The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
IH Explains His Position
Poast new message in this thread
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:32 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef For those of you who are wondering why I retired - well I will now come out of retirement just this once to let you all know. I am angry with GTO because, in my opinion, he used a methodology I developed and is now taking credit for it. At first, when I saw his paper and recognized over 20 pages of my writing I was not upset. I even e-mailed GTO telling him it's okay as long as he credited me. Then I realized how atrocious what he did actually was and became angry. In fairness to GTO, he changed those pages and now he just paraphrases the methodology I feel I developed.
GTO: I gave you every chance to come forward. I'm sure you will have a rebuttal. If you'd like we can play a game where we both post e-mails and IM conversations we had regarding the study. Or you can just admit that you did use a methodology that I developed to form the rankings in your paper and this can be the end of it. I'm not going to interfere with your attempts to publish your paper. But I do want people here to know what you did - because while you may not feel it's wrong, I do. And since you weren't willing to tell them, I feel I must.
Now, I certainly don't claim to be responsible for everything in GTO's paper - he decided on studying 2001-2003 graduates, he was responsible for collecting about half the dataset, he wrote and researched the entire lit review and the regression he did is *certainly* not mine. Nor do I want my name on his paper. After all, it's supposed to be HIS paper.
That said, I don't think it's right that GTO is using a methodology I developed and taking credit for it as his own work or as "work we both did." Here is the methodology conversation we had that gave rise to the methodology GTO used in his paper. You will notice that he changed the number 200 to 250 and changed the name of the measure, TPI to TQS. You will also notice everything else is the same. Is this his methodology? Is this work we both did? You be the judge.
****
GTO (4:41:20 AM): what exactly did you do? IH (4:41:32 AM): composite version of the new quality index IH (4:41:36 AM): "quality" index GTO (4:41:46 AM): so what're the total rankings? IH (4:41:52 AM): what I sent you GTO (4:42:01 AM): that's the actual final rankings? IH (4:42:04 AM): yea GTO (4:42:12 AM): explain the methodology again IH (4:43:25 AM): For each school, Z: R1*QUAL1+R2*QUAL2+...+Rn*QUALn where R is "regional importance factor and QUAL is the mean quality of school placed in incl the adjustment for depth of placement GTO (4:44:13 AM): hmmm GTO (4:44:34 AM): this is a pretty radical change though IH (4:44:37 AM): Naturally removes the outliers and is a graceful way of accoutnign for quality and depth IH (4:44:44 AM): yea it is IH (4:44:52 AM): its a lot more graceful statistically GTO (4:44:57 AM): how did you adjust for quality? IH (4:45:34 AM): The new quality index is essentially a depth and quality index all in one GTO (4:45:54 AM): eh if that was the case why does it deviate so significantly from the previous index? GTO (4:45:57 AM): if it' sall in one GTO (4:46:03 AM): sorry i'm just trying to see what caused such a big shift IH (4:46:05 AM): they all deviate IH (4:46:09 AM): like get this: IH (4:46:11 AM): this is nuts GTO (4:46:11 AM): basically the entire group outside of the top 3 is different IH (4:46:25 AM): If u form regional TPIs and aggregate by aaronfag 1... [sic] IH (4:46:28 AM): Michigan is top 3 IH (4:46:36 AM): if u do them separetely by aaronfag 1 [sic] its 10 IH (4:46:42 AM): so weird IH (4:47:02 AM): basically theres no one way to do this. just gotta choose the most elegant and accurate way GTO (4:48:19 AM): thing w/ this one is that the differences are very insignificant though GTO (4:48:47 AM): the others had a definite breakoff point IH (4:48:48 AM): yea which prolly more accurately reflects the similarity of placement between schools IH (4:49:03 AM): I mean I can monkey with it to form a bigger spread if u want... GTO (4:49:20 AM): i'm just trying to figure out what caused the big changes GTO (4:49:34 AM): i mean the others had shifts but this is the biggest shift i've seen, since you fixed that error w/ the first ranking IH (4:49:39 AM): any small chnage in methodollogy started causing weird shit. I had one with Stanford as #20 IH (4:50:18 AM): Like I said, when using only Aaronfag 1 [sic], one using depth and quality separately. one combining them within region, Mich was 10th in one, 3rd in another GTO (4:50:39 AM): what rank did you give the non-top 200 firm peoploe? that's the adjustment you made right? IH (4:50:51 AM): 200 IH (4:50:53 AM): yea GTO (4:50:54 AM): if you did that i think that's what caused this shakeup IH (4:51:11 AM): yea its also a terrific way to finally rid ourselevs of these pesky outliers GTO (4:51:19 AM): eh not really IH (4:51:42 AM): cause Kenucky wasnt REALLY placing well... GTO (4:51:44 AM): it doesn't go after just the outliers, it seems to disproportionately hurt schools that send many people to TTT regions IH (4:51:49 AM): It was just placing like 5 grads in top firms IH (4:51:59 AM): not really IH (4:52:02 AM): WUSTL moved up... IH (4:52:05 AM): as did UVA IH (4:52:11 AM): and Vandy GTO (4:52:57 AM): hmmm GTO (4:53:08 AM): are there any issues w/ the choice of 200 as the # to use? IH (4:53:24 AM): theres three more schools to add 2 of which are Northeast which could chnage things a bit. perhaps move Penn isnot the 95 gorup GTO (4:53:25 AM): also what's the mean vault/ppp rank overall? GTO (4:53:33 AM): i don't think the mean or median is at 100 IH (4:53:39 AM): wouldnt matter what u choose.. GTO (4:53:56 AM): so if you used 250 instead of 200 it wouldn't imapct this at all? IH (4:54:11 AM): Itd chnage the cardinal values - not the ordinal rankings tho GTO (4:55:07 AM): so what's the depth vs. quality weighing in this thing? GTO (4:55:10 AM): as opposed to the other ones? IH (4:55:23 AM): Its all in one. which is also nice ecause 50/50 was very artificial GTO (4:55:59 AM): so if it's not 50/50 now what is it? IH (4:56:31 AM): Not quantifiable really. The depth part is: If a school places 60% in biglaw thats 60% which are rated well below 200.... the other 40% will be 200. IH (4:56:38 AM): Its quite elegant GTO (4:57:45 AM): and thi saccounts for regional differenceS? GTO (4:57:53 AM): still benchmarking based on regional avg? IH (4:57:57 AM): yep IH (4:57:59 AM): all that is the same IH (4:58:31 AM): actually it uses qual benchmark which contains depth benchamrk indirectly to be specific IH (4:58:41 AM): actually directly GTO (4:58:42 AM): so if 80% of the priv practice ppl are not working in biglaw in Region X then when calculating avgs for the region you count that 80% as 200? IH (4:58:45 AM): its in the formula lol IH (4:58:50 AM): yes IH (4:58:51 AM): correct IH (4:59:36 AM): so eg in region 9, the average person is working in the firm ranked: 169.8 IH (4:59:43 AM): in region 7, its 180.67 GTO (4:59:53 AM): and this is using aaronfag1 [sic] and aaronfag2? [sic] GTO (4:59:56 AM): or just aaronfag1? [sic] IH (5:00:27 AM): Both were used to form a set of regional importance indexes for each school. Regional importance depends on the size of the market and the preferences of students. IH (5:00:57 AM): Using only aaronfag 1 [sic] doesnt change all that much which is nice too
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:33 AM Author: startling university gaping Author: IH (SeniorAnalyst@gmail.com)
For those of you who are wondering why I retired - well I will now come out of retirement just this once to let you all know. I am angry with GTO because, in my opinion, he used a methodology I developed and is now taking credit for it. At first, when I saw his paper and recognized over 20 pages of my writing I was not upset. I even e-mailed GTO telling him it's okay as long as he credited me. Then I realized how atrocious what he did actually was and became angry. In fairness to GTO, he changed those pages and now he just paraphrases the methodology I feel I developed.
GTO: I gave you every chance to come forward. I'm sure you will have a rebuttal. If you'd like we can play a game where we both post e-mails and IM conversations we had regarding the study. Or you can just admit that you did use a methodology that I developed to form the rankings in your paper and this can be the end of it. I'm not going to interfere with your attempts to publish your paper. But I do want people here to know what you did - because while you may not feel it's wrong, I do. And since you weren't willing to tell them, I feel I must.
