see if frivilously accusing somebody of plagiarism on a
> newsgoup is grounds for them taking my play toys away.
>
Did you just call me dishonest? In a public forum?
Don P. Mellon
"Rick" <rickr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3D56879C...@hotmail.com...
> (sorry if this sent more than once, having some network timeout errors)
> Kinda off-topic this is but whatever. Don, as much as I think you have a
> tendency to digress from the basic thread of this newsgroup, I find your
> posts amusing, provocative, and generally rather insightful. There are
> several people in this group - while very knowledgeable - whose
> arrogance shines through in their posts (LL NOT being one of them) and
> need to be reminded that they aren't the king of the heap in an
> anonymous setting like this.
>
> I can see it now: Don Mellon, defender of the meek and ignorant...
>
Either you are a master of satire, or I own you my thanks and gratitude.
Only time will tell.
In any event, "The Axis of Evil" is real!
Don P. Mellon
Not all arrogance is learned. Some of it is genetic, as in MK's case.
Mike Preston
<pig...@3rivers.net> wrote:
>
>"Mike Preston" <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:3d55fec3....@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>
>>
>> Repeat after me: Summary Judgement. It assumes that all facts
>> presented are admissable and that all assumptions are resolvable in
>> favor of the opposite side. That is, the decision is viewed under the
>> light most favorable to the opposite side. If, after that, the rules
>> of the court in question would result in a decision that does not
>> favor said opposite side, the result is that there is no need for
>> futher proceedings.
>>
>
>A Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted if the court believes there is
>no factual dispute between the parties, i.e., there are only legal issues to
>be adjudicated. Thus, I hope you can see, a Motion for Summary Judgment is
>a means to expedite the proceeding by focusing the court's attention on
>issues of law rather than of fact.
Yes, that is one of the prongs of a Summary Judgment, but not the only
one. That one is not pertinent to the discussion at hand. Read my
description again.
>> There are many articles and books written on the appropriate timing of
>> shelving the passive defense in favor of the active one. In the real
>> world, the lawyers argue for active as early in the process as is
>> possible, while the poor client (who has to pay the bill) pushes the
>> other way. Who wins is dependent on many factors, including potential
>> damages.
>>
>
>That is gibberish. If you have some specific procedural tactic in mind,
>state it.
Nah, it is a judgment call that you will have to do the research on.
>> In the instant case, we providentially grant you your evidence, but
>> nonetheless determine that the venue of publication renders the
>> accusation baseless. Self-plagiarism simply does not exist in the
>> marketplace of technical/help descriptions. Otherwise, for example,
>> you would need to see same in the help files of A2K citing the help
>> files of A97. Totally and completely preposterous. OK, maybe that is
>> a bad example, since the existence of A2k help files is itself in
>> question. ;-)
>>
>
>In the instant case, you were talking about a baseless claim. If that were
>so, and if this were a legal proceeding, then the case would likely never
>reach the stage of summary judgment. If the claim were prima-facie baseless
>("A meteor hit me on the head because Mike Preston made God do it."), the
>court would likely dismiss the action on its own motion. Otherwise, if the
>claim turned out to be baseless after sufficient discovery had been
>conducted, then the opposing party would move for a dismissal, either with
>or without prejudice, depending on how egregiously baseless the claim
>actually was. In either situation, however, the matter would never reach
>the stage of summary judgment.
Oops. I think you need to go back to law school. You have mixed a
number of concepts up and the order you specify is out of whack.
>Either you are incapable of following the argument or you are deliberately
>introducing irrelevant and specious elements into the argument.
>Self-plagiarism has nothing to do with the marketplace or intellectual
>property rights, obviously. It is a matter of ethics. It is a matter of
>intellectual honesty.
I repeat, it is not self-plagiarism if it is published on a site which
owns the material. They set the standards of editorial disclosure
they are comfortable with. Period. Your personal definition is
meaningless.
>> The only one being dishonest in this entire discussion is you. If'n I
>> were you, I'd hightail it to a lawyer out there in that great big
>> state and see if frivilously accusing somebody of plagiarism on a
>> newsgoup is grounds for them taking my play toys away.
>>
>
>Did you just call me dishonest? In a public forum?
