cklee wrote:
殘念
你引的是原文是英文我當然先看英文後修正你的中文翻譯的誤解，你難道要我照你寫錯的中文解釋去挑戰原文的不是！？
還好你之前的引文我看到最後決定不浪費時間看，否則還得當老師花時間糾正你。
你在引別人語句的時候，麻煩整句看懂再說，別斷章取義 ok?
麻煩的是你有嚴重的 communicate 障礙，這缺點可能淹蓋掉所有成就。
cklee wrote:
PS：你還是別把張照堂前輩當過評審幫你評過分的事績扛出來往臉上貼金了，你認為張前輩看了此篇討論之後，對你會做何感想？
你認為這對張前輩是加分還是減分？
powerslide wrote:
有 communic...(恕刪)
cklee wrote:
哇哩！
原來你英文程度只能看懂單字！
Disagree about a cropping "wormhole". A crop is a separate work -- if that work violates copyright, then we would not allow the crop on Commons. We cannot control what other people do. For one example, there are French cases where photos of an entire plaza are not copyright violations, even if a photo of one particular building would be. In that situation, making a crop of a photo like that (to focus on a building or included sculpture) could definitely result in a copyright violation even if the original is not -- and I would emphatically not support trying to lower the allowed resolution on such photos.
請你看懂該文是站在哪種角度說明權益的OK？
別只能看到自己想看的單字就硬塞自己幻想的語意！？
cklee wrote:
PS:張照堂是你在前篇自己跳針說的，忘了嗎？
cklee wrote:
老實說，我現在最羨慕你的地方是你有太多閒時間掛在網上活在自已世界胡說八道。