Now, I certainly don't claim to be responsible for everything in GTO's paper - he decided on studying 2001-2003 graduates, he was responsible for collecting about half the dataset, he wrote and researched the entire lit review and the regression he did is *certainly* not mine. Nor do I want my name on his paper. After all, it's supposed to be HIS paper.
That said, I don't think it's right that GTO is using a methodology I developed and taking credit for it as his own work or as "work we both did." Here is the methodology conversation we had that gave rise to the methodology GTO used in his paper. You will notice that he changed the number 200 to 250 and changed the name of the measure, TPI to TQS. You will also notice everything else is the same. Is this his methodology? Is this work we both did? You be the judge.
****
GTO (4:41:20 AM): what exactly did you do?
IH (4:41:32 AM): composite version of the new quality index
IH (4:41:36 AM): "quality" index
GTO (4:41:46 AM): so what're the total rankings?
IH (4:41:52 AM): what I sent you
GTO (4:42:01 AM): that's the actual final rankings?
IH (4:42:04 AM): yea
GTO (4:42:12 AM): explain the methodology again
IH (4:43:25 AM): For each school, Z: R1*QUAL1+R2*QUAL2+...+Rn*QUALn where R is "regional importance factor and QUAL is the mean quality of school placed in incl the adjustment for depth of placement
GTO (4:44:13 AM): hmmm
GTO (4:44:34 AM): this is a pretty radical change though
IH (4:44:37 AM): Naturally removes the outliers and is a graceful way of accoutnign for quality and depth
IH (4:44:44 AM): yea it is
IH (4:44:52 AM): its a lot more graceful statistically
GTO (4:44:57 AM): how did you adjust for quality?
IH (4:45:34 AM): The new quality index is essentially a depth and quality index all in one
GTO (4:45:54 AM): eh if that was the case why does it deviate so significantly from the previous index?
GTO (4:45:57 AM): if it' sall in one
GTO (4:46:03 AM): sorry i'm just trying to see what caused such a big shift
IH (4:46:05 AM): they all deviate
IH (4:46:09 AM): like get this:
IH (4:46:11 AM): this is nuts
GTO (4:46:11 AM): basically the entire group outside of the top 3 is different
IH (4:46:25 AM): If u form regional TPIs and aggregate by aaronfag 1... [sic]
IH (4:46:28 AM): Michigan is top 3
IH (4:46:36 AM): if u do them separetely by aaronfag 1 [sic] its 10
IH (4:46:42 AM): so weird
IH (4:47:02 AM): basically theres no one way to do this. just gotta choose the most elegant and accurate way
GTO (4:48:19 AM): thing w/ this one is that the differences are very insignificant though
GTO (4:48:47 AM): the others had a definite breakoff point
IH (4:48:48 AM): yea which prolly more accurately reflects the similarity of placement between schools
IH (4:49:03 AM): I mean I can monkey with it to form a bigger spread if u want...
GTO (4:49:20 AM): i'm just trying to figure out what caused the big changes
GTO (4:49:34 AM): i mean the others had shifts but this is the biggest shift i've seen, since you fixed that error w/ the first ranking
IH (4:49:39 AM): any small chnage in methodollogy started causing weird shit. I had one with Stanford as #20
IH (4:50:18 AM): Like I said, when using only Aaronfag 1 [sic], one using depth and quality separately. one combining them within region, Mich was 10th in one, 3rd in another
GTO (4:50:39 AM): what rank did you give the non-top 200 firm peoploe? that's the adjustment you made right?
IH (4:50:51 AM): 200
IH (4:50:53 AM): yea
GTO (4:50:54 AM): if you did that i think that's what caused this shakeup
IH (4:51:11 AM): yea its also a terrific way to finally rid ourselevs of these pesky outliers
GTO (4:51:19 AM): eh not really
IH (4:51:42 AM): cause Kenucky wasnt REALLY placing well...
GTO (4:51:44 AM): it doesn't go after just the outliers, it seems to disproportionately hurt schools that send many people to TTT regions
IH (4:51:49 AM): It was just placing like 5 grads in top firms
IH (4:51:59 AM): not really
IH (4:52:02 AM): WUSTL moved up...
IH (4:52:05 AM): as did UVA
IH (4:52:11 AM): and Vandy
GTO (4:52:57 AM): hmmm
GTO (4:53:08 AM): are there any issues w/ the choice of 200 as the # to use?
IH (4:53:24 AM): theres three more schools to add 2 of which are Northeast which could chnage things a bit. perhaps move Penn isnot the 95 gorup
GTO (4:53:25 AM): also what's the mean vault/ppp rank overall?
GTO (4:53:33 AM): i don't think the mean or median is at 100
IH (4:53:39 AM): wouldnt matter what u choose..
GTO (4:53:56 AM): so if you used 250 instead of 200 it wouldn't imapct this at all?
IH (4:54:11 AM): Itd chnage the cardinal values - not the ordinal rankings tho
GTO (4:55:07 AM): so what's the depth vs. quality weighing in this thing?
GTO (4:55:10 AM): as opposed to the other ones?
IH (4:55:23 AM): Its all in one. which is also nice ecause 50/50 was very artificial
GTO (4:55:59 AM): so if it's not 50/50 now what is it?
IH (4:56:31 AM): Not quantifiable really. The depth part is: If a school places 60% in biglaw thats 60% which are rated well below 200.... the other 40% will be 200.
IH (4:56:38 AM): Its quite elegant
GTO (4:57:45 AM): and thi saccounts for regional differenceS?
GTO (4:57:53 AM): still benchmarking based on regional avg?
IH (4:57:57 AM): yep
IH (4:57:59 AM): all that is the same
IH (4:58:31 AM): actually it uses qual benchmark which contains depth benchamrk indirectly to be specific
IH (4:58:41 AM): actually directly
GTO (4:58:42 AM): so if 80% of the priv practice ppl are not working in biglaw in Region X then when calculating avgs for the region you count that 80% as 200?
IH (4:58:45 AM): its in the formula lol
IH (4:58:50 AM): yes
IH (4:58:51 AM): correct
IH (4:59:36 AM): so eg in region 9, the average person is working in the firm ranked: 169.8
IH (4:59:43 AM): in region 7, its 180.67
GTO (4:59:53 AM): and this is using aaronfag1 [sic] and aaronfag2? [sic]
GTO (4:59:56 AM): or just aaronfag1? [sic]
IH (5:00:27 AM): Both were used to form a set of regional importance indexes for each school. Regional importance depends on the size of the market and the preferences of students.
IH (5:00:57 AM): Using only aaronfag 1 [sic] doesnt change all that much which is nice too
(http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084#2328633) |
 |
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:34 AM Author: Big-titted silver generalized bond location why did you find it necessary to repost that (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328637) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:35 AM Author: startling university gaping The usual reason. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328640) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:39 AM Author: Big-titted silver generalized bond location which is? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328645) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:39 AM Author: startling university gaping damn, you're fast (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328649) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:41 AM Author: Hairraiser Tantric Point What in her post made you believe she sleeps around? I have seen no evidence of that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328652) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:46 AM Author: excitant ratface in that post, you mean. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328658) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:51 AM Author: Hairraiser Tantric Point Nor in other posts that I remember. (albeit, that's very few of them) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328669) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:21 AM Author: excitant ratface yeah, i was just trying to be funny. but you rescued me from that, Captain Softbatch. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328733) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:40 AM Author: startling university gaping people change their minds (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328650) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:40 AM Author: Big-titted silver generalized bond location and its your job to be the reposter? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328651) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:42 AM Author: startling university gaping Absolutely not. I'm an outsider, I enjoy the drama. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328653) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:35 AM Author: mustard angry sanctuary I knew something interesting was gonna go down tonight.
The problem is that typed logs are easily faked, ie.
GTO (4:41:20 AM): hey are you using my methodology?
