Mike Dunford is a graduate student in the Department of Zoology at the University of Hawaii, Manoa, where he studies evolution. He's also a contributer to 
Casey Luskin is currently in the middle of a multi-part "rebuttal" to Michael Shermer's review of Expelled. In the latest installment of his whine, Casey (again) brings up the case of Richard Sternberg. Sternberg, some of you might remember, orchestrated the publication of a pro-Intelligent Design paper near the end of his term as editor of Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.
As punishment for this heinous crime, Sternberg suffered the indignity of not getting fired from the unpaid editorship that he had quit months before the paper actually appeared. His punishment further included the cruel and unusual steps of not dismissing him from his unpaid position as a Smithsonian Research Associate, not declining to renew the unpaid position when the term expired, and not firing him from his paid job at NIH. The draconian nature of the consequences that he ultimately suffered - some of his colleagues said bad things about him - obviously makes him the ideal example of an open-thinking scientist railroaded by the Darwinian Inquisition.
I'm not going to deal with the vast majority of Casey's attempt to obfuscate the real events that surrounded the whole Sternberg affair. He raises absolutely no new points, and all of the points that he does raise have been rebutted before. Instead, I'm going to focus on two points in Luskin's post where he massively misrepresents things that other people wrote.
The first example comes very early on in the post. Casey wrote:
The editor who oversaw the publication of that film was Dr. Richard Sternberg, who subsequently was harassed, intimidated, and demoted because he broke ranks with the unwritten (or sometimes written) rule among Darwinists that you must keep ID out of the journals.
The link in the quote does not take you to a page where a journal explicitly says that pro-ID papers will not be accepted. For that matter, it does not take you to a page that implicitly says that a journal won't take any pro-ID papers. The link does not actually have anything to do with journal articles at all. It's a link to a page that contains an AAAS resolution on Intelligent Design that talks about why it's not appropriate for ID to be taught in the schools. As Casey is well aware, there are substantial differences between a scientific journal and a secondary school. (For starters, one of them usually consists of words that are printed on paper and bound in some form or another, while the other is typically some sort of building.) There is simply no way that the statement can remotely be construed as a "written rule" that "you must keep ID out of the journals."
The second example comes not long after that point. Casey quotes from a Biological Society of Washington statement that was issued shortly after the publication of the Meyer paper. For clarity, I'll highlight Casey's selective quoting with boldface.
To attack Meyer's article, Shermer cites the NCSE-inspired statement from the BSW stating that, "Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The council, which includes officers, elected councilors and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings." Shermer should have applied some of his famous skepticism here, because that statement is in fact a falsehood: Eugenie Scott herself admitted that "other editors have not always referred all articles to the Associate Editors, and because editors justifiably have discretion," and therefore the BSW should not "come down too hard on Dr. Sternberg for errors in the procedure followed in accepting this article." (See Report, pages 25-26.) Shermer conveniently spares the BSW from skepticism over Eugenie Scott's behind-closed-doors concession, which contradicts the BSW's public statement.
There are actually multiple problems with what Casey said. The first is that Casey somehow managed to miss a fairly basic point: saying that other editors sometimes also failed to have an associate editor review a paper does not contradict a claim that this was the usual ("typical") practice. I'm not going to be too hard on Casey for that one, though. He might not have tried to claim that the statement was a "falsehood" simply because he's a pathetic little twit who would deny the identity of his own mother if he thought it would advance the anti-evolution cause. He could merely have a such a massive reading comprehension deficit that he is unable to recognize the difference between the words "typically" and "always".
The second problem with Casey's statement is more substantial. Casey truncated the quote at a point that makes it appear that the council was claiming that it would have ruled the paper out because Sternberg did not have an associate editor review the paper. He accomplishes this feat by adding a period to the quote where one does not exist in the original:
Contrary to typical editorial practices, the paper was published without review by any associate editor; Sternberg handled the entire review process. The Council, which includes officers, elected councilors, and past presidents, and the associate editors would have deemed the paper inappropriate for the pages of the Proceedings because the subject matter represents such a significant departure from the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history. For the same reason, the journal will not publish a rebuttal to the thesis of the paper, the superiority of intelligent design (ID) over evolution as an explanation of the emergence of Cambrian body-plan diversity.
