In reply to a reply to user's post "On-Screen Keyboard" - regarding Op-ed Would this be an example of approaching whatever the antonym is?

FUN WORLD SOCIAL SCENE CHANGES? PUBLIC EYE "WINNING" VS RULE OF CONTEST WINNING?- AND ALL LAUGHING IN THE END?

Okay...! So some social entrepreneurship action to comment on. Media is supposed to be the biggest social entrepreneur bed fellow? Right..? So in presenting information it shapes us< basic physic laws of communication = everything that is life.

So in practice here is a story presented from a story from a writer with a story who appreciates a when more in this tech world would first offer the easy starting a story base info and moral neutral and then linking to "real" lives lived "facts". But got a start where one starts so hence the initial real lives lived link (deleted from beginning of article for mediative reasons).

So here's communication in language plain and symbols/art. So you don't go into reading interpretation blind: -Words marked between &- -& "symbols/art" comment on story in regards to personal feeling of writer -Words marked between - - symbols indicate a fill in name for the actual source as well the terms between $- -$, ?- -?, (although even this maybe op-ed itself?) -Words marked between !!- -!! indicate a idea used later in the article as well as between #- -#, a bold or italic if you will without the effect

If one were to delete these parts or copy paste them to the end and use some communication process of personal satisfaction. One should get a personal vision of "strict" base info/morals neutral concerning the initial link and translated story effect.

Darn researching living life can get time consuming and deep specially when people use the physics of communication ...LOL

So story goes: A PhD -candidate-&-one of our contemporary stars-& in agri-architecture at a -country recognized hierarchy of education and social preparation <--(CRHESP) - says he/she first came up with the idea in 2009. !!-He/she filed a report of invention with the CRHESP in August 2012-!!<--(this statement used at end of article), laying claim to the idea. In February of this year, a CRHESP $-team-$&-rich in options and understanding fellow humans all the time they live-& approached -candidate-, who had already received some press attention for the idea, for help developing its presentation for the regional competition in March. -candidate- says $-the team-$ knew of his research on cricket farming and wanted his help designing a farming kit for the ?-International Business School-?&-Quite a title well best of luck in your communications-& prize entry. He ultimately produced some of the graphics used for $-the team’s-$ presentation, including several showing the collapsible “cricket reactor” he/she designed for $-the team-$. -candidate- believed he/she had a verbal agreement with the $-team-$ that he/she would be made a member of $-the team-$ or a partner in any company it formed if it won the regional competition. He says that when $-the team-$ won the regional's, that didn’t happen.

“They took my work and called it their own,” he/she says. $-The team-$ disputes account and contends that the ?-International Business School-? entry was based on “internal $-team-$ research and not on concepts provided by other parties.&-awesome you taught your self language and human social interaction and every thing that shapes the way you act and think is of a separate personal condition-& according to a statement e-mailed by $-team member-$. $-Team members-$ declined requests for an interview and did not answer follow-up questions via e-mail.

The CRHESP, after reviewing both -candidate's- work and the CRHESP $-team’s-$ presentation, !!-has filed a provisional patent application-!!<--(this statement used at end of article)&-that's a hierarchally social group statement of events in history important right?-& declaring -candidate- as the sole inventor, says a commercialization officer <--(CO) at CRHESP Office of Sponsored Research. Members of the CRHESP $-team-$ did not meet the criteria for co-inventor, CO of CRHESP said, which includes both having the idea and having the ability to execute it. -candidate- had been working on the idea as part of his/her doctoral research before the ?-International Business School-? competition began.

In an effort to resolve the dispute, CRHESP administrators met with the two sides in June and drafted a memorandum last month suggesting a framework for a resolution that includes barring members of the ?-International Business School-? Prize $-team-$ from using the invention. The administrators in the August memo said candidate made a “substantive contribution” to the $-team’s-$ effort that deserves recognition, but there is “no evidence” that the $-team’s-$ contributions warranted the status of co-inventor for the patent.

The dispute will not prevent the CRHESP $-team-$ from competing for the ?-International Business School-? Prize a vice president <--(VP) at ?-International Business School-?, which sponsors the competition, says the judges focus more on the business model than the device itself&-I don't know.. personally in international standards with all our world history experience, in a business plan competition there would be points for realizing that a concept like "I'm going to hang-glide from the moon to the earth" or "I'm going to help out the world with bug farming" would be awarded points based on the general temperment of how the judges view the thinking/acting processes of the worlds players and how said plan would manage to act in according point awarded levels of analytical categories to create a new "loved and embraced" social situation. Categories could award points based on say self documented recognition of business social image in regard to proposed business's life situation in it's real life starting environment and legal,economic and social message trust and belief impact. Is it recognized from start up as a fair social giver/taker to help it succeed in creating a regional/international rational acting person team/employee support structure. Additional points could be awarded based on long view action and immediate action, ##-if a business can show that it has the assets needed initially to start up and get working and gaining the real world business and public experience, it gets more points.##<--(this statement used at end of article) such as a statement to a professional level of the initial team use of techniques socially and technology wise to organize current assets and determine and procure future operations. Central to point gaining would be say does your idea require tech if it does what are the social legal/community customs that affect its development? What are the material science requirements and the path to initial marketplace and socially acquiring such material and design decision process and in also keeping up to date on future material science and social move making analysis asset decisions. What is the training and acceptance of the projects tech and social process/environmental impact in human social regional spheres and economic numbers. Basically the logistics of architecture that provides the service and the training and such regarding the use of that architecture. These and additional questions are a great indicator of a well done business competition I would believe-& <--(&- I know..in relation to my base initial reason for writing this post this statement could be a long visually and interest perhaps detracting statement. Like I said delete or move the words between the &- -&. Again fuck some instances of people's communication phyics is rough on the time and brain budget LOL-&)

To continue: ?-International Business School-? organizers believe “the designs provided are not central to the CRHESP $-team’s-$ business idea &-##-if a business..-##-& and therefore did not contribute to them either winning the T-iGNUcius city-T regional round or their prospects of winning the $1 million prize,” however, that should the CRHESP team win, it will need to sign an agreement stating that its plans won’t violate any laws&-!!-he/shefiled..-!!-and- !!-has filed..-!!-&, in the international boundaried community including intellectual-property laws. If the $-team’s-$ plan does violate any laws, it would be ineligible to receive the cash, VP says.&- And we anxiously await the conclusion of this team vs 10,000+ others winning a gruelingly rational business plan contest:)-&

Conclusion So what you think base neutral? he/she statements<--(okay he/she/between/both/andallthat would have been more fair got me there), labeled general organizational and position label statements. &-statements-& deleted/moved of course As for the &-opinions-& ??? lol- whose side am I on posting this on a wiki where anyone can change words to affect future social perception? (I hope that in the creation of a social process to effect social process everybody comes out a winner, big world one contest it's impacts and the opportunity to collaborate with 10,000+ other after words &-and still win rules wise and face wise by making friends and being accelerated in the good deals social hierarchy (geez just whose side)-& What real world labeled people and organizations have been affected psychologically in various temporal definable life living actions by all this? THE BIGGEST THING IS I OPINION AND OOH SOUND SO SMART BUT HAVE HAD NO ACCESS TO THE WINNING FINISHED PLAN AT VARIOUS STAGES OF 10,000+ "BEATING" OTHERS IDEAS LEVELS AND HAVEN'T EVEN FOLLOWED THE WHOLE PROCESS OF THIS SITUATION AS MY WORLD COMMUNITY HAS RELEASED INFO DECISION ASSETS TO THERE PUBLISHING PLATFORMS AND SPHERE'S OF INFLUENCE. (umm..... I tried to discuss socialness on this awesome platform choosing a time today while influenced by my life state experience/emotions of temporal future flow and for some reason doing stuff to live life :s :) Any way it's wiki and I love I really do love and sorry for getting in the mix of things. Freedom to Change needs imagination for/and people.