主题：【原创】【整理】致高尔夫、南方系，并安慰忘情兄 -- 巅峰背影
家园 没有水平却偏要冒充专家，这才是职业道德问题。 有水平就缺个文凭，变通一下未尝不可，是社会对文凭的偏见逼的。英雄莫问出处。
家园 我上一个帖子跟你说了几个问题，你一个不看 一是方的态度问题，
二是他是不是因为水平低而说错话的问题
你非要和我谈事情的性质问题。
另外抄袭的问题已经有很多指出了，方的很多科普文章抄袭老外的，人家已经提出抗议了。要我给出链接吗？
方的问题，根本就不是水平问题。
把西药弄成中药，使劲的批，你觉得是水平问题还是啥问题啊？人家指出了，还不承认，还要根据啥常理常情非要说是中药，你说是水平问题还是啥问题啊？
如果说只有抄袭和伪造才算人品问题，我只能说您很厚道。希望你的厚道是针对所有人的。
家园 呵呵 你上个帖子说的问题，我都看了啊：
方的态度，你没有明确指控出来罪名，我也不好回复，呵呵。
方水平低，我这高中生物背景的人，怎么置喙呢。
方的问题是很多，关键是他的对手们，有不少问题比他大很多倍，有的甚至越过了底线。而且，对于这些人，方不去找碴的话，又有谁来呢？
- 复 呵呵
家园 给你个链接 http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670102dru2.html
- 复 给你个链接
家园 我很怀疑这篇博文的真实性 一是，作为一个教授来说，这个英语水平简直惨不忍睹，信的第一句话就完全不通。而且好像我们领域里面说文章都是用article，不用essay，莫非他们不一样？essay一般是指散文随笔啊。而且好像没听说过抄袭language的，大家不都是英语么。
第二，说了半天，方的哪篇文章抄了他的哪篇文章啊？我看完都没弄明白他在说什么。
第三，科普文章里虽然会提到谁谁谁的发现谁谁谁的成果，但是好像没见过引用文章的，那些文章一般人也没权限看啊。
家园 那你就看方舟子自己的辩护吧。呵呵 以他的大条，一般是不屑于辩护的。
这篇的问题，在我看来不是真实性的问题，而在于到底抄了多少篇，没有具体说明
- 复 给你个链接
家园 这个链接中的英文 极其惨不忍睹。貌似软件翻译出来的
- 复 这个链接中的英文
家园 那英文明显不是一般中国人能写出来的 中国人一般写长句都是惨不忍睹的，你翻到后面去看刘实和廖俊林写给方的博士老板的信就知道了。
下面是美国佬写的：
Dear Dr. Shi Liu,Yours is the fourth translation of Dr. Fang's essay to have been sent to me. Three have been from people who believe that Dr. Fang is guilty of plagiarism; one was from a friend of Dr. Fang's who claimed that the translation he sent me proved that Dr. Fang was not guilty of plagiarism. In fact, all of the translations, including the one from Dr. Fang's friend, are extremely similar in langauge and all lay out an identical argument using exactly the same examples. Much of the language, all of the argument, and the vast majority of the examples are drawn verbatim from my essay, which is not cited as a source of the argument, the language or the examples. I am now, therefore, convinced that Dr. Fang has plagiarized my work.
Let me add two important points. One is that under international copyright law, not only is the exact language of an essay protected, but so is the structure of the argument and the set of examples used to bolster the argument. Devising the argument and marshalling the evidence to support it is, after all, just as much a form of intellectual work yielding unique intellectual property as is the crafting of the specific words used to convey the argument. The second point that I want to reiterate is that the Dr. Fang's claim that popularizations are exempt from copyright is absolutely false. An individual who popularizes science (or any other subject) is under just as much obligation as is the original scholar to cite his or her sources or provide other means for the reader to determine what original sources were used in writing the popularization. As an example, you can look at the popular blog on creativity that I write with my wife Michele Root-Bernstein on the Psychology Today website: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/imagine
Sincerely yours,
Bob Root-Bernstein
这个是方自己写的回信，
方舟子回应Root-Bernstein博士的“剽窃”指控按：8月4日我给指控我“剽窃”的“母校教授Root-Bernstein”（我不认识他，从未上过他的课或见过他）回了一封信。这封信本不打算公开。但
Root-Bernstein博士将它转给“方学家”公开，“方学家”将其内容和
Root-Bernstein博士的信通过有意误译的方法歪曲。所以还是在这里公开好了。我的导师Zachary Burton博士认为我的这个答复“合理而审慎”。
尊敬的Root-Bernstein博士，
1995年我还是密歇根州立大学一名研究生时，我在一个叫alt.chinese.text的网上论坛张贴了一篇短文，当时在中国留学生中有一场关于伪科学的辩论。那篇短文是对一个网上讨论的一个非正式的、随意的跟帖，不是学术论文或作业。它部分地复述了你的文章中的科学判断标准。我把这些科学标准说成是“科学哲学界的共识”，并给出自己的例子解释它。我后来改写了这篇短文，在1999年我的一本书中正式出版，并注明来源为“根据Root-Bernstein的归纳”。2007年在我的另一本书中这些标准又被提及时，我给出文献出处为"On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered, Robert Root-Bernstein,
Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press, 1984"（如果没有这一文献出处，我不相信肖传国——这位外科医生由于我揭露了其不正当医疗行为而雇人用辣椒水和锤子袭击我——的支持者能在16年后追踪到文献来源并向你和密歇根州立大学校方举报“剽窃”。在这一答复中我删掉了四名肖传国支持者的电子邮址。）
我从未把那些标准说成是我自己的原创思想，也从未复制你的措辞。而且它正式出版时，已注明了引用出处和文献来源。因此根据你不同意但公认的定义，我不认为它构成剽窃或侵犯版权。但是在最初的网帖中我没有明确地提及你的名字是不妥的，我为此道歉。
诚挚的，
方是民
Dear Dr. Root-Bernstein,
In 1995 when I was a graduate student at MSU, I posted a short writing to an online forum called alt.chinese.text when there was a debate
about pseudoscience among oversea Chinese students. It was an informal, casual follow-up to a discussion thread, not an academic paper or
assignment. Part of it paraphrased the criteria of science from your article. I presented the criteria of science as "consensus in philosophy of science" and gave my own examples to explain it. This
writing was revised and formally published in one of my books in 1999, and it cited the source as “According to the summary by Root-Bernstein”, and when the criteria were mentioned again in
another book of mine in 2007, it gave reference as "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered, Robert Root-Bernstein, Science and Creationism, Oxford University Press, 1984".(Without this
reference, I don't believe the supporters of Xiao Chuanguo, the surgeon who hired assailants to attack me using pepper spray and
hammer after I exposed his malpractice, could track down the source and report the "plagiarism" to you and MSU administration 16 years later. I have deleted email addresses of four Xiao's supporters in
this reply)
I never presented the criteria as my own original idea, nor did I copy your wordings. And when it's formally published, the source had been
credited and cited. Therefore I don't think it consists of plagiarism or copyright infringement according to the common accepted definitions
with which you disagree. But it's inappropriate not to explicitly credit you in my original posting, and I apologize for it.
Sincerely,
Shi-min Fang
那个博克上还有美国佬对方回复的反驳
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670102dsa2.html
和对估计是方马甲的反驳
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670102dstl.html
- 复 这个链接中的英文
家园 en,只好用包子有肉不在褶子上来安慰自己了。
- 复 呵呵
家园 好像是歪了哦 方的罪名，网络上已经说的很清楚了。就是抄袭。
其他就不说了
至于你的最后一句话，我不是太赞同。
说白了，我是怀疑他背后有黑手的。
你的确很善良，呵呵！起码没有玩过阴谋诡计。