I promised Hans Weitbrecht to remove his case story, and I more or less gave everybody carte blanche to point out any citation they would claim to their name and have removed. Moreover, I reread the citations and realized that several of them might actually be embarrassing for the authors to have still around, so to preemt all further controversy, I have deleted the entire part of my article that contained citations. While I don't mind creating controversy, it should serve a purpose, and the citations in question had more or less outplayed theirs.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Hey, Hans Egebo, nothing I said that you plagiarized/used out of context was embarassing to me--your attempts to make me and others you stole from look stupid actually backfired on you.

You consistently look very much like you are trying to deride a topic you just can't understand. I think a reader would just keep repeating "if only he just found a way to think...he might get it...".

That's not the point, however: you cross-posted, you posted work out of context, you stole other's work and used it without any permission from anyone; then, you tried to defame people by using their work in your article, and you probably got paid to do this. At the very least this makes you a thief of intellectual property, which is unscholarly by every count.

So I've made it a point to alert others who participate here--or who publish any work at all on homeopathy--to be on the look out for your copyright infringements of their work, whether it appears online and/or in print.

You may feel entitled to post here, and ask the same repetitive, basic level questions...but you are NOT entitled to violate copyright, misquote, misrepresent, plagiarize, and consequently try to defame people who post here.

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Hans Egebo, even though you claim not to know who's writing you've plagiarized, anyone can google the text and find its match and legitimate source on line.

I don't have to identify my own writing to you here--but I can do it very easily when legalities demand it, and so will everyone else you've stolen from if need be.

Just because you got caught by one, doesn't mean you can continue to violate others because they haven't found out about your violation of copyright.

I suggest you do what is required: remove the article from publication immediately--on line on your site, and wherever else you've published it. (Yes, you make a big show of removing Hans' text, but it's still there and its an entire day later. What are you waiting for? Are you under the impression people will just forget you've plagiarized their work?)

Unless you can find written permission, issued by me or anyone else who's work you've stolen here, then you're still violating copyright even though the number of plariarized statements has been reduced. So stop blathering about different sign in names--as far as I can see, and I didn't have to read the entire article, you've tried to misrepresent me with work I've posted in both my sign in names here, and I NEVER gave you permission to reproduce anything I've written anywhere.

Remove your article immediately please. You've been asked more than once.

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Dear Hans Egebo

You wrote:
>>You are still both saying that tissue samples came back positive, and that you were not informed about the outcome. Only one of these statements can be true.<<

Both statements are true, for the simple reason, that they are not contradicting each other.
The explanation is simple:
--- the tissue sample came back positive-- = this means simply, that there were abnormalities found.
--- I was not informed about the specific cell-configurations.

The tissue sample coming back positive does not automatically mean, that it is cancerous, it can also show benign cell growth.

I never claimed, that this sample was classed CANCER positive, nor did I claim that it was not.

It is you, who jumped to conclusions about the matter, assuming, that the sample showed CANCEROUS configurations, and commenting on your own assumptions calling me a liar.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Honestly, Hans W: You presented the case as a cancer case. The whole thread was about cancer, and you came out saying something like "why don't homeopaths dare to say they can cure cancer", then you presented the case story. When we are talking about cancer, and somebody says: "the tissue samples came back positive", what do you EXPECT people to think it means?

And, since you have stated that you do NOT KNOW the verdict on the tissue samples in question, what exactly is "positive" supposed to mean? That, yes, these were indeed tissue samples? I'm sorry, Hans, but you brought this up in public yourself, and there is no way you can gloss it over. But, let's not call it a lie, let's just say you were a bit creative, and let's move on, OK?

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Quote: Divina
Hey, Hans Egebo, nothing I said that you plagiarized/used out of context was embarassing to me--your attempts to make me and others you stole from look stupid actually backfired on you.

Since I have not investigeted which quotations were from you, I cannot comment on that, but some of posts ought to embarass the authors, for instance the homeopath who freely admitted giving a patient boiled water instead of remedy. I don't know about the legalities for homeopaths, but a for a conventional doctor, this would be a crime.

You consistently look very much like you are trying to deride a topic you just can't understand. I think a reader would just keep repeating "if only he just found a way to think...he might get it...".