IH (4:41:32 AM): yup
IH (4:41:36 AM): you rock
No screenshots didn't happen. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:37 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef The conversation is real. Everyone needs to make his own decision whether or not to believe me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328642) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:37 AM Author: aquamarine thriller theatre people who are hurt I should not comment on something that is not my business, but why not just co-author the thing? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328641) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:39 AM Author: demanding step-uncle's house It does seem like the "most elegant" solution. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328648) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:01 AM Author: aquamarine thriller theatre people who are hurt Maybe you and I are just naturally diplomatic. Then again, I have been co-authoring papers since high-school (I was actually an incredibly lame 5th author at one time), so I guess I'm just used to seeing a lot of names at the top of these research papers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328700) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:15 AM Author: demanding step-uncle's house That reminds me of something funny (though maybe not as funny as the other stuff going on on this thread), and that is that if you see multiple names on a law firm publication, it's the last author that wrote the whole thing.
"Blah blah law and its effects on blah blah"
by Rainmaker (never even read the paper), Jr. Partner (made some comments, looked for language mistakes), Associate (wrote the whole thing) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:34 AM Author: aquamarine thriller theatre people who are hurt LOL, yeah, this is basically what made me decide that there wasn't too much of a difference between law and medical research. I used to be hardcore into "riding the crest of the wave of the latest research developments," but then I realized that crest of the wave moves so slowly that I would basically rot away in the lab.
So I decided that I would do something equally slow, such as law. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:16 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef I don't want my name on his paper. It's supposed to be HIS. Not mine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328723) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:35 AM Author: aquamarine thriller theatre people who are hurt Sad :( I always take the stance that more authors == more competent people to defend the paper against criticism and rebuttal. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328759) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:47 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin I really don't see why you've got your panties in a bunch. I specifically said in the other thread that we both worked on the methodology (or are you going to deny that we had constant debates on the methodology over the course of those months?), and the formula I ended up using was different from what you were advocating for 99% of the study (aggregation based on market share and student preferences). For the entire study period I was advocating aggregation solely by market share... is it any surprise that's what I ended up using?
Aggregation by market share is not some miraculous new invention, people have been aggregating things by market share for hundreds of years.
Personally I'm just saddened that you felt the need to conduct this nonsense behind my back for two days rather than just contacting me directly... I had no idea this was even bothering you until someone alluded to it on xo tonight, and then didn't get confirmation until I IMed you shortly after that. Though considering that you're not demanding co-authorship I really don't see what you're trying to accomplish by doing this. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:50 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Dude, I created about five different methodologies. You chose one, changed the name and called it your own. If you don't think my methodology is at all unique, why did you explain it in your paper?
I tried to give you a chance to do what was right without explictly brining this up on the board.
What am I trying to accomplish? Well, I'd like you to devise your own methodology. But I know you won't do that so I will settle for this thread. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:53 AM Author: Adventurous national Question:
Out of curiosity, why didn't you just do the study? Not enough time? What?
This is none of my business, but this is the first thing I thought. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:54 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Ask GTO why we split. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328676) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:55 AM Author: Adventurous national So there was a splitting, or you were dumped from the project? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328679) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:55 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef We split. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328681) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:59 AM Author: Adventurous national So you were initially a co-author, and you walked?
I am not arguing for or against. I am just asking questions that an interested observer would like to know.
So the question, in my humble opinion would be: How do academics handle this? I really don't have any idea.
I would guess, that he answer would be:
Some sort of statement like this would be in order: Methodology used in study developed by GTO and IH. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:01 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Yes.
I don't know how academics handle this situation. But we aren't academics.
If GTO thinks its fine to use a methodology I created in his paper, that's a decision he will have to live with. Maybe its allowed. I'm not an academic - I don't know. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:03 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Aggregation by market share is not a unique methodology, it's been around for centuries before either of us was born. It's not like you invented some complex algorithm here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328702) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:04 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Looks pretty unique to me.
Besides, who thought of the methodology you used with the 200/250?
|
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:08 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin And 90% of that is useless fat that most of the paper's readers said should be cut out.
I still don't see what you're trying to accomplish here. What do you want? |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:09 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Develop your own methodology.
I wouldn't use the lit review you researched and wrote. I ask the same courtesy with regard to a methodology I created.
Hell, why didn't you just use the simple market share measure you advocated before? Why'd you use the method with 200/250? |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:11 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin A formula is not a methodology, it's part of the methodology. The bulk of the methodology (ie. the entire research design) was thought up by me... although I don't see how any of that is relevant since you can't copyright or patent a simple data collection method, just like you can't copyright or patent a simple formula for aggregation by market share.
Once again, are you claiming to have been the first person in human history to invent the aggregation by market share concept? |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:12 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Aggregation of what? Who formed "TQS?" You?
Who decided that aggregation of regional rankings was an appropriate way to rank shools nationally anyway? You? |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:18 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin So in other words, you "quit" the study but you didn't want me to do the study either. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328729) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:19 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef I wanted you to do your own study. A study that you researched - a study that you developed the methodology for. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328731) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:22 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin From day one I championed aggregation by market share and made it clear that all other alternatives were TTT. What you're demanding I do is
1) be intellectually dishonest and champion a methodology I know is inappropriate
or
2) do nothing and let the study never happen.
Sorry, but neither of those options is good enough. Aggregation by market share is not some radically new idea. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:25 AM Author: startling university gaping To say an idea is not new is not a deal killer, the question is who introduced this way of doing this study. For instance statistics is not a new idea...but a new way of handling data might be a sufficently new idea. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328740) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:26 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef We did not even have to aggregate anything. There are a million ways to form a national ranking, Isnt it fair to say you championed an idea I out forward?
. Are you claiming you thought of TQS too?
|
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:29 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Yes, you put forward the idea, dismissed it, and I championed it. Happy?
Once again, what did you expect me to do after you voluntarily quit the study? Invent some ridiculous new methodology that I knew sucked and I didn't believe in? Or just drop everything and let it die because you chose to quit?
I also still don't get why you felt the need for you and your girlfriend to air this out in public rather than just contacting me privately if you felt you were wronged. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:31 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef I contacte you privately tonight and got:
GTO: honestly i couldn't care less what you think. good night |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:33 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Actually, I contacted you, after several others had told me that you were whining about this to them through email the night before.
Kudos for posting our personal IM convos on xo though. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:35 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef People asked me why I quit. I answered.
You know what you did. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:45 AM Author: Brilliant Casino Here is what I see: You both worked on it, each contributing ideas here and there and then you didn't want you name on it for whatever reason as co-author, GTO said ok whatever, continued on with the study and building on what you had already done together published it, you changed you mind about wanting credit afterall, b/c then you were thinking you were "above" it probably and you didn't want to be like Leiter, known for a LS ranking paper b/c you are too pompous for that, however NOW you want GTO to be your bitch and act like you are some great academic he cites. Now that the study went over well with real academics, even critical ones like Leiter you want back in as an outside academic GTO "consulted". Kiss His Ass. It just sounds to me like you want some glory but are too much of a puss to stick a project out until completion, not atypical for you (LS). You wimp out at judgement day and are too whiny for the nitty gritty at the end of a project when it is no longer fresh and exciting. You want to abandon GTO to do all the stale work at the end and have him risk being accountable for something before you know how it will be received by the academic community b/c you are too much of a risk-averse pussy and image-soaker to stand behind your work for the better or worse, and now you want to cruise back into the study, in a more "prestigious" place as a cited source? Now I see why you are so pro-guns, b/c if I were GTO I would've blown your head off by now.
p.s. Leiter's probably looking for an RA this summer. HTH. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:50 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef I dont want my name on the paper.
HTH |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:51 AM Author: Brilliant Casino You want to be cited? Paid? Either way kiss his big cock. He is the man of the study now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328792) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:52 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef I don't want my name anywhere on the paper. I want hi to create his own methodology. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328795) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:53 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Then once again, what's your problem? Why are you pushing this issue? If you're not asking for credit or attribution, why do you feel the need to act like a whiny baby all over xo at 5AM on a Monday morning? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328798) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:55 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef What I want is for you to develop your own "formula" rather than the one I developed and took 20 minutes to explain to you.
