At 04:20 PM 7/21/2007 -0400, disingenous Jed Rothwell wrote:
Michel Jullian wrote:

Let's pretend for a minute that both sides in this dispute are in good faith:

- Jed understandably prefers text because it allows indexing and searching.
- Mitchell understandably prefers raw scanned images because they are more faithful to the original document.

I doubt that is the reason he prefers raw scanned images. If it was, he would upload the raw scanned image to his own web page, wouldn't he?



  What utter complete nonsense.

The reason we wanted the papers posted, and were willing to let Rothwell scan the abstract only, is that Jed Rothwell simply cannot be trusted to be accurate and precise in his translations. We have seen him mistranslate 'cathode' for 'anode', and make other errors over the years. He simply neither 'cares', nor understands the importance of accuracy in this matter.

   
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Anyway there was nothing "faithful" about the image he sent me. It was badly scanned. The figures were distorted and the text was difficult to read. I told Swartz to send me a printed copy and I would make a decent scan of the figures. Also, there were two or three spelling mistakes, which I was planning to correct, so it would have been better than the printed version.


More Rothwell falsehoods. Rothwell (and Storms) were given complete copies of the papers,
including by mail, and by CDROM, and by email,
as readers of vortex and CMNS (and those who received identical copies as test issues) know, but Rothwell has elected (as we have said they have the right to do) to keep them censored,
just as they have censored others, such as the good works of Ken Shoulders,
 and previously Bob Bass.

The single case to which Rothwell refers was test, done with Dr. Brian Josephson, to see if Rothwell would accept being able to OCR only the abstract. He refused and demanded to scan the entire paper (and screw it up as he does to others). That is not acceptable.

Anyone who has ever taken the time to correct Rothwell knows that such an effort is
unfortunately a serious waste of time.




Reply via email to