This file contains - sorted by date - all reactions we received between April 7th and October 18th, 1995, after we distributed the story "Warning: Beware of VIDEA!" on the internet on March 20th, 1995. A set of all reactions before April 7th is available separately.

All names were substituted by XXX, except for ours and those of the people from WIT. Only in rare cases completely irrelevant stuff was cut out, beyond that nothing was eliminated or censored. Messages distributed by Prof. Brebbia and our comments on selected messages are in separate files. Messages are separated by horizontal lines. All reactions reflect the personal opinions of the senders and do not necessarily coincide with our opinion.

e-mail reactions (2nd part):

thank you for sending the notes on the Videa conference.

I was "invited" to participate in Videa '93 and my name
appeared in the first announcements.  Afterwards I had the chance to
visit the Institute to gather more information and to find out what
kind of financial support they would provide me. There was none !
"We don't support invited speakers", was flatly uttered.
Although promises were made to arrange something in the context of
an Erasmus project of theirs, nothing was fulfilled.
Of course I dropped out of the picture but I think my name was kept
in the Program Committee.  And yes, I never received one single paper
to review, nor any correspondence since then.

Anyway, what has been now circulated has been well-known for years in
the engineering community. Brebbia runs a mostly commercial enterprise,
with all the associated financial needs. Selecting criteria is then
way different from the high-level academic events.  Things should be
judged within a different viewpoint and context.  On the other hand,
their forte is numerical methods, not graphics, so, yes, they should
have been more careful.  If one makes a fair evaluation of all their
publications, including journals, throughout the years, the outcome
will be positive.
Der folgende Satz hat nichts in einer E-Mail verloren:

Please, forward this mail to all colleagues in technological fields who
could be affected by these activities of the Wessex Institute of Technology
You have maximal support from XXX,
XXX admiring You\Your fight with entropy
spreaded the message in Czecho-Slovak CG conference,
I plan to publish a description of the story in
our scientific journal.
haben Sie herzlichen Dank fuer Ihre abschliessende und zusammenfassende
Darstellung. Auch dafuer, dass Sie alles im WWW dokumentieren. Ich habe
viel gelernt, Sie haben den koestlichen und traurig stimmenden Anlass
dafuer geschaffen (obwohl Sie naturgemaess nicht die Quelle allen Uebels
sind). Ich erneuere meine urspruengliche Dankbarkeit, sowohl was den
einzelnen Fall betrifft, wie die Lehren, die viele von uns fuer eigenes
zukuenftiges analoges Verhalten ziehen koennen. Ich bin sicher, dass ich
diese Geschichte von nun an oft weitererzaehlen will, insbesondere weil ich
ueberzeugt bin, dass der Hochschullehrer wieder ein Erzaehler werden soll
(postmodern anscheinend angehaucht).
Fuer mich haben Sie und Ihre Kollegen Ihren Fall ueberzeugend dargestellt.
Das Steiersche Seefahrt-Institut, das Sie sich als Bonbon bis zum Schluss
aufbewahrt haben, ist die Krone. Erste Sahne! Das naechste Mal, wenn ich in
Wien sein werde, werde ich einen grossen Braunen auf Sie schluerfen und
dabei so richtig in Thomas Bernhard wuehlen. Den himmlischen Maechten sei
gedankt, dass es noch Esprit gibt. Selbst in solch einer Disziplin wie der
Ihr abschliessender Rat an Prof. Brebbia gibt ihm die Moeglichkeit, etwas
Groesse zu beweisen. Ich wundere mich, dass er nicht laengst so gehandelt

Sensibilisiert, werden Sie und Ihre Leute ja vielleicht eines Tages wieder
so was aufspueren. Und ich bin gespannt, ob es demnaechst mehr ueber
Radiosity of completely dark rooms und aehnliche Probleme gibt. Haben Sie
schon zum Journal of Irreproduceable Results Kontakt aufgenommen?
Merci de vos pricisions. A travers ce cas, j'ai beaucoup appris sur ce que
David Lodge a appeli, dans l'un de ses romans, "un petit monde"!
Your abstracts were very funny, especially the fourth one!  And the
issues you raise are serious ones.  Thanks for alerting the scientific
community to this problem.
Your recent letter on VIDEA and Wessex Inst. has made it onto a number of
different mailing lists than the one you originally sent it to, sometimes
in humorous guises.  I
certainly appreciate the four abstracts that you wrote, expecially
the last.  However, I would appreciate it if you could tell me whether
it was intended to be a humorous piece, and if these conferences (and
schools) really exist.

        Please don't take this as a criticism; one of the highest marks
of humor is the ability to be believed when writing parodies -- and
at the same time, I'm well aware of the pressures to publish and therefore
find this quite plausible.
> First we want to point out that this should not be a personal attack
> against anybody.

Your original message certainly sounded to me like a personal
attack on Brebbia. ("He profits in a very dirty way" etc).

I don't know Brebbia, and I had never even heard of the VIDEA
conference before receiving your message. But I think your
distribution of these accusations, without giving Brebbia the
opportunity to append a reply, was highly unethical.

> So he wrote a flattery email to Prof. Brebbia, ...

You have, in your various messages, admitted to a great deal of

> Prof. Brebbia,
> we believe we should not let this discussion escalate too much.

You have the audacity to say this, after spreading your
accusations around the entire world scientific community!

What really frightens me in all this is how quick everyone was
to broadcast your accusations, without asking for Brebbia's
point of view. Whatever the quality of the VIDEA conference (I
neither know nor care), I have learned that a properly-worded
smear letter will be propagated very quickly amongst scientists
who (no doubt) consider themselves objective.
Is this the company that publishes the conference proceedings?  If so, this
is the most damning information revealed to date!!!  If this is so, I will
email Brebbia asking for confirmation of the following facts before posting
it to the usenet.
First, I am amused - congratulations on a well-engineeered "sting"!

Second, I am appalled at the apparent situation you report.
I find it hard to accept as credible, but I feel confident about your

Third, it has occurred to me that this might be of interest to
"Education Guardian" (weekly supplement to the "Guardian" newspaper)
which is currently developing the theme of what Universities are
prepared to do for money these days.

However, I would not wish to pass on your mail without your approval.
In a recent public 'reply', Prof. Brebbia stated -

"Prof. Pergathofer et al have tried to undermine the VIDEA conference by
 playing a dirty trick in order to promote their own meeting in Dublin on
 the same topic and at the same time."

I have not yet seen any comment/reply by you to this accusation.  Are you
organising a meeting in Dublin on the same topic and at the same time?
I would much appreciate receiving your comment/reply.
Ich habe deine Message ueber die Videa95 Konferenz
gelesen. Ich organisiere mit dem WIT die
MICROSIM I. Ich habe auch diese Konferenz auf
dem Index gefunden. Ich gehe davon aus,
dasz diese Konferenz serioes ist. Ich moechte
dich daher bitten, diese Konferenz von
der Liste zu loeschen, da Wissenschaftler
aus den gesagten Gruenden ablehnen teilzunehmen.
Eine Verbindung zu den Ereignissen der
VIDEA95 besteht hier jedoch in keinem Falle.
Sad, but all too common.

XXX told me that he produced a "paper"
written by a computer program (using trigram statistics
in English), put 3 fictive names as "authors" (one fictional
Japanese author of fictional pornographic fiction), and sent
it in to IJCNN (International Joint conference on neural
nets). But it was rejected. (XXX: "This was an exceptionally
strong year.")
This would seem to prove that trigrams are insufficient;
actual English words, and perhaps even sentences, are

(later) I contacted XXX and actually his paper
was computer generated, but not using trigrams, it
in fact was English words generated by a neural network,
trained on a bunch of neural nets papers...
You can obtain the paper from XXX at
I daresay...

The original message from Prof. Werner and the justification from Wessex
institute come to me and I'd like to state you both my opinion.