Sure. I have the facts in front of me that are indisputable. As they
say down under, "No worries, mate."
mike
Larry Linson
> > [Adapted from a message by Don
> > P. Mellon to Larry Linson, 8/9/02]
> "No, this type of plagiarism only harms
> the plagiarist. It hurts him because it calls
> into question his competence and honesty.
> It undermines the very authority and repu-
> tation he is trying to establish. Of course,
> he has no one to blame but himself. And
> that is the exquisite justice of it all." [Ibid.]
Plagiarism does often harm the reputation of the plagiarist
(when/if it is exposed). Whatever anyone may think otherwise
of Sen. Joe Biden, history will record that he plagiarized
Robert F. Kennedy. (When, in all likelihood, it was his
speechwriter plagiarizing RFK's speechwriter.)
If I responded to that e-mail with substantially this same
comment, well, that's the source of it; if not, then it
wasn't self-plagiarism, anyway.
You know, this discussion has been instructive to me -- I
just never gave a thought to the idea of "self-plagiarism",
before. It's something like "self-abuse", I suppose. But my
question is "If I hadn't made this statement, would I be
obligated to go research my "Sent Mail" folder, and expected
to sue myself if I did use my own material without
attribution?".
Larry Linson
> > I can see it now: Don Mellon,
> > defender of the meek and ignorant...
> Either you are a master of satire, or
> I own you my thanks and gratitude.
> Only time will tell.
In non-witness whereof, go grab yourself a non-credential
testifying to the fact at
http://members.tripod.com/universality.
Don P. Mellon
> There are
> several people in this group - while very knowledgeable - whose
> arrogance shines through in their posts (LL NOT being one of them) and
> need to be reminded that they aren't the king of the heap in an
> anonymous setting like this.
To paraphrase what you posted, there are a lot of intelligent people in this
newsgroup, but if they have a personality problem, their intelligence can be
negated by it.
In the case of *real* geniuses, I think their work always comes first.
Self-promotion is usually not even on their agenda, which might explain why
so many geniuses need somebody else to promote their work and watch their
money for them. This is not to say geniuses are insensitive or not prone to
fits. But when they loose their composure it is usually because someone has
attacked their work, probably out of ignorance. Everything is focused on
their work. They seek praise for their work, not for themselves, as if their
work were a thing in itself, totally detached from them.
With lesser types, their work is of secondary importance. (And their work
usually shows it.) They are primarily motivated by praise for themselves.
Thus, they use their work as a device to call attention to themselves. When
they produce something worthwhile, all is well, because the praise for the
work is translated into a sense of personal value. But when they do
something mediocre, or even stupid, they are easily enraged (or depressed)
by criticism because the rejection of the work is taken to be a rejection of
them personally.
Don P. Mellon
> As they
> say down under, "No worries, mate."
>
Ah! Down under! As in, "The World Upside Down."
*Now* I get it.
Don P. Mellon
>
>
> You know, this discussion has been instructive to me -- I
> just never gave a thought to the idea of "self-plagiarism",
> before. It's something like "self-abuse", I suppose.
>
>
Yes. And I am sure you have given a lot of attention to *that* subject.
Rick
"Don P. Mellon" wrote:
> To paraphrase what you posted, there are a lot of intelligent people in this
> newsgroup, but if they have a personality problem, their intelligence can be
> negated by it.
Not necessarily negated. If one of these knowledgeable people is trying
to explain something, but going about it with a very visible chip on his
shoulder, then I have a tendency to drop my opinion of that person (and
my opinion of what they are trying to say goes with it).
>
> In the case of *real* geniuses, I think their work always comes first.
> Self-promotion is usually not even on their agenda, which might explain why
> so many geniuses need somebody else to promote their work and watch their
> money for them. This is not to say geniuses are insensitive or not prone to
> fits. But when they loose their composure it is usually because someone has
> attacked their work, probably out of ignorance. Everything is focused on
> their work. They seek praise for their work, not for themselves, as if their
> work were a thing in itself, totally detached from them.
I have to agree with you here, but add to your statement. If you are
speaking strictly of intellectual genius, then you are entirely correct,
if you however mix in other forms of genius, then the line blurs. A
genius marketer has the verbal/written skills to self-promote, whether
they are intellectually gifted or not. Attacking others or defending
attacks upon themselves deftly is what would likely constitute their
genius, I'd think.
