. 1) Really annoying is finding a link from a book I've never read say: One person who used our book has created a wonderful web site with information on how she earned here bachelors degree in only four weeks. Click here (my web site URL) I've never read this book. BA in 4 Weeks was based on my posts appearing in AED between 1997 and 1999. I do not know that this book has even been in print that long. WhoIS lists the admin (owner/author?) of the book's web site as one: Wilson, Mark (MW2299) [email protected] AMERICOM INC. P.O. Box 209, 204 SE Second St. Oakland, CA 97462 No big deal but really annoying. 2) A little annoying is finding a bootleg MS WORD copy of "BA in 4 weeks - BS degree" on a company web server directory listing, thrown up by google and yahoo! search engines. This copy is a cut-and-paste from a series of usenet articles. More annoying is that the original article titles, poster's details, dates, preamble, and original contents list, have been removed, and the edited work reproduced in another format and offered for public distribution as a 34 page file. The doc file properties tag lists the author as "Roberto Perez" and the company as "ZTech Systems". Really annoying is when they ignore written requests to remove it. Lawrie Miller BA in 4 Weeks http://geocities.com/BA_in_4_Weeks .
Lawrie, I believe you're looking for http://www.distancedegrees.com/ or http://www.collegeathome.com/. Mr. Wilson posted fairly frequently to AED. Some of his posts can be found searching on [email protected] . The Oakland, CA address should probably read Oakland, OR, as it does in the registrant address: Americom Inc. (MAKEWEBS-DOM) P.O. Box 209 Oakland OR,97462 US
If they're going to claim credit for your work, they should at least get your gender right. Thieving scumbags. You can't go a page in any direction on your site without tripping over a copyright notice. Know any attorneys?
Searching google.com appears to bring up his home address, home phone, workplace, work email, etc. Funny I didn't even realize there was an Oakland OR.
Mr. Wilson undoubtedly was in Marcie Thorsen's "really annoying" file, since the first edition (and perhaps more) of his book had a title and a 'look and feel' very similar to hers. And he is in my "really annoying" file, because when his book was restructured, it took on a structure nearly identical to mine: the same main sections, and nearly all the same chapter topics. I spoke to a copyright lawyer at the time, and he said, in effect, (a) This seems a clear violation of the "look and feel" parts of the laws, and (b) It is an extremely complex thing to go to court with, since both judges and juries often don't 'get' the concept of look and feel. So I did nothing except be really annoyed. In earlier editions, Wilson thanked me as the grand panjandrum of distance learning, or some such. Wonder if he still does?
Originally posted by John Bear: Mr. Wilson undoubtedly was in Marcie Thorsen's "really annoying" file . . . his book had a title and a 'look and feel' very similar to hers. . . he is in my "really annoying" file . . . when his book was restructured, it took on a structure nearly identical to mine . . . I did nothing except be really annoyed. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- That is less than wonderful. Lawrie Miller BA in 4 Weeks. http://geocities.com/BA_in_4_Weeks .
Re: Re: Really Annoying I was a frequent poster to AED back then, and I remember Mr. Wilson, now that you mention it. Thank you for the all info, Bill.
Lawrie, if he won't remove his reference to you and your site then just create a banner and/or popup stating that you have never read his book and that he is fraudulently using you as a reference. You could put "DO NOT BUY <bookname>" in a big banner on your site. I imagine that it wouldn't take him long remove his reference to you. Then again, maybe you could just bury it in your site a little so that he's not likely to notice it, but you still benefit from whatever traffic he might generate for you. What's sad is that even if his book has value he has lost credibility by falsely claiming that your experience was a result of reading his book. It's also sad is that he feels he needs to mimic the structure of other people's work rather creating an original work. These don't sound like the actions of an ethical person...
Being observant of etiquette, I wonder How does one address a Grand Panjandrum? Regards, Tony (known familiarly as "The High Muckety-Muck")
Tony: How does one address a Grand Panjandrum? John: "Hey, GP, whassup?" ------------------------------------------------------------------ As I'm sure everyone knows (except I didn't until 3 minutes ago), the word was made up by the poet Samuel Foote in 1755, as a test for actor Charles Macklin who claimed he could read any paragraph quickly once, and then be able to recite it from memory. Foote gave him: The Great Panjandrum So she went into the garden to cut a cabbage-leaf to make an apple-pie; and at the same time a great she-bear, coming down the street, pops its head into the shop. What! no soap? So he died, and she very imprudently married the Barber: and there were present the Picninnies, and the Joblillies, and the Garyulies, and the great Panjandrum himself, with the little round button at top; and they all fell to playing the game of catch-as-catch-can, till the gunpowder ran out at the heels of their boots. -----------------------------------------
Thanks Gary. I know that whenever I see something like that though, the first thing I do is I check out the the other site. Negative publicity. Good point. You might well be right. The MaxiMin strategy. Sneaky. I like that - von Neumann would be proud. I think you have summarized things well. It may be however, that John Bear was being inordinately charitable confining his annoyance to matters of "look and feel". A little point'n'click in google groups reveals apparently incontrovertible evidence of blatant plagiarism. Read here Lawrie Miller BA in 4 Weeks http://geocities.com/BA_in_4_Weeks .
Lawrie: It may be however, that John Bear was being inordinately charitable confining his annoyance to matters of "look and feel". A little point'n'click in google groups reveals apparently incontrovertible evidence of blatant plagiarism. John: I'd completely forgotten about that. Thank you, Lawrie. Now I'm really annoyed all over again.
