超级军网中国科坛打黑第二颗原子弹爆炸：美国教授发公开信指责方 ...
来源：百度文库 编辑：超级军网 时间：2024/04/20 17:26:43
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670102dsa2.html
（求真网2011年8月3日电）本网2011年7月28日发表《中国科坛打黑第一颗原子弹爆炸：美国教授直指方舟子抄袭剽窃》(http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670102dru2.html)后方舟子不仅不正视事实，反而动用水军谣言惑众，指控刘实伪造信件，更有“123123ABC”丧心病狂地对刘实进行赤裸裸的人身攻击。
对此，美国密执安州立大学教授Root-Bernstein（以后简称“根伯”）曾给刘实回信称“Dear Shi Liu,I'm sorry for the problems you are having. I am writing an open letter to Mr. Fang”。
现在，“根伯”的公开信发来了：
From： rootbern@msu.edu
To：smfang@yahoo.com
Cc：
XXX,
svl8epa@gmail.com,
XXX
Date:Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:04 PM
Subject:Open Letter to Shi-Min Fang
mailed-bymsu.edu
signed-bymsu.edu
Please see the attached letter,
Sincerely,
Robert Root-Bernstein, Ph. D.
Professor of Physiology
2174 Biomedical and Physical Sciences Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 USA
rootbern@msu.edu
office phone: 517-884-5039
webpage: http://www.msu.edu/~rootbern
blog page: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blogs
An Open Letter to Shi (2).docx
“根伯”的公开信全文（本往对部分段落加黑强调）
An Open Letter to Shi-Min Fang from Robert Root-Bernstein, Ph. D., Professor of Physiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA; rootbern@msu.edu. Dated 3 August 2011.
A number of people, including myself, have accused you of plagiarizing my work. You and your followers have denied it. Let’s use this difference of opinion to educate ourselves about what constitutes plagiarism in and see if we can reach an accord.
Let me begin by stating that I am basing my arguments on The Universal Copyright Convention, to which the People’s Republic of China and the United States both adhere.
1) You admit that you used my article “On Defining a Scientific Theory” as the basis for an essay that you published online in your blog in 1995 and subsequently in a book. The full bibliographic reference for my article is: Root‑Bernstein, R. S. "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered," in Evolution and Creationism, Ashley Montagu, ed. (Oxford: The University Press, 1984), pp 64‑94.) It is copyrighted by the Oxford University Press.
2) You and four of your Chinese colleagues have sent me various English translations of your essay. Although there are some differences in the specific wording of each translation, all display exactly the same development of the argument in the same order using the same examples.
3) According to copyright law, a person may plagiarize another person’s work in several ways. The first is to copy their words without attribution. The second is to use more than a certain percentage of a work without explicit permission from the copyright holder. For example, in the U. S. one may not quote more than 250 words from a single source, even with attribution, without obtaining explicit permission from the copyright holder. I am told that in China, an essayist must not copy more than 3% of a text and that a student who copies more than 25% may be denied his or her degree. A third form of plagiarism consists of lifting another author’s arguments and examples without explicit permission. Accordingly, one may plagiarize a work even in the absence of copying its language and even with attribution, especially if the arguments and examples are unique and constitute a substantial portion of the work plagiarized.
4) Others claim, and I concur, that you have plagiarized my work in all three ways. Let’s take a look at each, one at a time. You claim that you have not plagiarized me because you have not copied my words. Translations of words and ideas from one language to another pose a special problem in plagiarism cases, since differing grammars and cultural idioms will necessarily create alterations from the original text. Re-translations back into the original language cause further distortions. While it is always difficult to prove copying of words when using translations, many of your sentences have the identical structures and occur in the same order as mine and this is highly suggestive of copying. Therefore, in considering plagiarism in translation one must look beyond exact verbal duplication.
5) Beyond exact verbal duplication, it is necessary to ask how much of the original text has been used in formulating the second-language text and whether the second language text copies the verbal logic, the development of the argument, and the specific examples of the first language text. With regard to your essay, the answer is that you plagiarized me all of these ways. Many of your sentences (retranslated into English) have the same logical structure and occur in the same order as mine. This is highly suggestive of copying. Moreover, this identity of logic and sequence certainly exceeds 250 words and you certainly did not obtain my permission to do so. Finally, whether or not it can be proven that your essay simply translates mine, it can certainly be proven that the argument and the order of the points that you make are identical to those in my article, and the majority of examples are also identical. Since these arguments and examples constitute virtually the whole of my article and they also constitute the whole of your essay, I must conclude that your essay is a copy of mine. In verbal logic, development of argument and choice of example, your essay replicates my article.
