> I probably should go through the rest of estout and esttab and see
> what else is in there, but I consider the whole notion obnoxious and
> nauseating. A great waste of time, really.
Your consternation is no excuse for not providing evidence of your
accusations--especially for strident public accusations.
If you're so sure that it is copied (beyond 2 similar lines for an
approach that's similar & common across other programming/stats
environments) then provide proof, it's that simple. Given your
obsession with this on statalist, I think it would have saved you time
if you had amounted the evidence first; I get the feeling that you are
making these accusations out of a general "feeling" of wrongdoing and
the fact that his packages have rivaled yours on SSC^
You had enough time to go through these numbers, why not go through
the programs. (I suspect that those 2 lines are your best evidence)
>At best, he has issued incomplete and sporadic acknowledgement.
This is unclear. He either cited others' work or he didn't.
> -esttab- is a plagiarized work. It is based largely on -outreg2-. This
> was something that you could not have written on your own. It would be
> nice to if you could have, but based on your other work this was
> apparently something that was beyond you.
How could you know this? You assert that Ben could not have written
it based on his other (I assume prior) work, but looking at your
outreg2 submission in 2005, I could have just as easily looked at it
and asserted that you could not have possibly authored that, even if
it were an adaptation from outreg, this programming was clearly beyond
you because your other work is not at that level.
***************
^ http://www.stata.com/statalist/archive/2009-12/msg00216.html.
*
* For searches and help try:
* http://www.stata.com/help.cgi?search
* http://www.stata.com/support/statalist/faq
* http://www.ats.ucla.edu/stat/stata/
