James, > 1) Acknowledging that the search algorithm performs poorly with no LM, > tuning or pruning despite the fact the search space clearly contains high > quality translations > Yes. We all acknowledge this. If you have a better technique, that's great. Show that it's better. Your paper does not do so.
2) to a public display of en-masse reluctance to acknowledge that such is > an undesirable quality of the system > Yes, this is undesirable. If you have a better technique, that's great. Show that it's better. Your paper does not do so. > 3) to resorting to censorship not only in the literature but also on a > public mailing list rather than acknowledge point 2. > No one is trying to censor you in the literature. You wrote a paper that got rejected. Lots of papers get rejected. Lots of GOOD papers get rejected. The fact that yours got rejected does not mean that you're being censored. No one is trying to censor you on this list. We are simply requesting that you conduct yourself like a well-mannered adult engaged in scientific research. By the way, your frequent mentions of investors are very much a non sequitur. You may be looking for investors, and that's fine if you are. You may want to keep in mind that not everyone is. Many of us are interested in this as a field of scientific enquiry. Lane
_______________________________________________ Moses-support mailing list Moses-support@mit.edu http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/moses-support