6) You and your followers respond that you have incorporated several of your own examples in the place of mine. This does not alter the fact that the development of the entire argument, the exact order of the points, and the majority of the examples are still drawn from my own text.
7) You and your followers also argue that you did cite my name in publishing your article, but the only evidence you have provided to me is a photograph of a page in Chinese from an undated book on which my name appears. This evidence is inadequate for two reasons. First, the issue is not whether you cited me in your book, but whether you cited me in your original blog post in 1995. I have been presented with evidence that your original blog post did not cite me, and that you subsequently altered your post to incorporate my name only after you were accused of having plagiarized my article. Even if you did cite me in your original blog post, and even though you cite my name and even the source of my article in your essay as it now appears in book form, the claim of plagiarism still stands. Because you use the same logic, the same development of argument and very largely the same choice of examples as my original article, and because you draw on no other sources, your essay is a representation of my work and you are still under the obligation to obtain my explicit written permission to publish your essay in any form.
8) In addition, you and your followers have argued that my own essay “On Defining a Scientific Theory” is itself a popularization or “summary” of other people’s scholarship and therefore not protected by the same copyright laws as scholarly works. I gather that you believe that because you think you could have found the ideas in my article expressed elsewhere, my work is derivative and not therefore a copyrightable work. This is simply untrue on two counts. In the first place, Oxford University Press did copyright my essay. It is protected under law. Indeed, popularizations of all kinds are protected by copyright. Secondly, my article was not a popularization. It is a scholarly work published by a major university press. Moreover, you cannot find any other author arguing that a scientific theory must satisfy four sets of criteria simultaneously: logical, evidential, sociological and historical. You may find other scholars who have argued one or two of these together, but I know of no one who has argued any three of them together, and I am quite certain that I am the first scholar to argue that there are historical criteria that must also be part of the mix (see also my book Discovering [Harvard University Press, 1989]). Thus, my essay represents a unique and important scholarly contribution to the study of science. In plagiarizing my work, you have therefore stolen a scholarly synthesis of intellectual ideas that is unique to me, and which occurs in no one else’s scholarly or popular work. In other words, you could not have found these ideas anywhere else, nor could you have invented them yourself.
9) You and your followers have also argued that same criteria for citations do not pertain to popularizations as to scholarly essays and books. This argument is simply irrelevant. A popularizer may not plagiarize any individuals work whether they cite it or not.
In short, I maintain that whether you have used my exact words or not, you have certainly plagiarized my work by copying my unique scholarly argument, the logic and the points I use to substantiate it, and most of the examples I laboriously found to support it. I further maintain that because of the extent of this plagiarism, which consists of your entire article, you have plagiarized me in both your blog post and in your written essay. This plagiarism stands whether or not you cite my name in your blog post or in your written essay because of the extent of the material borrowed. Stated another way, your essay is an unacceptable copy of my work both because of the extent of the material borrowed and because you drew upon no other source or sources but mine in writing it. Due to this replication, you were obligated to obtain my explicit written permission before posting your blog or publishing your essay.
Now, what do I want from you? The answer is simply an apology. I am a teacher and I welcome this opportunity to teach about the complexities and subtleties surrounding the protection of intellectual property. We all make mistakes. What is important are the lessons we learn from our mistakes. The lesson here is that all you needed to do was to ask permission if you could popularize my essay and I would have said “yes!”. I was, after all, in the building right next to yours at MSU when you wrote your essay in 1995! And, like most scholars, I am always very pleased to have my work used by other people – as long as I get credit for having done that work! So my advice to you and all other scholars is something I learned very early in my career: it never hurts you to credit everyone who might have contributed to your own ideas; it always hurts you to leave anyone out. It never hurts to obtain copyright permission, even if you may not need it; but it always hurts to try to get away without obtaining that permission.
I look forward to your reply!
Sincerely,
Bob Root-Bernstein, Ph. D., Professor of Physiology, Michigan State University
在此，我们敦促方舟子及其同伙认真阅读“根伯”的公开信，并对此信做“最严谨”的翻译后公布。
方舟子抄没抄，全球人都知道！
方舟子想做啥，只有他能知道！
http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670102dsa2.html
（求真网2011年8月3日电）本网2011年7月28日发表《中国科坛打黑第一颗原子弹爆炸：美国教授直指方舟子抄袭剽窃》(http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_502041670102dru2.html)后方舟子不仅不正视事实，反而动用水军谣言惑众，指控刘实伪造信件，更有“123123ABC”丧心病狂地对刘实进行赤裸裸的人身攻击。
对此，美国密执安州立大学教授Root-Bernstein（以后简称“根伯”）曾给刘实回信称“Dear Shi Liu,I'm sorry for the problems you are having. I am writing an open letter to Mr. Fang”。
现在，“根伯”的公开信发来了：
50204167ga9a56104054a&690&690.jpg (38.66 KB, 下载次数: 0)
下载附件 保存到相册
From： rootbern@msu.edu
To：smfang@yahoo.com
Cc：
XXX,
svl8epa@gmail.com,
XXX
Date:Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 2:04 PM
Subject:Open Letter to Shi-Min Fang
mailed-bymsu.edu
signed-bymsu.edu
Please see the attached letter,
Sincerely,
Robert Root-Bernstein, Ph. D.
