"The history books will tell you that Alexander Graham Bell of Scotland invented the telephone. Alexander Bell won a patent dispute which would lead to the most valuable patent ever issued, the telephone. The patent on the telephone and the subsequent success of the device would lead to the creation of the world's largest monopoly, the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. Consider that for over a century, ATT, was referred to in our culture by the name of "Ma Bell" after the inventor of the device.
In fact, the first telephone call was on March 10, 1876 and the anniversary of that day is now only a few days away. The first telephone call has often been recreated in writing and in the movies. The first telephone call is sometimes recreated with Alexander Bell crying out "Watson, come here! I want to see you!" with Watson answering the call. That first telephone call is a well known part of American history and lore. The story would later be popularized by Hollywood when actor Don Amiche played the part of Alexander Graham Bell in a movie.
However, this nice, classic, Hollywood story about American history and the invention of the telephone overlooks the likely fact that Alexander Bell stole the entire telephone concept and its resulting patent from at least two other inventors. The reality is that the American telephone monopoly known as "Ma Bell" should really have been known as "Ma Grey" or "Ma Meucci".
An early version of the telephone was invented around 1860 by Antonio Meucci who called it Teletrofono. In 1860, Meucci organized a demonstration of a successful telephone in which a singer's voice was clearly heard by spectators a considerable distance away. The fact is that Meucci filed his first notice to take out a telephone patent in 1871, five years before Alexander Graham Bell's now infamous first telephone call.
Sadly, Meucci would eventually be cheated out of his invention. The sordid story includes "lost" Meucci filings by the United States patent office. The Meucci telephone device was also "lost" by Western Union as the inventor was trying to demonstrate the possibilities of his invention to them. Later investigation would produce evidence of illegal relationships linking certain employees of the Patent Office and officials of Alexander Bell's company. Eventually, in the course of litigation between Bell and Western Union, it was revealed that Bell had agreed to pay Western Union 20 percent of profits from commercialization of his "invention" for a period of 17 years. Certainly, conspiracy theorists would have a field day with this evidence.
Despite a public statement by the Secretary of State of the time that "there exists sufficient proof to give priority to Meucci in the invention of the telephone," and despite the fact that the United States initiated prosecution for fraud against Bell's patent, the actual trial was postponed every year until the death of Antonio Meucci in 1896. The government’s fraud case against Alexander Bell would eventually be dropped, securing Alexander Graham Bell's place in history as the inventor of the telephone.
Elisha Grey was another apparent victim of Alexander Bell. In Seth Shulman’s recent book, entitled "The Telephone Gambit: Chasing Alexander Graham Bell's Secret", Seth Shulman tells a story of shady lawyers and a corrupt patent examiner. The book describes Bell's dishonesty in securing the telephone patent as follows: "Bell furtively and illegally copied part of Elisha Gray's invention in the race to secure what would become the most valuable U.S. patent ever issued. And afterward, as Bell's device led to fame, he hid his invention's illicit beginnings."
Over the years, the Bell Telephone Company would fight five lawsuits that reached the Supreme Court as well as five hundred and eighty eight lawsuits that posed various legal challenges over the rights to the telephone. It never lost a major case. However, over the years, the evidence has continued to increase that Alexander Graham Bell used his wealth and influence to illegally claim the right to the patent of the telephone and to be called its inventor.
On September 25, 2001, the United States House of Representatives through Resolution 269, recognized Antonio Meucci as the inventor of the telephone. The House Resolution reads, "that it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the life and achievements of Antonio Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the telephone should be acknowledged."
The invention of the telephone is a murky tale of fraud, dishonesty, and corruption. Alexander Graham Bell used his wealth and political influence to secure the rights to a device that would change the world. In retrospect, both Antonio Meucci and Elisha Grey were victims of a long, sordid, costly legal process. The evidence now suggests that justice was not well served for either of these men. That's why even on its one hundred and thirty second anniversary, its still a tough call to recognize the real inventor of the telephone."
