Pure Poison is a new blog covering the intellectual dishonesty of Australia’s punditocrats. Tobias Ziegler covers Marohasy’s response to Bond University’s categorical denial of her claim that Jon Jenkins had been fired for his opinions:
But her most disingenuous statement was the following:
My original blog piece included both fact and opinion. You may disagree with my opinion (based on the facts and my world view), but the facts stand. Mr Lambert queried the facts unsuccessfully. His opinion (based on his world view), though, has not changed.
Marohasy claimed that “[f]or his opinion,” Jenkins was reprimanded and then dismissed – an assertion of fact that turned out to be wrong. She suggested there was “no doubt” that the university had done so on some technical violation that “no doubt” would have been overlooked if his views were different – and maintained that opinion even after the facts were clarified. When her description of the facts was shown to be wrong, she nonetheless managed to maintain her opinion.
“No Doubt” Marohasy, that is not the way a sceptic or a scientist should think. Your readers deserve better. And this sort of intellectual dishonesty should not be forgotten.
When [I wrote](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/01/assertions_that_dr_jenkins_has.php):
>So what do you think we’ll see from Marohasy?
>1. a correction?
>2. silence? or
>3. a claim that the registrar is covering up the real reason?
I did not expect that she would respond with:
4. Insist that her original post was accurate and demand that I apologize for getting it wrong.
I have adjusted my expectation of Marohasy accordingly.