Why won't you just make your own? |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:57 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Because aggregation by market share is the superior model and I'm not going to be intellectually dishonest by inventing some TTT model to satisfy you when the concept has been around for centuries and when it's joint work product to begin with. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328808) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:57 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef How about TQS? That been around for centuries too? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328812) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:59 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin What would you have liked for me to call it? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328816) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:00 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef The formula for "TQS" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328819) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:02 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin The formula is just aggregation by market share. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328824) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:01 AM Author: Brilliant Casino Seriously GTO, this is the biggest joke. Don't let him even make you think for one second you did anything wrong. OMG! IH! Took 20 minutes to explain? SO? You are such an arrogant fuck tard. UGH I am out of here. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328823) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:59 AM Author: Brilliant Casino Weren't you working together? Why are you claiming it as your own? I thought y'all were pals wtf? Are you jewish btw? just wondering. seriously. If it was that big of a fucking deal you shoulda patented it or soemthing, but it looks like it was 1st year statistics class if you ask me and nothing you did was at all original or innovative. If I was GTO I wouldn't feel bad at all. He did nothing wrong. He worked on the study using that methodolgy you both agreed on, then, not only do you bail and leave him to finish it alone you want to make him start over?!?! I have killed for less. If I was him I'd use "your" methodology all over town and then I'd come shove it up your ass. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328817) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:03 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef oh go suck a cock. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328827) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:51 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin What I find most upsetting is that he didn't even contact me directly about this "problem." He was emailing Rowan etc. about this but didn't feel compelled to email or IM me about his feelings. I didn't find out about this until late tonight, when someone else told me what he was doing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328790) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:53 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef What'd I say to you when you posted 23 pages of my writing verbatim? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328797) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:56 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin You told me this:
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:47:39 -0500 From: Aaron J Chalfin <xxx@xxx.xxx> To: yyy@yyy.yyy Subject: hey
I gotta go to the gym now. Will read it as soon as I get back.
its ok that you used my writing in your paper but you should probably credit me.
-----
I then replied with:
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:51:54 -0500 From: yyy@yyy.yyy To: Aaron J Chalfin <xxx@xxx.xxx> Subject: Re: hey
Sorry, it's just a draft and as you can see I didn't credit anyone yet -- I ended up releasing this ahead of schedule because I wanted to benefit from the Volokh thing. You will have a credit when the next draft is uploaded (probably within a few days, a week at the very latest), and certainly will have a credit in any published version.
------
And you replied with this:
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 19:52:36 -0500 From: Aaron J Chalfin <xxx@xxx.xxx> To: yyy@yyy.yyy Subject: Re: hey 2 unnamed text/html 1.53 KB ah. gotcha.
Volokh is a faggot kike.
-------------
Then, about seven hours later when you start IMing me saying you changed your mind, I accomodate you within your specified time frame.
How exactly did I do anything wrong? Throughout the whole process I did everything you asked, and then some. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:31 PM Author: Snowy Field Damn! IH pw3nd! I love the 90s. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2333918) |
|
Date: April 1st, 2008 12:47 PM Author: Doobsian sooty office LOLLERCOASTERS> i have mad respect for GTO now. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#9563025) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:55 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Well, while we're revealing deep dark secrets... He demanded that one of our research assistants be made a third co-author even though all he did was data entry, and even though our agreement *clearly* stated that the RA would only get RA credit and wouldn't be a co-author. I refused, he walked.
Keep in mind that this was the *only* demand I made of IH during the entire study... That we stick to our original agreement of us being the co-authors and keeping the RAs as RAs. I gave in to IH on every single other issue, from the methodology used, to bringing in RAs in the first place, to boosting jane hoya from the study, to giving his girlfriend a vanity RA position... |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:56 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Heaven forbid you give someone who worked hard on the project some credit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328683) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:57 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin He was getting credit... credit for being a research assistant, which is what he was, and what we had all agreed upon back in November. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328686) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:56 AM Author: Adventurous national So Shomer did data entry, wanted co-authorship, and when this could not be granted, IH walked?
Is this your version of the story? |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:57 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Shomer isn't involved in this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328685) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:57 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Nope, Alex. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328687) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:58 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef No need to use his name without asking his permission. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328688) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:59 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin He doesn't want to be known publicly? Funny, he could've fooled me, what with his demands for co-authorship and all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328693) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:05 AM Author: flatulent impressive school cafeteria That was fucked up. What's your problem?
|
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:06 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Dude, his name is already in the paper. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328709) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:54 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Aggregation by market share is not unique... I explained it because that's what you do in a research paper, you explain what you did. That said, it's not like I even explained it in much detail:
----
In aggregation by market share, each region is assigned a weight based on its share of the legal employment market. For example, if the Middle Atlantic region compromises 33% of the market, placement in the Middle Atlantic region will compromise 33% of the national TQS figure for every school. The formula for aggregation by market share would look like this:
TQSNmz = r1*(TQS1z) + r2*(TQS2z) + r3*(TQS3z) + … + r9*(TQS9z)
where r represents market share.
----
Devise my own methodology? Do you really think you're the first person to come up with "aggregation by market share?" The concept has been around for centuries. Look at how the House of Representatives is structured (or did the founding fathers rip you off too?). This isn't some new never thought of before concept. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:55 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef And what is TQS may I ask?
Look at my original post. If it is so simple, why all the questions? |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:58 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Because we were partners and I wanted to know what you were doing? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328691) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:59 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef And when we were no longer partners, you should have devised some other type of methodology to rank schools. Just like I would never write a paper with your lit review in it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328695) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:00 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin I've felt strongly from day one that aggregation by market share was the way to go... You were the one pushing the alternative model, until the last few days when you finally were persuaded to change your stance. I'm not going to abandon a superior method that I championed from the beginning just because you *chose* to walk out, especially when the concept of aggregation by market share is nothing unique. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328697) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:02 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Dude, I thought of it. Then you championed it. For a few weeks we had no idea how to adjust for regional preferences. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328701) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:05 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Actually, the Founding Fathers thought of it before you when they developed the model for the House of Representatives. And tons of people certainly had thought of it for centuries before them.
Anyway, since you're so into starting these stupid pissing contests, whose idea was it to adjust for regional preferences to begin with? Or even to look up the associates through firm websites?
Ugh, I can't believe I'm even having this convo on here. This is stupid and it's a waste of both of our time. What exactly are you hoping to accomplish by airing dirty laundry in public? |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:06 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Associates thru firm websites - you
Regional preferences - me
And who thought of how? Me.
****
If you don't feel you did anything wrong then there is no dirty laundry here. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:48 AM Author: Brilliant Casino http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&mc=88&forum_id=2#2328760
IH, HTH.
Go GTO! GO GTO!
You worked on it together you don't ahve to be his bitch. Tell him you will put his name back on the paper when he sucks it. But honestly, I wouldn't even do it for that. IH = Risk-Averse Pussy. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:50 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef I do not want my name on his paper. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328788) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:54 AM Author: Brilliant Casino Then STFUUTTTSEF
Seriously, I don't know how it was pulled off but you managed to steal Lorilee's trophy as person most out of line tonight. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:57 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef I said people could decide for themselves based on the information I posted. You're entitled to your opinion. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328809) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2005 1:20 AM Author: Low-t at-the-ready dilemma round eye (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#3193925) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:00 AM Author: startling university gaping Send the link to Leiter. What FatBoy couldn't do, you guys will do to each other. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328696) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:16 AM Author: flatulent impressive school cafeteria Yes, this is a pretty sad display. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328726) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:16 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Yup, unfortunately you're right. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328727) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:24 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef It's about time I get to sleep now. Perhaps I will check this thread tomorrow - perhaps never again. In any case, people can read this thread and form their own opinions regarding what happened. I'm sure most of you don't care one way or the other anyway but on xoxo, this kind of shit often passes for excitement.
G'night.
IH |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:35 PM Author: Snowy Field Drama Queen. I love the 90's. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2333948) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:25 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base What is your point? It is an idea, you have absolutely no rights to a mere idea that you developed, even if you were the one that thought of it originally.
Unless I am understanding this wrong, what basically happened is that the two of you were working on a study together, and I assume both providing different ideas for things to include in the study. At some point, you got upset about something, and decided to stop working on the study. At that point, what did you assume would happen? That he would just ignore everything that you have said while you were working together? Was he supposed to sort out every idea that you came up with and make sure that he did not use it?
If you are in a partnership with somebody, and you come up with an idea, then the idea belongs to the partnership, not the individual. Just because you choose to run away does not mean that he must completely change the methodology that was planned to be used as part of the study. That is simply ridiculous. And, this whole post is simply ridiculous.