A similar fiasco occured with the Penicillin discovery, when the Scot Fleming discovered the bug-killing properties of the Penicillium mold (via sloppy lab technique, albeit). After writing this up, this fellow had the gall to forget about it. Curious, because he was into Lysosyme too.
It was left to Florey, and expatriate Scot, living in the stimulating land of Oz to carry on experimenting during the years of WWII and eventually produce stunning results.
Then Fleming muscled in and tried to claim the laurels, and did so by rat cunning and an effusive media-savvy personality. But the man in the street is not fooled.
Also, no credit was publically given to the American firm of Merck Sharp & Dohme, who with their industrial fermentation reactors developed a process to mass produce and isolate the final product.
> A similar fiasco occured with the Penicillin > discovery, when the Scot Fleming discovered > the bug-killing properties of the Penicillium > mold (via sloppy lab technique, albeit). > After writing this up, this fellow had the > gall to forget about it. Curious, because he > was into Lysosyme too.
> It was left to Florey, and expatriate Scot, > living in the stimulating land of Oz to carry > on experimenting during the years of WWII and > eventually produce stunning results.
> Then Fleming muscled in and tried to claim > the laurels, and did so by rat cunning and an > effusive media-savvy personality. But the > man in the street is not fooled.
> Also, no credit was publically given to the > American firm of Merck Sharp & Dohme, who > with their industrial fermentation reactors > developed a process to mass produce and > isolate the final product.
Florey was born in Adelaide, he was not an expatriate Scot. He did far more than Fleming in the discovery of penicillin - and was honoured accordingly. Just why Fleming gets the credit is a mystery. Same with Baird and television, Watson-Watt and radar, Watt with the steam engine, etc, etc.
Could be as you descibed it, they 'muscled in' and employed 'rat cunning', but I couldn't possibly comment! ;-)
> "The history books will tell you that Alexander Graham Bell of Scotland > invented the telephone. Alexander Bell won a patent dispute which would > lead to the most valuable patent ever issued, the telephone. The patent > on the telephone and the subsequent success of the device would lead to > the creation of the world's largest monopoly, the American Telephone and > Telegraph Company. Consider that for over a century, ATT, was referred > to in our culture by the name of "Ma Bell" after the inventor of the device.
> In fact, the first telephone call was on March 10, 1876 and the > anniversary of that day is now only a few days away. The first telephone > call has often been recreated in writing and in the movies. The first > telephone call is sometimes recreated with Alexander Bell crying out > "Watson, come here! I want to see you!" with Watson answering the call. > That first telephone call is a well known part of American history and > lore. The story would later be popularized by Hollywood when actor Don > Amiche played the part of Alexander Graham Bell in a movie.
> However, this nice, classic, Hollywood story about American history and > the invention of the telephone overlooks the likely fact that Alexander > Bell stole the entire telephone concept and its resulting patent from at > least two other inventors. The reality is that the American telephone > monopoly known as "Ma Bell" should really have been known as "Ma Grey" > or "Ma Meucci".
> An early version of the telephone was invented around 1860 by Antonio > Meucci who called it Teletrofono. In 1860, Meucci organized a > demonstration of a successful telephone in which a singer's voice was > clearly heard by spectators a considerable distance away. The fact is > that Meucci filed his first notice to take out a telephone patent in > 1871, five years before Alexander Graham Bell's now infamous first > telephone call.
> Sadly, Meucci would eventually be cheated out of his invention. The > sordid story includes "lost" Meucci filings by the United States patent > office. The Meucci telephone device was also "lost" by Western Union as > the inventor was trying to demonstrate the possibilities of his > invention to them. Later investigation would produce evidence of illegal > relationships linking certain employees of the Patent Office and > officials of Alexander Bell's company. Eventually, in the course of > litigation between Bell and Western Union, it was revealed that Bell had > agreed to pay Western Union 20 percent of profits from commercialization > of his "invention" for a period of 17 years. Certainly, conspiracy > theorists would have a field day with this evidence.
> Despite a public statement by the Secretary of State of the time that > "there exists sufficient proof to give priority to Meucci in the > invention of the telephone," and despite the fact that the United States > initiated prosecution for fraud against Bell's patent, the actual trial > was postponed every year until the death of Antonio Meucci in 1896. The > government’s fraud case against Alexander Bell would eventually be > dropped, securing Alexander Graham Bell's place in history as the > inventor of the telephone.