As it turns out, the council actually said that they would have turned down the paper because it dealt with a subject that was far outside what the journal normally publishes. Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington is a journal that publishes systematics papers. These are papers that basically deal with how organisms get sorted. The vast majority of the papers published in this journal consist of the description of new species of organisms - usually living, but occasionally fossil. The issue of the journal that the Meyer paper appeared in is (with that one glaring exception) typical for the journal. As you can see from just a list of the titles, his paper stands out like a sore thumb:
- Pseudopaguristes shidarai, a new species of hermit crab (Crustacea: Decapoda: Diogenidae) from Japan, the fourth species of the genus
- A new species of Procambarus (Crustacea: Decapoda: Cambaridae) from Veracruz, Mexico
- Brackenridgia ashleyi, a new species of terrestrial isopod from Tumbling Creek Cave, Missouri (Isopoda: Oniscidea: Trichoniscidae)
- New species and records of Bopyridae (Crustacea: Isopoda) infesting species of the genus Upogebia (Crustacea: Decapoda: Upogebiidae): the genera Orthione Markham, 1988, and Gyge Cornalia & Panceri, 1861
- Three new species and a new genus of Farreidae (Porifera: Hexactinellida: Hexactinosida)
- The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories
If you look at the table of contents for the issue before, the issue after, the current issue, or (as far as I can tell) any other issue, you're going to see a lot of papers that deal with things like describing new species and genera, and absolutely nothing that has to deal with anything that bears even the faintest resemblance to the things Meyer was writing about. Simply put, this is not a journal that you would expect to find the Meyer paper in.
That, of course, brings us to the very obvious question: why did Meyer submit his paper to a journal that had never, ever published anything remotely like it? Casey, Ben Stein and the rest of the Expelled propagandists, Meyer, and Sternberg have been avoiding this question like the plague, probably because they are painfully aware that there is no good answer to that question.
Comments
Not while I'm drinking hot coffee Mike!
Posted by: John Lynch | April 17, 2008 12:00 PM
I beg to differ with the answer you give to that last question: there is a good answer to why the Meyer paper got published in PBSW. It involves a massive subversion of the scientific process, publication of which does not look good for its perpetrators, but inasmuch as truth is good, it is still a good answer.
Sorry, I could not resist picking the nit. I really really liked your summary of the consequences of Sternberg's actions.
Posted by: Opisthokont | April 17, 2008 12:08 PM
And so Sternberg played the same role as the creationists on Leonard's thesis committee at Ohio State - ready, willing, and able to trash the hard-earned reputations of their employers, circumvent the responsibilities they had been entrusted with, and connive off the record to achieve a PR Coup For Jesus. This seems to be what creationism DOES to people.
And this is why these questions are avoided. If you are a Believer, you already understand. If you are not, no answer can satisfy you.
Posted by: Flint | April 17, 2008 12:09 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | April 17, 2008 12:34 PM
Posted by: Reginald Selkirk | April 17, 2008 12:36 PM
But given this, and given the controversial nature of the paper (which should have been obvious to Sternberg), he really should have given it to an associate editor to handle. If nothing else, to protect himself from accusations of underhand dealing.
Posted by: Bob O'H | April 17, 2008 12:38 PM
Reginald Selkirk wrote
"Helpful"? No, required, because truncating the sentence to delete the reason the Society gave when Luskin is arguing for a different reason is deceptive and misleading.Posted by: RBH | April 17, 2008 12:40 PM
All of this is moot because it never makes the pages of the media! For example, I refer you to the 4/17/08 Seattle Times guest editorial crap by Bruce Chapman (DI):
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2004353967_chapman17.html
Posted by: DavidK | April 17, 2008 12:46 PM
Maybe the evo ratheads can read english.
http://www.rsternberg.net/OSC_ltr.htm
Posted by: keith | April 17, 2008 12:51 PM
...and unlike the trolls, we can understand English.
Posted by: NJ | April 17, 2008 1:00 PM
Mike,
You quote C. Luskin as stating:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the claim that Sternberg was demoted false as well? If so, I think saying something that's demonstrably false is far worse than adding periods or intentionally confusing editorial practices. IOW, Luskin is simply a flat-out liar.
Posted by: Jason F. | April 17, 2008 1:48 PM
In fact you can read the official majority party document AND the appendix which contains the actual emails on which the document relies.Ironically the investigation does not seem to be much correlated to the actual emails as it makes clearly erroneous assertions. But that of course requires one to have actually read the full report and not the “Cliff Notes”. Thanks for pointing this out Keith. Your comments as usually serve a useful educational purpose.
Posted by: PvM | April 17, 2008 1:52 PM
Luskin probably refers to the fact that Sternberg's sponsor had died and thus his title was appropriately changed to take this into consideration. He went from "Research Associate" to "Research Collaborator" for the simple reason that he did not have a sponsor anymore.
From the website
Of course if the DI can call ignorance "information" then they surely can use the term demotion would you not agree?
Posted by: PvM | April 17, 2008 1:57 PM
The Biological Society of Washington's statement is on line for all to see:
http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
Don't forget, as well, that this was a literature review. No new data was presented.
Posted by: James F | April 17, 2008 2:17 PM
PVM,
Even though I followed the case closely and have debated it online countless times, this is the first I've heard of Sternberg going from "Research Associate" to "Research Collaborator". Thanks for posting that.
Exactly when was his title changed?
Posted by: Jason F. | April 17, 2008 2:20 PM
Where is Sternberg employed these days? He does not seem to be at NIH.
Posted by: ck1 | April 17, 2008 2:39 PM
I believe he used to be listed as a fellow on the DI site. However, it appears he's no longer listed because a) he couldn't make muster as a creationist, b) his martyrdumb (sic) required he not be directly associated with those who were martyrdumbing him, c) it's to hide these people so there's no explicit association with the DI and ID, which he clearly supports (both).
His personal web site only tells of his martyrdumb, but there doesn't appear to be any indication of where he currently is. Liberty college?
Posted by: DavidK | April 17, 2008 3:00 PM
Curiously, Michael Shermer's review contains the exact same truncated quotation about the Meyers paper. I don't know where Shermer got it from -- maybe he truncated it himself for some reason? -- but if Luskin was just copying Shermer (which seems pretty likely) then his only sin here is failing to check his references.
The old saw about not assuming malice when stupidity is a sufficient explanation is pretty unreliable when dealing with creationists, but I'm inclined to think Luskin hasn't been quite as sleazy here as you suggest. For once.
Posted by: g | April 17, 2008 3:05 PM
That list of articles sums up the difference between science and ID perfectly.
Science: data, new knowledge
ID: waffle
Posted by: Ginger Yellow | April 17, 2008 4:35 PM
At one time, I considered joining the Biological Society of Washington so as to have a timely outlet for descriptions of new species, genera, etc. That is is, in fact, the purpose of the journal, as shown above. The journal has page charges. So if I had submitted a paper and had it accepted for publication, I would have paid page charges, and had an expectation of timely publication. If my paper had been delayed so the ID paper could be published, and I had, as a result, been scooped by someone publishing in a German monthly aquarium magazine (it has happened, not to me), I would have been irritated and might have, because I paid money and thus had a contract, considered legal action. All hypothetical, but interesting to consider, I think.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | April 17, 2008 5:07 PM
As Casey is well aware, there are substantial differences between a scientific journal and a secondary school.
Are you certain that Casey understands this difference?
Posted by: Coin | April 17, 2008 7:26 PM
From Wikipedia: In 2004 he was given a 3 year appointment as an unpaid research associate.[3] On 15 November 2006, he received a further three year appointment as an unpaid 'research collaborator' at the NMNH
His sponsor had died although the email thread shows that others were willing to volunteer for a sponsorship
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 don’t want to make a martyr of him, I'll sponsor him.
I believe this was an email sent by Codington but I have to check the appendix
Posted by: PvM | April 18, 2008 2:00 AM
A while ago Coddington who was Sternberg's supervisor after his original supervisor died, left the following comments at Pandastumb
Posted by: PvM | April 18, 2008 2:03 AM
Mike Dunford said,
So why isn't "systematics" or a synonym in the title of the journal? Does the journal contain a notice that it is just about systematics? Is there a long-established official statement anywhere that says that the journal is just about systematics?
The articles are mostly about newly-discovered species or genuses. Is there any reason to believe that the contents of all of these articles are solely or even mainly about systematics? And why aren't there more articles that discuss systematics without introducing new species or genuses?
You are looking at only three issues here. How can you be sure that none of the other issues in the 122-year history of the journal contain "anything that bears even the faintest resemblance to the things Meyer was writing about"? You are not sure -- all you can say is "as far as I can tell." And why can't the Meyer paper be unique? Why does it have to have a precedent?
According to the title of the journal, I would expect to find anything related to biology. And finding the Meyer paper would be easy by searching a journal article index.
James F said,
So a literature review can never be useful? And even if ID is false, does that make a literature review of it bad?
Keith said (April 17, 2008 12:51 PM) --
NJ said (April 17, 2008 1:00 PM) --
Unlike unscrupulous BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton, who arbitrarily censors visitors' comments on his blogs, the Office of Special Counsel has no ax to grind.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 18, 2008 5:31 AM
The Society started out as a general biology society, but over time "evolved" into a society on systematics, made official in the 1970 revision to the Society's constitution.
From the journal's official website:
"CONTRIBUTOR INFORMATION: Authors wishing to submit a manuscript should consult Information for Contributors (also available on the inside back cover of each issue of the Proceedings)."
"INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS
Content.-The Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington contains papers bearing on systematics in the biological sciences (botany, zoology, and paleontology), and notices of business transacted at meetings of the Society. Except at the direction of the Council, only manuscripts by Society members will be accepted. Papers are published in English (except for Latin diagnoses/descriptions of plant taxa), with an Abstract in an alternate language when appropriate."
From the Society's official website:
"THE BIOLOGICAL SOCIETY OF WASHINGTON
CONSTITUTION AND BYLAWS
Adopted 3 December 1884
(As amended August 2004)
Article 1. Name. The name of this Society shall be the Biological Society of Washington.
Article 2. Purpose. The purpose of this Society shall be for the furtherance of taxonomic study of organisms and for the increase and diffusion of biological knowledge among interested persons.
Article 3. Membership. Membership in this Society shall be open to persons and organizations interested in the promotion of systematic biology."
The description of new species and genera are the core of systematics, Larry. That would be the point of publishing a paper in the Proceedings.
The Society specialized on systematics. It was the official position for almost 35 years before Meyer's paper was published, and the de facto position for about 50 years before that. In the dim depths of time, it wasn't, but that is not of much import.
Smaller publications survive on offering niche markets. They can't compete with the larger general journals.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 18, 2008 6:44 AM
Two things:
1: The plural of "genus" is "genera" not "genuses".
2: Any paper that describes a newly-discovered species, genus, family, or any other taxonomic grouping is, by definition a paper that is describing work in the field of systematics.
Posted by: Mike Dunford | April 18, 2008 10:17 AM
So a literature review can never be useful?
As Mike said. it does not contain any new data. Nothing new is presented. It only attempts to put a spin on what has already been presented.
Unlike unscrupulous BVD-clad blogger Fatheaded Ed Brayton, who arbitrarily censors visitors' comments on his blogs
You have been challenged, and have always failed, to show where Ed Brayton has arbitrarily censored anything. At the same time, you continue to practice arbitrary censorship on your own blog.
Please don't blow your credibility further by claiming that you only censor "personal gossip".
Posted by: Voice in the Urbanness | April 18, 2008 10:27 AM
It's the famous Fafarman! I didn't know someone could nitpick so poorly, but there it is right on my screen (I'm a charmer).
The point of describing the journal's usual papers was to establish that this is outside of the paper's norm. That's it. Not every small snippet of an article must be a full refutation of ID or its merits... although I really shouldn't need to say that.
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | April 18, 2008 12:35 PM
Mucho thanks PVM!!
Posted by: Jason F. | April 18, 2008 3:40 PM
(http:// prefixes have been removed to prevent the comment from hanging up -- links must be copied and pasted. Limiting comments to a maximum of one link each is stupid, but what is to be expected of ScienceBlogs?)
Kevin Vicklund said,
So why weren't the names of the society and the journal changed to reflect the specialization in systematics?
Not necessarily. The classification of a new species/genera could be obvious and the rest of a paper about a new species/genera could be about other things. Also, cladistic taxonomy involves a lot of classification of known organisms, not just classification of newly discovered organisms. So why doesn't the journal have more papers that discuss systematics without introducing a new species or genus? And someone could present a paper proposing, for example, that cetaceans be reclassified as fish because cetaceans are aquatic, are shaped like fish, have fins or flippers instead of legs and/or arms, and have no hair or fur. BTW, cetaceans were classified as mammals before introduction of the idea that they are descended from land animals, showing that evolution is not "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology" after all.
The society's statement about Meyer's paper does not talk about just a 35-year or 50-year history of specializing in systematics -- the statement speaks of "the nearly purely systematic content for which this journal has been known throughout its 122-year history."
-- from www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
Then why weren't the names of the society and the journal changed in order to help attract people who have a special interest in systematics?
BTW, I noticed the following provision in "INFORMATION FOR CONTRIBUTORS": "Except at the direction of the Council, only manuscripts by Society members will be accepted." Was Meyer a member of the society? If not, then accepting his paper without the approval of the Council was a real violation of the rules. Anyway, anyone can join the society, even Ed Brayton: "Membership in this Society shall be open to persons and organizations interested in the promotion of systematic biology."
Mike Dunford said,
My printed Webster's New World Dictionary -- Third College Edition -- but not the Merriam-Webster online dictionary -- says that "genuses" is an acceptable alternate spelling. Thanks for pointing out the preferred spelling.
See my response to Kevin above.
ViU said,
It was James F -- not Mike -- who said that. Nothing new is presented in your statement. You don't even attempt to put a spin on what has already been presented. This is getting old. Here is a description of where Fatheaded Ed banned me -- it is the first comment under the following post --
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2007/03/comments-censored-elsewhere-new-feature.html
-- and here is where Brandon Haughty banned discussion of co-evolution on the blog of the so-called Florida Citizens for Science:
im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2008/04/co-evolution-theory-censored-by-florida.html
Shirakawasuna driveled,
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
I didn't read any of the papers, so I don't know whether Meyer's paper deviates from systematics to a greater extent than any of the other papers.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 18, 2008 3:46 PM
Larry Brayed,
Nothing new is presented in your statement. You don't even attempt to put a spin on what has already been presented.
I was just correcting your misstatement, which attempted to spin what has already been presented.
Here is a description of where Fatheaded Ed banned me
It is your spin on why Ed, and many others, have banned you. Always for cause, never arbitrarily. While I am sure that arbitrary censorship does occur on the net, the only example that stands out is your own blog.
Of course you have set up the "Association of Non-Censoring Bloggers" of which you are the only member and don't practice what is supposed to be the purpose of that one man "association".
"I'm always kicking their butts -- that's why they don't like me."
-- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger
Has anyone seen where Larry has ever won an argument here or on any blog? I have been following his bleatings on his own blog for two years and all I see is him losing every case, like he does here and in his legal career.
I didn't read any of the papers
It is obvious that your rarely, if ever read any of the papers and other documents on which you present an opinion.
Posted by: Voice in the Urbanness | April 18, 2008 5:41 PM
Scott Bloch is the infamous Bush appointee who runs the place. Right-wing Catholic, ex-fellow of the Claremont Institute, made some legal bones crusading against "religious persecution", promptly hired fleets of graduates from the reactionary Ava Maria Law School (see Tom Monaghan). See stunts like:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=458
Meanwhile the OSC has become a joke in most other areas of its mission: whistleblower protection. Check out the cases of Sibel Edmonds, Adam Finkel, Bogdan Dzakovic, Sandalio Gonzalez, Richard Levernier, Russ Tice, and Joe Darby.
Posted by: Foggg | April 18, 2008 7:30 PM
Larry Fafarman:
"I didn't read any of the papers, so I don't know whether Meyer's paper deviates from systematics to a greater extent than any of the other papers."
--- Of course you don't. You seem to only seek abuse - surely you recognize how inane your points are. If you weren't, you know, exceedingly lazy, you could find the last four years' worth of extremely obvious paper articles here.
Posted by: Shirakawasuna | April 18, 2008 8:00 PM
My older second edition of Websters has in small print, "sometimes genuses". If the third edition gives more credibility to the term, then we have an excellent example of the ongoing deterioration of western culture. In any case, I can't picture a taxonomist using any thing but genus and genera, even after many beers.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | April 18, 2008 10:07 PM
"Genuses" does not appear in the 7th or 9th editions of Webster's. As usual, Larry is relying on old, outdated sources (when he actually relies on sources at all).
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 18, 2008 10:23 PM
Hilarious PettiFogggermania said,
A Congressman's office also issued a report. And the government reports are thoroughly substantiated with references -- Fatheaded Ed Brayton's report in Skeptic magazine has a lot of material that is not substantiated with references -- see www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html#part2
Fatheaded Ed Brayton is an unscrupulous BVD-clad blogger who pulls many of his "facts" out of thin air and who arbitrarily censors comments and commenters on his blogs. Here is an example of his lies -- this concerns the question of whether the Dover School Board could have mooted the Kitzmiller v. Dover case by repealing the ID policy prior to judgment:
-- from
scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2006/04/francisco_discovers_weasel_wor.php
Ed is just plain lying here. Only the Dover defendants' lead attorney said that repealing the ID policy immediately could not moot the case, and he was biased because he wanted the case to be appealed, which the new school board was unwilling to do. The judge -- improperly giving legal advice -- only said that the school board election results would not affect his decision. An attorney hired by a former board member wrote a report advising the new board that repealing the ID policy immediately could moot the case. Other attorneys opined that immediate repeal of the ID policy could have mooted the case.
Anyway, Fatheaded Ed's arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters means that he has no credibility. That's all there is to it.
Jim Thomerson said,
My edition does not say "sometimes" and the "genuses" form is not in small print, and I guess that could be interpreted as meaning that my edition gives more credibility to the term. I personally prefer "genuses" because I think it is more recognizable to laypeople -- "genera" is reminiscent of "generate," "general," etc.. In contrast, "octopi" and "cacti" are readily recognizable to everyone (my dictionary actually gives "octopuses" and "cactuses" as the preferred spellings). However, in the interest of uniformity, I will use the high-falutin spelling "genera" in the future. But if you see "genuses" in print, it is not a misspelling and won't be for at least a few decades if ever (Kevin Vicklund reported that the "genuses" spelling is not in the latest dictionaries and I am assuming that this spelling will stay out of dictionaries).
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 19, 2008 7:36 AM
Shirakawasuna said:
"You seem to only seek abuse - surely you recognize how inane your points are."
No he doesn't. He actually believes that he is winning these points with his brilliant debating skills. After having his ass kicked over the goal posts time after time, he will walk off with the belief that he has won yet again. On another blog he got the name "Scary Larry" which he interpreted to be a complement. He thought people were in awe of his brilliance. The atmosphere may be toxic on his planet.
Larry bleated:
"The judge -- improperly giving legal advice -- only said that the school board election results would not affect his decision."
You see! The dolt thinks that is giving legal advice!
"Anyway, Fatheaded Ed's arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters means that he has no credibility. That's all there is to it."
As we have seen, Larry believes that Ed's blocking him due to endless ad hominem attacks and repeated sock puppetry is "arbitrary censorship". The only arbitrary censorship that I have seen is on Larry's own blog.
The header of Larry's blog begins:
"My biggest motivation for creating my own blogs was to avoid the arbitrary censorship practiced by other blogs and various other Internet forums. Censorship will be avoided in my blogs -- there will be no deletion of comments..."
Yet he often censors arbitrarily when he has no answer or his lies have been exposed. He excuses this by claiming that he is deleting "gossip about his personal affairs". One thing he has considered to be such gossip was mention of his unbroken record of failures in his legal cases.
He further says:
"Comments containing nothing but insults and/or ad hominem attacks are discouraged."
Yet, as here, his own comments often have little else.
"Anyway, Fatheaded Ed's arbitrary censorship of comments and commenters means that he has no credibility. That's all there is to it."
Says it all about Larry's credibility, doesn't it?
Posted by: Voice in the Urbanness | April 19, 2008 10:45 AM
Shirakawasuna drivels,
My point is that the titles of the papers do not show how closely the papers concentrate on systematics. Has the blogger or any commenter in this thread read all of the papers in several editions? And if once in a while there is a paper that doesn't really belong, is that the end of the world? Meyer's paper was not, after all, about underwater basketweaving.
Also, Sternberg apparently had the authority to do what he did -- otherwise, how did he do it? I don't see anyone saying that he didn't have the authority to do what he did.
ViU driveled,
You stupid fathead, that is giving them legal advice -- he was insinuating that it would not do them any good to repeal the ID policy prior to release of the decision. And Ed Brayton claimed that the judge expressly told them that it would not do them any good.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 19, 2008 12:34 PM
The Cretin said...
"My point is that the titles of the papers do not show how closely the papers concentrate on systematics."
In other words, you have not read them but felt qualified to comment anyway.
"You stupid fathead, that is giving them legal advice -- he was insinuating that it would not do them any good to repeal the ID policy prior to release of the decision. And Ed Brayton claimed that the judge expressly told them that it would not do them any good."
No, Cretin. He was not insinuating anything. Stating the fact that he would follow the law, rather than election results, is not giving legal advice by any stretch of the term. If they base their decision not to have a picnic in twelve hours because someone has told them that the Sun will be down by then, that doesn't mean that they have been advised not to have a picnic at that time. They are making their own decisions based on a statement of fact.
You should stay off of matters of law. You are particularly inept in that subject.
Posted by: Voice in the Urbanness | April 19, 2008 5:43 PM
The correct analogy is this: they must either (1) decide to hold their picnic in twelve hours and hope that the picnic area has night lighting or (2) lose their picnic food.
Under the Social Darwinism that you love so much, you would be among the first to be euthanized for the purpose of vastly improving the overall intelligence of the human race.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 19, 2008 8:37 PM
Sorry -- I missed this one in my last comment.
ViU driveled,
Just like you, the blogger, and the other commenters here.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 20, 2008 9:00 AM
The Cretin said:
"he was insinuating that it would not do them any good to repeal the ID policy prior to judgment."
Mindless repetition as always. He was insinuating nothing of the kind. He was only stating that he would be deciding the case according to the lawm as it was his job to do.
"The correct analogy is this: they must either (1) decide to hold their picnic in twelve hours and hope that the picnic area has night lighting or (2) lose their picnic food."
What people decide to do based on their recently revealed new discovery that the Sun will rise and set over the period of a day cannot be blamed on an astronomer.
"Under the Social Darwinism that you love so much"
You would have lost on two counts. In addition to murdering every Jew they could find, they also did in the mental defectives. You would have gone up the chimney with your relatives.
Posted by: Voice in the Urbanness | April 20, 2008 9:03 AM
My experience is that we taxonomists make our titles as representative of the paper content as we can. Editors demand it. The literature is huge, and much literature search is just scanning titles, so a misleading title could mean that your very important publication might not be as widely read and appreciated as it deserves.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | April 20, 2008 9:27 AM
Meanwhile... the statement from the Council of Biological Society of Washington which publishes the Proceedings:
But Larry, who has not read the Proceedings, doubts its 122 years of "nearly purely systemtic content" and thinks the Society is clueless or lying about its own journal's contents.http://www.biolsocwash.org/id_statement.html
Posted by: Foggg | April 20, 2008 2:02 PM
ViU groaned,
I don't understand why Mike Dunford doesn't kick you off for cluttering up his blog with frivolous comments and obliging others to waste even more space by answering them. For the umpteenth time, Judge Jones told a newspaper that the election results would not affect his decision. Fatheaded Ed Brayton even went beyond that by falsely claiming that Judge Jones expressly said that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision.
Your tactic is to bury my refutations of your arguments by endlessly repeating those arguments. So here again is my refutation of your argument, and I will repeat this refutation as many times as necessary:
And if people are given a choice between (1) scheduling their picnic for nighttime and hoping that the picnic area has night lighting and (2) losing their picnic food, rational people will choose the former option.
Jim Thomerson said,
The titles of the papers have no indication that the papers are primarily about systematics.
A lot of literature searches scan contents as well -- even a Google search scans contents.
PettiFoggger said,
I know nothing about Rep. Souder or the Office of Special Counsel. What I do know from unpleasant personal experience is that Fatheaded Ed Brayton is an unscrupulous BVD-clad blogger who arbitrarily censors comments and commenters on his blogs. Fatheaded Ed has no credibility -- so why should I believe his report of the Sternberg affair?
I am glad that the "Expelled" movie is giving the Smithsonian fascists more than they bargained for.
The Society is either clueless or lying! Kevin Vicklund showed that the focus on systematics papers officially began in 1970.
Also, note the statement "nearly purely systematic content" -- so it's not "absolutely purely systematic content."
And as I said, all or most of the folks here have not read the proceedings. Physician, heal thyself.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 20, 2008 4:01 PM
I will admit that I have not looked at the journal since retirement, other than to do a scan of several year's titles when this first came to my attention. Previous to that I looked at the journal and read some of the papers on a regular basis. Several of the members publish papers that are of professional interest to me. I did not join the society because a new journal which fit my interests much better came into being. I would also confess that the bulk of my literature searches were done before I ever heard of google. I've been working in systematics since the late '50's.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | April 20, 2008 7:29 PM
"So here again is my refutation of your argument, and I will repeat this refutation as many times as necessary:"
As I said and Larry has proven, he believes that if he repeats a lie or a failed argument often enough it will become true.
"For the umpteenth time, Judge Jones told a newspaper that the election results would not affect his decision."
Yes, Cretin. And telling a newspaper that he would follow the law and do his job the way he is supposed to is not giving legal advice no matter how many times you repeat it.
Posted by: Voice in the Urbanness | April 21, 2008 2:05 AM
ViU, I'll make this easy for you. I am only asking you to answer yes or no to the following questions.
(1) Did a newspaper report that Judge Jones said that the election would not affect his decision, or not?
(2) Did that statement by Jones imply that repeal of the ID policy would not affect his decision, or not?
(3) Did Ed Brayton claim that Jones expressly said that repeal of the ID policy would not affect the decision, or not?
(4) Is it considered appropriate for judges to give legal advice to litigants, or not?
