You can't infer an individual Ad Hominem accusation from a group
reference. Look up the definition and use "argument directed at the
man". This was the very argument that the Catholic church used to
exonerate the Jewish culture from the death of Christ. You can only
blame the individual. If I took the historical reference to Rosetta
Stone and used it to describe my cheatsheet of Chinese English tea
terms used first in 95 then this is an illustration or new description
"similar but not the same as" which is protected by copyright.
Speeches are copyright protected perse even if it is nothing more than
reading from a dictionary. You'd still have to quote the speaker no
matter what. I get the feeling you think I'm objecting to the
specific use of Chinese English tea terms perse. I'm simply asking
for the copycat website to remove the direct reference to rosetta
(webpage name) or any inferences to the same name suggesting the same
illustration.

Jim

Derek > wrote in message >...
> While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
> initiative and posted the following:
>
> > An Ad Hominem accusation cannot apply to institutions or in this
> > case a generational reference only a person. The common
> > accepted use of troll is someone looking for an argument for any
> > reason. I'm just protecting my intellectual property illegally
> > usurped by a website. Private coversations cannot be copyright
> > unless published. Even if you published something in 98 I first
> > posted about my cheatsheet of Chinese and English tea terms here
> > in 95. Copyright law has the Doctrine of Antecedent where I
> > could have a ruling to apply my rosetta characterization in 2004
> > to all my previous posts about the subject starting in 95. The
> > John Kerry reference has already morphed into the colloquial
> > "I'm not at liberty to say who" similar to wardrobe malfunction
> > "for any unplanned contingency".
>
> Actually, Ad Hominem is attempting to discredit my position based
> on a irrelevant personal characteristic. The generation in which I
> was born is an irrelevant personal characteristic that neither
> supports your assertion that I support plagiarism nor invalidates
> my assertion that you're acting like a troll - since much of your
> behavior fits the definition of "troll" you provided.
>
> The point about the private conversation is not that the
> conversation was copyrighted. The point is that the idea of
> translating between languages using a cheatsheet is not new, and
> was not originated by you. It is a public domain behavior that
> millions of people have engaged in - particularly in language
> classes.
>
>
> While copyright law as a Doctrine of Antecedent, it also does not
> allow you to copyright "ideas, procedures, methods, systems,
> processes, concepts, principles, discoveries or devices" except in
> the actual "description, explanation or illustration."
>
> Nor can you copyright works "Works consisting entirely of
> information that is common property and containing no original
> authorship". Both Chinese and English are common property.
>
> (http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#wwp)
>
>
> The concept you claim is yours has been around for at least a
> hundred years. You can't copyright the process, and you can't
> copyright the languages. What you can copyright is the description
> you gave of the process.
>
> So until Mike starts quoting you without citation, you've got
> nothing.