>
> With lesser types, their work is of secondary importance. (And their work
> usually shows it.) They are primarily motivated by praise for themselves.
> Thus, they use their work as a device to call attention to themselves. When
> they produce something worthwhile, all is well, because the praise for the
> work is translated into a sense of personal value. But when they do
> something mediocre, or even stupid, they are easily enraged (or depressed)
> by criticism because the rejection of the work is taken to be a rejection of
> them personally.
Is this what has aroused our friend's verbal wrath, forcing him to
display to all that monumental arrogance and disdain that I spoke of
earlier? I'm sure the person(s) in question are quite capable at what
they do, but like you said, you don't achieve greatness unless your work
speaks for itself beyond all doubt -- or you market yourself well.
yours in humility...
Rick
;)
Don P. Mellon
"Don P. Mellon" <pig...@3rivers.net> wrote in message
news:aj6t83$18s9s9$1...@ID-89436.news.dfncis.de...
> >
>
> Ah! Down under! As in, "The World Upside Down."
>
Correction:
"The World Turned Upside Down"
Don P. Mellon
>
> I have to agree with you here, but add to your statement. If you are
> speaking strictly of intellectual genius, then you are entirely correct,
> if you however mix in other forms of genius, then the line blurs. A
> genius marketer has the verbal/written skills to self-promote, whether
> they are intellectually gifted or not. Attacking others or defending
> attacks upon themselves deftly is what would likely constitute their
> genius, I'd think.
>
That is really pushing the envelope. But I guess we are working with a very
loose definition of genius, which is entirely my fault, since I have never
met one. [Note to rkc: Do that "refection in your monitor" routine right
here, please.]
>
> Is this what has aroused our friend's verbal wrath, forcing him to
> display to all that monumental arrogance and disdain that I spoke of
> earlier? I'm sure the person(s) in question are quite capable at what
> they do, but like you said, you don't achieve greatness unless your work
> speaks for itself beyond all doubt -- or you market yourself well.
>
I expect the squeal of high-pressure gas escaping from the deflating ego.
What I do not expect--but am learning to--is the vociferous reaction of
others not the target of the pin prick. Recently, in an issue of "Rangers
to the Rescue," I wrote:
***
I think it is like that scene in the film "Indiana Jones and The Temple of
Doom," where the good guys are attacked by the cult worshipers. The good
guys get attacked because no one is supposed to witness the bad stuff that
is going on.
***
Mike Preston
No, but you would be required to think less of yourself.
mike
Don P. Mellon
>
> No, but you would be required to think less of yourself.
>
That is excellent, Mike! (I was beginning to think you were hopelessly sunk
in denial.) Now all you need to do is take the next logical step. How does
self-plagiarism lower one's self-esteem? Because the individual knows the
credit he has received for the present work actually belongs to--or is
shared with--a former work. Again, Mike, this is a question of ethics, of
intellectual honesty.
I had a personal brush with self-plagiarism in graduate school, before I
knew all the rules, of course. Here is what happened.
As an undergraduate, I wrote a book review for an upper-level course. About
a year later, in graduate school, I took a different course but with the
same professor. To my surprise, I discovered that the lazy SOB was using
the same book! And, sure enough, he wanted a book review written. So I
rationalized: "This is a great paper I have. I got a 4.0 on it the first
time. I do not need to read the book again, so why do I need to write the
paper again?"
Well, something about this bothered me. It seemed dishonest in a weird way.
So I went to my graduate advisor and asked him what he thought. He said,
same book, same assignment, same writer, no problem. Unfortunately, he
neglected to tell me that I had to indicate the current work was derived in
whole or in part from a previous work, and that I needed to get the
permission of the professor before I submitted the work. (I found those
rules about two years later.)
So I turned in the paper, which I had edited down by about 40% because the
assignment limited the number of pages allowed. About a week later, the
professor called me into his office. On his desk was the self-plagiarized
paper I had written. He handed me the paper, and I immediately saw there
was no grade on it.
He said very loudly, "Have you ever read a book you liked?"
I replied, "In your course?"
He smiled and said, "Do it over. Find something of value in the book."