It seems to me that you really just need to grow up. Am I not correct in remembering that you went to law school, and then decided to quit? Then you decided to partipate in this study, but then there is some disagreement and you ran away. Then you get upset about this, and you again decide that you are just going to leave, go home, and cry like a little bitch. GET OVER IT.
You have the right to your expression of an idea, not your idea. Coming out and posting this is just pitiful and makes you look like no more than a whiny little child. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:29 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef The disagreement surrounded the treatment of another person - not methodology.
But you're entitled to your opinion. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:33 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base Ok, now that I have read above, is seems as though you had an original agreement, you wanted to change that agreement include someone else as an author, and he wanted to stick by the original agreement. Seems to me that makes it even worse for you. You want to change your original agreement, he disagrees, you walk off, and then expect him to abandon all the work that you had done together and come up with a different methodology because you ran off? That is just ridiculous. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328752) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:37 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Anything we did together - like collect the data - is fair game. He has every right to use it.
Anything I did myself - like develop the methodology - is not.
Just my opinion.
Edit: Is it also all right that originially he posted his paper containing 20+ pages of writing I did. Verbatim? |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:40 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base Well, clearly you do not understand the idea of a partnership then. Anything that you do in furtherance of a partnership belongs to the partnership. And, the fact that you chose to leave makes it even more unreasonable for you to make demands of him. Plus, you do not own ideas. If you had written something that he included then you would have a valid argument. But, ideas are always fair game. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328768) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:41 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef You are not allowed to steal ideas when you publish soemthing. That is called plagarism.
He also included 23 pages of my writing - verbatim when he first posted his paper. I didn't appreciate that. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:45 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base No, it is not. Stealing an expression of ideas is called plagerism. And, he did not steal anything, because you were partners. Again, if you are in a partnership, anything that you do in the furtherance of the partnership belongs to the partnership. Plus, I believe that he did give you credit for deleloping some of the ideas that were used, did he not? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328780) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:47 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Is an entire methodology written out not an expression of ideas?
I will leave the academic code of conduct shit for GTO to sort out. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:50 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base Seems like a mathematical formula to me. That would be an idea. And, that really does not even matter, as again, if you created it as part of the partnership, then he had every right to use it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328787) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:52 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Like I said, that's for him to sort out. \ |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:51 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin A formula is not a "methodology." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328793) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:54 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Then you have nothing to worry about. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328799) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:57 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base Then why are you throwing such a hissy fit? Im running away. Wait, no, I am going to come back and whine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328813) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:01 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef I believe what he did to be plagarism. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328821) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:06 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base But, he did credit you for participation in developing the study, did he not? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328829) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:57 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin I'm not worried. Just disappointed that you decided to stoop to Leiter's level. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328814) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:42 AM Author: startling university gaping What wrong with all you genius lawyers?
The charge levied is plagiarism, not plans for a new widget. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:44 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base You cannot plagerize an idea. Nobody has a copyright on ideas. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328776) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:44 AM Author: startling university gaping It seems like he said more than ideas above. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328777) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:48 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base It seems to me like he is complaining about an idea for how to calculate something. That is an idea. There are lots of formulas out there, people do not credit the creator everytime they use them. There is no need. They are ideas. Einstein lost the rights to E=MC(how do I type a square?) the moment it left his mind. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328784) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:51 AM Author: startling university gaping If someone published Einsteins idea as theirs there's a problem. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328789) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:52 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin False analogy. Aggregation by market size is not Einstein's theories. The concept has been around for centuries. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328796) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:54 AM Author: startling university gaping Absolutely but if IH thought of using it, in the way it was used and applied, it was his idea in terms of the paper, academia, plagiarizing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328801) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:07 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Come on, now you're just being ridiculous. That's like saying it's plagiarism to do a log transformation or to do a regression analysis because "someone thought of using it before." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328830) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:55 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base Ideas belong to nobody. You publish an idea as an idea. You publish your expression of an idea as yours. And, unless I am wrong, I believe he was credited with participating in the development of the study. One would assume that means he probably come up with some of the ideas included in the paper. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328804) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:02 AM Author: startling university gaping I think you missed the 20 page bit in the beginning. You are trying to use a very narrow idea of plagiarizing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328825) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:05 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin He *specifically* told me he didn't care if that was used, see the emails above.
Later, when he changed his mind (as he often seems to do), it was removed within his specified time frame. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:11 AM Author: startling university gaping The agreement and ideas/work plagiarism accusation seem to have plenty of points on each side. Being as I wasn't there and am just going by what's on here, I think both of you have sufficient beefs. You two should settle this offline on the phone. Or not. You could of course try to publish and, in my estimation, he could easily block. So fix it so both og you are happy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328843) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:13 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef I won't do that. I've said my piece and now I am content. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328845) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:13 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin He's demanding that I not use aggregation by market share... meaning that the study is completely dead and buried if he gets his way.
That said, I know I am in the right here academically and morally, and this isn't going to stop me from submitting to journals. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:14 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base Block what? On what basis? The most he could ask for is credit, and I believe he has already been offered that and refused. So, what does he want? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328851) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:17 AM Author: startling university gaping Whether or not he received attribution, the contribution should have been noted - not by name if that's what IH wanted. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328853) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:21 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base I believe it was noted that he contributed to the study, and IH has said that he does not want credit. So, what does he want? How would you note it not by name? "This idea was developed in part by anonymous?" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328859) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:25 AM Author: startling university gaping Non-specific ones like that, papers not published, extensive discussions in which xx and xx were developed. You see these in papers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328864) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:26 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin He says he doesn't want credit. What the hell am I supposed to cite, "Discussion with anonymous?" (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328865) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:30 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base Ya, those are probably papers in which one of the participants didn't throw a fit and quit, so they came together and agreed on how to credit the work. I am betting that if IH says that he wants credit for specific ideas in the paper, GTO would happily credit him with those ideas. But, what is he supposed to do when IH says he does not want credit? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328873) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:33 AM Author: startling university gaping If I was in GTOs position, I would credit IH by saying which ideas or sections were worked on jointly. He can be a colleague. Problem solved. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328876) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:33 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin IH already said he doesn't want that. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328878) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:34 AM Author: startling university gaping He opened the pandoras box. It's your job to protect yourself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328880) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:37 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin So he could then throw a hissy fit on here (or worse, with an editorial board) about being credited even though he explicitly said he didn't want to? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328886) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:42 AM Author: startling university gaping That isn't a problem academically, maybe legally if he went insane and sued. What is a much bigger problem is non-attribution in academic sources. Do it in a way his name need not be mentioned. I don't think I'm saying something that isn't done. This is all just advice, you can choose to do what you want. In my view, doing the above ends the issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328893) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:09 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base It looked to me like he was complaining about a formula of some kind. But, even if it were more, if they were working together at the time, then he has the right to have his name on the paper. But, it appears as though he has decided that he does not want that. That is his choice. It is not, however, his right to say that things he developed while part of the partnership cannot be used at all.
If he wants credit, then he should get credit. But, it seems to me that he requested not to get credit, and then comes on here complaining that he did not get credit. What is that all about? Based on what I am hearing, if he had just requested to be credited for something, it would seem as though that request would have been granted. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:14 AM Author: startling university gaping I think you should stop thinking of this as a legal issue and handle it as a school/publication would handle a chrage of plagiarism. Here's a thought, his assent is due what conditions he feels it can be used under, I don't think that's too far afield. Both sides need to move. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328850) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:18 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base Ya, and he has the right to be credited for ideas that he came up with. But, he does not want that. To come on complaining that GTO took credit for his ideas, and then to claim that he does not want credit, just makes no sense. He has no right to say that the idea cannot be used at all. Even if they were not partners, you can always use someone elses idea if you credit them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328856) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:23 AM Author: startling university gaping That crediting didn't happen though. So that non-attribution and how it pertains to IH's claim of plagiarism is what it comes down to. As far as I can tell, that's what his particular beef is here. Let's forget about the research assistant because that's another issue. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328861) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:24 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin He's posted multiple times in this thread and others that he doesn't want credit. How am I supposed to credit him and not credit him at the same time? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328862) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:26 AM Author: startling university gaping You credit the idea and not the name if he doesn't want his name involved. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328866) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:27 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin The idea of aggregation by market size has been around for centuries. Who am I supposed to credit, Benjamin Franklin? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328868) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:28 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base How do you credit the idea without crediting a person? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328870) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:31 AM Author: startling university gaping What is the problem?
