03-27-2009, 02:01 AM
Dears
Just for information of the readers, if the permission is not taken in WRITTEN PRIOR to replicating the whole of copyrighted material, the act of copy/pasting still remains the act of plagiarism. Further, there is much difference between replicating and just quote a copyrighted material. When someone without PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION copy/pastes the whole of copyrighted article, he/she replicates which is an illegal act, but simply providing a weblink of copyrighted material is called "quoting". Yes, these terms are little difficult to understand.
Now, people may claim that they already had prior written permission, but were holding it. I would not wonder if they say so. Even it would not be amazing if someone would claim that he/she has permission to replicate all the copyrighted material available on whole internet. However, it is at-least very amazing to know that out of all pure economics literature available on all internet resources, some people were very smart that they already had prior written permission to copy/paste very specific pure economics article related to very specific discussion on this thread. Even a very naive student of accounting can calculate the probability of occurrence of such event, and can question about reasonability of such claim. Perhaps someone already had some "ILHAM" about future events. [)][)][)]
In response to reasonable objections, use of words like "idiotic", "oversmart", "no sane comments" simply proves the "tendency" of the poster that can be "viewed" on this thread, whole forum, and all other threads wherever other members refused to agree with. Usually, here the poster brings the unique personal automatic legal right of "like is to be treated likely" or unique personal automatic legal right to respond in such a way because dissenting members were "rubbing" their views. Moreover, what can be said when our "mistakes proofed wise brother" says "no sane comments" to reasonable questions even when the links of explanations of professional terms were provided. Further, why some people appear to be in so much "pain" if it was only a "non sense objection"? [)]
It is not difficult to use such words. Perhaps some people feel personal inner comfort in such words. Though anyone can use these words, but not all posters go down to that level, because these words distinguish between personalities. [)]
Now, I can expect the nature of the (reply) comments keeping in view the tendency which I have explained in above paras. Whether those comments would be sane or no sane, I would leave on discretion of other readers. []
Regards
Just for information of the readers, if the permission is not taken in WRITTEN PRIOR to replicating the whole of copyrighted material, the act of copy/pasting still remains the act of plagiarism. Further, there is much difference between replicating and just quote a copyrighted material. When someone without PRIOR WRITTEN PERMISSION copy/pastes the whole of copyrighted article, he/she replicates which is an illegal act, but simply providing a weblink of copyrighted material is called "quoting". Yes, these terms are little difficult to understand.
Now, people may claim that they already had prior written permission, but were holding it. I would not wonder if they say so. Even it would not be amazing if someone would claim that he/she has permission to replicate all the copyrighted material available on whole internet. However, it is at-least very amazing to know that out of all pure economics literature available on all internet resources, some people were very smart that they already had prior written permission to copy/paste very specific pure economics article related to very specific discussion on this thread. Even a very naive student of accounting can calculate the probability of occurrence of such event, and can question about reasonability of such claim. Perhaps someone already had some "ILHAM" about future events. [)][)][)]
In response to reasonable objections, use of words like "idiotic", "oversmart", "no sane comments" simply proves the "tendency" of the poster that can be "viewed" on this thread, whole forum, and all other threads wherever other members refused to agree with. Usually, here the poster brings the unique personal automatic legal right of "like is to be treated likely" or unique personal automatic legal right to respond in such a way because dissenting members were "rubbing" their views. Moreover, what can be said when our "mistakes proofed wise brother" says "no sane comments" to reasonable questions even when the links of explanations of professional terms were provided. Further, why some people appear to be in so much "pain" if it was only a "non sense objection"? [)]
It is not difficult to use such words. Perhaps some people feel personal inner comfort in such words. Though anyone can use these words, but not all posters go down to that level, because these words distinguish between personalities. [)]
Now, I can expect the nature of the (reply) comments keeping in view the tendency which I have explained in above paras. Whether those comments would be sane or no sane, I would leave on discretion of other readers. []
Regards