The problem revealed of lack of seriousness of the meeting seems to be
true. The justification from Wessex institute didn't convince, because
instead of defending themselves, they tried to attack their  accusors.
At least for the last abstract approved, there's no justification to
accept it and the final conclusion is really the point. There's too
much pressure to publish, and the criteria tend to enphasise quantity
instead of quality. Some force should be made to keep the scientific
work trustable and to make people to do what is really worth the
investiment in science.

If there's a list of answers to this problem, anyone can join this
Thank you very much for your funny story about Wessex. I have been involved =
the AIENG conferences and I expect that the same thing is happening there. I=
currently checking with others on the Advisory Board.

However, before I send your piece to several exploders I know of, I want to =
sure that I do not embarass those people who were Chairs for Wessex in the p=
and who (against the wishes of Wessex, apparently) did filter papers
appropriately. I think that some early stuff was ok but now, it seems that
Brebbia would be a better service to us all if he studied footprints on toil=

When I get more background, I plan to shoot. Thanks for your work. It is peo=
like you who ensure that charletans like Brebbia are exposed.
Ueber sicherlich einige Umwege ist Ihr Bericht zur Arbeitspraxis der VIDEA -
Konferenz auch an die Universitaet Hamburg gelangt, wo nach dem ersten
Spass ueber den Inhalt Ihrer Aktivitaeten auch unser Sinn fuer die Bewertung=
praxis der Konferenzen unserer Fachgebiete geschaerft wurde. Weiterverbreitu=
werde ich unterstuetzen!
Fuer die Verbreitung der Informationen zu den WIT Konferenzen ("Beware of
moechte ich mich herzlich bedanken. Diese Konferenzen waren mir schon lange =
pekt; ein Kollege, der bei der letzten "Air Pollution" Konferenz war, hat au=
nicht besonders gute ERfahrungen gemacht (wenn auch keine katastrophalen - e=
paar vernuenftige Paper sind ja doch dabei).
Meine Frage: ich moechte gerne in der Women in Physics email distribution li=
auf die Sache hinweisen. Das Posting ist aber zu lang fuer diese Liste. Darf
ich vorschlagen, dass Interessierte Sie direkt um den Text ersuchen koennen?
Women in Physics hat ca. 400 Abonnentinnen.
Just wanted to thank you for your interesting and shocking submission
on the above subject. Well done! I will protest to the Wessex Institute of
I don't know anything about the VIDEA'95 conference, but I would like
to testify as a former Ph.D. student of Prof. Carlos Brebbia at the
Wessex Institute of Technology(WIT), that WIT is an excellent research
centre, especially for the Boundary Element Method(BEM), and also I've
found the BEM conferences organized by WIT to be very useful and
generally of high standard.
Sehr lustige Methode!

Wird offenbar auch bei der Erstellung von Gebrauchsanweisungen fuer
- Videorekorder
- Zelte
- Dosenoeffner
- uvm.

angewandt. Zumindest aber ein - nun, sagen wir - interessantes Abstract fuer
eine Konferenz!
we have got a paper copy of your warning: Beware of Videa!
As we also want to distribute this very interesting experience to our
colleagues we want to ask you if you can send us this file directly to
our e-mail address, so we can forward it.
Thank you very much in anticipation.
I'd like to express my support for the Viennese cause in the battle of
VIDEA! I wrote the following email to what appeared to be the originating
address of a publicly circulating email from Prof. Brabbia a few days
ago, but I haven't had a reply yet.

I'll send it to you as an addition to your file!
Forwarded message follows:

Subject: VIDEA
Date: Wed, 3 May 1995 19:45:31 +0200 (MET DST)

Dear Sir

I have received (by the usual roundabout workings of the internet)
a copy of your message that begins as follows:

>                      V I D E A   9 5
> You may have recently seen a message placed on the
> Internet by Dr Purgathofer and Dr Groeller of the
> Institute of Computer Graphics at the Technical University
> of Vienna.  In this message the technical content of the
> conference is criticized and questions raised about other
> conferences which staff at the Wessex Institute of
> Technology are associated.


Having read your note through, I must say that as an academic computer
professional (with little interest in the VIDEA theme and no axe to
grind) your attempted rebuttal fails to convince me of anything except
perhaps ignorance of the academic values you claim to be standing up

> These allegations are completely unfounded and we believe
> raise serious questions about the motives of Dr
> Purgathofer and Dr Groeller and their colleagues.

Let's ask them, but who cares? The thing seems plain to me. They agreed
to serve on the program committee, got suspicious, then made a little
test the next year. When the results came through - and the results are
as appalling an indictment of the standard of a conference as I have
ever seen - they published them. That seems perfectly neutral to me.
They published the experiment in impeccable style. I am judging the
facts, which you do not seem to dispute.

> The facts of the case are as follows:-
> 1.  Dr Purgathofer and Dr Groeller accepted an invitation
>     to join the Scientific Advisory Board of the
>     conference VIDEA 95.


> 2.  Dr Purgathofer and Dr Groeller and their colleagues in
>     Vienna submitted abstracts to the conference (which
>     subsequently were found to be a spoof). It is

Incorrect. They were not "found to be" a spoof. You "provisionally
accepted" the papers.

>     deplorable that colleagues from one of the best known
>     universities in the world, should betray the trust of
>     the International Scientific community in this way.

This is slanted. They have not betrayed the trust of the
community as far as I know! That may be your opinion, but what is the
basis for your charge? Seems to me that the opposite is true. And
therefore they have not done it "in this way".

You presume too much here.

> 3.  These abstracts were provisionally accepted in good
>     faith as they came from one of the advisory board
>     members.

Are you saying that you accept papers depending on who they come
from!!!! That is as contrary to scientific practice as I have ever
heard! And I have never heard of four papers from exactly the same
authors being accepted at one conference - it would be entirely out of
the question.

The mere fact that you do not read beyond the authors names (not even as
far as the abstracts!) before announcing provisional acceptance and
setting out the attendence fees is sufficient to render the conference a

>     Note:  It is relevant to state at this point what the
>     review process is for the conference.
>     Abstracts are reviewed for relevance to the conference
>     and its technical objectives.  Certain weight is also
>     given to the author, organisation and reputation in
>     the field.  It is obviously not possible at this stage

As you must well know, this is nonsense. This is the antithesis of
scientific practice.

Further, whilst it may be politically difficult to refuse a paper from
an important professor, you should at least try to refuse it when it
makes no sense! And none of the four papers you accepted from these
authors made the slightest sense.

>     to assess on the brief information provided, the full
>     technical merit of the proposed paper.  A provisional

Nonsense. An extended abstract (if that is what you are requesting)
must contain sufficient technical detail to decide on its likely worth.
Otherwise you may as well not bother with demanding even so much as
the abstract!

>     acceptance is given at this stage.

>     A second review is made after submission of the full
>     paper.  This review covers the technical merit and
>     format of the paper.  Only after this stage is the
>     paper finally accepted.

But you did not review the contents of the previous years papers,
because the program committee did not get given the papers to review.
Who reviewed them? I am sorry - I am not taken in by this.

No conference that I have ever had the misfortune to encounter
sends out letters of acceptance (even "provisional"!) to all the
abstracts that are submitted. This is a smokescreen. You ought
to be making a better job of defending yourself!

> 4.  During the preparation of the conference programme,
>     certain questions were raised about the abstracts

Questions? By whom? They were on the program commmittee, but
apparently were not invited to attend the committee meeting!

>     submitted by the people from Vienna and they were not
>     included in the provisional programme.

When did this "preparation" occur? Before or after the kind professors
had told you of their test and its results!

Come, come!

> 5.  A message was placed on the Internet (by the people
>     from Vienna) recording that the spoof papers had been
>     accepted by the conference.


>                              (Note: They had only been
>     provisionally accepted.)

Rubbish. Where was the final review process to be held?

> In this case the abstracts in question were submitted by
> the people in Vienna in a deliberate attempt to "set up"
> the conference.  The authors, being experienced people,
> would have been aware that the conference would
> provisionally accept abstracts from advisory board members
> and their colleagues.

Nonsense. I should hope NOT!!!!

>                         They also knew that any spoof
> abstracts would be unlikely to be discovered until the
> provisional programme was prepared or receipt of the full
> papers. It can only be concluded that their action was
> malicious.

This is again a loaded question. It can not be so concluded. Their
motive might have been (and seems to be) one of exposing a fraud.

> We do not understand the motives of these people and we

I do!

> find their action offensive, as it abuses the trust we all
> place in our colleagues in the International Scientific
> community.

No, it does not.

>               The foundations of the research community rely
> on the presentation of the latest research results in
> conferences and journals and the honesty of our colleagues
> in presenting truthful research and unbiased opinions of
> each others work.

How does it do so? Their experiment and the report of the results
seem in the best traditions of scientific detective work to me!

>                   If this type of behavior was repeated
> by others the foundation of our scientific knowledge
> base would be undermined.

How so? On the contrary, I urge you to try the experiment of sending
to as many conferences as you can find a statement of the conference
aims (with "conference" replaced by "paper"), and see if it is
accepted, even "provisonally"!

> We totally refute the allegation regarding the quality
> of the conferences associated with Wessex Institute of
> Technology and by implication the researchers and other
> institutions associated with the conferences. The
> Institute prides itself on its research and its

What research? Perhaps you could publish a list of journal
papers published under the auspices of the institute.

> collaboration with world class research centres in many
> countries. The Institutes conference programme has been


> extremely successful in bringing together scientists from
> all over the world and providing opportunities for young
> scientists to interact with more experienced colleagues.

That cannot be denied. So are holiday tours.

> Since the publication of the allegation on the Internet we
> have received many messages of support from colleagues
> throughout the world which we very much appreciate.

But they have not published them on the internet. I have seen none.
Perhaps you could ask them to reveal their names and addresses in

> WIT stands on its record of achievement as an Institution
> dedicated to Phd training and research. Our commitment to

What PhD training? I have never heard of you - and I know the
UK academic scene well.

> uphold the ideals and integrity of the international
> research community is well known.
> Professor C A Brebbia
> Director
> Wessex Institute of Technology
Vielleicht haben Sie keinen Lust diese VIDEA-sache wieder zu
diskutieren. Trotz dem traue ich mich zwei kleine Fragen zu

Ich mache z.Z. ein kleines Studium ueber Etik der Forschung, und
habe diese VIDEA-geschichte sehr interessant gefunden. Ein kritischer
Punkt gelt das Abstract das Sie in Namen eines erfundenes Institut
eingereicht haben. Ich moechte gern wissen welches von den vier
Abstracts das war, und inwiefern es zusammen mit den drei anderen
Abstracts eingericht worden ist.
Fascinating! I hope you will keep that up to date as further developments
occur.  I notice Brebbia did not comment on your statement that you were
not asked to review submissions to VIDEA '93.

It seems to me - on a quick read of the material you have assembled -
that the situation got out of his control, but he is reluctant to admit

I have a vague recollection that an Australian friend once did something
similar with a spoof paper.  I'll check on the details and let you know.
I think his results were published in Nature.
I read with pleasure and horror your text on fake conferences. good job.
Particularly appreciated by someone like me who spends a lot of time
on editorial matters, working with non-profit publishing houses. Would
it be possible to have some of the evidence you hint at in the
message (photocopies of the letters sent by videa, for instance?); this
is for strictly internal use: I want to have pass a strict line on
refereeing procedures, and would present some substantial arguments.
If it is not too much of an inconvenience for you, you might
send the material to my address, i.e.

ps I am a philosopher, thus a complete outsider when it comes to footprints
Some days ago together with the usual advertising
material I received a letter of Prof. Brebbia
complaining about an 'malicious attack of WIT on the
INTERNET' by members of your department. Because of
our own 'experiences' with WIT, I became curious.
Fortunately Prof. Brebbia did not forget
to include the name of your department in his
letter, so it was not difficult to find your
'VIDEA' - story and the corresponding reactions on the

Congratulations to your 'story' which was
both interesting and amusing to read! It only
confirms the doubts we already had on the seriousness
and integrity of this institution.

