"wereoboy" <wereoboy@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:4069f9da_1@news.vic.com...
"Poster"
"nappy" <nappy@nappy.no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:Vqhac.44303$cj.21679@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
you spelled poser wrong.


"wereoboy" <wereoboy@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:4069419d_2@news.vic.com...
Being that I've shot "the only film that matters" I now feel it's ok
and
proper for you to address me as "the only poster on Earth who
matters."

Call me the reincarnate of Bunko, The Amazing Kreskin, and
Neopolitan
Ice Cream all rolled
up
into one stale canoli

Scoot
Your entire culture's on his way IN

Nappy meant "poseur", which is frequently spelled poser. It means fake,
which Scoot most certainly is.
Scoot, I am Prostate Cancer Man, and I am growing rapidly inside you.
Soon I will take over your entire body and snuff out your life.
And the world will forget about you in a millisecond.
Say, have you decided whether you prefer Forest Hills or cremation?

Sorry, but all your tapes will be destroyed after you die.




YAWN!

How does one obtain time code calculation in a Word table? I have been
logging footage where the descriptions are more important; thus Word's
grammar and spellchecker is preferable over Excel's features. I need
to determine the duration of the clips within the Word table (if
possible). Here's a short explanation.

Non-drop time code, NTSC

10(hh):01(mm):01(ss):01(ff).1(field)

1 hour = 60 minutes
1 minute = 60 seconds
1 second = 30 frame

Mark IN - Mark OUT = Duration
10:01:01:01.1 10:01:20:15.2 00:00:19:14.1

If you are new here, you will find him weighing in on anything you
have to say, whether you appreciate it or not. Note how he hijacks
the thread and sends it into purgatory or at least in the direction he
chooses. Don't be too alarmed or inordinately annoyed. He thinks he
owns the group. One of his alter egos may be used to provoke you
because he would like to discredit you if you have anything but
sawdust between your ears. Consider it a compliment. Bob is like the
aggressive panhandler who you sternly warn to buzz off when he can't
be ignored. By all means, do not take him up on his offer to phone
him and have a personal chat. But I'm sure you understand how strange
that is without me telling you. Oh, and as for his expertise about
filmmaking, once in awhile he demonstrates some know how, but judging
from his rather strangely schizophrenic attitudes (you will be
apprised of these soon enough), you might do well to take it with a
grain of salt. Try to be philosophical about this situation. Without
guys like Bob around to muck up the works, we might actually get
things done. That could be dangerous.

Anybody knows how many days of shooting they had?


--
gr,
Martin Koolhoven

Vallecito@aol.com (traveler) wrote in message
news:<aa96aeec.0404141614.1335e4c1@posting.google.com>...
If you are new here, you will find him weighing in on anything you
have to say, whether you appreciate it or not. Note how he hijacks
the thread and sends it into purgatory or at least in the direction he
chooses. Don't be too alarmed or inordinately annoyed. He thinks he
owns the group. One of his alter egos may be used to provoke you
because he would like to discredit you if you have anything but
sawdust between your ears. Consider it a compliment. Bob is like the
aggressive panhandler who you sternly warn to buzz off when he can't
be ignored. By all means, do not take him up on his offer to phone
him and have a personal chat. But I'm sure you understand how strange
that is without me telling you. Oh, and as for his expertise about
filmmaking, once in awhile he demonstrates some know how, but judging
from his rather strangely schizophrenic attitudes (you will be
apprised of these soon enough), you might do well to take it with a
grain of salt. Try to be philosophical about this situation. Without
guys like Bob around to muck up the works, we might actually get
things done. That could be dangerous.

Traveler

You're making a nuisance of yourself. There's a history of people
trying to drive various regulars off this group, usually they just
wind themselves up into a particularly ugly frenzy and then disappear
once they've worn themselves out.

...Or you could just be Adam Christie _again_.

Dylan
Morein=MORON

Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.

They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.

"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."

A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.

But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.

Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.

Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.

In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.

Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.

The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.

The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.

But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.

"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."

Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."

"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."

The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.

His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.

The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.

Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.

At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.

Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.

Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.

Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.

K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.

Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.

As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.

He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.

Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.

Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.

Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.
Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

"I had to seek closure," he said.

Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.

But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

Doctoral student takes intellectual property case to Supreme Court
By L. STUART DITZEN
Philadelphia Inquirer

PHILADELPHIA -Even the professors who dismissed him from a doctoral program
at Drexel University agreed that Robert Morein was uncommonly smart.

They apparently didn't realize that he was uncommonly stubborn too - so much
so that he would mount a court fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court
to challenge his dismissal.

"It's a personality trait I have - I'm a tenacious guy," said Morein, a
pleasantly eccentric man regarded by friends as an inventive genius. "And we
do come to a larger issue here."

A five-year legal battle between this unusual ex-student and one of
Philadelphia's premier educational institutions has gone largely unnoticed
by the media and the public.

But it has been the subject of much attention in academia.

Drexel says it dismissed Morein in 1995 because he failed, after eight
years, to complete a thesis required for a doctorate in electrical and
computer engineering.

Morein, 50, of Dresher, Pa., contends that he was dismissed only after his
thesis adviser "appropriated" an innovative idea Morein had developed in a
rarefied area of thought called "estimation theory" and arranged to have it
patented.

In February 2000, Philadelphia Common Pleas Court Judge Esther R. Sylvester
ruled that Morein's adviser indeed had taken his idea.

Sylvester held that Morein had been unjustly dismissed and she ordered
Drexel to reinstate him or refund his tuition.

That brought roars of protest from the lions of academia. There is a long
tradition in America of noninterference by the courts in academic decisions.

Backed by every major university in Pennsylvania and organizations
representing thousands of others around the country, Drexel appealed to the
state Superior Court.

The appellate court, by a 2-1 vote, reversed Sylvester in June 2001 and
restored the status quo. Morein was, once again, out at Drexel. And the
time-honored axiom that courts ought to keep their noses out of academic
affairs was reasserted.

The state Supreme Court declined to review the case and, in an ordinary
litigation, that would have been the end of it.

But Morein, in a quixotic gesture that goes steeply against the odds, has
asked the highest court in the land to give him a hearing.

His attorney, Faye Riva Cohen, said the Supreme Court appeal is important
even if it fails because it raises the issue of whether a university has a
right to lay claim to a student's ideas - or intellectual property - without
compensation.

"Any time you are in a Ph.D. program, you are a serf, you are a slave," said
Cohen. Morein "is concerned not only for himself. He feels that what
happened to him is pretty common."

Drexel's attorney, Neil J. Hamburg, called Morein's appeal - and his claim
that his idea was stolen - "preposterous."

"I will eat my shoe if the Supreme Court hears this case," declared Hamburg.
"We're not even going to file a response. He is a brilliant guy, but his
intelligence should be used for the advancement of society rather than
pursuing self-destructive litigation."

The litigation began in 1997, when Morein sued Drexel claiming that a
committee of professors had dumped him after he accused his faculty adviser,
Paul Kalata, of appropriating his idea.

His concept was considered to have potential value for businesses in
minutely measuring the internal functions of machines, industrial processes
and electronic systems.

The field of "estimation theory" is one in which scientists attempt to
calculate what they cannot plainly observe, such as the inside workings of a
nuclear plant or a computer.

Prior to Morein's dismissal, Drexel looked into his complaint against Kalata
and concluded that the associate professor had done nothing wrong. Kalata,
through a university lawyer, declined to comment.

At a nonjury trial before Sylvester in 1999, Morein testified that Kalata in
1990 had posed a technical problem for him to study for his thesis. It
related to estimation theory.

Kalata, who did not appear at the trial, said in a 1998 deposition that a
Cherry Hill company for which he was a paid consultant, K-Tron
International, had asked him to develop an alternate estimation method for
it. The company manufactures bulk material feeders and conveyors used in
industrial processes.

Morein testified that, after much study, he experienced "a flash of
inspiration" and came up with a novel mathematical concept to address the
problem Kalata had presented.

Without his knowledge, Morein said, Kalata shared the idea with K-Tron.

K-Tron then applied for a patent, listing Kalata and Morein as co-inventors.

Morein said he agreed "under duress" to the arrangement, but felt "locked
into a highly disadvantageous situation." As a result, he testified, he
became alienated from Kalata.

As events unfolded, Kalata signed over his interest in the patent to K-Tron.
The company never capitalized on the technology and eventually allowed the
patent to lapse. No one made any money from it.

In 1991, Morein went to the head of Drexel's electrical engineering
department, accused Kalata of appropriating his intellectual property, and
asked for a new faculty adviser.

He didn't get one. Instead, a committee of four professors, including
Kalata, was formed to oversee Morein's thesis work.

Four years later, the committee dismissed him, saying he had failed to
complete his thesis.

Morein claimed that the committee intentionally had undermined him.

Judge Sylvester agreed. In her ruling, Sylvester wrote: "It is this court's
opinion that the defendants were motivated by bad faith and ill will."

The U.S. Supreme Court receives 7,000 appeals a year and agrees to hear only
about 100 of them.

Hamburg, Drexel's attorney, is betting the high court will reject Morein's
appeal out of hand because its focal point - concerning a student's right to
intellectual property - was not central to the litigation in the
Pennsylvania courts.
Morein said he understands it's a long shot, but he feels he must pursue it.

"I had to seek closure," he said.

Without a doctorate, he said, he has been unable to pursue a career he had
hoped would lead him into research on artificial intelligence.

As it is, Morein lives at home with his father and makes a modest income
from stock investments. He has written a film script that he is trying to
make into a movie. And in the basement of his father's home he is working on
an invention, an industrial pump so powerful it could cut steel with a
bulletlike stream of water.

But none of it is what he had imagined for himself.

"I don't really have a replacement career," Morein said. "It's a very
gnawing thing."

You obviously don't have much knowledge about my son, Bob.

Here's some information that will help you understand why he's such a sick
bastard. Unfortunately, Bob can NEVER admit he's been beaten, or he's
wrong. He spent 12 years in college trying to write a thesis that was
totally without any scientific merit. When Drexel got tired of his
bleating
about not giving him a degree, he sued them. And even after he was proven
IN COURT to have been wrong, he insisted on appealing to the Supreme Court
in Washington.

The above is a forgery by Brian L. McCarty.

I responded with my own website, http://www.worldjazz.tv
Understandably, he is irritated.

I responded with my own website, http://www.worldjazz.tv
Understandably, he is irritated.

One page of asses!? Yeah, that'll show him.
WS

How many pages would you suggest ?

Vallecito@aol.com (traveler) wrote in message news:<aa96aeec.0404141614.1335e4c1@posting.google.com>...
If you are new here, you will find him weighing in on anything you
have to say, whether you appreciate it or not. Note how he hijacks
the thread and sends it into purgatory or at least in the direction he
chooses. Don't be too alarmed or inordinately annoyed. He thinks he
owns the group. One of his alter egos may be used to provoke you
because he would like to discredit you if you have anything but
sawdust between your ears. Consider it a compliment. Bob is like the
aggressive panhandler who you sternly warn to buzz off when he can't
be ignored. By all means, do not take him up on his offer to phone
him and have a personal chat. But I'm sure you understand how strange
that is without me telling you. Oh, and as for his expertise about
filmmaking, once in awhile he demonstrates some know how, but judging
from his rather strangely schizophrenic attitudes (you will be
apprised of these soon enough), you might do well to take it with a
grain of salt. Try to be philosophical about this situation. Without
guys like Bob around to muck up the works, we might actually get
things done. That could be dangerous.

Traveler

You're making a nuisance of yourself.

trying to drive various regulars off this group,

wind themselves up into a particularly ugly frenzy and then disappear
once they've worn themselves out.

...Or you could just be Adam Christie _again_.

Dylan

"wereoboy" <wereoboy@ixpres.com> wrote in message
news:4069419d_2@news.vic.com...
Being that I've shot "the only film that matters" I now feel it's ok and
proper for you to address me as "the only poster on Earth who matters."

Call me the regurgitation of Mr. Ed, Mickey Mouse, and Neapolitan Ice Cream
all rolled up
into one Shithead.

Scott
Your entire culture's on his way IN

Scoot,
This is Prostate Cancer Man. Right now, I'm in your prostate, and
spreading rapidly throughout your body.

You aren't worth dick.

Your ass is mine.

Scoot, we are here with you always.
We are inside your head.
We are in your ears.
We are your thoughts.
You are going to die of prostate cancer.
It is very painful.
How are you today, Scoot?
Is it going to be Forrest Hills or cremation?

Now I know why nobody has criminal charges pending against
you. I will die of prostate cancer soon.

So, now tell us about Old Man Sylvan's double dose of Testicular Cancer
nestled right between his big fat floppy ears ...

He's clear, Scoot. I'm after YOU.
Prostate cancer will bring you DOWN.

Nice try, Moron.