Oh I can talk all day long about a particular website's plagiarism and
copyright violation which is certainly Ad Nauseum but not Ad Hominem.
I'll let you substitute who you think is the webmaster and even if you
came up with Bin Laden it still isn't an Ad Hominem argument (Hitler
is bad even after rebuilding the German economy in the thirties where
the Jews prospered more than the Germans). So try something different
than a troll attack which is by definition Ad Hominem. The Rosetta
Stone is an historical artifact. I can distort the meaning anyway I
want which means protection under the CopyRight Act Doctrine of
Qualification meaning "not the same as". I used it first to
specifically mean translation of Chinese English tea terms and any
similar use by anybody else is a copyright violation. Don't pull a
John Kerry on me if you know someone who used rosetta in a similar
way.

Jim

Derek > wrote in message >...
> While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy rolled
> initiative and posted the following:
>
> > Derek > wrote in message
> > >...
> >> While intrepidly exploring rec.food.drink.tea, Space Cowboy
> >> rolled initiative and posted the following:
> >>
> >> > The term rosetta was first used by me several months ago to
> >>
> >> You aspire to be a troll, don't you?
> >
> > I guess you support plagiarism. I understand that from a
> > generation who imprinted on commercials starting in the nursery
> > going through life freely associating on sound bites too form a
> > personality whose idea of originality is nothing more than a
> > dejavu experience.
>
> No, I don't support plagiarism. And that includes yours.
>
> You didn't coin the phrase "rosetta stone." You weren't the first
> person to use it to refer to a "translation tool" or a "guide to
> understanding." It's in both Webster's and OED, and OED's
> earliest citation is from the 1902 edition of the Encyclopedia
> Britannica. You're not even the first person I've seen use it in
> reference to figuring out the names of teas from the packaging.
>
> The only thing you get credit for is being the first person to
> post to this newsgroup (July 2003) using that phrase.
>
> But then, your use of an Ad Hominem makes your arguement logically
> invalid anway.