Professor of Physiology
2174 Biomedical and Physical Sciences Building
Michigan State University
East Lansing, MI 48824 USA
rootbern@msu.edu
office phone: 517-884-5039
webpage: http://www.msu.edu/~rootbern
blog page: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blogs
An Open Letter to Shi (2).docx
“根伯”的公开信全文（本往对部分段落加黑强调）
An Open Letter to Shi-Min Fang from Robert Root-Bernstein, Ph. D., Professor of Physiology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824 USA; rootbern@msu.edu. Dated 3 August 2011.
A number of people, including myself, have accused you of plagiarizing my work. You and your followers have denied it. Let’s use this difference of opinion to educate ourselves about what constitutes plagiarism in and see if we can reach an accord.
Let me begin by stating that I am basing my arguments on The Universal Copyright Convention, to which the People’s Republic of China and the United States both adhere.
1) You admit that you used my article “On Defining a Scientific Theory” as the basis for an essay that you published online in your blog in 1995 and subsequently in a book. The full bibliographic reference for my article is: Root‑Bernstein, R. S. "On Defining a Scientific Theory: Creationism Considered," in Evolution and Creationism, Ashley Montagu, ed. (Oxford: The University Press, 1984), pp 64‑94.) It is copyrighted by the Oxford University Press.
2) You and four of your Chinese colleagues have sent me various English translations of your essay. Although there are some differences in the specific wording of each translation, all display exactly the same development of the argument in the same order using the same examples.
3) According to copyright law, a person may plagiarize another person’s work in several ways. The first is to copy their words without attribution. The second is to use more than a certain percentage of a work without explicit permission from the copyright holder. For example, in the U. S. one may not quote more than 250 words from a single source, even with attribution, without obtaining explicit permission from the copyright holder. I am told that in China, an essayist must not copy more than 3% of a text and that a student who copies more than 25% may be denied his or her degree. A third form of plagiarism consists of lifting another author’s arguments and examples without explicit permission. Accordingly, one may plagiarize a work even in the absence of copying its language and even with attribution, especially if the arguments and examples are unique and constitute a substantial portion of the work plagiarized.
4) Others claim, and I concur, that you have plagiarized my work in all three ways. Let’s take a look at each, one at a time. You claim that you have not plagiarized me because you have not copied my words. Translations of words and ideas from one language to another pose a special problem in plagiarism cases, since differing grammars and cultural idioms will necessarily create alterations from the original text. Re-translations back into the original language cause further distortions. While it is always difficult to prove copying of words when using translations, many of your sentences have the identical structures and occur in the same order as mine and this is highly suggestive of copying. Therefore, in considering plagiarism in translation one must look beyond exact verbal duplication.
5) Beyond exact verbal duplication, it is necessary to ask how much of the original text has been used in formulating the second-language text and whether the second language text copies the verbal logic, the development of the argument, and the specific examples of the first language text. With regard to your essay, the answer is that you plagiarized me all of these ways. Many of your sentences (retranslated into English) have the same logical structure and occur in the same order as mine. This is highly suggestive of copying. Moreover, this identity of logic and sequence certainly exceeds 250 words and you certainly did not obtain my permission to do so. Finally, whether or not it can be proven that your essay simply translates mine, it can certainly be proven that the argument and the order of the points that you make are identical to those in my article, and the majority of examples are also identical. Since these arguments and examples constitute virtually the whole of my article and they also constitute the whole of your essay, I must conclude that your essay is a copy of mine. In verbal logic, development of argument and choice of example, your essay replicates my article.
6) You and your followers respond that you have incorporated several of your own examples in the place of mine. This does not alter the fact that the development of the entire argument, the exact order of the points, and the majority of the examples are still drawn from my own text.
7) You and your followers also argue that you did cite my name in publishing your article, but the only evidence you have provided to me is a photograph of a page in Chinese from an undated book on which my name appears. This evidence is inadequate for two reasons. First, the issue is not whether you cited me in your book, but whether you cited me in your original blog post in 1995. I have been presented with evidence that your original blog post did not cite me, and that you subsequently altered your post to incorporate my name only after you were accused of having plagiarized my article. Even if you did cite me in your original blog post, and even though you cite my name and even the source of my article in your essay as it now appears in book form, the claim of plagiarism still stands. Because you use the same logic, the same development of argument and very largely the same choice of examples as my original article, and because you draw on no other sources, your essay is a representation of my work and you are still under the obligation to obtain my explicit written permission to publish your essay in any form.
8) In addition, you and your followers have argued that my own essay “On Defining a Scientific Theory” is itself a popularization or “summary” of other people’s scholarship and therefore not protected by the same copyright laws as scholarly works. I gather that you believe that because you think you could have found the ideas in my article expressed elsewhere, my work is derivative and not therefore a copyrightable work. This is simply untrue on two counts. In the first place, Oxford University Press did copyright my essay. It is protected under law. Indeed, popularizations of all kinds are protected by copyright. Secondly, my article was not a popularization. It is a scholarly work published by a major university press. Moreover, you cannot find any other author arguing that a scientific theory must satisfy four sets of criteria simultaneously: logical, evidential, sociological and historical. You may find other scholars who have argued one or two of these together, but I know of no one who has argued any three of them together, and I am quite certain that I am the first scholar to argue that there are historical criteria that must also be part of the mix (see also my book Discovering [Harvard University Press, 1989]). Thus, my essay represents a unique and important scholarly contribution to the study of science. In plagiarizing my work, you have therefore stolen a scholarly synthesis of intellectual ideas that is unique to me, and which occurs in no one else’s scholarly or popular work. In other words, you could not have found these ideas anywhere else, nor could you have invented them yourself.
9) You and your followers have also argued that same criteria for citations do not pertain to popularizations as to scholarly essays and books. This argument is simply irrelevant. A popularizer may not plagiarize any individuals work whether they cite it or not.
In short, I maintain that whether you have used my exact words or not, you have certainly plagiarized my work by copying my unique scholarly argument, the logic and the points I use to substantiate it, and most of the examples I laboriously found to support it. I further maintain that because of the extent of this plagiarism, which consists of your entire article, you have plagiarized me in both your blog post and in your written essay. This plagiarism stands whether or not you cite my name in your blog post or in your written essay because of the extent of the material borrowed. Stated another way, your essay is an unacceptable copy of my work both because of the extent of the material borrowed and because you drew upon no other source or sources but mine in writing it. Due to this replication, you were obligated to obtain my explicit written permission before posting your blog or publishing your essay.
Now, what do I want from you? The answer is simply an apology. I am a teacher and I welcome this opportunity to teach about the complexities and subtleties surrounding the protection of intellectual property. We all make mistakes. What is important are the lessons we learn from our mistakes. The lesson here is that all you needed to do was to ask permission if you could popularize my essay and I would have said “yes!”. I was, after all, in the building right next to yours at MSU when you wrote your essay in 1995! And, like most scholars, I am always very pleased to have my work used by other people – as long as I get credit for having done that work! So my advice to you and all other scholars is something I learned very early in my career: it never hurts you to credit everyone who might have contributed to your own ideas; it always hurts you to leave anyone out. It never hurts to obtain copyright permission, even if you may not need it; but it always hurts to try to get away without obtaining that permission.
I look forward to your reply!
Sincerely,
Bob Root-Bernstein, Ph. D., Professor of Physiology, Michigan State University
在此，我们敦促方舟子及其同伙认真阅读“根伯”的公开信，并对此信做“最严谨”的翻译后公布。
方舟子抄没抄，全球人都知道！
方舟子想做啥，只有他能知道！
网友跟帖
佛陀的微笑2011-08-04 11:44:50 [举报]
支持美国教授对方舟子抄袭的谴责！ 来自佛陀的微笑的评论
田松2011-08-04 11:53:16 [举报]
抄袭不抄袭这么简单的事儿，也还有方粉选择性失明，可耻。
新浪网友2011-08-04 12:02:28 [举报]
公开信啊，肘子及其走狗还有什么好说的？可能会争辩，你说我剽窃就是剽窃？我就是没有剽窃！我老婆90%的copy都不算剽窃，我怎么会剽窃？
羅漢果-向日葵2011-08-04 12:20:16 [举报]
選擇性失明，可能是一種自動的心理保護機制，就像選擇性失憶一樣 来自羅漢果-向日葵的评论
cowboyspike2011-08-04 12:22:28 [举报]
娃哈哈哈,就等媒体播了.方嫖客,你能捂到啥时候 来自cowboyspike的评论
monocle2011-08-04 12:44:18 [举报]
方剽窃回应了吗？
SMACs2011-08-04 12:48:40 [举报]
我有一点无理性地“爱面子”，希望这件事情不要弄大，让美国教授更加以为中国剽窃、造假严重。就像上次有个国外杂志编辑来讲投稿，在台上强调了三四遍“不可造假”，这都是大家知道的，可他就好象很不放心中国学生和研究者一样。这种印象会不会被夸大了？
Hecius2011-08-04 12:52:51 [举报]
这可让 @方舟子 的老脸往哪里放啊？丢人丢到了美国？ 来自Hecius的评论
一个爱国的小混混2011-08-04 12:56:20 [举报]
转发此微博: @头条博客 来自一个爱国的小混混的评论
一个不明真相的围观者2011-08-04 13:09:16 [举报]
// @寻正 ：转发微博。 来自一个不明真相的围观者的评论
好笑猫2011-08-04 14:15:22 [举报]
天啊，我真的想不到有这样无耻的人，这个场可怎么收啊！
好笑猫2011-08-04 15:32:35 [举报]
“Now, what do I want from you? The answer is simply an apology.”
劝方舟子赶紧向教授老师道个歉吧，记住这个教训，好好找个工作好好做人吧。
编剧赵华2011-08-04 15:58:59 [举报]
回复SMACs：2001年时，@肖传国 教授也有一点无理性地“爱面子”，希望@方舟子 不要弄大夏建统的事，让美国人更加以为中国剽窃造假严重。可方舟子就是不肯。肖传国一怒之下向《科学》举报方舟子本人抄袭，导致方舟子以700余文诽谤肖传国，乃至方抄抄被殴……
编剧赵华2011-08-04 16:03:44 [举报]
#科普剽家#@方舟子 你的恩师伯恩斯坦教授指控你剽窃他著作的公开信等着你回答呢：“I look forward to your reply! ”#方抄抄#，你就招了吧，别再强词夺理了，老做缩头乌龟不是个事！
千里马常有2011-08-04 16:45:44 [举报]
转发此微博:这一下，热闹了！ 来自千里马常有的评论
中医_人生_思考中2011-08-04 16:50:49 [举报]
方狗！ 来自中医_人生_思考中的评论
千里之行prettyj2011-08-04 16:59:35 [举报]
生命的路是进步的，总是沿着无限的精神三角形的斜面向上走，什么都阻止他不得。16时59分13秒
袋鼠penguina2011-08-04 16:59:59 [举报]
太给力了，太支持我了16时59分
三十六计mostt2011-08-04 17:04:46 [举报]
生命短暂，切不可猬琐偏狭。17时04分21秒
22763415502011-08-04 17:11:15 [举报]
让你的目标大于你的才能吧......那麽，你今天的作为将胜过今天。 ...... 阿明·雷哈尼 17时10分56秒
鹳Tokyoj2011-08-04 17:12:21 [举报]
懂得生命真谛的人，可以使督促的生命延长。17时12分00秒
暑气蒸人water72011-08-04 17:16:44 [举报]
生命短暂，切不可猬琐偏狭。17时16分21秒