So I wrote the whole thing over again, from beginning to end, totally. I
did not use any previous material. When I received the paper about a week
later, the professor had written across the top, "Much better--4.0"
Maybe God punished me. Maybe the professor recognized the first paper as
plagiarism and cut me a break. I do not know. All I know is that I was
pissed off for a week while I rewrote the paper. But after that I felt
great.
Mike Preston
<pig...@3rivers.net> wrote:
>
>"Mike Preston" <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:3d570e28....@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
>>
>> No, but you would be required to think less of yourself.
>>
>
>
>That is excellent, Mike! (I was beginning to think you were hopelessly sunk
>in denial.)
I suppose I still am. <sigh>
> Now all you need to do is take the next logical step. How does
>self-plagiarism lower one's self-esteem? Because the individual knows the
>credit he has received for the present work actually belongs to--or is
>shared with--a former work. Again, Mike, this is a question of ethics, of
>intellectual honesty.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Don, you have to take the answer in the spirit of the question. It
were a joke, son. Unless, of course, you think that Larry was just a
1/2 second away from calling a lawyer to inquire about sueing himself.
I know that Larry is getting up there in the chronologically
challenged department, but he still seems to have _some part_ of his
wits about him.
>I had a personal brush with self-plagiarism in graduate school, before I
>knew all the rules, of course. Here is what happened.
We've all done things that were against some unwritten and unexplained
rule at one time or another. It is the nature of the beast. Growing
up is that beast.
But your educational travails have nothing to do with the case at
hand. Other than in combination with your silly vendetta against
Arvin, it puts you in a position to make public statements that make
it clear your brain cells have been warped. Of course, all of us have
warped brain cells of one kind or another. I just try to make those
affect my own personal select queries and not my action queries.
mike
Don P. Mellon
> Wrong, wrong, wrong.
>
> Don, you have to take the answer in the spirit of the question. It
> were a joke, son. Unless, of course, you think that Larry was just a
> 1/2 second away from calling a lawyer to inquire about sueing himself.
> I know that Larry is getting up there in the chronologically
> challenged department, but he still seems to have _some part_ of his
> wits about him.
>
You still don't get it. Nobody is ever sued for plagiarism.
Let's assume you were an MVP. Now, there is only a limited amount of time
and attention that your patron, Microsoft, can give to each MVP. So in the
hope of rising above the mass of other MVPs you send Microsoft an original,
thoroughly creative essay on using Access. At the same time, another MVP
submits a plagiarized article for publication. Your article is rejected and
the plagiarized article is published.
What do you do? Call a lawyer? I don't think so.
> But your educational travails have nothing to do with the case at
> hand. Other than in combination with your silly vendetta against
> Arvin, it puts you in a position to make public statements that make
> it clear your brain cells have been warped.
Your proclivity for ad hominem argument seriously diminishes your
credibility.
Mike Preston
<pig...@3rivers.net> wrote:
>
>"Mike Preston" <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
>news:3d573507....@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
>> Wrong, wrong, wrong.
>>
>> Don, you have to take the answer in the spirit of the question. It
>> were a joke, son. Unless, of course, you think that Larry was just a
>> 1/2 second away from calling a lawyer to inquire about sueing himself.
>> I know that Larry is getting up there in the chronologically
>> challenged department, but he still seems to have _some part_ of his
>> wits about him.
>>
>
>You still don't get it. Nobody is ever sued for plagiarism.
>
>Let's assume you were an MVP. Now, there is only a limited amount of time
>and attention that your patron, Microsoft, can give to each MVP. So in the
>hope of rising above the mass of other MVPs you send Microsoft an original,
>thoroughly creative essay on using Access. At the same time, another MVP
>submits a plagiarized article for publication. Your article is rejected and
>the plagiarized article is published.
>
>What do you do? Call a lawyer? I don't think so.
Agreed. You call Microsoft and, er, discuss, the situation. *IF*
Microsoft was unaware of the issue, then maybe you can get them to
redress it. If not, as previously indicated, it is _their_
publishing/editorial policy.
And in the absence of you having knowledge of that
publishing/editorial policy, you went way out of bounds.