That's not the point, however: you cross-posted, you posted work out of context, you stole other's work and used it without any permission from anyone; then, you tried to defame people by using their work in your article, and you probably got paid to do this. At the very least this makes you a thief of intellectual property, which is unscholarly by every count.

No. I quoted posts from a public forum. I quoted them in full, and in cronological order. This is entirely legal. If I wanted to defame people, I would not have made the quotations anonymous. That would have been legal too. And if you can find anybody who is willing to pay me for this, I hope you will let me know. I'll even offer you a dividend .

*snip*

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

I suggest you READ my post above (May. 19th, 07:48PM).

The timeline of this has been as follows (clock times may be different on your display, due to time-zones):

On May, 18th 11:58 PM, Hans Weitbrecht posts and declares that he will not allow any quoting of his case account.

On May, 19th, 11:03 AM, Divina posts and declares that she will not tolerate quoting of her posts.

On May, 19th, 07:48 PM, I post and declare that my article has been modified to remove all quotes from posts here and elsewhere. The modified article was, of course, put on my website shortly before that post.

As you can see, less than 24 hours elapsed in total, and less than 4 hours elapsed from your post.

I maintain that quoting posts from a public forum is legal, but I have no wish to push this case, and the purpose of the quotations were entirely educational, and not intended to blemish any individual, so I have removed all quotations.

Oh, and the only other place my article has been published is here: http://www.skepticreport.com

And that version was without the quotations.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Contrary to what you might like to believe, Hans, quoting anybody's work without permission, even if it is work published on a "public" board, is PLAGIARISM. You do not have permission from the author...whether you are copying a website, a public forum, a radio broadcast, a newspaper article, a magazine article, a webmagazine article, a personal letter that has been published, or any other form of published work.

And you will never have permission to cross post, reproduce text in order to misrepresent it without its proper context, or use it as a means to ridicule others you simply can't understand; since that is illegal, too. Even though your article reads like a Ku Klux Klansman's "view" of African American Culture, and plays up nothing but your intellectual shortcomings, that doesn't mean that other peoples' work is available for your (ab)use. I'm certain you were paid for your articles, too; and that makes what you did STEALING. That is never legal, as you think. I don't expect you to grasp why it's illegal, and I don't really care if you can't figure it out: it's important that you realize that it is illegal. Stop doing it.

If you want to go about advertising your inability to grasp concepts which might be slightly more demanding than the ones you're comfy with, go right ahead...hell, get paid for it, even, as Randi's got a lot of big drug bucks paying his way...but just don't think for a minute that you can do what you want with other peoples' work without even so much as a "may I?" from people who contribute their ideas and work here.

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Not that I'm going to bother with you, Divina, but accusing people of theft is slander, which is criminal. Perhaps you should think of that.

And I suggest you read the copyright law.

I do think I'll check the original source to see if YOU were the homeopath who gave her patient placebo and told her it was remedy.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

I suggest YOU read the copyright law, Hans; maybe consult a lawyer for your future protection, and have him explain to you that what you attempted to do with your article featuring my stolen work and your obvious intentions to defame me and others who contribute to this board as Libel.

Consider that other trolls just like you have been permanently removed from participating on BB's like this one simply for cross-posting and quoting people out of context on other bulletin boards--let alone in print, where you were very possibly paid for stealing the work of others.

As for your asinine pronouncements on homeopathic practice and the use of placebo in treatment, once again your massive bias and ignorance is showing. You simply know nothing about homeopathy, you can't understand it, you won't bother to actually find out about it, yet you continue to condemn it. Do you think you're the first to throw rocks at the big, scary moon? Everyone's seen that kind of reaction to "the scary unknown" before. I just feel pity for you.

The best defence against accusations of slander is the truth: you used peoples' work without permission. I've got copies of your article ready: unless you've got a letter from me stating that you could use my words in your article, and you can produce it, then you stole from me. Your article was in publication for months, and I was never asked permission at any time, neither was anyone else whose work you used for your own benefit. Until you can prove otherwise with written permission from any one whose work you used for your own gain, please shut up about what you think you know about law. Legally, your intentions and everyone's words (from stolen questionnaires to illegally reproduced case notes, to actual quotes taken verbatim from this site and others like it) are readily identifiable.

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine