Expelled - Ben Stein's creationism movie - Page 9

Wizard of ID: Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
..
.
.
Scientist: You're a very bad man.

Originally Posted by groverat

dmz:



Sarcasm is a weak cover for ignorance, dmz, you should know that.

What "it? What "information systems" are you talking about? What are "those things and more"?



You have not even begun clarifying. You are making scientifically ignorant statements and then whining and hiding behind sarcasm when asked what you mean.



What does "higher development" mean? It's certainly not a Darwinian concept.


franksargent:



It's really all he's left with at this point.

Originally Posted by dmz

groverat, I've been over at P.Z. Myers' site, and elsewhere, recently -- arguing about these very things with educated people who, oddly enough, don't have any problem identifying what I'm talking about. Your being childish about this is as phony as it can be. Either that, or you are not where the debate is occurring.

I'd suggest posting your above statements over on Pharyngula's boards, they are up to speed on the information system side to this.

It's obvious what Darwinism claims to provide solutions for, and it's obvious what information systems I'm talking about. It's also obvious that no one has modeled how such systems could come about, one or two protein bindings at a time.

Another new, and increasingly common, objection of creationists to evolution is that evolutionary mechanisms such as mutation cannot generate new information. Creationists such as William A. Dembski, Werner Gitt, and Lee Spetner have attempted to use information theory to dispute evolution. Dembski has argued that life demonstrates specified complexity, and that evolution without an intelligent agent cannot account for the generation of information that would be required to produce specified complexity. The Christian apologetics site Answers in Genesis, for example, makes frequent appeals to concepts from information theory in its objections to evolution and affirmations of the Genesis account of Creation:

[I]t should be clear that a rigorous application of the science of information is devastating to materialistic philosophy in the guise of evolution, and strongly supportive of Genesis creation.

However, these claims have been widely rejected by the scientific community; new information is regularly generated in evolution, whenever a novel mutation or gene duplication arises. Dramatic examples of entirely new, unique traits arising through mutation have been observed in recent years, such as the evolution of nylon-eating bacteria, which developed new enzymes to efficiently digest a material that never existed before the modern era. In fact, when an organism is considered together with the environment it evolved in, there is no need to account for the creation of information. The information in the genome forms a record of how it was possible to survive in a particular environment. It is not created, but rather gathered from the environment through research by trial and error, as mutating organisms either reproduce or fail.

A related argument against evolution is that all or most mutations are harmful. However, in reality the vast majority of mutations are neutral, and the minority of mutations which are beneficial or harmful are purely situational; a mutation that is harmful in one environment may be helpful in another.

Originally Posted by dmz

No offense franksargent, but not all forums are equal. Participating on other forums, where everyone is clearly more educated than I am, has been a big help. I enthusiastically recommend it. I also recommend giving iTunesU a couple hundred hours of your time.

But coming back here and hearing "what information are you talking about" and "we aren't subject to epistemology/ontology" -- I'm sorry -- I don't have the patience for it.

Originally Posted by franksargent

...new information is regularly generated in evolution, whenever a novel mutation or gene duplication arises...

Originally Posted by dmz

Endlessly relying on reshuffling alleles and existing information is tired, and ultimately no solution at all.

Originally Posted by dmz

some text so this will post

Critiques, and Defenses, of Evolution
By STEPHANIE SIMON
May 2, 2008
The Wall Street Journal asked the Discovery Institute's John West, a prominent advocate of intelligent design, to list several critiques of evolution that he'd like to see teachers present in class. Then we sought responses from Eric Meikle, who promotes evolution instruction through the National Center for Science Education. Here's what they had to say. (See related article.)

* * *

John West, Discovery Institute: Darwinian theory rests on the concept that random mutations propelled evolutionary advances. But observations of the world around us show that most mutations are harmful, and the rare mutations that are beneficial (such as those causing antibiotic resistance in bacteria) produce only minor changes within existing species.*
Eric Meikle, National Center for Science Education: Whether mutations are "harmful," "beneficial," or relatively neutral depends on the context and environment in which they occur -- and what other genes are present. Furthermore, while mutations may be random, other evolutionary factors such as natural selection are not. Biologists continue to research mechanisms that produce evolutionary advances.