> Elisha Grey was another apparent victim of Alexander Bell. In Seth > Shulman’s recent book, entitled "The Telephone Gambit: Chasing Alexander > Graham Bell's Secret", Seth Shulman tells a story of shady lawyers and a > corrupt patent examiner. The book describes Bell's dishonesty in > securing the telephone patent as follows: "Bell furtively and illegally > copied part of Elisha Gray's invention in the race to secure what would > become the most valuable U.S. patent ever issued. And afterward, as > Bell's device led to fame, he hid his invention's illicit beginnings."
> Over the years, the Bell Telephone Company would fight five lawsuits > that reached the Supreme Court as well as five hundred and eighty eight > lawsuits that posed various legal challenges over the rights to the > telephone. It never lost a major case. However, over the years, the > evidence has continued to increase that Alexander Graham Bell used his > wealth and influence to illegally claim the right to the patent of the > telephone and to be called its inventor.
> On September 25, 2001, the United States House of Representatives > through Resolution 269, recognized Antonio Meucci as the inventor of the > telephone. The House Resolution reads, "that it is the sense of the > House of Representatives that the life and achievements of Antonio > Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the > telephone should be acknowledged."
> The invention of the telephone is a murky tale of fraud, dishonesty, and > corruption. Alexander Graham Bell used his wealth and political > influence to secure the rights to a device that would change the world. > In retrospect, both Antonio Meucci and Elisha Grey were victims of a > long, sordid, costly legal process. The evidence now suggests that > justice was not well served for either of these men. That's why even on > its one hundred and thirty second anniversary, its still a tough call to > recognize the real inventor of the telephone."
> A similar fiasco occured with the Penicillin > discovery, when the Scot Fleming discovered > the bug-killing properties of the Penicillium > mold (via sloppy lab technique, albeit). > After writing this up, this fellow had the > gall to forget about it. Curious, because he > was into Lysosyme too.
> It was left to Florey, and expatriate Scot, > living in the stimulating land of Oz to carry > on experimenting during the years of WWII and > eventually produce stunning results.
> Then Fleming muscled in and tried to claim > the laurels, and did so by rat cunning and an > effusive media-savvy personality. But the > man in the street is not fooled.
> Also, no credit was publically given to the > American firm of Merck Sharp & Dohme, who > with their industrial fermentation reactors > developed a process to mass produce and > isolate the final product.
<Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote: >The whole thing has been lifted without any attempt at acknowledgement >from www.buzzle.com where it was posted two months ago, leading to >content like "In fact, the first telephone call was on March 10, 1876 >and the anniversary of that day is now only a few days away."
>I see that the website boasts that it is "Intelligent life on the web". >Clearly, they weren't thinking of Farmer Giles when they thought up that >slogan.
I suppose we can credit Varmer Giles with having enough intelligence to copy and paste it.
> In article <hjm9245jm6k50hn5ncrubbt0c2o5gd2...@4ax.com>, Paul C > <p...@thersgb.net> writes >> On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:48:25 +0100, Farmer Giles <Gi...@nospam.net> >> wrote:
>>> he history books will tell you that Alexander Graham Bell of Scotland
>> Poor Varmer Giles appears to be obsessed by the Scottish inventor of >> the telephone.
>> This must be at least his 10th thread on the subject.
> The whole thing has been lifted without any attempt at acknowledgement > from www.buzzle.com where it was posted two months ago, leading to > content like "In fact, the first telephone call was on March 10, 1876 > and the anniversary of that day is now only a few days away."
> I see that the website boasts that it is "Intelligent life on the web". > Clearly, they weren't thinking of Farmer Giles when they thought up that > slogan.
Nor you, I shouldn't think, Malcy. My post was in quotes, that should have given you a clue that I was *quoting* from something!
There was nothing new about the piece, the facts in it are well-known and accepted by most sensible people. The only ones who refuse to accept that Bell didn't invent the telephone are the terminally stupid and those - like yourself and your compatriots - who are so blinded by 'racial' bigotry that they refuse to accept anything that doesn't favour their little clan.
> "The history books will tell you that Alexander Graham Bell of > Scotland invented the telephone. Alexander Bell won a patent dispute > which would lead to the most valuable patent ever issued, the > telephone. The patent on the telephone and the subsequent success of > the device would lead to the creation of the world's largest monopoly, > the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. Consider that for over a > century, ATT, was referred to in our culture by the name of "Ma Bell" > after the inventor of the device.
> In fact, the first telephone call was on March 10, 1876 and the > anniversary of that day is now only a few days away. The first > telephone call has often been recreated in writing and in the movies. > The first telephone call is sometimes recreated with Alexander Bell > crying out "Watson, come here! I want to see you!" with Watson > answering the call. That first telephone call is a well known part of > American history and lore. The story would later be popularized by > Hollywood when actor Don Amiche played the part of Alexander Graham > Bell in a movie.
> However, this nice, classic, Hollywood story about American history > and the invention of the telephone overlooks the likely fact that > Alexander Bell stole the entire telephone concept and its resulting > patent from at least two other inventors. The reality is that the > American telephone monopoly known as "Ma Bell" should really have been > known as "Ma Grey" or "Ma Meucci".
> An early version of the telephone was invented around 1860 by Antonio > Meucci who called it Teletrofono. In 1860, Meucci organized a > demonstration of a successful telephone in which a singer's voice was > clearly heard by spectators a considerable distance away. The fact is > that Meucci filed his first notice to take out a telephone patent in > 1871, five years before Alexander Graham Bell's now infamous first > telephone call.
ROTFL!! The two tin cans and a piece of string is not a telephone by any stretch of the inagination! Meucci's 'invention' was nothing more than mechanical vibrations down a wire, not an electrical signal. Nor was he the first to have done this. It goes back to the 18thC.
> Sadly, Meucci would eventually be cheated out of his invention.
Really? Cheated out of recycling old technology?
> Despite a public statement by the Secretary of State of the time that > "there exists sufficient proof to give priority to Meucci in the > invention of the telephone," and despite the fact that the United > States initiated prosecution for fraud against Bell's patent, the > actual trial was postponed every year until the death of Antonio > Meucci in 1896.
Aww. How sad! Play the violins - but also wrong. Meucci lost the intial case big time. Strange that your sad tale misses that bit out. In the original case, the judge was scathing about Meucci's claims with Muecci being unable/unwilling to produce or even describe his 'invention'. All rather strange. In the end he lost that case and his backers abandoned him in droves leaving him no money to pursue the case
> Elisha Grey was another apparent victim of Alexander Bell.
Well, certainly a better candidate than the wee Italian crook.
> In Seth > Shulman’s recent book, entitled "The Telephone Gambit: Chasing > Alexander Graham Bell's Secret", Seth Shulman tells a story of shady > lawyers and a corrupt patent examiner. The book describes Bell's > dishonesty in securing the telephone patent as follows: "Bell > furtively and illegally copied part of Elisha Gray's invention in the > race to secure what would become the most valuable U.S. patent ever > issued. And afterward, as Bell's device led to fame, he hid his > invention's illicit beginnings."
Ho ho ho. Shulman's book is just a rehash of Edwards earlier book but designed to cash in on the Meucci House of Representative Resolution. The 'part' that Bell is supposed to have copied was the idea that water could be used as a part of the microphone mechanism. In fact, this wasn't invented by Gray, it had been long known that modulating a conductive liquid with a diaphram could produce a variable resistance. The claims that Bell copied Gray's patent was proven false in the subsequent court case when no notes were found in Bell's patent and, anyway, Bell was in Boston the day Gray's patent was filed and didn't arrive in Washington until almost 2 weeks later.
> Over the years, the Bell Telephone Company would fight five lawsuits > that reached the Supreme Court as well as five hundred and eighty > eight lawsuits that posed various legal challenges over the rights to > the telephone. It never lost a major case.
Which, of course, says it all. One of those challengers was Gray's employers, Western Electric. Like everyone else, they lost too.
> On September 25, 2001, the United States House of Representatives > through Resolution 269, recognized Antonio Meucci as the inventor of > the telephone. The House Resolution reads, "that it is the sense of > the House of Representatives that the life and achievements of Antonio > Meucci should be recognized, and his work in the invention of the > telephone should be acknowledged."
Yeah right. The same people who tried to pass a House Resolution to make pi = 3.2 because they thought it would make things simpler for road engineers and improve numeracy amongst school children.
: :ROTFL!! The two tin cans and a piece of string is not a telephone by :any stretch of the inagination! Meucci's 'invention' was nothing more :than mechanical vibrations down a wire, not an electrical signal. Nor :was he the first to have done this. It goes back to the 18thC. :
Wrong. Meucci's invention used a diaphragm with an electromagnet attached to it inducing current in a coil, which went down the wire. A similar setup vibrated a diaphragm at the other end.
It produced better fidelity than what Graham did, but had a very weak signal and poor volume in consequence.
-- "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong." -- Thomas Jefferson
> In article <b-WdndcIPOhhSLjVnZ2dneKdnZydn...@brightview.com>, Farmer > Giles <Gi...@nospam.net> writes >> Malcolm wrote: >>> In article <hjm9245jm6k50hn5ncrubbt0c2o5gd2...@4ax.com>, Paul C >>> <p...@thersgb.net> writes >>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:48:25 +0100, Farmer Giles <Gi...@nospam.net> >>>> wrote:
>>>>> he history books will tell you that Alexander Graham Bell of Scotland
>>>> Poor Varmer Giles appears to be obsessed by the Scottish inventor of >>>> the telephone.
>>>> This must be at least his 10th thread on the subject. >>> The whole thing has been lifted without any attempt at >>> acknowledgement from www.buzzle.com where it was posted two months >>> ago, leading to content like "In fact, the first telephone call was >>> on March 10, 1876 and the anniversary of that day is now only a few >>> days away." >>> I see that the website boasts that it is "Intelligent life on the >>> web". Clearly, they weren't thinking of Farmer Giles when they >>> thought up that slogan.
>> Nor you, I shouldn't think, Malcy.
> No, you can't think. When did you last post something original instead > of just copying and pasting?
You just get more stupid by the day, little Malcy.
>> My post was in quotes, that should have given you a clue that I was >> *quoting* from something!
> Indeed, but unless you wish to be prosecuted for infringement of > copyright, you should state your source. However, it takes some > intelligence to realise that........
Clearly you don't have the intelligence to understand copyright. The article was in the public domain, there was no infringement of copyright. As I said, you just get more stupid - and childish - by the day.
In message <P7udnTkYAMXC37jVnZ2dnUVZ8uadn...@brightview.com>, Farmer Giles <Gi...@nospam.net> writes
>Florey was born in Adelaide, he was not an expatriate Scot.
There are so few Scotchmen who are anything other than mountebanks that they needs must claim as Scotch those of other nationalities. RH -- Robert Henderson Blair Scandal website: http://www.geocities.com/ blairscandal/ Personal website: http://www.anywhere.demon.co.uk
In message <ht2c24p9keh6d0f32tntuf7clf99fcu...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall <fmcc...@earthlink.net> writes
>:ROTFL!! The two tin cans and a piece of string is not a telephone by >:any stretch of the inagination! Meucci's 'invention' was nothing more >:than mechanical vibrations down a wire, not an electrical signal. Nor >:was he the first to have done this. It goes back to the 18thC. >:
>Wrong.
Good to see Soupinflatable keeping up his 100% record of being wrong. RH
> Meucci's invention used a diaphragm with an electromagnet attached to >it inducing current in a coil, which went down the wire. A similar >setup vibrated a diaphragm at the other end.
>It produced better fidelity than what Graham did, but had a very weak >signal and poor volume in consequence.
In message <Xns9A9BA7CFF5740souphotmail...@193.201.53.67>, soupdragon <m...@privacy.com> writes
>> In message <ht2c24p9keh6d0f32tntuf7clf99fcu...@4ax.com>, Fred J. McCall >> <fmcc...@earthlink.net> writes >>>:ROTFL!! The two tin cans and a piece of string is not a telephone by >>>:any stretch of the inagination! Meucci's 'invention' was nothing more >>>:than mechanical vibrations down a wire, not an electrical signal. Nor >>>:was he the first to have done this. It goes back to the 18thC. >>>:
>>>Wrong.
>> Good to see Soupinflatable keeping up his 100% record of being wrong. RH
>Poor old fat boi, still hanging onto the coat tails of his betters, >even when they are trolls. ROTFL!
In message <s0eDgvMAlwJIF...@indaal.demon.co.uk>, Malcolm <Malc...@indaal.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In message <P7udnTkYAMXC37jVnZ2dnUVZ8uadn...@brightview.com>, Farmer >>Giles <Gi...@nospam.net> writes >>>Florey was born in Adelaide, he was not an expatriate Scot.
>>There are so few Scotchmen who are anything other than mountebanks >>that they needs must claim as Scotch those of other nationalities. RH
>As that is not in quotes, one has to assume that this is you in a >fictional personation. Would you like to explain who you are meant to >be?
"Doctor, doctor! The patient's suffering from delusions of intellect!" RH
On 2008-05-11 00:31:39 +0100, Farmer Giles <Gi...@nospam.net> said:
> Clearly you don't have the intelligence to understand copyright. The > article was in the public domain, there was no infringement of > copyright. As I said, you just get more stupid - and childish - by the > day.
You clearly have no idea about the law of copyright. Copyright is held by the writer of a piece whether he/she claims it or not and whether it is in "the public domain" or not. The only exception is where a writer specifically excludes the work from the provisions of copyright.
> In article <ntKdnS8XyvLbrbvVRVny...@brightview.com>, Farmer Giles > <Gi...@nospam.net> writes >> Malcolm wrote: >>> In article <b-WdndcIPOhhSLjVnZ2dneKdnZydn...@brightview.com>, Farmer >>> Giles <Gi...@nospam.net> writes >>>> Malcolm wrote: >>>>> In article <hjm9245jm6k50hn5ncrubbt0c2o5gd2...@4ax.com>, Paul C >>>>> <p...@thersgb.net> writes >>>>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:48:25 +0100, Farmer Giles <Gi...@nospam.net> >>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> he history books will tell you that Alexander Graham Bell of >>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>> Poor Varmer Giles appears to be obsessed by the Scottish inventor of >>>>>> the telephone.
>>>>>> This must be at least his 10th thread on the subject. >>>>> The whole thing has been lifted without any attempt at >>>>> acknowledgement from www.buzzle.com where it was posted two months >>>>> ago, leading to content like "In fact, the first telephone call >>>>> was on March 10, 1876 and the anniversary of that day is now only >>>>> a few >>>> >>>>> I see that the website boasts that it is "Intelligent life on the >>>>> web". Clearly, they weren't thinking of Farmer Giles when they >>>>> thought up that slogan.
>>>> Nor you, I shouldn't think, Malcy. >>> No, you can't think. When did you last post something original >>> instead of just copying and pasting?
>> You just get more stupid by the day, little Malcy.
> Whereas you, not unable to answer the question, have in your usual way > resorted to childish insults and name calling.
>>>> My post was in quotes, that should have given you a clue that I was >>>> *quoting* from something!
>>> Indeed, but unless you wish to be prosecuted for infringement of >>> copyright, you should state your source. However, it takes some >>> intelligence to realise that........
>> Clearly you don't have the intelligence to understand copyright. The >> article was in the public domain, there was no infringement of copyright.
> Oh dear :-((
> Do you really, honestly, believe what you've just written? If so, then I > strongly recommend that you change your belief very quickly, indeed.
> Perhaps you should have scrolled to the bottom of the page where you > would have found:
> And in case this doesn't reproduce in your newsreader, as some don't > like symbols, there is a copyright symbol in front of "2000.
> Furthermore, if you had bothered to explore the Buzzle.com website, > instead of blatantly stealing material from it, you would have found the > following:
> "All content included on the Buzzle.com website, such as text, graphics, > logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, data > compilations and software is the property of Buzzle.com or its content > suppliers and is protected by United States and international copyright > laws. The compilation of all content on the Buzzle.com website is the > exclusive property of Buzzle.com and protected by U.S. and international > copyright laws. Use of any content on Buzzle.com is strictly prohibited."
> You should also note that even if the copyright symbol hadn't been > present, the articles on that website would still be under copyright > unless the poster had specifically stated that they were not.
> There - you've learnt something today. Say "Thank you". And be grateful > if no-one reports you to Buzzle.com for infringement of their copyright. > You could, of course, get in first with an apology and a promise that > you won't do it again. They *might* accept that. You should also publish > your apology on these newsgroups.
Cobblers. These are objective historical facts, that could not in any way be described as creative expression. There is nothing in that piece that has not been published a thousand times before. There is also nothing there that I have not posted before, from my own research - perhaps they 'stole' it from me!
This is the usual pathetic Malcy attempt at diversion. Why don't you try answering the 'fact' that Bell stole someone else's ideas, instead of playing your usual childish games? You've been told before that you need to grow up, how about giving it a go!
>> As I said, you just get more stupid - and childish - by the day.
> More childish insults and name-calling, your usual refuge when > discussion becomes too difficult for you.
Rich from you, you're usually first out with the insults - and one needn't look beyond this thread to see that!
>>> Snip usual racist bigotry.
>> And what 'racist bigotry' would that be?
> I snipped it!
No answer then, eh? And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question (3/4/08) asking you to define 'racist'. Seems like you're pretty quick off the mark with accusations, but not nearly so quick backing them up. Come on, Mal (suits you!), define 'racist'?
> In article <acOdnWguQ4iY7LrVnZ2dneKdnZydn...@brightview.com>, Farmer > Giles <Gi...@nospam.net> writes >> Malcolm wrote: >>> In article <ntKdnS8XyvLbrbvVRVny...@brightview.com>, Farmer Giles >>> <Gi...@nospam.net> writes >>>> Malcolm wrote: >>>>> In article <b-WdndcIPOhhSLjVnZ2dneKdnZydn...@brightview.com>, >>>>> Farmer Giles <Gi...@nospam.net> writes >>>>>> Malcolm wrote: >>>>>>> In article <hjm9245jm6k50hn5ncrubbt0c2o5gd2...@4ax.com>, Paul C >>>>>>> <p...@thersgb.net> writes >>>>>>>> On Fri, 09 May 2008 23:48:25 +0100, Farmer Giles <Gi...@nospam.net> >>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> he history books will tell you that Alexander Graham Bell of >>>>>>>>> Scotland
>>>>>>>> Poor Varmer Giles appears to be obsessed by the Scottish >>>>>>>> inventor of >>>>>>>> the telephone.
>>>>>>>> This must be at least his 10th thread on the subject. >>>>>>> The whole thing has been lifted without any attempt at >>>>>>> acknowledgement from www.buzzle.com where it was posted two >>>>>>> months ago, leading to content like "In fact, the first >>>>>>> telephone call was on March 10, 1876 and the anniversary of >>>>>>> that day is now only a few >>>> >>>>>>> I see that the website boasts that it is "Intelligent life on >>>>>>> the web". Clearly, they weren't thinking of Farmer Giles when >>>>>>> they thought up that slogan.
>>>>>> Nor you, I shouldn't think, Malcy. >>>>> No, you can't think. When did you last post something original >>>>> instead of just copying and pasting?
>>>> You just get more stupid by the day, little Malcy.
>>> Whereas you, not unable to answer the question, have in your usual >>> way resorted to childish insults and name calling.
>>>>>> My post was in quotes, that should have given you a clue that I >>>>>> was *quoting* from something!
>>>>> Indeed, but unless you wish to be prosecuted for infringement of >>>>> copyright, you should state your source. However, it takes some >>>>> intelligence to realise that........
>> Cobblers. These are objective historical facts, that could not in any >> way be described as creative expression. There is nothing in that >> piece that has not been published a thousand times before.
> I very seriously suggest that you try and understand the meaning of > copyright. It doesn't matter if the article is a rehash of a rehash of a > rehash. In its form on that website, which you lifted in its entirety, > it is the copyright of that website, as clearly stated.
> You have breached that copyright.
>> There is also nothing there that I have not posted before, from my own >> research - perhaps they 'stole' it from me!
> A pathetic attempt at diversion.
>> This is the usual pathetic Malcy attempt at diversion.
> It is a friendly warning to you that by stealing an entire article from > a copyrighted website without even acknowledging where you stole it > from, you have breached their copyright.
Except that I have never visited their website - and was not even aware of their existence until you mentioned their name. That article has been posted on a number of internet sites, and was sent to me a long time ago by an acquaintance. Are you so bereft of a decent argument in support of the fraudster Bell that you need to keep harping about this sort of rubbish.
If the piece has been incorrectly quoted, then I have no problems with apologising for its use. As I said, there is nothing there that has not been written a hundred times before - by many others, including myself. From what I am given to understand, plagiarism is more your line than most others, so perhaps that's where you should address your concerns.
In the meantime, I am still waiting for you to answer my request for you to define 'racist' and 'racism'. You seem to have no problem spraying the terms around quite liberally, so can it really be the case that you don't understand what they mean?
> In article <I9SdnXonJYxeYLrVnZ2dnUVZ8q_in...@brightview.com>, Farmer > Giles <Gi...@nospam.net> writes >> Malcolm wrote: >>> In article <acOdnWguQ4iY7LrVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@brightvi
>>> It is a friendly warning to you that by stealing an entire article >>> from a copyrighted website without even acknowledging where you >>> stole it from, you have breached their copyright.
>> Except that I have never visited their website - and was not even >> aware of their existence until you mentioned their name.
> Bwahahahahaha!!!
> The wriggle of all time!
> Ignorance is no defence. You are guilty of infringing the copyright of > Buzzle.com, whether 1st hand, 2nd hand or umpteenth hand, and no amount > of wriggling can get you out of that.
>> . From what I am given to understand, plagiarism is more your line >> than most others,
> Please produce evidence for that defamatory claim or withdraw it - at > once. And not 2nd hand, 3rd hand or umpteenth hand claims by a known > libelling troll which you have haven't bothered to check, but actual > evidence and do it now. Ignorance is no defence.
> In article <l-idnSErotI8-7XVRVny...@brightview.com>, Farmer Giles > <Gi...@nospam.net> writes >> Malcolm wrote: >>> In article <I9SdnXonJYxeYLrVnZ2dnUVZ8q_in...@brightview.com>, Farmer >>> Giles <Gi...@nospam.net> writes >>>> Malcolm wrote: >>>>> In article <acOdnWguQ4iY7LrVnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@brightvi
>>>>> It is a friendly warning to you that by stealing an entire article >>>>> from a copyrighted website without even acknowledging where you >>>>> stole it from, you have breached their copyright.
>>>> Except that I have never visited their website - and was not even >>>> aware of their existence until you mentioned their name. >>> Bwahahahahaha!!! >>> The wriggle of all time! >>> Ignorance is no defence. You are guilty of infringing the copyright >>> of Buzzle.com, whether 1st hand, 2nd hand or umpteenth hand, and no >>> amount of wriggling can get you out of that.
>>>> . From what I am given to understand, plagiarism is more your line >>>> than most others, >>> Please produce evidence for that defamatory claim or withdraw it - >>> at once. And not 2nd hand, 3rd hand or umpteenth hand claims by a >>> known libelling troll which you have haven't bothered to check, but >>> actual evidence and do it now. Ignorance is no defence.
>> That's you knackered then!
> No, that's you exposed as a thieving libeller :-(
Tut, tut. Now, now, Malcy. Don't you think that, coupled with 'racist bigotry' (which you seem curiously unable to define!), you've made enough 'defamatory claims' for the time being!
Good job some of us can take it, as well as dish it out! :-)
