Planet X- Image Credits
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 14:20:24 -0600
From: Nancy Lieder <zetatalk@zetatalk.com>
Subject: Planet X: Image Credits
Xref: sn-us sci.astro:367727

I’ve added links to Open Minded and Pierre-Eric’s web site on the page
in my web site that display their images and where this is not obvious
(as a link already in the sci.astro posting to such web site and the
subject of the posting BEING the meaning of the images, etc.) The pages
I’ve changed, which are linked to from the Troubled Times TEAM page at:
http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/tteam342.htm

are titled Imaging Began, linking to:
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90375.htm
which now states: “Image Source: Images taken on Jan 5, 2002 by Open
Minded, who has his own opinion.” linking to”
http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/

and titled Analysis, linking to:
http://www.zetatalk.com/usenet/use90446.htm
which now states: “Image Source: Images taken on Jan 5, 2002 by Open
Minded, who has his own opinion, and on Jan 19, 2002 by Pierre-Eric.”
linking to:
http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/
and
http://membres.lycos.fr/dcorb/N/
respectively.

and titled Absent, linking to:
http://www.zetatalk.com/teams/rogue/absent.htm
which now states “Image Source: Images taken on Jan 5, 2002 by Open
Minded, who has his own opinion as to what they represent.” linking to:
http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/

I appologize for the oversight, as taken out of the context of the
roaring debate going on at the time on sci.astro, it is not obvious
where the images were obtained. I hope this is now satisfactory.


From: Thomas McDonald <tsmac@wwt.net>
Subject: Re: Planet X: Image Credits
Date: Tue, 02 Apr 2002 18:07:33 -0600
Xref: sn-us sci.astro:367755

Nancy Lieder wrote:

<snip>

>http://us.geocities.com/openmindxx/
>
>I appologize for the oversight, as taken out of the context of the
>roaring debate going on at the time on sci.astro, it is not obvious
>where the images were obtained. I hope this is now satisfactory.
>

Bullshit. It was immediately obvious from IMOpenminded first post
of this data. It was pointed out to you the day you posted the
incorrect attribution to Idon't. It has been pointed out repeatedly
since then. You are responding now, inadequately in my opinion, out of
fear that the actual owner of the images might sue you. As should be
done because of the flagrancy of your theft.

More than that, you continue to point to magnitude 20 noise as a
magnitude 11 object. You have never, to my knowledge, responded to this
problem, although you have continued your obfuscation, smoke and mirrors.

Tom McDonald