Science News Online - Past Issues - 5/4/96

Tim May tcmay at got.net
Tue Aug 21 21:25:29 PDT 2001


On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 09:08 PM, Mac Norton wrote:

> Not sure I get the point. Is there a five year statute
> or limitations on what you say, or is the article so
> outdated in context as to be irrelevant?
> MacN
>
> On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Tim May wrote:
>
>> On Tuesday, August 21, 2001, at 08:00 PM, Jim Choate wrote:
>>
>>> Speaking of splitting the cake, who gets the trim?
>>>
>>> http://www.sciencenews.org/sn_arch/5_4_96/bob1.htm
>>>
>>>
>>
>> That's a 5-year-old cite.
>>
>> You obviously used a search engine to search for related articles 
>> from a
>> post of mine. Have you no shame?
>>

Think about the issue.

If someone takes a post of mine, or yours, or anybody's, and says 
something _honest_ like, for example,

"That's an interesting point. Doing some digging I found this article 
from several years ago...."

then there would be no issue.

I think this is the way Bill Stewart, for example, would begin an 
article.

Choate, however, never does this. He just regurgitates cites he has 
found with search engines.

I called him on this. That's all. Finding a 5-year-old cite, obviously 
the result of searching on a them, but without even commenting on 
context or relevance, is phony.

It's the equivalent of a nonlawyer like me taking some scrap of legal 
comment and then quoting a legal precedent without any context. For 
example,

"But Lopez v. Quesedilla, 16th, 3B, IIc established decedent's writ of 
certiori, am I not correct?"

Phoniness squared.

If you don't see this, you should become a lawyer.


--Tim May





More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list