(5) Does Jones have the right to speak for other judges, or not? If the board had repealed the ID policy prior to judgment and Jones ruled against them anyway, the decision probably would have been appealed and other judges would have ruled on the effect of the repeal.
(6) So far as attorney fee awards are concerned, the school board had nothing to lose by repealing the ID policy prior to judgment. Is that statement true or not?
(7) By not repealing the ID policy prior to judgment, the school board forever lost an opportunity to try to moot the case by repealing the ID policy. Is that statement true or not?
(8) Not that it matters, but did the Supreme Court say the following, or not?
-- from
http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/05/two-timing-new-members-of-dover-school.html
(9) Not that it matters, but in Buckhannon, did the state legislature promise to never again re-enact the challenged statute, or not?
Remember, ViU, I am only asking you to answer yes or no. No other response is requested or expected.
Thank you.
Posted by: Larry Fafarman | April 21, 2008 4:30 AM
Barely a week after throwing a conniption fit over a snide comment over an off-topic conversation started by himself, Larry again injects an off-topic discussion for the purpose of making personal attacks. If it weren't what Larry always does, it'd be ironic - here it's just hypocritical. But I'll indulge Larry.
Yes. This has already been answered numerous times.
No. This has also been answered numerous times, and defeats the remainder of your questions. However, an "unscrupulous BVD-clad" reporter made that insinuation in a poorly written article.
Yes. Like everyone else involved, including Larry and myself, he was fooled by the false implication of the reporter.
The answer is situationally dependent. For example, the Circuit panel in Selman gave a number of suggestions to the litigants on what it would like to see in the event of a re-trial. However, you are begging the question. You are insinuating that the judge in fact gave legal advice, when that conclusionhas net been reached. You failed to ask certain other questions which are directly relevant to the discussion (answers in bold):
4a) Is it considered appropriate for judges to answer a reporter's question about court procedure? Yes. According to Canon 3(A)(6) of the Code of Conduct for United States Judges, "A judge should avoid public comment on the merits of a pending or impending action, requiring similar restraint by court personnel subject to the judge's direction and control. This proscription does not extend to public statements made in the course of the judge's official duties, to the explanation of court procedures, or to a scholarly presentation made for purposes of legal education."
4b) Was Judge Jones explaining court procedure? Yes. According to Rule 25(d)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, "When a public officer is a party to an action in his official capacity and during its pendency dies, resigns, or otherwise ceases to hold office, the action does not abate and the officer’s successor is automatically substituted as a party."
Yes. All judges are bound by the FRCP. Since Jones's statement was neutral with regard to repealing the policy, Larry's fantasies about appeals have no bearing on the question. It should be noted that prior to the election, the new board members announced that they would wait until the judge ruled and that they would not appeal.
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 21, 2008 12:01 PM
Posted by: W. Kevin Vicklund | April 21, 2008 12:11 PM
As usual Larry asks questions that have already been answered and Kevink, as usual, exposes Larry's ignorance.
The bottom line is that saying that you will decide a case according to the law is not giving advice to those who would wish that the decision would be based on an upcoming popularity contest.
I will make this easy for you, Larry. I have one yes or no question: Are you so stupid that you can't understand that saying you will go by the law is not giving legal advice? It appears that the answer is yes.
Posted by: Voice in the Urbanness | April 21, 2008 1:41 PM
Systematics is one of those slippery terms which people use with different definition which can only be divined by context. The broadest definition is "comparative biology". A narrower definition is "study of phylogenetic (evolutionary) relationships". Taxonomy is the naming of organisms, and is often considered a part of systematics. I tend to think of systematics as the process and taxonomy as the product. The Washington journal is more about the taxonomic end of systematics than anything else: new species definitions, revision of genera, etc.
There is a journal "Systematic Biology" which consideres more the cosmic theoretical aspects of systematics. I was a member of that association for some 30 years and never submitted a paper, because most of my work has been more toward the taxonomic end of systematics. In spite of journal names, the Washington Journal would have been appropriate for my systematics work; Systematic biology would not have been. If the ID paper in contention had been published in Systematic Biology, I think it would have been OK in that it discussed systematic theory on a cosmic level. Actually a paper of such cosmic concern should have been submitted to Science or Nature, where it would have gotten maximum readership.
Posted by: Jim Thomerson | April 21, 2008 2:48 PM
I also showed that for the super-majority of their existence, the focus on systematics and the related fields of taxonomy and biogeography (as Jim would put it, process, product and location) was the de facto position. In fact, the official centennial history of the BSW, published Dec 1, 1980, stated: