> From: Mitchell Swartz > > At 01:34 PM 9/17/2005, Jed Rothwell protests a bit too much, and wrote: > >Mitchell Swartz writes: > > > > example at the (misnamed) LENR site - which > > > > > is a company. > > > > > > > >Rothwell: No, it is not a company. > > > > > > Swartz: Yes it is. [Webster's definition removed by Rothwell because > > it disputes his nonsense] > > > >Rothwell: "Oookay . . . Where is it incorporated? By who? It > sure wasn't me." > > > > More rewriting of history, Jed? > The word was 'company'. > > You protest too much, suggesting something underneath. Buy > a dictionary. > > definition: Company; "1. an association with another" > "2. a group of persons or > things" [after > Webster's Dictionary] > > > definition: Corporation:; "1. a group of merchants or traders > united in a > trade guild" > "2. a body formed or > authorized by law > to act a a single person" > > [after > Webster's Dictionary] > > > The word being 'company', Q.E.D. > > > > "The answer is a mirror of the question" - Cogitor Kwyna > >
Not that I wish to get myself stuck in the middle of this "discussion": I believe Jed has requested that he be able edit the formatting of papers submitted because occasionally when he gets the text and accompanying graphics the formatting is problematical. The information can be messed up. Jed is forced to clean up the data up before it can be presented publicly. It is also my understanding that Dr. Swartz is legitimately concerned over the fact that allowing any kind of outside "editing" of his personal papers opens him and his work to the danger of external inaccuracies being introduced, even if such introductions were completely unintentional. The problem, as I see it, is that both perspectives have equal merit. It also is reasonable to assume that papers and reports submitted in PDF format are by their very definition BEYOND the point of needing additional post-editing. It is after all one of the major reasons why PDF files are so popular. The author(s) are saying: Here is -THE- final information. There is however an unfortunate problem concerning the fact that not all PDF documents and PDF readers are equal. There are different versions. If one doesn't have the most current and/or robust PDF reader there is the distinct possibility that one will not be able to open and read the contents of the document as-is. Speaking of formatting issues, often when I read posted comments originating from Dr. Swartz I've noticed that the visual layout of his text can be messed up. There can be HUGE indentations that make absolutely no sense. Many sentences are broken in unexpected places and carried on the next line or two lines down. This happens when I view Dr. Swartz's posts from my on-line CHARTER email account. It happens when I read his posts at the Vortex-l mail archive web site. It happens when I read his posts from my MS Outlook application, as I am doing now. See the above UNFORMATTED text as received by my Outlook mail program originating from Swartz. I have performed no personal formatting of his text in an effort to clean up what appear to be randomly introduced (and inappropriate) indentations. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I suspect that in Dr. Swartz' case this may be due to the possibility that he is using a sophisticated text editor / word processor like MS WORD, and that he is allowing that editor to format his prose. The problem with following this approach to the exclusion of anything else is that different email accounts and on-line lists receiving formatted text can have a terrible time trying to interpret the internal formatting code originating from an outside editor / word processor. It is precisely this reason why I personally post in simple vanilla ascii format whenever possible - and STILL my text can get messed up. While sending posts out in vanilla ascii text may not be elegant it reduces the danger of unexpected formatting snafus messing up the intent of my word. While I can appreciate the fact that Dr. Swartz would like to maintain total control over the content of his work (as would I over my own works), if the occasional vort postings I read originating from him is any indication of his formatting skills It does make me wonder about what kind of formatting issues might exist in his PDF documents as well. I would have to suggest as diplomatically as possible that he might want to avail himself to a good editor, one who is obviously knowledgeable in the sciences, a technical/science editor that Dr. Swartz can trust to carry out his intent of his word. I say this with DEEP personal irony as I know that I myself am occasionally dyslexic. My "affliction" comes and goes at the oddest times. I do my best to cover it up. I avail myself to all the electronic editing (and occasional human) help I can get. In conclusion it would seem to me that Dr. Swartz does not appear to trust Jed (or Ed Storms?) to carry out the intent of his word and edit and/or critique his work. As for all the rest of the sniping that has gone on this weekend, more sauce for the goose. Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