anythingcath2011-08-04 17:39:19 [举报]
曾经有一份真诚的爱情摆在我的面前，但是我没有珍惜，等到了失去的时候才后悔莫及，尘世间最痛苦的事莫过于此。如果上天能够给我一个再来一次的机会，我会对那个女孩子说三个字：我爱你。如果非要在这份爱上加个期限，我希望是一万年！17时38分54秒
远方的微光2011-08-04 17:39:44 [举报]
// @佛陀的微笑 ：转发微博。 来自远方的微光的评论
烟波浩渺atnightk2011-08-04 17:46:03 [举报]
感觉很好，不错，慢慢欣赏。期待新的原创文章。倾听……并期待你盈盈一笑。17时45分
远方的微光2011-08-04 18:15:14 [举报]
// @寻正 ：转发微博。 来自远方的微光的评论
远方的微光2011-08-04 18:17:47 [举报]
// @蒋方舟子V ： @方舟子 抄被袭美国老师骂的狗血喷头！这个流氓居然假装正义洁癖，实在是最大的笑话！// @Jasmine-Flower ： @猪肉王子 @laoyang老杨 美国教授的第一封电邮方舟子无法否认，他的第二电邮又来了。你们俩英语半瓶醋快来看，哪里有语法错误？ 来自远方的微光的评论
远方的微光2011-08-04 18:19:52 [举报]
// @佛陀的微笑 ：支持美国教授对方舟子抄袭的谴责！ 来自远方的微光的评论
远方的微光2011-08-04 18:20:34 [举报]
转发微博。 来自远方的微光的评论
zoowarmh2011-08-04 19:25:37 [举报]
问好老朋友，祝顺利如意！ 19时25分
孙恺钜2011-08-04 19:30:23 [举报]
方舟子，写科普，
肚里没“墨”要出书。
人动脑，就有招，
英译中，实在高，
科普文章不算抄。
非洲天太热，
大象不长毛。
狮子戴假发？
犀牛有剃刀？
黑人黑夜黑，
白人白天白。
曼德拉白天涂墨才出门？
希拉里黑夜睡觉不关灯？
人人都是变色龙，
难怪关公战秦琼！
英文原书没有错，
中文科普“误”不堪。
写书不难抄书难，
编辑出错最心烦？
科普有问题，
编辑水平低。
为勘编辑误，
是“民”能出一本书。
方舟子，抄没抄？
小学生，都知道，
这个问题太可笑！
大星星亮晶晶2011-08-04 19:44:48 [举报]
美国密执安州立大学教授Root-Bernstein的公开信让我们彻底认清了“造假皇帝”方舟子的真面目。
佛陀的微笑2011-08-04 11:44:50 [举报]
支持美国教授对方舟子抄袭的谴责！ 来自佛陀的微笑的评论
田松2011-08-04 11:53:16 [举报]
抄袭不抄袭这么简单的事儿，也还有方粉选择性失明，可耻。
新浪网友2011-08-04 12:02:28 [举报]
公开信啊，肘子及其走狗还有什么好说的？可能会争辩，你说我剽窃就是剽窃？我就是没有剽窃！我老婆90%的copy都不算剽窃，我怎么会剽窃？
羅漢果-向日葵2011-08-04 12:20:16 [举报]
選擇性失明，可能是一種自動的心理保護機制，就像選擇性失憶一樣 来自羅漢果-向日葵的评论
cowboyspike2011-08-04 12:22:28 [举报]
娃哈哈哈,就等媒体播了.方嫖客,你能捂到啥时候 来自cowboyspike的评论
monocle2011-08-04 12:44:18 [举报]
方剽窃回应了吗？
SMACs2011-08-04 12:48:40 [举报]
我有一点无理性地“爱面子”，希望这件事情不要弄大，让美国教授更加以为中国剽窃、造假严重。就像上次有个国外杂志编辑来讲投稿，在台上强调了三四遍“不可造假”，这都是大家知道的，可他就好象很不放心中国学生和研究者一样。这种印象会不会被夸大了？
Hecius2011-08-04 12:52:51 [举报]
这可让 @方舟子 的老脸往哪里放啊？丢人丢到了美国？ 来自Hecius的评论
一个爱国的小混混2011-08-04 12:56:20 [举报]
转发此微博: @头条博客 来自一个爱国的小混混的评论
一个不明真相的围观者2011-08-04 13:09:16 [举报]
// @寻正 ：转发微博。 来自一个不明真相的围观者的评论
好笑猫2011-08-04 14:15:22 [举报]
天啊，我真的想不到有这样无耻的人，这个场可怎么收啊！
好笑猫2011-08-04 15:32:35 [举报]
“Now, what do I want from you? The answer is simply an apology.”
劝方舟子赶紧向教授老师道个歉吧，记住这个教训，好好找个工作好好做人吧。
编剧赵华2011-08-04 15:58:59 [举报]
回复SMACs：2001年时，@肖传国 教授也有一点无理性地“爱面子”，希望@方舟子 不要弄大夏建统的事，让美国人更加以为中国剽窃造假严重。可方舟子就是不肯。肖传国一怒之下向《科学》举报方舟子本人抄袭，导致方舟子以700余文诽谤肖传国，乃至方抄抄被殴……
编剧赵华2011-08-04 16:03:44 [举报]
#科普剽家#@方舟子 你的恩师伯恩斯坦教授指控你剽窃他著作的公开信等着你回答呢：“I look forward to your reply! ”#方抄抄#，你就招了吧，别再强词夺理了，老做缩头乌龟不是个事！
千里马常有2011-08-04 16:45:44 [举报]
转发此微博:这一下，热闹了！ 来自千里马常有的评论
中医_人生_思考中2011-08-04 16:50:49 [举报]
方狗！ 来自中医_人生_思考中的评论
千里之行prettyj2011-08-04 16:59:35 [举报]
生命的路是进步的，总是沿着无限的精神三角形的斜面向上走，什么都阻止他不得。16时59分13秒
袋鼠penguina2011-08-04 16:59:59 [举报]
太给力了，太支持我了16时59分
三十六计mostt2011-08-04 17:04:46 [举报]
生命短暂，切不可猬琐偏狭。17时04分21秒
22763415502011-08-04 17:11:15 [举报]
让你的目标大于你的才能吧......那麽，你今天的作为将胜过今天。 ...... 阿明·雷哈尼 17时10分56秒
鹳Tokyoj2011-08-04 17:12:21 [举报]
懂得生命真谛的人，可以使督促的生命延长。17时12分00秒
暑气蒸人water72011-08-04 17:16:44 [举报]
生命短暂，切不可猬琐偏狭。17时16分21秒
anythingcath2011-08-04 17:39:19 [举报]
曾经有一份真诚的爱情摆在我的面前，但是我没有珍惜，等到了失去的时候才后悔莫及，尘世间最痛苦的事莫过于此。如果上天能够给我一个再来一次的机会，我会对那个女孩子说三个字：我爱你。如果非要在这份爱上加个期限，我希望是一万年！17时38分54秒
远方的微光2011-08-04 17:39:44 [举报]
// @佛陀的微笑 ：转发微博。 来自远方的微光的评论
烟波浩渺atnightk2011-08-04 17:46:03 [举报]
感觉很好，不错，慢慢欣赏。期待新的原创文章。倾听……并期待你盈盈一笑。17时45分
远方的微光2011-08-04 18:15:14 [举报]
// @寻正 ：转发微博。 来自远方的微光的评论
远方的微光2011-08-04 18:17:47 [举报]
// @蒋方舟子V ： @方舟子 抄被袭美国老师骂的狗血喷头！这个流氓居然假装正义洁癖，实在是最大的笑话！// @Jasmine-Flower ： @猪肉王子 @laoyang老杨 美国教授的第一封电邮方舟子无法否认，他的第二电邮又来了。你们俩英语半瓶醋快来看，哪里有语法错误？ 来自远方的微光的评论
远方的微光2011-08-04 18:19:52 [举报]
// @佛陀的微笑 ：支持美国教授对方舟子抄袭的谴责！ 来自远方的微光的评论
远方的微光2011-08-04 18:20:34 [举报]
转发微博。 来自远方的微光的评论
zoowarmh2011-08-04 19:25:37 [举报]
问好老朋友，祝顺利如意！ 19时25分
孙恺钜2011-08-04 19:30:23 [举报]
方舟子，写科普，
肚里没“墨”要出书。
人动脑，就有招，
英译中，实在高，
科普文章不算抄。
非洲天太热，
大象不长毛。
狮子戴假发？
犀牛有剃刀？
黑人黑夜黑，
白人白天白。
曼德拉白天涂墨才出门？
希拉里黑夜睡觉不关灯？
人人都是变色龙，
难怪关公战秦琼！
英文原书没有错，
中文科普“误”不堪。
写书不难抄书难，
编辑出错最心烦？
科普有问题，
编辑水平低。
为勘编辑误，
是“民”能出一本书。
方舟子，抄没抄？
小学生，都知道，
这个问题太可笑！
大星星亮晶晶2011-08-04 19:44:48 [举报]
美国密执安州立大学教授Root-Bernstein的公开信让我们彻底认清了“造假皇帝”方舟子的真面目。
楼主，为什么你几次发帖给的网址里都找不到这个Root-Bernstein教授的中式英语公开信呢？
从你贴的公开信来看，这个Root-Bernstein教授的英文水平不怎么样啊，看起来就像是中国大学英语六级的水平。
从你贴的公开信来看，这个Root-Bernstein教授的英文水平不怎么样啊，看起来就像是中国大学英语六级的水平。
gymwyy 发表于 2011-8-4 20:18 ![]()
楼主，为什么你几次发帖给的网址里都找不到这个Root-Bernstein教授的中式英语公开信呢？
从你贴的公开信 ...
这不是中式英语，有可能是真的，那个网址是root-bernstein引用的别的东西
楼主，为什么你几次发帖给的网址里都找不到这个Root-Bernstein教授的中式英语公开信呢？
从你贴的公开信 ...
这不是中式英语，有可能是真的，那个网址是root-bernstein引用的别的东西
方本来就是一个严于律人，宽于待己的典范
关于《法治周末》造谣诽谤的声明(2011-03-31 16:03:42) http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4740687901017zpw.html
《法治周末》发表一篇污蔑我抄袭的文章，《"我认为那是抄袭"---《科学是什么》抄袭疑案调查》，里面声称我的母校美国密歇根州立大学生理学教授罗伯特·鲁特-伯恩斯坦“确认了方舟子《科学是什么》一文抄袭了他已经发表的文章”，还引用鲁特-伯恩斯坦的话“我认为那是抄袭”。但是今天鲁特-伯恩斯坦教授转给我他答复刘实询问的信件，明确指出他从来没有认定我过抄袭其文章：
所以《法治周末》的报道纯属造谣。
《法治周末》的报道还说，美国密歇根州立大学校方的初审报告认定我抄袭，只是由于文章与我在该校学业无关，才不调查。
《法治周末》执行总编郭国松由于此前报道假新闻被我批评，怀恨在心，利用其负责的“中央政法委”报纸（郭国松语），用四版的篇幅造谣、污蔑、诽谤我，对这种公报私仇、公器私用的行为，我必追究其法律责任。
======================================
呵呵，看看这充满“正义”的声明，偷偷问一句：教主起诉法制周末一事，可有下落？
关于《法治周末》造谣诽谤的声明(2011-03-31 16:03:42) http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_4740687901017zpw.html
《法治周末》发表一篇污蔑我抄袭的文章，《"我认为那是抄袭"---《科学是什么》抄袭疑案调查》，里面声称我的母校美国密歇根州立大学生理学教授罗伯特·鲁特-伯恩斯坦“确认了方舟子《科学是什么》一文抄袭了他已经发表的文章”，还引用鲁特-伯恩斯坦的话“我认为那是抄袭”。但是今天鲁特-伯恩斯坦教授转给我他答复刘实询问的信件，明确指出他从来没有认定我过抄袭其文章：
所以《法治周末》的报道纯属造谣。
《法治周末》的报道还说，美国密歇根州立大学校方的初审报告认定我抄袭，只是由于文章与我在该校学业无关，才不调查。
《法治周末》执行总编郭国松由于此前报道假新闻被我批评，怀恨在心，利用其负责的“中央政法委”报纸（郭国松语），用四版的篇幅造谣、污蔑、诽谤我，对这种公报私仇、公器私用的行为，我必追究其法律责任。
======================================
呵呵，看看这充满“正义”的声明，偷偷问一句：教主起诉法制周末一事，可有下落？
各位，有谁论文不抄的？上浮举手一下{:soso_e120:}{:soso_e121:}
本人的论文就没有抄过。八十年代也很少听说过抄袭论文的。
当然，教授自有教授的高明，“根伯”并没直接指控方舟子抄袭剽窃和侵犯知识产权（事实上他也不可能，因为刘实并未提供“根伯”可看懂的抄袭剽窃对照），而是把答案留给他曾经的学生和其他懂（英、汉）双语的人去做。他说：“I am in no position to determine whether Dr. Fang plagiarized my work or not, since I cannot read Chinese. The issue of plagiarism must be left to people who can read both languages fluently”（我不能确定方舟子是否抄袭剽窃了我的著作，因为我读不懂中文。抄袭剽窃的判定必需留给能流畅阅读（英、汉）双语的人去做）。
I look forward to your reply!
呵呵，方圣人什么时候发表回复？别让你母校的教授失望哦！
呵呵，方圣人什么时候发表回复？别让你母校的教授失望哦！
who care...
对此，原作者罗伯特教授在确认方舟子抄袭他的文章的情况下，对校方的处理意见表示不满，并向校方举报方舟子抄袭他的文章。他在给指控《科学是什么》涉嫌抄袭的另一举报人“圆排骨”的信中说：“你还需要知道，因为方舟子的打假活动被大肆宣扬，美国这里很多人都假定你对方的攻击是出于报复心理。所以，你在这里是多线出击。”
美国人都不屑你们找别人28岁的时候在网上写的1000多字的帖子来报复了，真不知道你们准备要多丢脸
仔细一看还是引的三月份的帖子
对此，原作者罗伯特教授在确认方舟子抄袭他的文章的情况下，对校方的处理意见表示不满，并向校方举报方舟子抄袭他的文章。他在给指控《科学是什么》涉嫌抄袭的另一举报人“圆排骨”的信中说：“你还需要知道，因为方舟子的打假活动被大肆宣扬，美国这里很多人都假定你对方的攻击是出于报复心理。所以，你在这里是多线出击。”
美国人都不屑你们找别人28岁的时候在网上写的1000多字的帖子来报复了，真不知道你们准备要多丢脸
仔细一看还是引的三月份的帖子
呵呵，洁癖何在？