The idea/s of X and X were brought up/introduced and/or developed in discussions with a colleague. I thank him for his contribution blah blah blah. This shit is done in papers. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:32 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Except X has specifically stated multiple times that he doesn't want his name in the paper. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328875) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:33 AM Author: startling university gaping Oh god. His name doesn't need to be in the paper. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328879) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:35 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Okay, so what am I supposed to do? Cite him when he has specifically said in this thread that he doesn't want to be cited? Or just leave it alone considering that it's not even some highly unique concept to begin with? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328881) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:39 AM Author: startling university gaping He doesn't want to be cited by name. Obviously he has an issue with it. So you split the diference and attribute what you would if he were on the paper. Therefore, you aren't "taking' his idea as he calls it, I know you disagree and I don't know what the real deal. If you look for papers or ask professors you'll find examples where people didn;t want to be attributed for whatever reason. Maybe it was a falling out like here or maybe the professor took a position thathe felt put him in jeopardy in the academic world. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328888) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:39 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base The idea of crediting an idea is to give someone credit. It makes no sense to credit "anonymous". I am puzzled that someone is defending this childish behavior. If he wants credit, then he should ask for credit. If he does not want credit, then he should quit complaining. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328889) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:44 AM Author: startling university gaping I agree that is is silly to bring it up if he doesn't want credit but it seems it was a cumulative thing that brought him to this point, according to what he said. An "anon" credit might not make sense to us in justifying this cluster-fuck but I think it makes perfect sense given the circumstances. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328895) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:49 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base Based on what I have seen, however, I am thinking that it was probably a cumulative thing caused by his own emotional instability. From what I have read here ... there was some freak out after the LSAT; he quit law school; he quit the study when GTO was unwilling to change their original agreement; he said he did not want credit, his request was honored, but then he got upset and said that he was going away and never coming back; the next day he comes back and posts this whine. And, you are defending it. It seems that the end conclusion is that he is an immature drama queen. This is pitiful. If he wants credit then ask for credit. If not, then don't complain when his own request is honored. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328899) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:53 AM Author: startling university gaping All that may be absolutely correct, I have no idea of telling whether it is or not and it has not bearing on whether it is atrributable work or not. If he has a point on the study, gove credit that the study wasn't developed singularly and the problem is over. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328900) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:35 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base Really, I have never seen a single paper that credits a person without using a name? But, then again, most people credited in papers are professional and do not have a problem with being noted. It seems to me as though GTO was respecting IH's request not to be included in the paper. I mean, even Leiter was cited in the paper (and I have a feeling he is not a fan at the moment given some of what I have read here), but I am sure he has no problem with the inclusion of his ideas in the paper if he is credited. That is just the way it is done. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328882) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:41 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin I haven't seen any paper that credits an anonymous source from an unpublished work either, let alone for something like this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328891) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 12:41 PM Author: disgusting cruel-hearted pistol principal's office "The idea/s of X and X were brought up/introduced and/or developed in discussions with a colleague. I thank him for his contribution blah blah blah."
If you're not giving credit to the source, this is meaningless. You might as well have a footnote that says, "I came up with this idea when I was taking a shit and realized there was no tiolet paper." It might be interesting to know where the idea came from, but if you're not doing so to give credit to a source, it is not relevant. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:27 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base But he has said that he does not want credit. So, how can he complain about not getting credit when he does not want credit? He is clearly just a drama queen who cannot seem to control his emotions. If he wants credit, then request credit (something that I am sure coudl have been done privately). There is just no reason for all of this though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328867) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 12:41 PM Author: clear underhanded den Username:
You can't plagiarize an idea? Ideas are the paradigmatic example of things you plagiarize. Plagiarism isn't a violation of copyright. It's not illegal. It's academic misconduct.
Copyright violations are distinct. I can credit someone and thereby not plagiarize, while violating a copyright. For example, if I take a copyrighted book, print copies and sell it, I am violating copyright even if I tell everyone who wrote the book and give the author all due credit.
|
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 2:51 PM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base I said that wrong. I was going on the thought that he was getting credit except for the fact that he said that he did not want it based on what was said above. But, you certainly do not need to credit every idea that you write in a paper that someone else has come up with previously. Every time you use a formula, you do not need to cite to the originator.
As for the second paragraph, no shit. So that is what they were talking about all that time in intellectual property.
But, in this talk about what exactly is plaigiarism, etc., I think we have forgotten the real original point, which is that IH is a drama queen bitch. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:47 PM Author: clear underhanded den You do need to credit every idea you use in a paper that is not your own, unless that idea is considered to be in the body of common knowledge.
"As for the second paragraph, no shit. So that is what they were talking about all that time in intellectual property."
That's a funny response coming from you, since you asserted above that you could not copyright an idea when that is irrelevant to a determination of whether plagiarism occurred. I guess you should have paid more attention in IP class.
As to your third paragraph, I think you did an excellent job forgetting the real issue: whether there was plagiarism. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 12:52 PM Author: lavender house internal respiration plagiarism =/= copyright infringement. You must cite ideas that are not yours. That said, that doesn't mean you can't use them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329720) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 3:06 PM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base That latter was my point, I said it wrong in that instant. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2330597) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:43 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Good luck trying to explain this to him, I've tried for a month and a half now with no luck. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328774) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:33 AM Author: Adventurous national I think that's a tad bit harsh. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328751) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:36 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base Come on, he wants to change a mutual agreement, and runs away when he does not get his way. Then, he comes on trying to tarnish the other guy and the final product because it happens to include an element that he came up with when they were working together. There is a pattern here of quiting and whining. If he is going to come out publically asail someone else who has done nothing wrong and be a little drama queen, then he deserves what he gets. Plus, it is 2:30 in the morning and I am bored. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328762) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:38 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef There was no mutual agreement. Maybe you should calm down since you don't know the entire story. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328766) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:41 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin No agreement? Could've fooled me:
AJC730 (1:37:02 PM): well Id say thatd be the major duty but we need it to be a little more glamorous. Id say research assistant/consultant. helping to come up with study design etc AJC730 (1:38:10 PM): When the paper is released, Wed be the coauthors. theyd be res asst I guess. AJC730 (1:38:32 PM): but important to say their name is on the paper. otherwise no one in their right mind'd do it AnthonyCiolli (1:39:13 PM): yup
Followed by:
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=109272&mc=23&forum_id=2
Thread title: GTO, IH seeking research assistants for study
Date: November 21st, 2004 1:57 PM Author: IH (486hunter@gmail.com)
As you may be aware, GTO and I are attempting a study on employment outcomes for students at Vault+ law firms. The data set is *massive.* Through approximately 20% of the data, we have accounted for 25 law firms, 361 branch offices and 4112 associates.
The best study ever done on employment outcomes has been Prof. Leiter's study which, I think we all agree, leaves a lot to be desired. We can do *much* better but we could use some help.
We are seeking a research assistant/consultant to help us with the data entry (going to firm websites, finding the law schools of recent assocuates and entering it into Excel), to sift through OCI data and try to find some rhyme and reason to the hiring process and to spitball study design ideas with us.
Your qualifications should include:
(1) A working familiarity with Microsoft Excel
(2) Some knowledge of statistics
(3) An interest in the topic and the type of toolishness it takes to do something like this
(4) Some free time
(5) Not required but knowledge of the OCI process and of law firm hiring in general would be helpful
What the fuck do you get out of this?
Well not much. It's certainly not glamorous. But you DO get your name on this massive paper which we hope will impact the legal world in some way and that we will try our damndest to get published. And if you are a statistics tool like we are, it should be fun. You will join myself, GTO and one other research assitant/consultant on this project.
If you are interested, please submit a listing of your qualifications to 486hunter@gmail.com.
- IH and GTO |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:43 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef And I wanted to honor the promise of having his name on the paper. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328773) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:44 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin And it was on the paper, hell it currently is on the paper. He got credit for being a research assistant, exactly as promised.
Research assistant =/= co-author. Go read some law review articles and see how research assistants are credited. They're credited as RAs, not authors. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:49 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Well now you have the paper all to yourself.
Plenty of RAs become credited as co-authors. But I know -- you did not want to share the credit. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 6:01 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin All I wanted was to abide by our original agreement. If you felt the original agreement was unfair, YOU shouldn't have proposed it, let alone agreed to it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328822) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:52 AM Author: glassy box office "But you DO get your name on this massive paper..."
Now, if someone said that in engineering or science, they would DEFINITELY be talking about co-authorship. No question about it. Just FYI. I don't know if in law or social science that would mean the same thing. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:42 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base Calm down? Oh, I am calm, and enjoying a good episode of the Simpsons that I have previously Tivo'd. Unlike yourself, apparently, I am not really much for this petty drama. I think you probably need to calm down. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328772) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:43 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef I didn't engage in any name calling yo. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328775) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:51 AM Author: Cerebral Coiffed Ape Base Just call them as I see them. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328791) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:33 AM Author: flatulent impressive school cafeteria And we thought the steroids scandal tainted baseball? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328753) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:35 AM Author: mind-boggling doctorate wow you guys are nerds (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328757) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 5:54 AM Author: demanding step-uncle's house Do we get to vote at some point?
EDIT: Next post on Leiter Reports --
"Penn Law Student, Anthony Ciolli, Accused of Plagiarizing Methodology for Law Firm Placement Study" |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 8:13 AM Author: fragrant nowag Is Alex IH's girlfriend?
I have a hard time following this story. |
|
Date: March 15th, 2005 12:24 AM Author: Pearly Galvanic Site An older version had a third (female) RA credited. Presumably that's who GTO was referring to as "IH's girlfriend." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2334371) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 8:21 AM Author: Motley Crimson Hospital Goyim I wonder if IH has one of those license plates that read "Retired and Spending my Grandkids Inheritence?" On second thought it's probably just "Touch of Class" with a rose. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2328971) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 10:15 AM Author: Supple trailer park pozpig This papaer isn't going to get published, at least in anything noteworthy. Neither of you guys is a credible academic mouthpiece. It's almost like watching siblings fighting over who gets the keys to the '78 Pinto for the night. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329143) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 10:18 AM Author: Chestnut indian lodge jewess I feel bad for IH and hopes everything works out. IH, I hope you'll do another study using so of the other methodologies you thought up with. It'd be interesting to read.
|
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 10:53 AM Author: Opaque nibblets IH - don't worry about. I don't feel that the study is *that* significant b/c it only tells where students actually went, not where they could have gone or what opportunities they might have had if the student relied on the school's reputation, etc. The study breaks little new ground, IMO, so why sweat something that may or may not even get published or be seen as that significant? Besides, karma has a funny way of working. Don't sweat it. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329277) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:14 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef Yea, I slept on it and woke up with a different feeling. I've got fantasy baseball, March Madness, cash to spend and friends to chill with.
In the grand scheme of things, who cares.
|
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:22 AM Author: Stimulating Alcoholic Shrine Fortuitous Meteor It's good for what it is. Helping students find out what the job market is like for their law school degree. It may not be original but it is helpful to those who care about this sort of stuff. There's a reason why so many people care about a school's average GPA/LSAT/yield/etc. etc. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329397) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:25 AM Author: curious temple I don't think anyone with a brain would or should buy those rankings though. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329403) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:32 AM Author: Lascivious Potus Wrinkle Better that they should buy a book about "Uncle Tom," right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329418) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:36 AM Author: curious temple Wow, slow-witted and corny. Quite the combo you've got going for you, eh? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329432) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:39 AM Author: Lascivious Potus Wrinkle Yeah, and you proved that if I was black, slow-witted, and corny, I could get into Harvard! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329438) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:44 AM Author: curious temple I'm neither slow-witted nor corny but you are clearly a lame with some inferiority complex. Are all the kids from TTTs like this or just you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329444) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:48 AM Author: Lascivious Potus Wrinkle Out of curiosity, where do I go to school? Which TTT is it? Or are you just talking about something you know nothing about? Because if you weren't slow witted, you could come up with at least honest criticism.
Something tells me that's the best you can do though. Sad, really. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:51 AM Author: curious temple Your posting style, dearth of intelligence, and patent bitterness lets me know that the difference between the school that I will attend and your school is greater than the difference between your school and Cooley.
HTH |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:53 AM Author: Lascivious Potus Wrinkle That's an odd way of admitting that you made yourself look like an idiot.
And please, keep thinking you earned your spot in your school. It's fun to watch. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 12:05 PM Author: curious temple Nothing you've said thus far makes any sense. And whether you think I "earned" my spot or not is really inconsequential and irrelevant to me. But continue to respond like a bitter fool. It's fun to watch. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329508) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:13 AM Author: Federal Macaca Native I'm on GTO's side. Pathetic display on this thread. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329370) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:15 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef ownership society! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329379) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 1:24 PM Author: High-end Piazza Therapy was that a reference to me somehow? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329891) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:15 AM Author: Purple Regret I dont get it....you cant "patent" a methodology...GTO altered it enough that he can call it his own and would only need to credit IH in a footnote like
"In developing this study I adapted a methodology employed by IH in blah blah blah...The author wishes to thank IH for his advice yada yada"
end of story
...the whole point of publishing things is to get it out there for other people to use....if you want it to be proprietary don't publish it!
|
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:17 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Yup... Except IH has stated multiple times, even in this very thread, that he doesn't want *any* credit at all anywhere in the paper, not even a cite.
So, to comply with IH's desire for anonymity, the footnote would be more like
"In developing this study I adapted a methodology employed by an anonymous xoxohth poster in blah blah blah...The author wishes to thank the anonymous xoxohth poster for his advice yada yada"
Doesn't look very nice, but then again this is one fucked up situation so... |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:18 AM Author: Purple Regret its your paper you should do it anyway (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329388) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:19 AM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin Seems like no matter what I do he's going to bitch me out for something. Though at this point I really couldn't care less. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329392) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:22 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef dude, its cool. consider it an early christmas present.
aright Im out. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:24 AM Author: Federal Macaca Native I don't think you need to credit him specifically for the methodology. Even if it was more his idea, you were both working together and you added your piece as well.
But, you should generally credit him by footnote. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:27 AM Author: Charcoal Cracking Bawdyhouse I think what he's asking for is less to be credited and more for you to relinquish credit.
He seems to be upset because he thinks you're taking credit for something you shouldn't (ethically) take credit for. He may or may not be correct, but it seems to be how he feels. He may not want you to say 'IH developed this,' but he does want you to say 'GTO did not develop this.' |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:36 AM Author: Tan aggressive shitlib roast beef This is precisely what I was getting at.
At this point, I'm going to let it go though. |
|
Date: March 15th, 2005 12:54 AM Author: Brilliant Casino No it isn't, you want GTO to suck your hairy balls over it like you are so supreme to him and he has so much to learn from you. Please. You worked on it TOGETHER you decided out of different methodologies one to use, meanstwhile you explained it to GTO because he wasn't as well versed in the methodolgy as you and then you worked out the kinks together and proceeded.
GTO has admitted that you were a key reason he used the methodology. You suggested it, exaplined it, weighed other options, and then Y'ALL together decided to use it.
You don't want your name on the paper, so what do you want? GTO to fellate you in front of the entire xoxo community of douchetards who don't give a fuck about it or you anyway? OR re-do his ENTIRE STUDY b/c you changed your mind? If I was GTO, I wouldn't give you a footnote even if that is what you wanted because you bailed out of the project after too much work was done already, not giving him the option as the author to decide whether he wanted to use something he would have to credit to you. You are like a whiny baby Leiter, someone who wants so bad to be a credible source and academically superior but is basically just a shameless self-promoter who wants everyone to do things according to his own whims.
I think you have caused enough of a nuisance and brought plenty of light to the fact already. You are the worst drama queen whore of this board. Not even Julia would start a thread like this.
GTO has sufficiently agreed you knew more about it that he did. So that leaves us two choices now, neither of which is acceptable, and imo neither is "right" b/c like I said GTO was too far in the study to have a meaningful choice to whether he wanted to have to credit you or whether he wanted to find a new methodology.
Choice #1 : Get a footnote-but you don't want this Choice #2: GTO re-does the entire study-ridiculous Choice #3: GOI
I think we all want you to pick #3. HTH. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:54 AM Author: glassy box office That sounds fair. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329466) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 12:36 PM Author: Wild stag film Christ, what a goddamned fucking drama queen IH is, regardless of the merits of his complaint.
FIRST, he publicly issues a cryptic ultimatum to GTO and rach. What does rach even have to do with this incident? I suspect that IH mentioned him in his ultimatum thread solely for the purpose of piquing our curiosity about what the problem was. Had he only mentioned GTO, it would've been obvious that the dispute related to the study, and IH would not have received as much intrigue-based attention.
THEN, he announces his latest retirement.
FINALLY, he -- shockingly -- comes out of retirement to air his grievances with GTO. He claims that he's only making his dispute public because GTO failed to publicly apologize. That's disingenuous. I suspect that IH calculated for this line of threads to receive maximum attention.
It isn't much of a stretch of my imagination to think that IH scripted every last word at the outset of this drama. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 1:23 PM Author: High-end Piazza Therapy IH, you're sounding like a real pussy.
The solution to this is for you to be credited on this paper. However, you just don't *want* that. I don't know why, and I don't care why-- I just know that your feeling isn't sensical.
I don't see why you want him to start "anew" if your formula isn't all that unique-- it seems more along the lines of an "approach" rather than a patentable program or something.
If you want credit, take it. If not, don't. What's next? Are you going to ask him to not study the associates at top 200 law firms either, because that was your idea, and instead suggest he should find some other way to measure how students from law schools fare in biglaw?
GTO-- If you want to publish this, I'd suggest you credit IH there, regardless of his whinings. No respectable journal will publish somethign like this with the instant issue lurking in the background. |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 1:23 PM Author: buff garrison I especially agree with the last line. Yep. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329890) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 1:27 PM Author: obsidian shivering puppy It sounds like the real problem is that IH has a grievance that he feels is legitamate but also realizes is indefensible--probably something to do with the dispute about how to credit the research assistant. This is why he's trying to lash out on other issues that he thought would seem more damaging, and that he thought would sound more credible--like plaigarism. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2329914) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 2:29 PM Author: useless talented space good point.
|
|
Date: July 5th, 2005 4:52 AM Author: magical razzle-dazzle hall What research assistant? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#3194680) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 1:57 PM Author: Exciting Senate IH is a fucking douchebag. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2330144) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2005 12:57 AM Author: Brilliant Casino who are you? you rule. HTH. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2334580) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:48 PM Author: Flesh Metal Station Leiter just creamed his pants. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2331233) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 4:55 PM Author: mustard angry sanctuary Do you often refer to yourself in the 3rd person, Brian? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2331275) |
|
Date: March 14th, 2005 11:37 PM Author: Fantasy-prone crawly hominid GTO just give the muthafucka co author credits even if its against his wishes, me being a stubborn and spoiled muthafucka myself, trust me this will resolve the issue, and just mention that RA muthafucka somewhere in there as well.
As for his girlfriend that bitch gets no credit, he'll feel better about it after they break up. |
|
Date: March 15th, 2005 12:10 AM Author: passionate stage IH, I don't know all the details, of course, but it sounds like you deserve at least a line in the acknowledgments section. It looks like GTO is going to give you this. GTO sounds reasonable throughout all of this, including his decision not to add the RA as a co-author. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2334254) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2005 12:37 AM Author: provocative narrow-minded ladyboy prole god, this is so much more boring and slightly less homoerotic than what I had imagined. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2334448) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2005 12:31 PM Author: effete tanning salon GTO, i dont know if you already did or not, but you should definitely put a significant footnote in the study at the begining or at the very end noting IH's contributions to developing certain elements of the formulas used. After that, you should feel absolutely no reason to change your study. I like the guy and all, but he's flat wrong here and his demands are irrational and unfair. There's no theory of "I'm going home and taking my ball with me" in collaborative authorship. He contributed ideas to the collaborative project and he has every right to demand credit. If he doesnt want credit, he has the right to have his name removed. But that's all he has a right to.
He's wrong both in why he left the study and why he is pissed at your final product. That said, even if its against his wishes, you should note his contributions so you don't give off the appearance of taking full credit and/or stealing his ideas. |
|
Date: March 15th, 2005 12:39 PM Author: clear underhanded den There is the problem, however, that you cannot leave out a citation to IH, even if IH doesn't want to be cited. Doing so would be presenting someone else's work as your own. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2336397) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2005 12:40 PM Author: effete tanning salon I agree 100% which is why I said he should put the footnote in. But also, and as you posted this, I was just editing my post to make that notion more strongly put. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2336404) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2005 12:48 PM Author: indecent histrionic cumskin How about splitting the difference and citing to an xoxohth poster who wishes to remain anonymous? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2336458) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2005 2:43 PM Author: Brilliant Casino ghey. no shit. tell him to bring suit. play hardball. he is playing hardball with you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2337336) |
|
Date: March 15th, 2005 6:05 PM Author: clear underhanded den Do you hate IH for some separate reason?
This post is really hostile. If it's cooperative work, it's still supposed to be cited. |
|
Date: March 15th, 2005 5:57 PM Author: Drab really tough guy More feces. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#2338448) |
|
Date: July 4th, 2005 11:44 PM Author: excitant ratface AGREED! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#3192832) |
|
Date: July 5th, 2005 5:28 AM Author: Saffron Talking Quadroon "Author: leiterfluid
god, this is so much more boring and slightly less homoerotic than what I had imagined."
stunningly boring -- except for the moments of astonishing self-importance. what a strange thing to care so much abuot.
|
|
Date: December 3rd, 2005 6:58 PM Author: Garnet corn cake (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#4451638) |
|
Date: December 3rd, 2005 7:01 PM Author: iridescent deer antler Here's the summary:
"I cheated on Funshine with a dude." |
|
Date: March 1st, 2006 9:14 PM Author: buff garrison LOL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#5220713) |
|
Date: August 10th, 2006 2:56 AM Author: buff garrison ROFL (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#6412368) |
|
Date: October 12th, 2006 2:03 AM Author: buff garrison meh (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#6773410) |
|
Date: October 12th, 2006 6:40 AM Author: poppy titillating lay If this joke is funny, you're too old. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#6774046) |
|
Date: October 27th, 2006 11:48 AM Author: Adventurous national Nearly two years later and I still do not understand your position, Aaron. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#6869702) |
|
Date: December 29th, 2006 12:49 PM Author: Aromatic fuchsia antidepressant drug whorehouse ;) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#7312778) |
|
Date: December 29th, 2006 12:51 PM Author: bull headed rigpig he loves man ass. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#7312792) |
|
Date: December 29th, 2006 2:54 PM Author: Electric school faggotry Here's a telling exchange - it seems that even then, GTO was so concerned about 'big changes' that he let them ruin his friendship with ih :(
GTO (4:48:19 AM): thing w/ this one is that the differences are very insignificant though
GTO (4:48:47 AM): the others had a definite breakoff point
IH (4:48:48 AM): yea which prolly more accurately reflects the similarity of placement between schools
IH (4:49:03 AM): I mean I can monkey with it to form a bigger spread if u want...
GTO (4:49:20 AM): i'm just trying to figure out what caused the big changes |
|
Date: December 29th, 2006 4:19 PM Author: Yellow deranged organic girlfriend Lolz (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#7314281) |
|
Date: March 5th, 2008 5:04 PM Author: misanthropic thirsty lodge (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#9434050) |
|
Date: March 24th, 2008 1:03 PM Author: Ivory telephone filthpig (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#9524147) |
|
Date: April 1st, 2008 12:30 PM Author: misanthropic thirsty lodge (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=149084&forum_id=2#9562965) |
|
Date: April 1st, 2008 1:04 PM Author: Umber contagious chapel i don't really know about GTO's study but from what i've gleaned from cursory glances here and there, it's total useless bullshit. the only credited ranking of placement would go as follows:
rank firms by revealed preferences, NOT vault rankings (which often fly in the face of RP). rank school/gpa combinations. the method only needs to involve normalizing gpas to a 4.0 scale and a rudimentary adjustment according to median gpa/lsat (e.g. 3.5 at H=3.65 at NYU, etc.). then map school/gpa combinations to offers received.
to the extent that any ranking substitutes "easier to get" statistics for revealed preferences, that ranking is utterly worthless and results in patently false outcomes, such as ranking yale as anything but #1 for placement.
none of you fags needs to credit me for this method. HTH. |