Dr. Atkins' Dietetic Revolution: Mu Critique?

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1103664391.a261860136f1982303186ae8457f7ac7@teran ews:

Don Kirkman wrote:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1103635847.ddaaa719bae97388b192743d7a9cc2f1@teran ews:

"John Smyth®©" wrote:

"Don Kirkman" wrote in message
...
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1103255315.f29dfe6120788f82543c12c4993a36f6@teran ews:

Don Kirkman wrote:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1102702794.c6bd5774ee877a3e0006348000395b77@teran ews:

What *precisely* is your basis for "understanding that it is legally
impossible for someone to anonymously (i.e. under a pseudonym) steal
credit for anything"?

Thusly are the fruits of self-worship.

The word would be "thus," not "thusly."

From the on-line Webster's:

Main Entry: thus·ly
Pronunciation: -lE
Function: adverb
: in this manner : THUS

The print Webster's Collegiate doesn't even list "thusly," and your
usage is not as an adverb but as a demonstrative pronoun, "thus," akin
to that, those, these.

Hope my comment enlightens those who need enlightening.

Your answer to the question I asked *would* be enlightening, but I don't
expect I'll ever see it.

Here it is again because you claimed to have missed it:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z27D3641A

You mean this, your contribution to that message (and which in fact I
have not gotten in smc)?

[Begin]
Then try the following analogies on for size:

Judge (to the defendant): You are charged with being a "peeping tom."
How do you plead?
[DK] No, the issue was theft, not peeping.
Defendant: Definitely not guilty.

Judge: How can you be so certain?

Defendant: I am blind.

Analogously:

Judge (to imaginary anonymous defendant): You are charged with putting
your name on something authored by someone else. How do you plead?
[DK] No, the issue was appropriating the work of another
without credit.
Defendant: Definitely not guilty.

Judge: How can you be so certain?

Defendant: I have no name.
[DK] No, in this instance the alleged thief has a name but
instead of using it adopts an alias or uses no name.
Hope the above analogies enlighten you and others.
[End]

THAT is supposed to be an answer to why you think an anonymous person
cannot steal someone else's intellectual property?

Hope the above information helps you.

It helps build the record of your evasiveness, but please answer the
question I asked or simply say you have no factual basis for your
opinion.
--
Don

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1103664391.a261860136f1982303186ae8457f7ac7@teran ews:

Don Kirkman wrote:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1103635847.ddaaa719bae97388b192743d7a9cc2f1@teran ews:

"John Smyth®©" wrote:

"Don Kirkman" wrote in message
...
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1103255315.f29dfe6120788f82543c12c4993a36f6@teran ews:

Don Kirkman wrote:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1102702794.c6bd5774ee877a3e0006348000395b77@teran ews:

What *precisely* is your basis for "understanding that it is legally
impossible for someone to anonymously (i.e. under a pseudonym) steal
credit for anything"?

Thusly are the fruits of self-worship.

The word would be "thus," not "thusly."

From the on-line Webster's:

Main Entry: thus·ly
Pronunciation: -lE
Function: adverb
: in this manner : THUS

The print Webster's Collegiate doesn't even list "thusly," and your
usage is not as an adverb but as a demonstrative pronoun, "thus," akin
to that, those, these.

Hope my comment enlightens those who need enlightening.

Your answer to the question I asked *would* be enlightening, but I don't
expect I'll ever see it.

Here it is again because you claimed to have missed it:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z27D3641A

You mean this, your contribution to that message (and which in fact I
have not gotten in smc)?

[Begin]
Then try the following analogies on for size:

Judge (to the defendant): You are charged with being a "peeping tom."
How do you plead?
[DK] No, the issue was theft, not peeping.
Defendant: Definitely not guilty.

Judge: How can you be so certain?

Defendant: I am blind.

Analogously:

Judge (to imaginary anonymous defendant): You are charged with putting
your name on something authored by someone else. How do you plead?
[DK] No, the issue was appropriating the work of another
without credit.
Defendant: Definitely not guilty.

Judge: How can you be so certain?

Defendant: I have no name.
[DK] No, in this instance the alleged thief has a name but
instead of using it adopts an alias or uses no name.
Hope the above analogies enlighten you and others.
[End]

THAT is supposed to be an answer to why you think an anonymous person
cannot steal someone else's intellectual property?

Hope the above information helps you.

It helps build the record of your evasiveness, but please answer the
question I asked or simply say you have no factual basis for your
opinion.
--
Don

Don Kirkman wrote:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1103664391.a261860136f1982303186ae8457f7ac7@teran ews:

Don Kirkman wrote:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1103635847.ddaaa719bae97388b192743d7a9cc2f1@teran ews:

"John Smyth®©" wrote:

"Don Kirkman" wrote in message
...
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1103255315.f29dfe6120788f82543c12c4993a36f6@teran ews:

Don Kirkman wrote:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1102702794.c6bd5774ee877a3e0006348000395b77@teran ews:

What *precisely* is your basis for "understanding that it is legally
impossible for someone to anonymously (i.e. under a pseudonym) steal
credit for anything"?


someone's comments about your arrogance snipped probably because of
your embarrassment

Thusly are the fruits of self-worship.

The word would be "thus," not "thusly."

From the on-line Webster's:

Main Entry: thus·ly
Pronunciation: -lE
Function: adverb
: in this manner : THUS

The print Webster's Collegiate doesn't even list "thusly," and your
usage is not as an adverb but as a demonstrative pronoun, "thus," akin
to that, those, these.

It is my choice to use the word thusly. Sorry this offends you.

Hope my comment enlightens those who need enlightening.

Your answer to the question I asked *would* be enlightening, but I don't
expect I'll ever see it.

Here it is again because you claimed to have missed it:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z27D3641A

You mean this, your contribution to that message (and which in fact I
have not gotten in smc)?

[Begin]
Then try the following analogies on for size:

Judge (to the defendant): You are charged with being a "peeping tom."
How do you plead?
[DK] No, the issue was theft, not peeping.

This is an analogy, Don.


Defendant: Definitely not guilty.

Judge: How can you be so certain?

Defendant: I am blind.

Analogously:

Judge (to imaginary anonymous defendant): You are charged with putting
your name on something authored by someone else. How do you plead?
[DK] No, the issue was appropriating the work of another
without credit.

When someone appropriates the work of another without credit, s/he does
this by putting his/her name on something authored by someone else.

Defendant: Definitely not guilty.

Judge: How can you be so certain?

Defendant: I have no name.
[DK] No, in this instance the alleged thief has a name but
instead of using it adopts an alias or uses no name.

As far as the judge is concerned, there is no name because the defendant
either refuses to give it or has given up his name (ie as Prince did for
a while). Indeed, the alias could be "no name."

Hope the above analogies enlighten you and others.
[End]

THAT is supposed to be an answer to why you think an anonymous person
cannot steal someone else's intellectual property?

A person with no name is as able to steal intellectual property as
someone with no hands is able to pick-pocket.


Hope the above information helps you.

It helps build the record of your evasiveness, but please answer the
question I asked or simply say you have no factual basis for your
opinion.

You have a history of being unable to accept answers you do not like
(shrug).


May God bless those who read the following:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A


And, may what I have written enlighten you and others.

Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory
(http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A).


Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:14:26 -0800, Don Kirkman wrote:

THAT is supposed to be an answer to why you think an anonymous person
cannot steal someone else's intellectual property?

burp

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1103860520.a0cfef7dae1e5581f4aa9b61d42ec3f7@teran ews:

Don Kirkman wrote:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1103664391.a261860136f1982303186ae8457f7ac7@teran ews:

Don Kirkman wrote:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1103635847.ddaaa719bae97388b192743d7a9cc2f1@teran ews:

"John Smyth®©" wrote:

"Don Kirkman" wrote in message
...
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1103255315.f29dfe6120788f82543c12c4993a36f6@teran ews:

Don Kirkman wrote:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article 1102702794.c6bd5774ee877a3e0006348000395b77@teran ews:

What *precisely* is your basis for "understanding that it is legally
impossible for someone to anonymously (i.e. under a pseudonym) steal
credit for anything"?

someone's comments about your arrogance snipped probably because of
your embarrassment

Thusly are the fruits of self-worship.

The word would be "thus," not "thusly."

It is my choice to use the word thusly. Sorry this offends you.

Poor grammar never offends me. It just suggests the user didn't pay
attention in school.

Here it is again because you claimed to have missed it:

http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z27D3641A

You mean this, your contribution to that message (and which in fact I
have not gotten in smc)?

[Begin]
Then try the following analogies on for size:

Judge (to the defendant): You are charged with being a "peeping tom."
How do you plead?
[DK] No, the issue was theft, not peeping.

This is an analogy, Don.

Of course it is; it just doesn't fit the issues at hand.

Defendant: Definitely not guilty.

Judge: How can you be so certain?

Defendant: I am blind.

Analogously:

Judge (to imaginary anonymous defendant): You are charged with putting
your name on something authored by someone else. How do you plead?
[DK] No, the issue was appropriating the work of another
without credit.

When someone appropriates the work of another without credit, s/he does
this by putting his/her name on something authored by someone else.

Sometimes that name may be an alias; in the case we're discussing a
poster did use a name (just not his true name) without crediting the
author of the work he cited.

Defendant: Definitely not guilty.

Judge: How can you be so certain?

Defendant: I have no name.
[DK] No, in this instance the alleged thief has a name but
instead of using it adopts an alias or uses no name.

As far as the judge is concerned, there is no name because the defendant
either refuses to give it or has given up his name (ie as Prince did for
a while). Indeed, the alias could be "no name."

As far as the judge is concerned in a situation like that, the defendant
is "John Doe" or "Richard Roe" or "Mary Doe" and will be listed that way
in the case files until/unless the true name is determined. It makes no
difference to his guilt or innocence. You may want to sit in a
courtroom some day to see how it's done. :-)

Hope the above analogies enlighten you and others.
[End]

THAT is supposed to be an answer to why you think an anonymous person
cannot steal someone else's intellectual property?

A person with no name is as able to steal intellectual property as
someone with no hands is able to pick-pocket.

Your logic escapes me, and apparently has escaped you as well.

Hope the above information helps you.

It helps build the record of your evasiveness, but please answer the
question I asked or simply say you have no factual basis for your
opinion.

You have a history of being unable to accept answers you do not like
(shrug).

Give me a straight answer some day and put me to the test. Dare ya!

And, may what I have written enlighten you and others.

Of course, "'et lux in tenebris lucet et tenebrae eam non
conprehenderunt', “The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness
has not overcome it� presupposes some light at the beginning. I await
some glimmer in your analogies, syllogisms, and general facts.
--
Don