>> But your educational travails have nothing to do with the case at
>> hand. Other than in combination with your silly vendetta against
>> Arvin, it puts you in a position to make public statements that make
>> it clear your brain cells have been warped.
>
>Your proclivity for ad hominem argument seriously diminishes your
>credibility.
I thought the comment was rather muted. Besides, who's arguing? ;-)
mike
Larry Linson
> It were a joke, son.
Isn't that taken from the rooster in the very old animated
comedies? Was it "Senator Claghorn"? Shouldn't you
attribute it?
> Unless, of course, you think that
> Larry was just a 1/2 second away
> from calling a lawyer to inquire
> about sueing himself. I know that
> Larry is getting up there in the
> chronologically challenged depart-
> ment, but he still seems to have
> _some part_ of his wits about him.
Thank you most graciously for the kind words. In
confirmation of them, I want to state that I never employ an
attorney when I sue myself -- I represent myself on both
sides of the case.
Please, no comments on the caliber of the attorney when one
represents one's self unless they are quoted and attributed.
Don P. Mellon
beyond my control.]
"Mike Preston" <mbpatpas...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:3d573507....@news.CIS.DFN.DE...
> Agreed. You call Microsoft and, er, discuss, the situation. *IF*
> Microsoft was unaware of the issue, then maybe you can get them to
> redress it.
Good. Now we are getting somewhere. Depending on the kind of plagiarism
involved, maybe you could get them to print a retraction, revoke the
plagiarist's MVP status, print your article, etc.
> If not, as previously indicated, it is _their_
> publishing/editorial policy.
>
It is highly improbable that any publisher would have a policy of publishing
plagiarized material. But let us assume that Microsoft has a policy that
allows plagiarism of Microsoft material in all its publications. (We know
this is true in Help files from one Access version to another.) In that
case, you would have no recourse vis-a-vis Microsoft. It is simply their
policy, i.e., they do not care.
But what of the plagiarist and his unsupecting readers? His readers now
hold him in high esteem. (He has his name in bold type on Microsoft's Web
site!) So they consider him a more knowledgable MVP than you because he has
published his work on Microsoft's site and you have not. That is, his
reputation has increased at your expense and that of every other MVP.
Naturally, if his plagiarism runs unchecked, someday he will be the most
highly proclaimed of all MVPs. But as a loyal and dedicated MVP, would you
allow such a situation to develop and flourish? Must he steal *your* work
before you will expose him?
> And in the absence of you having knowledge of that
> publishing/editorial policy, you went way out of bounds.
>
Not at all. Again, you are confusing the publisher with the plagiarist. If
Microsoft wants to publish plagiarized material, that is their business.
But such a policy hardly exonerates the plagiarist. Analogy: In County A,
heroin is a legal substance. Someone you know in Country A uses heroin.
The fact that his behavior is legal in Country A does not change the fact
that he uses heroin.
Mike Preston
<larry....@ntpcug.org> wrote:
>"Mike Preston" wrote
>
> > It were a joke, son.
>
>Isn't that taken from the rooster in the very old animated
>comedies? Was it "Senator Claghorn"? Shouldn't you
>attribute it?
Foghorn Leghorn was the cartoon character. Senator Claghorn was the
character on the Fred Allen radio show that the cartoon character was
based on.
Strange as it may seem, there may be a good analogy here. At what
point does a phrase, or description, enter the general lexicon such
that attribution is no longer necessary under any circumstances?
Could it be that the use of the Access Help File's description of the
basic units of measurement in a RDMS are so frequently cited that
their use has become public domain? Where did they get them?
Don, listen, I say, listen to me when I'm talkin' to you, son.
> > Unless, of course, you think that
> > Larry was just a 1/2 second away
> > from calling a lawyer to inquire
> > about sueing himself. I know that
> > Larry is getting up there in the
> > chronologically challenged depart-
> > ment, but he still seems to have
> > _some part_ of his wits about him.
>
>Thank you most graciously for the kind words. In
>confirmation of them, I want to state that I never employ an
>attorney when I sue myself -- I represent myself on both
>sides of the case.
>
>Please, no comments on the caliber of the attorney when one
>represents one's self unless they are quoted and attributed.
Maybe that makes you doubly NOT a fool:
http://www.udayton.edu/news/nr/102000.html
mike