From: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk"
To: [email protected]
Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 18:09:59 -0500
Subject: (Fwd) RE: arXiv.org policy
FYI
------- Forwarded message follows --------
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk
To: [email protected] (register-query for
arXiv.org)
Subject: RE: arXiv.org policy
Copies to: Tony Smith ,[email protected]
Send reply to: [email protected]
Date sent: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:50:41 -0500
On 11 Oct 2002, at 17:27, register-query for arXiv.org wrote:
> Date sent: Fri, 11 Oct 2002 17:27:20 -0400
> From: [email protected] (register-query for
> arXiv.org) To: [email protected] Subject:
>RE: arXiv.org policy
>Copies to: [email protected]
>
> > I received two complaints from two different persons.
>
> We have no idea why these complaints would go to you.
Perhaps because I am trying to understand what is going on.
> > Here is my opinion: in my opinion Tony Smith papers SHOULD be
> > allowed to be put on the server. Even if these papers would not
> > fit the criteria of most of peer reviewed journals, there is a
> > sincere work behind, and there are useful ideas and deep
> > understanding behind.
>
> Then why are they not suitable for any peer reviewed journal?
> They are all sincere.
That is a clear avoiding the issue, and also that is twisting.
I wrote, let me quote: " Even if these papers would not fit
> > the criteria of most of peer reviewed journals"
and let me stress the word MOST
Now you twisted it into "ANY".
This is a clear twist of logic. I can't believe a physicist or a
mathematician can twist logic that way. I would appreciate explanation
why did you do it. I would also appreciate knowing with WHOM I am
interacting. Knowing the pesson helps a lot in any reasonable
communication and prevents from misjudging (perhaps I misunderstood
your intentions above? Perhaps you have good inetntions but have
chosen clumsy words to express these intentions?)
> > Shervgi Shahverdiyev's papers show lack of knowledge of results
> > obtained by other people. They are naive and they do not deserve
> > space on the server. But the way Shervgi Shahverdiyev is being
> > treated is far from being the "right one". I know it is very
> > difficult to manage and to get rid of all crazy man and those who
> > cheat, but the way it is being handled at present is inapropriate.
>
> As was explained to all of them, the policies are currently
> undergoing revision.
What is not clear is WHO is revising? Who is in the committee?
Who is responsible? I mean personally?
> It is not clear what is inappropriate about his treatment.
Is there any person at arXiv that is REALLY interested in getting
answer to this question? And who is in charge and has power to CHANGE
- when such a change is warranted by the ffacts?
> Since you do not think the submissions appropriate, then feel free
> to tell him yourself, so we can learn what you think is appropriate
> treatment.
How can you learn when I say something to someone else?
Another twist in logic?
Sincerely,
ark
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 17:01:34 -0700 (PDT)
From: "William Soles"
Subject: Re: (Fwd) RE: arXiv.org policy
To: [email protected]
Unfortunately,we cannot put your correspondence in the
web site because the web site is devoted to a review
of correspondence between S. Shahverdiyev and the
e-print server admninstration. Moreover we have not
found any answer to the questions in the website from
your correspondence. The person who writes letters
from arxiv-query can twist logic and etc. because he
does not take any responsibility for his actions.
We can comment your opinion
> > > Shervgi Shahverdiyev's papers show lack of
> knowledge of results
> > > obtained by other people.
as follows. In a lecture organized by us, a student
asked Shervgi the following question
"I just printed your paper and have not read it yet, I
take a look, there is no references"
The answer was
"I do not use any results obtained by the others. All
results of the paper are original. I will review
different approaches to geometrization of
Electromagnetism in a review paper."
In our opinion a scientist must refer to the other's
papers when he/she uses any result obtained in them.
Referring must not be based on friendship or
relationship as it is practiced nowadays.
We have heard that many scientists said that it is
hard time for science now. We think that it is not
hard time for science, it is hard time to find many
real scientist. There are few of them.
> know it is very
> > > difficult to manage and to get rid of all crazy
> man and those who
> > > cheat,
This opinion is not applicable to S. Shahverdiyev's
papers.
We thank you for sending us your correspondence.
Sincerely yours,
Moderators of scienews,
by William Soles.
From: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk"
To: "William Soles"
Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2002 20:18:32 -0500
Subject: Re: (Fwd) RE: arXiv.org policy
On 20 Oct 2002 at 17:01, William Soles wrote:
> In our opinion a scientist must refer to the other's
> papers when he/she uses any result obtained in them.
> Referring must not be based on friendship or
> relationship as it is practiced nowadays.
Hi,
This is only partly true. If I will now discover the wheel, and will
try to publish my discovery, the publisher can rightly reject my
paper with a comment that the wheel has already been discovered
long ago.
It is normal and natural to return a paper for a revision, when
someone lacks a dramatic the knowledge of results obtained in this
direction by other researchers. It is not only normal and natural, it
is a demand of a good, high quality service to the readers.
As for the second line:
> Referring must not be based on friendship or
> relationship as it is practiced nowadays.
I fully agree.
Regards,
ark
#############################################
Dr Arkadiusz Jadczyk
http://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/homepage.htm
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 16:29:22 -0800 (PST)
From: "William Soles"
Subject: Re: (Fwd) RE: arXiv.org policy
To: [email protected]
Hello,
> > In our opinion a scientist must refer to the
> other's
> > papers when he/she uses any result obtained in
> them.
> > Referring must not be based on friendship or
> > relationship as it is practiced nowadays.
>
> Hi,
>
> This is only partly true. If I will now discover the
> wheel, and will
> try to publish my discovery, the publisher can
> rightly reject my
> paper with a comment that the wheel has already been
> discovered
> long ago.
Unfortunately, we do not have any time and willing to
argue with you relying on analogies. If you know that
someone has already discovered General Geometry or at
least its the most simplest case called by Shervgi
Geometry of Electromagnetism, please let us know where
that paper is published.
A few of us are very well educated and to our best
knowledge nothing relevant to Shahverdiyev geometry
was known before.
Our comment to your analogue with wheel is the
following. Let wheel be Geometry of Electromagnetism
(Shahverdiyev Geometry).
Many scientists tried to create a wheel. The wheel
they created was not practical. Then come Shervgi and
not using the methods of the others created a
practical wheel by using absolutely new method.
Moreover he proved that in the framework of the
others's method it is impossible to create a practical
wheel.
In our opinion we have to be grateful for him because
he gave us a practical wheel and took us from the
wrong way of the others.
Many young scientists have already congratulated him.
We are sure that the rest of the scientists
will accept his theory because there is no way in
front of the truth.
> It is normal and natural to return a paper for a
> revision, when
> someone lacks a dramatic the knowledge of results
> obtained in this
> direction by other researchers. It is not only
> normal and natural, it
> is a demand of a good, high quality service to the
> readers.
As we wrote before if someone does not refer to the
others's work it means that the author does not use
the results of the others. That does not mean that the
author lacks the knowledge of the others's results.
We advice you be fair in considering the others( not
your friends and relatives) accomplishments.
With best regards,
Moderators of scienews.
by William Soles.
From: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk"
To: "William Soles"
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2002 20:29:48 -0500
Subject: Re: (Fwd) RE: arXiv.org policy
On 27 Oct 2002 at 16:29, William Soles wrote:
> Unfortunately, we do not have any time and willing to
> argue with you relying on analogies. If you know that
> someone has already discovered General Geometry or at
> least its the most simplest case called by Shervgi
> Geometry of Electromagnetism, please let us know where
> that paper is published.
OK I will do so. It will be available online. Just be patient.
Best wishes,
ark
#############################################
Dr Arkadiusz Jadczyk
http://www.cassiopaea.org/quantum_future/homepage.htm
09/09/2005
Note added
As you found from this correspondence, Dr. A. Jadczyk failed
to provide any references. Instead sending us an e-mail with
this information he promised to put that online. We have made
searches on the Internet. All we have found, is that Dr. A. Jadczyk
sent the first letter to T. Smith and he has put it in his
website in the content of his affidavit without any comments.
T. Smith is a lawyer who practices physics. Moreover, we have read
his affidavit the first time when he put it on his website. There
were no correspondences with Dr. A. Jadsczyk. Therefore, apparantly
the affidavit has been submitted to court without any correspondence
with Dr. A. Jadczyk. Later, T. Smith faked his affidavit and put
correspondence with A. Jadczyk, which even if was included in the
submitted version does not have any value for his case.
Independent of T. Smith's rights to put "anything" he wants in
his website, we consider such things as not appropriate for a
lawyer's reputation and even more, such things are adverse to the
principles of academic affaires.
It is worth noting that Dr. A. Jadsczyk has his own website. However,
he did not dare to put correspondence with us in his website.
