🚀 go-pugleaf

On 10 Aug 2010 23:50:42 GMT, John Doe <jdoe@usenetlove.invalid> wrote:

>John Fields <jfields austininstruments.com> wrote: 
>
>> John Doe <jdoe usenetlove.invalid> wrote: 
>>> Rick Cavallaro <rick.spork gmail.com> wrote: 
>>>> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynam... vianet.on.ca> wrote: 
>>>>> Learn about POWER, you could do much better. 
>
>>>> Much better that WHAT?  Conceiving of, designing, building,
>>>> and piloting a vehicle that went directly downwind, powered
>>>> only by the wind 
>>>
>>> There is an explicit example of Rick Cavallaro pretending to be 
>>> the inventor, right here in this thread. 
>> 
>> --- I disagree, in that it's entirely possible for someone to
>> have conceived of something without knowing that it had been
>> invented earlier. 
>> 
>> Matter of fact, that's just what patent searches are for; to see 
>> whether what you conceived of was conceived of earlier by
>> someone else. 
>
>His patent search was done long before claiming to be the inventor
>here in this thread, Jiffy. When Airhead crashed the physics
>thread, his first post pointed to an article that calls Rick
>Cavallaro the inventor. And then you have to explain why other
>articles they helped write call him the inventor. And you have to
>explain why 99% of articles (just do a simple Internet search)
>they helped write do not mention the real inventor. It is just
>obvious that they have been running around the Internet pretending
>to have invented the thing. There is no use in saying that you 
>independently conceived an idea that has already been disclosed. 
>And when you fail to mention the fact that it has already been 
>disclosed, while claiming to have thought it up all by yourself, 
>you are being deceitful. Or perhaps your idea of intellectual 
>honesty is different than mine, Jiffy. 
>
>I wonder whether any of the investments they solicited were made
>without the investor(s) being informed of who the real inventor
>is.

---
Curiously, you persist in referring to me as "Jiffy." 

Surely there must be some reason and, from your tone, it seems to me
to be derisive.

Care to elaborate?

---
JF