In 1993 we decided to take part in a conference
called BIOMED (Computers in Biomedicine). One
reason for our participation was that the list of members
of the scientific advisory committee contained some
scientists with high reputation in the scientific community.
First we wondered that we were not informed about the
conference fees until about 2 months before the
start of the conference and after having sent the final
paper for the proceedings. Of course, the conference
fee was extremeley high (360 p.) and acceptance of the
paper required the payment of the fees.

Some weeks after the conference one of Mr. Brebbia's
co-workers invited me to write a chapter in a
book on BIO-FLUID-MECHANICS intended to be published
by CMP. At this time we already had the strong
suspicion that WIT is mainly interested in making profit
and we asked about the fees to be paid by the
authors for writing a whole chapter in a book. I got
now answer to this question, instead I received a letter
where this co-worker of Mr. Brebbia thanks for my
acceptance to contribute with a  chapter
for his book (which in fact I never did). I decided
not to answer and to ignore any further letters of WIT.
Somewhat later I received a further letter including a list of
all the chapters of the 'book' and the corresponding authors
 where I was asked to verify the title of my name and
my chapter (I never gave them a title: instead they took the
name of my paper presented at the conference and inserted
it into their 'list'). Somewhat angry I wrote a definitely
last letter to WIT expressing my displeasure about the
whole matter. I nearly forgot to mention another thing:
A short time after inviting me to write a chapter in a book,
WIT asked me to become a member of the scientific advisory
committee for the next BIOMED conference. Your can draw
your own conclusions on that.

Thank your for your efforts to warn the scientific
community about the 'activities' of WIT!
I've been wondering whether Prof Brebbia ever went
ahead with his legal threats.  There was a piece about the matter on the
cover of the Times Higher Education Supplement one week, but it was
uninformative and did not do anything to explain the scandal which you
were trying to expose.  "Wessex Institute of Technology" is not really part
of the British Higher Education system - but people submitting to their
conferences were not in a position to realise that.
   It is a pity that the law often seems to protect the wrong people.  The
case of the newspaper tycoon Robert Maxwell, who stole his employees'
pension funds and then committed suicide, was the worst example in
Britain recently.   Apparently many people working for other papers knew
for years that Maxwell was a crook, but they were never able to print this
because he always threatened to sue them for libel.
Thank you for the VIDEA'95 warning.. I'm delighted with these hilarious
abstracts, it makes me remember my college days when the teacher of Phisics
must to read and correct a lot of SAME EXPERIENCES AND RESULTS and, as you c=
imagine, he doesn't correct at all. Then we put some cooking receipts in the
middle of the conclusions and of course in the references and we receive a
sound "A" for our lab work. You must to see the mess in the Physics dep. whe=
we  publish the results on the student's newspaper... I would like to conclu=
with my consternation about the reality of the necessity of production on
quiantitative basis instead of quality. Talking about "SEERAuBEREIS" let's t=
like one of the  "Asterix's trackers": Non multa sed
I am not sure that the message about a strange conference is not a joke.
But it is going round the world (Reunion Island where I work is in Indian
Ocean !) and people have to laugh like me.
So, thanks for this mail and promise, I will not submit paper to a Videa
conference without taking precautions.
I recently received in the mail, unsolicited, a packet of flyers for several
conferences (AIENG 96, SQM 96, SEHE 96) sponsored by Wessex Institute of

I hope the standards of these conferences are much higher than the widely
publicized VIDEA conference.  I'll be avoiding all WIT-sponsored
conferences, and I'll urge my colleagues to do the same, until I see
evidence that their conferences strive for quality, not just profit.
I am happy that, at last, somebody stands up against the Wessex Institute of
Technology.  I have stopped any contacts with these unscrupulous so-called
scientists many years ago.

The last conference I attended (BETECH 86 in Boston) was pretty bad; as a
very young scientist then (24 years old), I had been very honoured and
surprised to be appointed Session Chairman of the last session;  when
I arrived at the conference I was told that my own paper was moved to the
session that I was chairing which is quite unusual but still acceptable.