* * *

Mr. West: While natural selection can explain some change within a species*(such as finches' evolving slightly bigger beaks so they can eat tougher seeds),*the theory doesn't explain the development of fundamentally new biological features and organisms.
Mr. Meikle: This claim assumes that scientists believe natural selection alone is responsible for the emergence of new biological features and organisms. On the contrary, biologists know that other factors are also important, such as genetic drift, in which genes can spread rapidly through small populations even if they don't confer a specific advantage. The key thing to remember is that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming and independent -- it stands no matter what debate might arise about the precise mechanisms involved.

* * *

Mr. West: Nearly all of the major animal body plans appeared in the fossil record during a*geologically brief*period known as the Cambrian Explosion or "biology's Big Bang."*This is inconsistent with*Darwin's theory that they diverged gradually from a common ancestor.
Mr. Meikle: The Cambrian Explosion was on the order of 15 million-20 million years long, certainly sufficient time for evolutionary events to occur. Before the Cambrian period, animals with hard parts, like shells or teeth, did not exist, so the fossil record is relatively poor. Still, scientists have been able to trace some evolutionary lineages back many millions of years before the Cambrian era.

* * *

Mr. West: Evolutionists cannot produce satisfactory explanations for the origin of the first life on Earth. They cannot show how life's chemical building blocks arose, or how blind chemical reactions could have generated the biological information necessary for early life. No one has succeeded in making a living cell from its chemical constituents.
Mr. Meikle: Research on the origin of life is very active, with many questions still to be answered. Some of the chemicals involved in life have been synthesized under conditions modeling those likely on the early Earth. Some occur naturally in outer space. Why should we assume that simply because humans have not done something, it cannot have happened through natural processes? No one has succeeded in making a black hole in a laboratory; does that mean they don't exist?

Originally Posted by dmz

franksargent, I'd happy to vet any more of your claims of "falsehood."

It's a little troubling that in both the case of Sternberg and the Nazi thing, that the criticism directly contradicts the facts -- badly misrepresents what was said. "Dawkings was "tricked" into reading from his book on camera." Oh boy.

(I got burnt on the DI's handling of the Gonzalez tenure issue, and went into that movie looking for slight-of-hand crap. Other than garden-variety polemical techniques, they played fair. No chasing people across parking lots with microphones, no year-apart splices of speeches, etc.)

...in a letter to Sternberg, he wrote that officials at the Smithsonian worked with the National Center for Science Education -- a group that opposes intelligent design -- and outlined "a strategy to have you investigated and discredited." Retaliation came in many forms, the letter said. They took away his master key and access to research materials. They spread rumors that Sternberg was not really a scientist. He has two Ph.D.'s in biology -- from Binghamton University and Florida International University. In short, McVay found a hostile work environment based on religious and political discrimination.

....

"He didn't lose his job, he didn't get his pay cut, he still has his research privileges, he still has his office," Scott says. "You know, what's his complaint? People weren't nice to him. Well, life is not fair."

Originally Posted by dmz

Before I forget, NPR reported on the "imaginary" Sternberg harassment two years ago:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5007508


One is left to wonder, if the same whispering campaign and strategy had been fomented against Scott because of her gender, she would have felt the same way.

Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

Gross conflict of interest.

Originally Posted by franksargent

A link dated November 10, 2005?

Meanwhile, back the Double Truth Ranch you can gat an accurate picture of what actually happened, from an impartial source;

Sternberg peer review controversy

Originally Posted by dmz


No, impartial would be reading the actual email traffic from the special counsel's findings.

Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah

You're never going to see sense. But it is fun trying to make you.

Originally Posted by dmz

Complaining about the date and telling me that wikipedia is an impartial source??? You have officially blown my mind. Besides, anything NPR says is gospel for me.

No, impartial would be reading the actual email traffic from the special counsel's findings.

In August, 2005 the Office of Special Counsel dropped Sternberg's religious discrimination complaint against the Smithsonian Institution. It was determined that as an unpaid research associate at the Smithsonian, Sternberg was not actually an employee, and thus the Office of Special Counsel had no jurisdiction. Nick Matzke, Jason Rosenhouse and other critics have commented that the Office of Special Counsel itself appears biased in its initial handling of the matter, given the links between the religious right and the Republican Party, with George W. Bush appointee James McVay authoring its opinion.

These are typical e-mails:

From: [____]
To: [____] 
Date 9/1/04 8:28 AM 
Subject: Re: Life on West Wing 1st floor
It is up to Zoology to sort out this mess. Your RAs obviously receive a lot more privileges than those in other departments (e.g., Paleotilology-speaking from my personal experience). These privileges are not based on Smithsonian Directive 205 "Research Associates" (June 7, 2001), and, as a consequence the access and office privileges of a certain RA can be reconsidered with due consideration of [____] concerns. Why does the RA in question have a master key rather than more restricted access? Why does he have an office when there is a space shortage for regular SI staff and visiting researchers? Why does he have unrestricted collection access? You could restrict access to 8:45am to 5:15pm Monday to Friday-the established core hours for Museum staff. [____] as the senior crustacean expert, has every right to determine the scope of collection access.
One important thing to keep in mind, however, is the equal treatment of all RAs in the section. You must not impose more onerous restrictions on one particular RA than on other RAs in the section [____].
[-----------------------------------]
From: [____]
To: [____] 
Date: 9/1/2004 
Subject: Re: Life on the West Wing 1st Floor
[____]
I believe [____] could have answered most of his questions by asking around IZthere was no need to bother you as you no doubt appreciate. As you see, he is presuming most of this rather than asking there is no space shortage, except insofar as [____] wants to deny him space.
Anyway, the core point, I obviously am not going to be able to find a sponsor for Sternberg, yet his official status is as a research associate for the next three years. If you dont want to make a martyr of him, I'll sponsor him.
As he hasnt (yet) been discovered to have done anything wrong, particularly compared to his peers, the sole reason to terminate his appt. seems to be that the host unit has suddenly changed its mind. If thats OK w NMNH, let me know and I'll send him a letters stating so. However, as you decided originally, the political downside of that is costly.
Outside of pique, [____]s main legitimate concern seems to be a fear of guilt by association. In any case [____] isnt going to be shut up about this until he wins (i.e. banishes Sternberg) or gets told to. I'm not going to get bit to death by daily emails. The access and key issues are trivial and can be fixed, if out of line.
The only grounds I see is [____]s lack of support. If that isnt sufficient, then I basically have to tell [____] (again) to shut up (which I am willing to do).
Which do you prefer?
[____]


In these emails they are concerned about the access given to you prior to the Meyer article. As you can see, they are suggesting several changes. The email traffic that we received indicates that this was all in response to your off-duty activity publishing the Meyer article.

Also these indicate that they are still attempting to find a reason to terminate you. You had not "yet" been found to have committed a terminable offense. They were still looking for a pretext.


>>> [____] 08/31/04 12:09pm >>>
Thanks to both of you for your efforts in dealing with the current situation. Unfortunately the panorama of my work environment continues to be rather blurred. So, in an effort to try to understand what might be going on here in the Crustacea floor at east for the next 2.5 years [the remainder of Sternberg's associateship], let me ask some questions to see if you can supply some answers.
1. We have an SI Research Associate (RA) who was appointed with the support of a curator that is now deceased. Which SI scientist now serves as a support staff for this RA now? Can an RA continue to operate without a proper staff support person? If one is needed, who should this RA answer or report to?
2. The RA has access to collections, but SI directive 205 states: "Access to and use of collections must be approved in advance by the appropriate unit staff member in accordance with established policy and procedures". Who is this staff member? Has any curator been consulted on the research being conducted, or how the collections are being used?
3. I presume this RA has a key to most rooms in the floor (including mine), and the stacks, to allow entry at out of the ordinary business hours, i.e. when no SI staff is here. If true, who authorized this key and is it at all legal for RAs to have keys on a permanent basis?
4. The recent events are fastly precipitating serious personnel issues as it is clear that tensions are at a high level on this floor, Is this a proper working environment for all the staff that lives on the this floor? Does the admin really expect us to live normally in this environment for 2.5 years, and will things really change after that?
[____]
CC: [____]
[-----------------------------------]
From: [____] 
To: [____] 
Date: 9/9/04 10:45 am 
Subject: Re: Reply (2)
Excuse me, [____], but I thought we were addressing the issue of the integrity of this museum's scientific research. In that respect, you are responsible for the actions of your researchers, as well as those scientists who use the name of this museum in any way related to research or collections (which includes research associates and those of the, euphemistically named, affiliated agencies). Given the Meyer fiasco, how Sternberg represents himself to the world of science is of some consequence to you. I strongly suggest that you call [____] and start asking questions rather than waiting until the crisis becomes unmanageable. [____]
[-----------------------------------]
>>> [____] 09/09/04 10:33 am>>>> Thank you, [____]
As the BSW is, legally speaking, an external activity, we cannot use Sternbergs mishandling of the Meyer paper to revoke his status as Research Associate. The SI Directive lists only a few points that are deemed sufficient cause for that purpose, and none applies to Sternberg.
Like you, I would like to know who the alleged reviewer were, but [____] has not told me anything. People at the NCSE suspect that some or all of them may have been co-authors on a previous paper by Meyer, which was substantially copied into the PBSW paper.
[____]
[-----------------------------------]
>>> [____] 09/09/04 10:12 am >>>
I would be glad to pop over at a convenient time.
But certainly it is not unreasonable to ask [____] or [____] to pull the file and determine whether the manuscript was rigorously reviewed, in effect who reviewed it? After all, Meyer (and now Sternberg) are establishing their boa fides based on the fact that for 15 years prior to Sternberg, PBSW manuscripts were rigorously reviewed by international taxonomists (I led that movement!).
So, were the reviewers people who could provide a balanced assessment of the manuscript and people who were cited in the manuscript, especially those whose ideas were opinined to be wrong? Or were the reviewers people who a priori support ID or structuralism, nuanced names for creationism?
After all, the manuscripts does nothing except poke holes in evolutionary processes that attempt to explain major changes in body architecture, and then gratuously [sic] concludes that because evolution cannot explain major architectural changes, intelligent design must be the process involved.
Two traps not to get caught in:
Number of reviewers. If two or even three reviewers were used, that was not enough for a paper of this broad a reach; four to six reviewers should have been consulted.
Reviewer anonymity. Dont let [____] [____] or Sternberg tell you that reviewers names must remain a secret. Reviewer anonymity is a request by a reviewer to an editor that the reviewer not be directly and immediately identified to the author of a manuscript under review. In fact, during the 15 years that I was associate editor, we published a list of reviewers of manuscripts for the year at the end of each year as a way of advertising our interest in a rigorous review process.
[____]

In these e-mails they are continuing to explain why you should not be given access to the SI for the next "2.5 years." This information also seems to indicate that your managers were not concerned about the SI Directive 205 until after the Meyer article. Also troubling is that these e-mails and others show that they were not concerned with these issues until after the Meyer "fiasco." Lastly, as you can see they were very interested in piercing the veil of peer review. Again, there is not information to indicate that this was done before the Meyer article.

From: [____]
To: [____]
Date: 9/9/04 11:13 am
Subject: Re: Reply [3]
Please read my emails more carefully. I am not suggesting martyrdom for anyone. I am concerned about how and by whom the Meyer manuscript was reviewed.
As an aside: in general then, who is responsible for the scientific behavior of a Research Associate of the National Museum of Natural History?
[-----------------------------------]
>>> [____] 09/09/04 10:57 am >>>
Legally, unless you can present me with evidence that Sternberg has represented himself as an employee of NMNH, my hands are tied. I have extensively researched and consulted on this issue as I fully share your point of view. Indeed, I was strongly advised that we do not make a martyr out of Sternberg; you may be aware that there are powerful members of Congress who would rush to his defense.
This whole embarrassment can be credited to the late [____] who nominated this man and to the BSW who entrusted him with the editorship of the Proceedings. Sternberg is a well-established figure in anti-evolution circles, and simply a Google search would have exposed these connections. Please place the blame where it squarely belongs. I immediately resigned from the BSW.
[-----------------------------------]
>>> [____] 09/09/04 10:33 AM >>>
Excuse me, [____], but I thought we were addressing the issue of the integrity of this museum's scientific research. In that respect, you are responsible for the actions of your researchers, as well as those scientists who use the name of this museum in any way related to research or collections (which includes research associates and those of the, euphemistically named, affiliated agencies). Given the Meyer fiasco, how Sternberg represents himself to the world of science is of some consequence to you. I strongly suggest that you call [____] and start asking questions rather than waiting until the crisis becomes unmanageable. [____]
[-----------------------------------]
>>> [____] 09/09/04 10:33 am>>>> Thank you, [____]
As the BSW is, legally speaking, an external activity, we cannot use Sternbergs mishandling of the Meyer paper to revoke his status as Research Associate. The SI Directive lists only a few points that are deemed sufficient cause for that purpose, and none applies to Sternberg.
Like you, I would like to know who the alleged reviewer were, but [____] has not told me anything. People at the NCSE suspect that some or all of them may have been co-authors on a previous paper by Meyer, which was substantially copied into the PBSW paper.
[____]
[-----------------------------------]
>>> [____] 09/09/0409 11 am>>>
I think there is, but the heat may have to increase a bit.
[-----------------------------------]
From: [____]
To: [____] 
Date: 9/13/04 1:46 pm
Subject: RE: Upcoming in Helsinki
Well if you ask me, a face to face meeting or at least a you are welcome to leave or resign call with this individual, is in order. Of course, that is easy for me to say, and as bosses it is you who have to decide what to do. I will respect your decision. All I can say is that this is plain embarrassing for us all in NMNH. What will be when a book on ID comes out with our name on it? Believe me, it will come. The BSW made a crucial error a year ago, and it seems to me we dont want to do the same.
If you have not yet seen the summary update, see:
httD:/M~w.ncseweb.org/resources/newst2flo4Jrl33~id_paper_continues_to_attract_9_10 _2004.asp [garbled URL]
A key to all this is whether the infamous PBSW article was really peer-reviewed or not. Since the museum funds a lot of papers in that journal, it seems to me a reasonable thing for NMNH to ask BSW to demonstrate what really happened by opening the files to you. They certainly should have a vested interest in clarifying this. The ex-editor had already demonstrated a pattern of disregard for the well-established peer-review process in that journal, and that alone does not "follow prevailing standards for conducting research in the discipline" (SI D 205, page 4), as far as I can tell. That, taken with the AAAS resolution, should be enough to justify a "you are welcome to leave or resign" call or meeting to say so.
Finally, whether or not SI D 205 needs to be revisited Is perhaps something the admin may wish to pursue. I for one, find it deficient in many respects. How does it deal, for example, with the current situation: the SI staff that supported the RA passes away, so who should the RA report to? Here are some eye-openers, juts FYI (and pardon me for sounding repetitive). Said RA
*is not known who he reports to, or what decapod groups he is waiting on and for what projects/manuscripts;
*comes to work "after hours only" but nobody knows when, yet we will extend him long term space privileges (meaning in the daytime his assigned space could be tied up);
* keeps an unusual number of catalogued specimens in NMNH office, and for unusual lengths of time, ignoring requests from curator in charge to put Them back in stacks;
* keeps in NMNH office what appear to be specimens that have not been registered through the required TM procedures;
* has currently 50 books checked out from the SI library (I checked this with the library);
* an SI staff from another NMNH department has been seen entering HA office and apparently handles specimens without authorization from IZ Cm head or curator in charge.
If I were to do this in any other museum Id be run out of that town.
[____]

>>> [____] 09/13/04 10:51 am >>>
I just reread 205, but I dont see any basis for terminating his appt based on this sort of activity, suppose we call him on the phone and verbally ask him to do the right thing and resign?

These e-mails are consistent with many others at this time. Your managers are still attempting to find a way to terminate your access. However, they have decided that the politics arent right for them to let you go. They wanted to make it clear that you should "do the right thing and resign." This supports your allegation that you were subjected to a hostile work environment. Finally, the last e-mail cited sets forth a troubling summary of events were people had to be investigating your work activities beyond that which is done for other RAs. They are even inspecting what you have been checking out from the library. We are very concerned where this type of scrutiny can lead. Your job as a scientist is to ask the hard questions and make other scientists think about their positions. This type of scrutiny does not engender the correct atmosphere. From the information received by OSC, not a single e-mail shows that a manager attempted to halt this type of retaliatory investigation or admonish those that had already taken place.

Eventually the changes in your working conditions were watered down significantly. You are now required to give your supervisor an outline of your research. This may seem innocuous, but as you explain, this can be used as a method of controlling any controversial study. Also, you make the point that others in your position were not asked to do the same. Second, they denied your access by taking your master key. Lastly, they have prevented you from having the same access to the research specimens. Again, this may seem minor until considering the advantage given to others that do not have the same hindrances.

There are many retaliatory comments made by senior scientists of the SI and NMNH noted in the documents and e-mails that we have received. Some are suggestions about how to handle the situation with you and some are directed at changes they want made to prevent scientists like you from being RAs. Many have not been cited in this letter. However, they do support the contention that the managers created a hostile work environment. The most telling of these off-handed comments came after they realized that you could not be discharged for cause and that they could only make, what they consider, minor changes to your work environment. They make the point that you only have a little more than two years left on your RA position with the SI and being that all RAs are required to have a sponsor, your RA will lapse, forcing you to leave. These emails make clear that nobody would be willing to sponsor you two years from now. In fact, your supervisor made this point.

Originally Posted by dmz

Well lookie here! Take a big whiff:



...after all "Life isn't fair."

Originally Posted by franksargent

Another turthiness link for you to whine about, Richard Sternberg Exposed.

This is getting to be a whole lot of fun, wheeeeeee.

Oh, and can you provide a link to the above verbiage? It's called a reality check.

McCarthyism |məˈkärθēˌizəm|
noun
a vociferous campaign against alleged communists in the U.S. government and other institutions carried out under Senator Joseph McCarthy in the period 195054. Many of the accused were blacklisted or lost their jobs, although most did not in fact belong to the Communist Party.
figurative any similar practice that endorses the use of unfair allegations and investigations : he practiced McCarthyism long before there was a McCarthy.
DERIVATIVES
McCarthyist adjective & noun
McCarthyite |-θēˌīt| |məˈkɑrθɪˈaɪt| adjective & noun

Originally Posted by dmz

Well lookie here! Take a big whiff:



...after all "Life isn't fair."

>>> [____] 09/09/04 10:33 AM >>>
Excuse me, [____], but I thought we were addressing the issue of the integrity of this museum's scientific research. In that respect, you are responsible for the actions of your researchers, as well as those scientists who use the name of this museum in any way related to research or collections (which includes research associates and those of the, euphemistically named, affiliated agencies). Given the Meyer fiasco, how Sternberg represents himself to the world of science is of some consequence to you. I strongly suggest that you call [____] and start asking questions rather than waiting until the crisis becomes unmanageable. [____]
[-----------------------------------]
>>> [____] 09/09/04 10:33 am>>>> Thank you, [____]
As the BSW is, legally speaking, an external activity, we cannot use Sternbergs mishandling of the Meyer paper to revoke his status as Research Associate. The SI Directive lists only a few points that are deemed sufficient cause for that purpose, and none applies to Sternberg.
Like you, I would like to know who the alleged reviewer were, but [____] has not told me anything. People at the NCSE suspect that some or all of them may have been co-authors on a previous paper by Meyer, which was substantially copied into the PBSW paper.
[____]

Originally Posted by dmz

No, the actual emails are the reality check.

franskargent, read those emails and tell me that:

• Sternberg was treated fairly.
• The people involved acted ethically.
• That you would like to be treated similarly at your job.

Take your time. The adjective is already picked out.

Originally Posted by dmz

One more thing, franksargent: what sort of whispering campaign do you prefer -- the "fransargent is a religious fanatic" campaign, or the one where your two Ph.D's are denigrated/disparaged/denied?

Maybe midwinter could weigh in on what is, doubtless, an everyday occurrence for degreed professionals.

Just curious.

The Discovery Institute is promoting a new report from a conservative Indiana Congressman about the Sternberg affair. For those who don't recall, Richard Sternberg was the editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, a journal loosely associated with the Smithsonian Institution, when they published the now-infamous paper by DI Program Director Stephen C. Meyer. This is very important for their PR campaign to position themselves as victims of persecution, but the facts of the case simply do not support the conclusions of the report.

Originally Posted by dmz

No, the actual emails are the reality check.

franskargent, read those emails and tell me that:

• Sternberg was treated fairly.
• The people involved acted ethically.
• That you would like to be treated similarly at your job.

Take your time. The adjective is already picked out.

Originally Posted by franksargent

I've already replied to your post, and whatever point you're not making!

Originally Posted by franksargent

.So you take these "out of context" redacted of all internal communications as proof of what exactly?

As I read through those emails, I myself would be very suspicious of this individual...

Originally Posted by groverat

dmz:

Could you please link us to these discussions you were having over at Pharyngula?

I am beginning to think that you are lying about that as an attempt to get out of answering simple questions and revealing what we already know, that you don't know what you're talking about when it comes to the "nitty-gritty" of evolutionary biology.

Please prove me wrong by linking to these discussions you claimed to be involved in.

Thanks again.

Originally Posted by dmz

Go put in your time. It's positively didactical.

Originally Posted by groverat

Put in my time doing what? Searching for these discussions you said you were in at Pharyngula?

I will gladly do so, just tell me your username and I will do all the searching by myself.

Originally Posted by dmz

How about my user name for digg, and the other forums too -- don't forget about them.

I'm making a list of things I want to have more of, and "snide person following me around the internet begging every question to death, with a heaping helping of death by winey passive/aggressive insecurity" is not one of them. Present company excluded, of course.

Besides, I've got franksargent on the record saying that Sternberg was the problem -- what more could I possibly want from a forum?

Originally Posted by franksargent

Clearly he was, for unprofessional conduct.

Remember, life isn't fair!

Originally Posted by groverat

One will be fine.