 |
| 等 级：资深长老 |
| 经 验 值：7986 |
| 魅 力 值：1280 |
| 龙 币：4457 |
| 积 分：5171.5 |
| 注册日期：2007-07-18 |
| |
|
|
|
方舟子“道歉”还诡辩，“根伯”再批不留情
方舟子“道歉”还诡辩，“根伯”再批不留情
（求真网2010年8月5日电）中国科坛打黑的第一颗和第二颗原子弹分别于2010年7月28日和2010年8月3日爆炸后，中国科坛第一前台黒客方舟子一面组织水军造谣惑众、恶毒攻击求真人士、还要对美制“原子弹”的英文挑毛病，一面用假名与美国教授“辩理”结果被打了一棒。最后，实在赖不下去了，方舟子亲自给美国教授“根伯”发了如下的“道歉”信。
Dear Dr. Root-Bernstein,
In 1995 when I was a graduate student at MSU, I posted a short writing to an online forum called alt.chinese.text when there was a debate about pseudoscience among oversea Chinese students. It was an informal, casual follow-up to a discussion thread, not an academic paper or assignment. Part of it paraphrased the criteria of science from your article. I presented the criteria of science as "consensus in philosophy of science" and give my own examples to explain it. This writing was revised and formally published in one of my books in 1999, and it cited the source as "According to the summary by Root-Bernstein", and when the criteria were mentioned again in another book of mine in 2007, it gave reference as "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered, Robert Root-Bernstein, Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press, 1984".(Without this reference, I don't believe the supporters of Xiao Chuanguo, the surgeon who hired assailants to attack me using pepper spray and hammer after I exposed his malpractice, could track down the source and report the "plagiarism" to you and MSU administration 16 years later. I have deleted email addresses of four Xiao's supporters in this reply)
I never presented the criteria as my own original idea, nor did I copy your wordings. And when it's formally published, the source had been credited and cited. Therefore I don't think it consists of plagiarism or copyright infringement according to the common accepted definitions with which you disagree. But it's inappropriate not to explicitly credit you in my original posting, and I apologize for it.
Sincerely,
Shi-min Fang
然而，方舟子的这个“道歉”可蒙不了美国教授，“根伯”对于如此无赖的抄窃者，立即发出了如下的公开信：
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
哈哈！“真诚的（Sincerely）方舟子（Shi-min Fang）被“真诚的（Sincerely）“根伯”（Bob Root-Bernstein）真诚地再批了一次，那么方舟子是否应当再“真诚地”道歉一次呢？
|
|
--
张大胡子不是张大土匪的意思，也不是永远脸上都会有大胡子，就像女人家的涂脂抹粉，男人也有项休闲活动叫做刮胡子 ：） |
|
|
2011-08-08 12:02:00
