A page-filler is especially malicious, if the presenter claims to be inventing/introducing something new, and asks being valued as a research-success, and is to get something in return. The page-filler content is there all and only for diverting attention from the reality that there is no significant substance being presented.
Something very available around and unworth to allocate your attention to it, and/or something that is useless, and/or even the presenter doesnot/cannot provide any justification for choosing it, and even no proof for its workability, may only be taken as a page-filler. For example, you may not claim to have made a contribution, and certainly may not claim the whole work, if all you did was to place a moustache on a copy of "Mona Lisa" - covering the smile away.
The page-fillers complement the false claims (the myths), and the plagiarized, to make a whole case of lack of achievement. Another aspect of the case may be the immense number, and variety of errors in that self-claimed, so-called, "... design ... and analysis ..." thesis. It is a lack-of-achievement even at an undergraduate level, where delivering some correct/working code is expected.
In many cases, the non-exemplar examples in copycat82 turn out to be both false, and to such an extent that, evaluating them, points out many failures of the copycat82. Has nobody cared to reflect about them? Neither the author(s), nor the jury(ies)? If only those trivial examples had been verified, it would be clear that the "missing" proofs, in fact, cannot exist because the method-crashing examples, the standard errors, already exist in copycat82 itself, at some very unexpectable central figures (which copycat83-the-paper, published again, next year).
The plagiarism, immense-faultiness, and the false claims (the myths) spell the worthlessness of copycat82. We discuss their relevance to lack-of-value, in this section, with links to the other pages, at this site.
A copycat82 example, to be workable, must be strictly at an intersection of E-nets, VD78, and SARA. This appears to be a necessary condition. We discuss the main cause of it, the copycat82 plagiarism, in its own section.
The copycat82 plagiarism limits its applicability. Yet, its faultiness limits it, yet again. In other words, an example that resembles all three of the mentioned prior art, may still be stuck.
e.g: when the quirkiness of the i/o macros of copycat82 enter the scene. For example, compare the inclusive-Or-input, in SARA vs. copycat82. A subtle difference, coupled with the other cut-and-pastes, from E-nets, make it unworkable. As another example, the "priority" at entrance gets lost undeterministically, after the firts pass through it. How would that be a general-programming tool?. Only confused-up entrance/exit macros.
Very trivial examples to even suggest a need for any "alternative method." Not to mention that almost all of the copycat82 examples, including the implementations of the i/o macros, contain faults, and/or vagueness. It is an immense number, and variety of errors, and very unsuggestive of being grantable a Ph.D. title. If even the Ph.D. nominee himself cannot utilize it, who was supposed to use what copycat82 publishes, at all? A needless, and careless attempt, presumably only to obtain a Ph.D. title, has lead to a worthless, unusable publication.
Suggests features, without substance/delivery, and/or claims false properties about itself. Such false claims (myths) may only stress, the worthlessness of copycat82, yet again.
We have referred, on this page to the persistence of such faultiness, and false advertisement, both in copycat82, the Ph.D. dissertation, and copycat83, the associated paper. Next, we wonder, how a Ph.D. title was granted. How was that paper published, too? Did neither the authors, nor the jury, care to read it, at all? Did they never try to implement, and/or employ what copycat82/83 published? How would they not notice, at least, that every single figure in copycat83 is faulty/gotchaful - except the Fig.4 which only lists the shapes of i/o operator macros, imitative of UCLA/SARA i/o control logic.
All in all, it appears, nobody considered copycat82/83 worth anything to read, really. Otherwise, they would notice. Period. The jury only neglected it, although they approved it.
The "why approve?" question is a matter of debate, and may suggest an abuse/trickery, whether the answer involves social-influences, and/or witchcraft.