My Photo

Bulletin Board

December 2008

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31      

Cartoons

  • The NIH Keeps Up With The Times: 1, 2, 3. David Baltimore Has A Flashback: ***. The NY Times Keeps Up With Times: ***. The Faith of Anthony Fauci: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains How HIV Causes AIDS: ***. Robert Gallo on The Force of Ejaculation: ***, on HIV Theory: ***, Lectures in Marseilles: ***. David Ho Does The Math: ***. John Mellors Sets the Record Straight: ***. Bono, el Magnifico, Holds (Another) Press Conference: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains Journalism in the Age of AIDS: ***. Anthony Fauci and David Ho Disprove an Old Adage: ***. Anthony Fauci Explains ICL and AIDS: *** The CDC Can't Keep Up With The Times:*** The Method of the "Small Inquisitor" Moore:*** The Co-Discovery of a Nobel-Worthy Enzymatic Activity:*** The Revenge of the "Very" Minor Moriarty:*** Julie Gerberding and Anthony Fauci Learn Arithmetic:*** Osama Obama Has a Message for Africa:***

Bad Manners and Good Gossip

« Association v Causation | Main | Second-Hand Smoke Jive »

June 23, 2006

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Gene Semon

Hey George, why don't you put up or shut up and come over to Tara's Place for actual, instead of hypothetical public service.

I know, I know, I take myself too seriously.

Good for you, you've found an all -purpose excuse.

George

Gene,

If you think Dr. Smith and her readers would have any interest in discussing Delbruck's analogy of a scientist, you can reprint my few posts relevant to that over there.

Since no one here appears interested in my only reason for introducing it, namely that the Moores and Smiths of this sadly deteriorated academic world make scientific claims based on a mixture of "data" and "moral truth" in possibly equal proportions. An activity that Max would have found anathematic to science, as I do.

I cannot any longer (if I ever could) discuss polymerase subunits or micromillimoles of triphospahte exchange or any of the technical stuff I think you are involved with over there.

Maybe you would like to read this*, if you haven't. It is not as "hilarious" as Beckett, but it makes some of the same points as the Delbruck interview with Norm Davidson, and it has some pretty funny one liners as well.

*http://post.queensu.ca/~forsdyke/bioinfo1.htm

Gordon

Darin Brown

Mark --

I did not propose the debate at the wiki. Bialy did.

As far as who would be moderator...what other possible choice is there? Do you really think a member of the orthodoxy is going to legitimate such a debate by even team-moderating? The highest members of the orthodoxy have all but declared such a debate immoral and a danger to health. They would be excoriated by their own.

In any case, I think it states at the original proposal that the debate would follow well-known protocols and my "moderating" tasks would involve little more than uploading PDFs and formatting webpages.

Darin Brown

George said,

>>Yes I have read Dr. Bialy's excellent book (more than twice). Have you? I do not recall anything about the NAS "riding roughshod" over the iconoclastic professor Duesberg,

PNAS 1989??

>>That Baltimore and others dislike Duesberg intensely is a deduction on your part. I also do not recall Bialy ever writing anything explict describing the *personal attitudes* of anybody, only their dismissal of his published work. It was, in fact, one of the things that pleasantly surprised me when I first read the book.

Maybe it's not possible to make such a conclusion from Bialy's book, but you don't *really* think it's not true, do you? If you honestly think this is all based on nothing more than scientific disagreements and that the ostracism and personal despising of Duesberg and others is all some kind of figment of our imagination the past 15 years, you must be living in a different world than me. Maybe you've been on the sidelines -- have you ever been called a Nazi, evil, psychopath, retarded, incompetent, fascist, dangerous, a quack, mischievious, selfish, etc., etc. I've been called all of these things by SCIENTISTS. (I haven't even started).

>>When did Richard Strohman become an academy member BTW (No slight at all on the very distinguished professor. He certainly deserves it more than Gallo. But then, you deserve it more than that unpleasant scoundrel.)

When did papers from NAS members to the Proceedings start getting rejected?? The whole POINT of the Proceedings is that any Academy member can publish there, and be virtually guaranteed acceptance.

The whole point of the NAS file is that the 34-word rejection email is absurd on its face. As it is.

Darin Brown

George said,

>>Yes I have read Dr. Bialy's excellent book (more than twice). Have you? I do not recall anything about the NAS "riding roughshod" over the iconoclastic professor Duesberg,

PNAS 1989??

>>That Baltimore and others dislike Duesberg intensely is a deduction on your part. I also do not recall Bialy ever writing anything explict describing the *personal attitudes* of anybody, only their dismissal of his published work. It was, in fact, one of the things that pleasantly surprised me when I first read the book.

Maybe it's not possible to make such a conclusion from Bialy's book, but you don't *really* think it's not true, do you? If you honestly think this is all based on nothing more than scientific disagreements and that the ostracism and personal despising of Duesberg and others is all some kind of figment of our imagination the past 15 years, you must be living in a different world than me. Maybe you've been on the sidelines -- have you ever been called a Nazi, evil, psychopath, retarded, incompetent, fascist, dangerous, a quack, mischievious, selfish, etc., etc. I've been called all of these things by SCIENTISTS. (I haven't even started).

>>When did Richard Strohman become an academy member BTW (No slight at all on the very distinguished professor. He certainly deserves it more than Gallo. But then, you deserve it more than that unpleasant scoundrel.)

When did papers from NAS members to the Proceedings start getting rejected?? The whole POINT of the Proceedings is that any Academy member can publish there, and be virtually guaranteed acceptance.

The whole point of the NAS file is that the 34-word rejection email is absurd on its face. As it is.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Comments

  • Comments are regarded as letters to the editor. They are subject to the same policies as the NY Times and Nature, and are not published until after editorial review.
Blog powered by Typepad

Contact