> Tim wrote:
> >On Fri, 26 Sep 1997, Tadeusz Niwinski wrote:
> >> Thank you for explaining. I think this meme is worth exploring. Correct me
> >> if I am wrong, please: I understand that you claim that a fraud is
> >> justifiable as long as it is used for "good reasons" and especially with
> >> people you judge to be not very bright.
> >
> >Correcting you: I don't think I agree with your definition of "fraud",
> >based on your statement above. Could you please clarify for me what you
> >mean when you say "fraud" in the above context?
>
> Thank you, Tim, for cooperating in my research. Here is a clarification you
> ask for (from my 25 Sep 1997 13:14:28 -0700 post):
>
> <<In the above "quotes" you have reversed and tampered with my original.
> This is a very mild case of fraud (but I am not going to sue you :-)). >>
(Sorry about all the repeat quotes, friends)
So, I'm going to transpose your words to my own ends and see if they are
close to what you mean:
"I understand that you claim that reversing the order of some statements,
tampering with it in this way, is justifiable as long as it is for good
reason"
Well, if I have not, once again, misrepresented you, then yes, Tad. I
agree with the above statement.
In Law it is called "Comment and Criticism" and is exempt from copyright
laws (look it up, if you're in doubt) and is not considered to be fraud.
-Prof. Tim