[Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com 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
RE: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)?
From Dr. Mitchell. Swartz ... Time again to get back to serious work. That certainly makes sense to me. Under the current circumstances does it not make sense to post whatever papers that have not been posted out at lenr-canr.org at your own web site? Is there a problem preventing you from doing this? Do you need assistance? Regards, Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Michel Jullian wrote: But you do change the content's layout, as I was amazed to discover once. Yes. It is impossible to preserve the layout from many papers. Also this scribe work introduces retranscription errors, I pointed one out to you recently. That is why I have the authors check the papers before I upload. Actually, I usually correct many more mistakes than I make. I mean spelling mistakes and the like. 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 . . . Says who? Why made that rule, and why? Why not fix mistakes? If fixing mistakes and making papers more readable puts LENR-CANR something halfway between a publisher and library, that seems like a good place to be. There is no point to to sticking rigidly to what you define as a library. No author has ever complained to me because I fixed a spelling error, or reformatted the paper to make it more readable on line. In fact, no author has ever complained to me about anything, except Swarz, and no author has accused me of censorship, except Swartz. . . . which definitely bring support to Mitchell's position. Mitchell does not have a position. He refuses to upload papers to his own site and he yells the I am censoring him. That's not a position -- it is childish nonsense. You keep claiming that he I are somehow on an equal basis. Let me remind you of two things: 1. Hundreds of authors had sent me papers, and NOT A SINGLE ONE has complained, except Swartz. 2. It is my web page. I pay for it, and I do all the work now. (When we started several people were a tremendous help, especially Britz, Storms, and Blanton, but I do everything now.) I do not tell Swarz how to run his web page, and he has no business telling me how to run mine. I do not complain that he censors because he publishes some papers and not others. I did not even complain when he repeatedly published my papers without permission, or when he accused me of being late and withholding news because he published my paper without permission before Infinite Energy had a chance to publish it! If Swartz, or you, want to help with LENR-CANR then you can have a say in the matter. But as long as you are sitting out there in the peanut gallery benefiting from LENR-CANR without doing any work or contributing so much as $20, I do not see why I need to listen to either of you. It makes me wonder, could the reformating routine be an attempt to avoid copyright issues, by deliberately not providing an exact copy? No, of course not. I would never attempt to avoid any such thing. If the author or publisher tells me not to upload because of copyright, or for any other reason, I do not upload. I asked you before, you said you weren't one, but a library. So now LENR-CANR.org is a scientific publisher is it? You can call it whatever you like. I see no point to quibbling over semantics or definitions. It is what it is. It has a purpose, and I do what I can to advance that purpose, including fixing spelling mistakes and reformatting papers. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell I have told him a million times that if he supplies the paper in text Acrobat format, I will upload it as is, without changing a single comma. What about text as images in Acrobat? Harry
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Harry Veeder wrote: I have told him a million times that if he supplies the paper in text Acrobat format, I will upload it as is, without changing a single comma. What about text as images in Acrobat? That is what I call image Acrobat. I am not sure of the correct terminology. Anyway, I discussed the problems with that at the beginning of this thread, such as the fact that Google cannot index this format, and people with disabilities (including me) cannot easily read it. Some disabled people cannot read it at all. For example, blind people who depend on text-to-voice or Braille readers. It is also a nuisance for people who speak English as a second language, which is roughly half of our readers. There are many technical reasons for selecting text Acrobat format, and I cannot think of a single good reason to use any other format. I cannot imagine why Swartz opposes the use of this format. I note that all of the papers on his website are in this format, so evidently he wants use the image format for his own papers only -- God only knowns why. Many years ago a few people tried to use image text files to prevent people from easily copying and circulating their papers. Perhaps this is what is driving Swartz? An image file can be circulated as easily as any, and OCR programs are common, so it can easily be converted to text, so this is a futile waste of time. I once saw the ultimate expression of this: an image file of text posted by a physicist that vanished from sight as soon as you tried to copy or download it, and then gradually reappeared. The author could not decide whether he did or did not want others to read his paper. Many cold fusion researchers are like this: they are torn between the desire to keep their results secret and the hunger to cash in on the fame and money that they feel the world owes them for their great discovery. They dither for years, usually until they die and take whatever it is they discovered to the grave. This back-and-forth, can't make up your mind attitude reminds of a ditty my father use to repeat, redolent of the turn of the 20th century: Mother, mother, may I go in for a swim? Yes, my darling daughter. Hang your clothes on the hickory bush, But don't go near the water! - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 12:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment) Michel Jullian wrote: Jed wrote: There are none in dispute. We will accept any or all. You are hereby sentenced to add in the form of his choice, because readers don't give a damn about the format in which they can access a previously unavailable resource . . . That is incorrect. Readers care a lot about format, and even more about presentation quality. I know a lot more about this subject than you do. I have distributed 800,000 previously unavailable papers about cold fusion, so I know what readers want. Messy, low-quality papers at LENR-CANR attract very few readers, whereas good papers are downloaded thousands of times a year. If you upload fax-machine quality low-res scanned images of a paper, with sideways, blacked-out overexposed figures and spelling mistakes, you will be lucky if 5 people a week read it. Convert that same paper to a proper format and if the content is any good, hundreds of people will download it every week. I enumerated the reasons why I think this standard is best. If you see a technical problem on that list of reasons, let's hear it. Otherwise, don't tell me how to do my job. I have been publishing technical information for decades, and I do not take kindly to amateur kvetching. Jed, your standard is indeed best for online publishing, this kvetching amateur doesn't deny this. But please clarify: is LENR.org a publishing house or a library? If it is an online library as advertised, I respectfully submit that its role is not to edit/improve the original work, especially not against the will of its author. As a professional technical information publisher but, as you will certainly agree, an amateur librarian, you could take example on Google Books, or Amazon Look/Search Inside, who provide high quality scanned images of the original works, see e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=O5f3L2GfXBQChl=en (Relativity: the special and the general theory By Albert Einstein) and try the search function, you'll see it is quite usable. Would you agree to a searchable image pdf format of this kind of quality? Would Mitchell? Of course you realize that apart from its technical merits (quality/fidelity/searchability), this format has the additional advantage of being a neutral ground where you and Mitchell could meet without any of you winning or losing this regrettable dispute. Just my 2 cents Michel
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Michel, you seem to miss the point to this discussion. The LENR website is whatever Jed wants it to be. We started the site and Jed operates it without pay for the benefit of the field. In addition, he applies the highest standards to this operation. Yet, when Swartz raise the issue of censorship based on his own inability to communicate, this is accepted as a plausible complaint. At any time Swartz could make his papers available either on LENR by meeting our standards or on his own site. This is not a two-sided issue. On the one side are two people who are working hard to advance knowledge about cold fusion and on the other side is someone who complains about an issue he could easily correct, all the while insulting Jed and I by his insinuation. Ed Michel Jullian wrote: - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 12:47 AM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment) Michel Jullian wrote: Jed wrote: There are none in dispute. We will accept any or all. You are hereby sentenced to add in the form of his choice, because readers don't give a damn about the format in which they can access a previously unavailable resource . . . That is incorrect. Readers care a lot about format, and even more about presentation quality. I know a lot more about this subject than you do. I have distributed 800,000 previously unavailable papers about cold fusion, so I know what readers want. Messy, low-quality papers at LENR-CANR attract very few readers, whereas good papers are downloaded thousands of times a year. If you upload fax-machine quality low-res scanned images of a paper, with sideways, blacked-out overexposed figures and spelling mistakes, you will be lucky if 5 people a week read it. Convert that same paper to a proper format and if the content is any good, hundreds of people will download it every week. I enumerated the reasons why I think this standard is best. If you see a technical problem on that list of reasons, let's hear it. Otherwise, don't tell me how to do my job. I have been publishing technical information for decades, and I do not take kindly to amateur kvetching. Jed, your standard is indeed best for online publishing, this kvetching amateur doesn't deny this. But please clarify: is LENR.org a publishing house or a library? If it is an online library as advertised, I respectfully submit that its role is not to edit/improve the original work, especially not against the will of its author. As a professional technical information publisher but, as you will certainly agree, an amateur librarian, you could take example on Google Books, or Amazon Look/Search Inside, who provide high quality scanned images of the original works, see e.g. http://books.google.com/books?id=O5f3L2GfXBQChl=en (Relativity: the special and the general theory By Albert Einstein) and try the search function, you'll see it is quite usable. Would you agree to a searchable image pdf format of this kind of quality? Would Mitchell? Of course you realize that apart from its technical merits (quality/fidelity/searchability), this format has the additional advantage of being a neutral ground where you and Mitchell could meet without any of you winning or losing this regrettable dispute. Just my 2 cents Michel
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Michel Jullian wrote: Jed, your standard is indeed best for online publishing, this kvetching amateur doesn't deny this. But please clarify: is LENR.org a publishing house or a library? A library. We seldom publish original papers. (Except ahem my book . . . and a few review papers.) Everything comes from other published sources, so that makes it a library. If it is an online library as advertised, I respectfully submit that its role is not to edit/improve the original work, especially not against the will of its author. Now look, Michel, I already told you this. I would NEVER, EVER, NOT IN 1 MILLION YEARS DO ANYTHING AGAINST THE WLL OF THE AUTHOR. Got it? NEVER. I would not edit a paper, or upload one, or remove one. Swartz claims that I do but -- to put it bluntly -- he is full of shit. Please get this through your head once and for all: I DO NOT ACT AGAINST THE WILL OF THE AUTHOR. Except in 3 cases out of 600 when we decided not to upload papers. That's a 0.5% rejection rate, which is much lower than a public library. All libraries reject books. As a professional technical information publisher but, as you will certainly agree, an amateur librarian, you could take example on Google Books, or Amazon Look/Search Inside, who provide high quality scanned images of the original works, see e.g. First of all, the images supplied by Swartz was not high quality. They were dreadful, like a fax machine copy. I do not think any self-respecting web master would upload them. Second, Google and Amazon books may upload images, but scientific publishers do not do this anymore, because text quality and precision is more important in scientific publication than ordinary publications. See: http://arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex and try the search function, you'll see it is quite usable. The search function works because the documents have been partially or fully OCRed, usually with lots of mistakes. In some sites they are OCRed on demand, which generates even more errors. As long as you are going to the trouble to OCR a document you might as well spend an extra hour or two and do it right. Would you agree to a searchable image pdf format of this kind of quality? No. The quality of searchable PDF files is lousy, and they cannot be read by some PDF readers, especially ones in Japan, China and other non-European languages. There is no benefit to this format, other than the time it saves to prepare the document, and as I said, an author should be willing to spare an hour for an audience of 300,000 people per year. I set these standards for good reasons. I have dealt with hundreds of authors and every one of them was pleased to take some time to proofread papers. Swartz is the only author who has ever complained or asked me to upload papers in some other format. Would Mitchell? Of course not! He will not upload these papers in any format, at his site, my site or any other. His complaints about the format are bogus nonsense. If I agreed to upload his unreadable scans, he would immediately come up with some other excuse, and he would demand that I remove the papers or face a lawsuit. It is all an act -- it is nothing but bogus excuses and nonsense. If he had any intention of making these papers available he would have uploaded them to his own website years ago. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
- Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-L@eskimo.com Sent: Monday, July 23, 2007 5:37 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment) Michel Jullian wrote: Jed, your standard is indeed best for online publishing, this kvetching amateur doesn't deny this. But please clarify: is LENR.org a publishing house or a library? A library. We seldom publish original papers. (Except ahem my book . . . and a few review papers.) Everything comes from other published sources, so that makes it a library. If it is an online library as advertised, I respectfully submit that its role is not to edit/improve the original work, especially not against the will of its author. Now look, Michel, I already told you this. I would NEVER, EVER, NOT IN 1 MILLION YEARS DO ANYTHING AGAINST THE WLL OF THE AUTHOR. Got it? NEVER. I would not edit a paper, or upload one, or remove one. Swartz claims that I do but -- to put it bluntly -- he is full of shit. Please get this through your head once and for all: I DO NOT ACT AGAINST THE WILL OF THE AUTHOR. Except in 3 cases out of 600 when we decided not to upload papers. That's a 0.5% rejection rate, which is much lower than a public library. All libraries reject books. Please don't shout. Sorry I was unclear, what I meant was: if the author thinks, understandably, that it's not the business of a library to tamper with the original work, don't insist that it must be edited/improved to upload it, act as a library and upload it. As a professional technical information publisher but, as you will certainly agree, an amateur librarian, you could take example on Google Books, or Amazon Look/Search Inside, who provide high quality scanned images of the original works, see e.g. First of all, the images supplied by Swartz was not high quality. They were dreadful, like a fax machine copy. I do not think any self-respecting web master would upload them. Better images can be made from an original paper print, he says you have the papers in print. Second, Google and Amazon books may upload images, but scientific publishers do not do this anymore, because text quality and precision is more important in scientific publication than ordinary publications. See: http://arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex Yes but you are not a scientific publisher, that's my point, why act as one? and try the search function, you'll see it is quite usable. The search function works because the documents have been partially or fully OCRed, usually with lots of mistakes. In some sites they are OCRed on demand, which generates even more errors. As long as you are going to the trouble to OCR a document you might as well spend an extra hour or two and do it right. Would you agree to a searchable image pdf format of this kind of quality? No. The quality of searchable PDF files is lousy, and they cannot be read by some PDF readers, especially ones in Japan, China and other non-European languages. Then let them use Acrobat Reader. Also think of the time you would save, uploading images would allow you to have very rapidly a virtually complete collection, thousands rather than hundreds of CF papers. There is no benefit to this format, other than the time it saves to prepare the document, and as I said, an author should be willing to spare an hour for an audience of 300,000 people per year. I set these standards for good reasons. I have dealt with hundreds of authors and every one of them was pleased to take some time to proofread papers. Swartz is the only author who has ever complained or asked me to upload papers in some other format. Would Mitchell? Of course not! He will not upload these papers in any format, at his site, my site or any other. His complaints about the format are bogus nonsense. If I agreed to upload his unreadable scans, he would immediately come up with some other excuse, Then why don't you try him? Whether or not he comes up with another excuse will tell us who was in good faith and who wasn't, which is quite unclear at the moment. Michel and he would demand that I remove the papers or face a lawsuit. It is all an act -- it is nothing but bogus excuses and nonsense. If he had any intention of making these papers available he would have uploaded them to his own website years ago. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Michel Jullian wrote: decided not to upload papers. That's a 0.5% rejection rate, which is much lower than a public library. All libraries reject books. Please don't shout. Sorry I was unclear, what I meant was: if the author thinks, understandably, that it's not the business of a library to tamper with the original work, don't insist that it must be edited/improved to upload it, act as a library and upload it. 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. Better images can be made from an original paper print, he says you have the papers in print. He is wrong. I do not have the papers in print. I offered to make better scans if he mails them. Any scanner could make a better copy than the one he sent me. . . . but scientific publishers do not do this anymore, because text quality and precision is more important in scientific publication than ordinary publications. See: http://arxiv.org/help/faq/whytex 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? Every paper on LENR-CANR is about science. No. The quality of searchable PDF files is lousy, and they cannot be read by some PDF readers, especially ones in Japan, China and other non-European languages. Then let them use Acrobat Reader. That is what they use. It does not work with some of these searchable PDF files, and files converted with strange parameters. I have dealt with hundreds of PDF files in every format. They have many problems. Text Acrobat has the least number of problems. Also think of the time you would save, uploading images would allow you to have very rapidly a virtually complete collection, thousands rather than hundreds of CF papers. The format is not holding me back. I cannot upload additional papers because the authors have not given me permission. (Most of them do not respond.) Dieter Britz sent me a scanned collection of 1,283 papers, plus I have several hundred more on paper. Also, there is no point to saving time if you upload unreadable glop. 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. You deal with him, and leave me out of it. - Jed
[Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
I concur with Judge Steven V. Johnson's conclusions. Jed wrote: There are none in dispute. We will accept any or all. You are hereby sentenced to add in the form of his choice, because readers don't give a damn about the format in which they can access a previously unavailable resource, and the ball will be in Mitchell's court, he might even decide to provide them in the format you like most if he is not forced to. Michel - Original Message - From: Jed Rothwell [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: vortex-l@eskimo.com; vortex-l@eskimo.com Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2007 11:04 PM Subject: Re: [Vo]:Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment) OrionWorks wrote: If an individual for whatever reason feels they cannot trust the integrity of another individual who appears to be in the position of editing [tampering with] their personal material (their CHILD, so-to-speak!)... That is what Swartz claims, but is it 100% pure, unadulterated garbage. I have told him a million times that if he supplies the paper in text Acrobat format, I will upload it as is, without changing a single comma. Heck, even if it has a few spelling errors I won't ask for a revision. I have told that to every author and I have repeated it here many times. I would never change the contents of his paper and upload a version that he does not approve! That's absurd. I gather few have been able to access the contents of Dr. Swartz's papers, specifically the ones in dispute . . . There are none in dispute. We will accept any or all. . . . because as I understand it they aren't on-line ANYWHERE. Is this correct assumption, or have I erred? You got it. Under the circumstances it seems to me that if Dr. Schwartz would be so kind as to upload the disputed papers to his own web site (as-is?) that this would go a long way in resolving the controversy. That, he will never do. Is there a problem with this approach? Is there insufficient web space available at Dr. Swartz web site? That can't be the reason. Nowadays web space is cheap as dirt. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:Re: Ed/Jed-Mitchell dispute (was Re: Requesting comments to this comment)
Judge Johnson sez: Under the circumstances it seems to me that if Dr. Schwartz would be so kind as to upload the disputed papers to his own web site (as-is?) that this would go a long way in resolving the controversy. To which Jed replies: That, he will never do. ... In another recent post Michel Jullian suggests: , and the ball will be in Mitchell's court, he might even decide to provide them in the format you like most if he is not forced to. To which Jed replies: The ball is already in his court. He can upload his papers to his own web site anytime he wants, in any format he likes. No one is forcing him to provide anything to me, in any format. ... As the librarian for lenr-canr.org I can appreciate your desire that the website's content maintains a professional appearance and credibility, that all papers are presented in a clear precise and readable format. I can understand Dr. Storms as well as your desire that all papers conform whenever possible to NIST standards – whatever this official NIST term really stands for cuz I really don't know! I also have no desire to dispute your claim that Readers care a lot about format, and even more about presentation quality. I know from personal experience that no one has EVER bought a smudgy fuzzy piece of artwork from me. It is also true that not all brilliant researchers and scientists possess the capacity to format, to present their findings in the most logical visual manner, in a so-called professional manner. It's really not anyone's fault as we all possess unique assets as well as deficits when we came into this world. That is what professional EDITORS are for, including scientific editors. Professional editors often perform a thankless job as the requirements force them to EDIT [...to occasionally tamper with the most intimate details of another person's precious hard work]. This inevitably leads to potential disagreements as to intent and content of particular phrases and terminology used. If a writer, for whatever reason, does not trust the ability of the editor to edit his work faithfully, to accurately maintain the original content of what he/she is trying to say, explain or reveal, the WRITER/EDITOR relationship should be terminated ASAP to save everyone untold reams of grief. The interesting part as I see it in this recent dialogue is a reoccurring statement that Mr. Rothwell would upload Dr. Schwartz's papers as is, without changing a single comma, –IF- the ...paper [could be supplied to him] in text Acrobat format. Since Dr. Schwartz has to the best of my knowledge not yet clarified his reasons as to why the papers have not been supplied to Mr. Rothwell in a text Acrobat format, I am forced to speculate. Speculating on the motivations of another individual in the third person and with no feed-back is ALWAYS a dubious and dangerous position to get mired in. With that said, I will stick my vulnerable neck out and speculate that Dr. Schwartz simply might not be able to (for undisclosed reasons) fulfill Mr. Rothwell's seemingly simple request. I will not speculate as to what those reasons might be since this is, after all, sheer speculation on my part. The only suggestion I could offer Mr. Rothwell and Dr. Storms, which I want to make it clear neither has asked of me nor from anyone for that matter, might be to place a great big disclaimer next to the links to the disputed papers. Make it clear to anyone who might be considering retrieving the entirety of Dr. Schwarz's disputed papers that what they are about to retrieve might suffer from a collection of formatting issues, that it may be difficult to read portions of the text as well as make sense out of certain charts. Make it clear that lenr-canr.org cannot be held responsible for the readability, the content of the information. It seems to me that Lenr-canr.org would have at that point faithfully fulfilled its obligations and responsibilities to its readership in giving them fair warning. Nevertheless, due to what I assume must be strong interest in Dr. Schwartz's research the web site will cautiously go ahead and make the entire body of work available anyway, as-is – assuming Dr. Schwartz authorizes you to upload the original papers. The short answer: From what I can tell Dr. Schwartz does not appear to want ANYONE messing with his work in any form, shape or manner. He appears to want the entire body of his work presented in exactly the manner that he sent it in, such as to lenr-canr.org. It is up to lenr-canr.org to decide if they can accept those ground rules. In my own experience there appear to be few organizations, and far too few EDITORS who could tolerate such rigid ground rules, where there is no room for give-and-take. In fact, it might be impossible to fulfill, literally. Under the circumstances, and as I perceive it, most editors would simply suggest that the author upload the entirety of their research at their own web site as-is...and good luck. Complaining
