The reader from Annapolis who asked Max for his paper from Frascati writes:
Tell Max the ROFLMAO is “her” ass. What gives? I asked for a copy of a paper that he submitted for publication in the proceedings of the Frascati conference because he kept talking about his Frascati talk. He writes back that he has sent you the first six pages of a paper for the Torun conference, a completely different conference, even before sending it to the conference secretary. Is that ethical? The first six pages, is that because he hasn’t finished it. Send the Frascati paper. It is finished and unpublished. The Frascati folks rejected it so they do not have any claim on it. Dan will you publish it?
I cannot publish the Torun paper without permission from the conference sponsors or a clarification from them about copyright reservations for the proceedings. Moreover, I won’t publish the first part of a paper. It would have to be the full paper. If Max wants to summarize the content of his Torun paper in an email, I can publish that.
I’m intrigued by what the Frascati paper says. If Max wants to send that, I’ll publish it since the Frascati folks will not be doing so. What gives, indeed?
If you allow me a word in edgeways. Fisrtly, I reserve THE VERY CORE of my research paper to the conference sponsor. I just wanted to share with you my prelogic approach to the coin-on eye issue and the postlogic implications (6 last pages).
I thought sharing was a Christian virtue…
Secondly, when I wrote the Frascati version of it (in less than one week’s time in July 2010), I had at my disposal only 2nd and 3rd generation photographs of the Shroud Face by Enrie. On top of that, because of professionnal agendas, I had no time at all to language edit the Frascati paper (before taking up to this blog late in octobre 2011, I used to write English only twice or thrice every twenty year).
At the very moment I am tweeting while working. This explains my short posts.
Thrirdly, I JUST DID NOT KEEP TALKING ABOUT THE FRASCATI PAPER but just mentioned THE TORUN PAPER. Can “She” from Anapolis reread my posts…
Fourthly, Dan if you don’t want to publish the six first pages on your blog NOW, why have you, on your own initiative, to publish the first page of the paper in the first place? Dan shall I understand you are not in a haste to publish the first six pages of MY TORUN PAPER since they just RUIN ALL YOU HAVE WRITTEN SO FAR about the coin-on-eye issue?
See Dan’s article “Crazy Stuff”
To read “Why have you (on your on initiative) ACCEPTED in the first place to publish on your blog the first page of my Torun paper?”
Fifhtly, my Frascati research paper was “PEER” reviewed by Di Lazzaro, a laser physicist, Murra, a laser ingeneer and Albright, a religious scholar. Can any of them three turn into a professional numimatist, an archaelogical anaylist or cryptanalist overnight?
In my Frascati paper I exposed an archaeologically coherent image formation process which is at total variance with Di Lazzaro and Murra’s theory and Albright’s. Guess what happen to my paper…
Do please read “Fulbright” instead of “Albright”.
(Fifthly, to continue) When it comes to the coin-on-eye issue (or non-body object issues), IT DOES SEEM that those researchers/reviewers who are not my peers have some problem with FALSE NEGATIVES.
To read: “non-body image issues”
Dan, now you want me to summarize my Torun paper. TO SUMMARIZE IS NOT TO DEMONSTRATE. It just would fuel sterile or repetitive debates…
I just think the reader of your blog would love to read my prelogic approach to the coin-on-eye issue and start understsanding how the whole issue was biased both by pros and antis so far.
…in spite of the fact MY PRE-DEMONSTRATION, in your eyes Dan, maybe just PEANUTS…
The reader from Anapolis writes:
“He (that is me] writes back that he has sent you the first six pages of a paper for the Torun conference, a completely different conference, even before sending it to the conference secretary.”
How come “the reader from Anapolis” knows I sent the first 6 pages to you Dan “even before sending it to the conference secretary”. Has “the reader from Anapolis” hacked your e-mail box Dan or what? Could you explain that to me?
You are loosing track of what you are writing in your tweets.
OK
Can the reader of Anapolis gives “her” true iD.
One more think, how does the “reader from Anapolis” knows it is “a completely different” conference” (I mainly used Enrie’s and 2002 Durante’s photographs as opposed to the Frascati paper)?
Just Forget that comment
By the way in Frascati it was not a coference but a poster session…
Just also forget that comment
Max: Give it a rest. This tweeting style of commenting is annoying. Get me a written permission for the Torun six pages and I’ll post it.
Why won’t you send the Frascati paper? You submitted it. And if the problem was the choice of peers, then I would think you would want us to see it.
I’m not here to argue nits. I’ll argue substance if you will share some.
Dan
So funny (I mean the illustrative cartoon…)
Ok Dan. I did not mean to be annoying . I just meant to correct a few errors and misconceptions. The 2010 Frascati paper as an intermediary version is now “out of season” because I only used Enrie’s 2nd & 3rd generation Shroud photographs by Enrie. I dont want to start another debate over my then using only Enrie’s orthophotographs.
Correction: read “Fulbright” instead of “Albright” as one of the three referees who “peer” reviewed my Frascati research paper.
LOL, 26 posts in 5 hours, thats gotta be a record on here… ;-)
Ron
I am for records.. without even trying to break any!
I mean LOL records…
Dear blog master & dear Dan, Thank you so much for asking me to get the permission to freely have published for free on the Shroud of Turin blog the first 6-9 first pages of my own unpublished research paper. To save time, I personally have asked myself the permission to do so and favourably reply to it.