----- Original Message ----- From: "Jed Rothwell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]>; <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 8:06 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
> In my opinion, changing the format to text Acrobat is not > "tampering." This is analogous to a public library that demands a > hardback copy instead of paperback. Or, you might compare it to what > a library physically does with a book: they throw away the paper > slipcover, they glue on identification strips, and then they burn DDS > number into the spine of the book. This does not affect the content, > and neither does changing the format from image to text Acrobat. But you do change the content's layout, as I was amazed to discover once. Also this scribe work introduces retranscription errors, I pointed one out to you recently. In the end it's a different paper with (almost) the same words, formulae, and graphs. A library is definitely _not_ supposed to do such alterations, which definitely bring support to Mitchell's position. It makes me wonder, could the reformating routine be an attempt to avoid copyright issues, by deliberately not providing an exact copy? No copy, no copy rights? :-) ... >>Yes but you are not a scientific publisher, that's my point, why act as one? > > Of course I am! What else would I be? I asked you before, you said you weren't one, but a library. So now LENR-CANR.org is a scientific publisher is it? It explains many things, but shouldn't the website say so? ... >> > If I agreed to upload his unreadable scans, he would >> > immediately come up with some other excuse, >> >>Then why don't you try him? > > Why don't YOU try him? He is a very trying person. Go ahead and ask > him why he does not upload these papers to his own web page, in the > scanned image format. Ok, I'll try again. Mitchell, why don't you? This would show you're in good faith rather than trying to find excuses as Ed and Jed allege. Michel