What was more shocking is that, when this last PLENARY session occured, all
conference staff, all members of the organizing, scientific, technical or an=
other comittee had left to catch their plane, on their way to another confer=
 ...  I was left, as young and unexperienced as I was, to close the conferen=
and got much complains from the few remaining participants which I had to
convince that I was not related to the organizers in any way !

I wouldn't be as friendly as you are toward the publishers as you should kno=
that CML, WIT and several other organizations related to these dummy
conferences are all emanation of the same person which you cite in your

I wish your e-mail a large dissemination.
I would like to have as complete a list as possible of all papers that
has been accepted to be published in any WIT conference.

I know this may be a rather long list, and that it will have mostly
innocent scientists papers, but I also think that there may be some
or other that use this conferences only to get themselves a long
published papers list. For example some politically engaged persons.

I would really appreciate if you could send me that list. Thank you
in advance.
(could not answer, because we don't have it)
I am a producer with the BBC radio news programme, "XXX"
 I am producing a feature for our programme on the 10th of
September about scientific fraud and misconduct. I recently read a
fascinating article in The Guardian newspaper about the way you and your
colleagues tested the review procedures for papers at a W.I.T. conference.
I would very much like to conduct a recorded interview with you over the
telephone on this subject at some point before the weekend. I would be
grateful if you could call me
Absolutely brilliant.  The theory, as set forth, could not be more
susinct.  A brilliant point is made here.  However, I have gotten the
same result by attempting to launch an intercourse in the general
direction of a tubular and concentrical fragment of rapidily retreating
breakfast pastry.

newsgroup-posting (compgeom-announce):
After reading this message I hope you will understand
why I decided to post it here assuming that this info
deserves most wide dissemination, both for fun and alarm.

[inclusion of original "beware of VIDEA"-email]

                            VIDEA '95


Dear Colleague

Re:  VIDEA '95

You may have heard that a group from the Technical University of
Vienna has launched an attack on the meeting by putting a malicious
message in the INTERNET.  Please disregard the message which has
been a deliberate effort to spoil the VIDEA '95 meeting.

In order for you to make up your own mind, we would like to point
out that:-

1)  Professor Purgothofer and Dr Groeller are members of the
Scientific Committee organising VIDEA '95.  They are responsible
for canvassing quality contributions amongst their colleagues.

2)  In spite of the above, Professor Purgothofer was found now to be
organising a similar meeting in Dublin on exactly the same dates
as VIDEA '95.

3)  Professor Purgothofer, Dr Groeller and their associate Mr Feda
have no connection or knowledge of any other of our numerous
research activities, or of the other Conferences organised by WIT.

The action of Professor Purgothofer's group is in our opinion
malicious, defamatory and unethical.  They bring to disrepute the
whole of the scientific community and have abused the function of

It is depressing having to report this matter as it involves the
unacceptable behaviour of some of our "colleagues".

Yours sincerely

Prof C A Brebbia
Wessex Institute of Technology
Prof S Hernandez
University of La Coruna
Prof J J Connor
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dear colleagues,

I must apologize for violating the e-ethics by
distributing the material about VIDEA without personal
verification of the accusative issue. I may name several
reasons (not excuses) for this: I am new at e-nets;
I was in shock; I have already met with such (and even worse)
practice; I believed that Prof. Purgathofer may prove the facts
but forgot that any facts may have different interpretations.

I wish to thank XXX and YYY who gave me the
possibility to correct my mistake by pointing at it and providing
further references to the topic.

XXX provided the following reference where you
may find opinions of both sides on VIDEA.

> From: (Werner Purgathofer)
> Subject: Beware of VIDEA / part 2
> Dear colleague,
> you may have recently read the story "Warning: Beware of VIDEA!", and now
> are curious about its implications. This message contains
> - selected reactions from WIT       and
> - comments from the authors.
> You can find the complete responses from WIT and all other reactions from
> the scientific community on our WWW-server: