ERV on IG

Welp, Mooney chickened out. Again.

I feel bad for Reggie, because this is totally my fault– Reggie is a very congenial interviewer. Hes been earning street-cred since the internet was born, interviewing top dogs like Eugenie Scott, Richard Dawkins, Ken Miller, James Randi, Barbara Forrest…

But after I alerted you all to Mooneys appearance, apparently the thought of answering questions critical of ‘Unscientific America’ from you all was too much for Mooney. Hes not going to be on IG anymore. I guess he has to wash his hair, or something.

SOOOOOOOO Im going to be on tonight instead! Chatting about science outreach and science literacy! Im pretty sure I have just as much evidence to back up my claims as Mooneytits and Cockenbaum, so YAY! WIN! LOL!

8 pm Eastern time!

EDIT: If you missed it, BAM! Next week on IG, Secular Students Alliance is gonna talk about their trip to the Creation Museum! Reggie is a cool doood!

Hahaha I said ‘um’ too much. Someone smack me goddammit LOL!

Comments

  1. #1 Optimus Primate
    August 6, 2009

    Win!

  2. #2 andrew
    August 6, 2009

    “m pretty sure I have just as much evidence to back up my claims as Mooneytits and Cockenbaum”

    isn’t that a self-indictment??

  3. #3 Rev Matt
    August 6, 2009

    That’s kind of sad, actually. Being unwilling to defend your thesis doesn’t speak well of the thesis or the author.

  4. #4 Ophelia Benson
    August 6, 2009

    Win!

    But yeah – the backing out really is pathetic.

  5. #5 Epicanis
    August 6, 2009

    Just added the rss feed to my reader – I’ll be looking forward to downloading the audio once it’s up. (What, only mp3? No Ogg Vorbis feed?…)

    At this point I’m half-expecting Mooney/Kirshenbaum and Myers/Dawkins to admit that they’ve been in on the whole thing the whole time – the controversy sells more books AND gets more attention on the blogs as long as they can keep it up…

    (Chris Mooney was interviewed about the book on “This Week in Science” a few weeks back. The ENTIRE interview seemed to end up being about noisy religion thing…except for ONE brief diversion from the topic, mentioning how mainstream media focusses on sensationalism because that’s what sells. Way to give away the game plan, Mr. Mooney.)

  6. #6 RBT
    August 6, 2009

    The thing that puzzles me is that apparently Mooney had some respect before the UA brouhaha fired up. I didn’t read his Republican War on Science because it seemed clear to me just from the title that he’d missed the point entirely. Average Republicans are no more or less hostile to science than average Democrats; it’s the vocal minority of religious nutters in both camps that are the problem. Which isn’t to say that either group as a whole is particularly friendly to science, and certainly the religious nutters are more prone to register Republican than Democrat. But still, the problem has never been political affiliation; it is and always has been religious affiliation.

    As to Kirschenbaum, I’d actually scanned her blog a few times before the whole move to Discover and the UA thing started, and I never found anything there worth reading. Neither Mooney nor Kirschenbaum is a particularly accomplished writer. All of their pre-UA stuff seemed pretty superficial and clueless to me, so I wasn’t surprised to find that UA was just more of the same.

    I don’t know why anyone is surprised to see Mooney and Kirschenbaum ducking and weaving now. When they take on people like PZ and Coyne, they’re far, far out of their intellectual weight class.

  7. #7 The Science Pundit
    August 6, 2009

    Mooney was on The Young Turks yesterday, but despite the fact that he was there to shill for UA, Cenk spent most of the time asking him questions relating to The Republican War on Science, so it was actually a pretty god interview. ;-)

  8. #8 jon
    August 6, 2009

    Average Republicans are no more or less hostile to science than average Democrats; it’s the vocal minority of religious nutters in both camps that are the problem.

    I’d be more comfortable saying the Religious right made up at least a plurality of Repubs maybe even close to half. But definitely not a minority of republicans, I think that understates it.

  9. #9 Sili
    August 6, 2009

    He doesn’t even try to give the impression of propriety anymore, does he?

  10. #10 jon
    August 6, 2009

    He doesn’t even try to give the impression of propriety anymore, does he?

    Bad framing I guess…

  11. #11 foolfodder
    August 6, 2009

    But after I alerted you all to Mooneys appearance, apparently the thought of answering questions critical of ‘Unscientific America’ from you all was too much for Mooney. Hes not going to be on IG anymore. I guess he has to wash his hair, or something.

    Are you sure that’s the reason he’s not doing it?

  12. #12 SLC
    August 6, 2009

    Re Mooneytits and cockenbaum

    Actually, I would prefer Mooneytits and Kirshenballs, except there is some question as to whether Mr. Mooney has any.

  13. #13 truthspeaker
    August 6, 2009

    That’s kind of sad, actually. Being unwilling to defend your thesis doesn’t speak well of the thesis or the author.

    Posted by: Rev Matt | August 6, 2009 11:15 AM

    Maybe he won’t defend his thesis, but he’s really civil and respectful you guys!

  14. #14 truthspeaker
    August 6, 2009

    The thing that puzzles me is that apparently Mooney had some respect before the UA brouhaha fired up. I didn’t read his Republican War on Science because it seemed clear to me just from the title that he’d missed the point entirely. Average Republicans are no more or less hostile to science than average Democrats; it’s the vocal minority of religious nutters in both camps that are the problem.

    I think you’re misunderstanding. When people talk about “Republicans” or “Democrats”, they’re usually talking about the politicians, not the people who vote for them. Average Republican voters may not be hostile to science, but in 2000, 2002, and 2004, they voted for politicians who were.

  15. #15 RBT
    August 6, 2009

    I think you’re misunderstanding. When people talk about “Republicans” or “Democrats”, they’re usually talking about the politicians, not the people who vote for them. Average Republican voters may not be hostile to science, but in 2000, 2002, and 2004, they voted for politicians who were.

    As opposed to our current Democrat, whose idea of the best candidate to head NIH is an evangelical christian who mixes his science with his religion? Also, remember that Obama did almost nothing to fix the previous administration’s whacko rules about stem cell research. In fact, I can’t see that Obama is much better than Bush. Well, maybe on a scale of 100 for science friendliness, Bush rated a 0 and Obama gets a 1, but that’s about it.

    I am reminded of The Who: Meet the new boss. The same as the old boss.

  16. #16 SLC
    August 6, 2009

    Re RBT

    I can understand Mr. RBTs’ frustration with the Obama Administration but let’s remember that he appointed Nobel Prize winning physicist Steven Chu as his Secretary of Energy and Nobel Prize winning medical researcher Harold Varmus as the co-chairman of his science advisory committee.

    Relative to the appointment of Francis Collins, I would strongly suspect that Prof. Varmus was consulted on the appointment. I personally would like to hear from Prof. Varmus as to the objections that have been raised relative to the appointment. Prof. Varmus, who wrote Dr. Collins’ performance evaluations when both were at NIH is certainly in a better position to evaluate the latters’ qualifications then either his supporters or his critics are.

  17. #17 truthspeaker
    August 6, 2009

    As opposed to our current Democrat, whose idea of the best candidate to head NIH is an evangelical christian who mixes his science with his religion? Also, remember that Obama did almost nothing to fix the previous administration’s whacko rules about stem cell research.

    Obama revoked the last administration’s stem cell rules. He also acknowledged global warming exists.

    He has not, however, moved to repeal the Clinton-era law allowing makers of dietary supplements to make bogus claims about their products.

    I am reminded of The Who: Meet the new boss. The same as the old boss.

    I don’t think that applies to Obama’s stance on science, just his stance on torture, secrecy, unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps, and unnecessary wars.

  18. #18 Joel
    August 6, 2009

    Huzzah! A distinctive improvement!

  19. #19 The Chimp's Raging Id
    August 6, 2009
    I am reminded of The Who: Meet the new boss. The same as the old boss.

    I don’t think that applies to Obama’s stance on science, just his stance on torture, secrecy, unconstitutional warrantless wiretaps, and unnecessary wars.

    Tragically, painfully true.

  20. #20 Jerry Coyne
    August 7, 2009

    Good job, Abbie. And you did NOT say “um” too much!

  21. #21 Optimus Primate
    August 7, 2009

    Great show, Abbie! I didn’t even notice the “um”s. I did appreciate the excellent analogies, though.

  22. #22 ERV
    August 7, 2009

    *GASP!* Jerry Coyne listened to my show! eeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!! *giddy clapping*

    Heres what happened with Mooney and his appearance on IG, so much drama, you guys will love:
    IG originally contacted Sheril. Shes a ‘new’ voice in the pro-science movement, thought it would be a great show. Yay!

    No yay. She deferred to Mooney, because apparently she is precisely as vapid as some of us suspected, and doesnt have enough opinions of her own to fill a one hour show.

    So IG contacted Mooney, who happily agreed… Until he pushed back his appearance last week… Well Reggie had no idea about the internet uproar UA caused, and his email changed since the last time I spoke with him, so I didnt get ahold of Reggie till Wednesday night to ‘warn’ him some calls/questions might be a little spicier than he might be expecting. Thursday morning I get an email that Mooney canceled permanently, and would I mind sitting in so Reggie could have a show. You see, its all so wonderfully polite and professional for Mooney to leave Reggie hanging because he decided he was ‘too busy’. btw, I still dont think Reggie has a clue why so many scientists and atheists are pissed at S&M, I never got to tell him all the details. Reggie just wanted to do an interview.

    But heres the best part: This cancellation/excuse wasnt relayed to IG via Mooney. Mooney had his *publicist* tell Reggie to fuck off.

    Chris Mooney has a *publicist*.

    *GAAAAAAAAG*

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    *GAAAAAAAAAAAAAKKKKKKKK*

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

    *PUKE*

    aw…

  23. #23 Sigmund
    August 7, 2009

    I listened to the show and thought you did fine.
    You were even relatively nice about Mooney! (far more than he deserved).
    You and Reggie touched on a very important point about debating creationists, regarding what pro-science debaters should seek to communicate to a religious audience. Some of the pro-science crowd fail to understand that simply telling them lists of facts won’t work. Whats missing is a lack of critical thinking skills. We should use debate opportunities to teach them basic critical thinking and logic (such as why the scientific method is the best way to answer questions about nature) and to hell with whatever the creationist wants to talk about!

  24. #24 Prometheus
    August 7, 2009

    That was interesting Abbie. You did well and thanks for that.

    As for # 6

    I did read “The Republican War on Science” and found it pretty empty and vain. By failing to address the fact that the last administration was anti-intellectual, not just anti-science it can be easily dismissed as pandering.

    Most people like science, at least the aspect of it that gives them air conditioning, surround sound and Zesty Taco/Chipolte Ranch Collision Doritos.

    Chris Mooney’s writing is like listening to a Roseanne Barr interview, she might be right about a few things but she is so inveterately stupid you can chalk most of it up to dumb luck and kind of wish she wasn’t on your side..

  25. #25 RBT
    August 7, 2009

    Chris Mooney’s writing is like listening to a Roseanne Barr interview, she might be right about a few things but she is so inveterately stupid you can chalk most of it up to dumb luck and kind of wish she wasn’t on your side..

    Who says Mooney is on our side? Just the opposite, I’d think.

  26. #26 Sili
    August 7, 2009

    Gonna read later – busy busy busy.

    But

    Someone smack me goddammit LOL!

    First you cater to us femdom afficionados, and now you aim for the other lot. You’re damn flirt, ERV. (A flervt?)

  27. #27 Prometheus
    August 7, 2009

    ERV

    “But heres the best part: This cancellation/excuse wasnt relayed to IG via Mooney. Mooney had his *publicist* tell Reggie to fuck off.

    Chris Mooney has a *publicist*.”

    10 bucks says it’s his Mom.

  28. #28 SLC
    August 7, 2009

    Ah, Mr. Mooney chickened out because he was afraid of a couple of pointed questions from Ms. Smith. What a wimp! Mr. Mooney is not a real man.

  29. #29 Sven DiMilo
    August 7, 2009

    10 bucks says it’s his Mom.

    that was funny

  30. #30 Azkyroth
    August 8, 2009

    Average Republicans are no more or less hostile to science than average Democrats; it’s the vocal minority of religious nutters in both camps that are the problem.

    That’s significantly less true of global warming denialism than creationism, for one thing.

  31. #31 John Phillips, FCD
    August 8, 2009

    Just listened and it was a good way to spend an hour. To my shame, I must admit that I keep forgetting about IG yet he invariably serves up an interesting show. As to your umming, I was only aware of them because you mentioned it here :). However, after a few minutes I no longer noticed them as I became engrossed in the talk.

  32. #32 Ben Rabb
    August 8, 2009

    Can I ask a question? Why all this poisonous talk directed to Chris Mooney? So, he has an opinion with which you disagree — so what?

    Anothe purely scientific question: Why on earth do you study endogneous retroviruses? These are totally, clinically irrelevant. They cause no disease. It would be like studying the flotsam and jetsom of genetic cellular debris.

    You are wasting your time with Mooney, you are wasting your career with scientific trivialities.

  33. #33 Sili
    August 8, 2009

    Thank you, Rabb.

    Your concern is noted.

  34. #34 Wolfhound
    August 8, 2009

    Oh, goodie! Ben is here to help Abbie with her life! Please, Ben, do tell Abbie what she should be doing with her time and career instead of her current passions. Mayhap you can share with her (and, by extension, us) what you yourself do that is of much greater value and interest so that we, too, can be inspired to achieve greatness!

    *bated breath*

  35. #35 Azkyroth
    August 8, 2009

    Can I ask a question? Why all this poisonous talk directed to Chris Mooney? So, he has an opinion with which you disagree — so what?

    Because, like yourself, he is a concern troll.

    Anothe purely scientific question: Why on earth do you study endogneous retroviruses? These are totally, clinically irrelevant. They cause no disease. It would be like studying the flotsam and jetsom of genetic cellular debris.

    Yeah, you don’t seem like the type of person who’d understand the idea of learning being valuable for its own sake. What a sad little organism you are.

  36. #36 Ben Rabb
    August 8, 2009

    You guys are a joke! You’re like those idiot teabaggers, Republicans send to townhall meetings to disrupt discussions of major health-care issues.

    Learning being valuable for its own sake? Umm, right. Are you conceding that, as a matter of science and medicine, endogenous retroviruses are absolutely, positively worthless?

    The reason this is important is because based on this shaky unscientific foundation you then waste everyone’s time lashing out at perceived enemies (I guess Chris Mooney is enemy de jour), ignoring good falsifiable science.

    Talk about salivating morons.

    Please, Abbie, could you please abandon this phony, tough-chick, sorority girl, hyper-specialized, pseudo-science and do some real, RELEVANT, work?

    Nobody cares about endogenous retroviruses. Please.

  37. #37 Wolfhound
    August 8, 2009

    You never answered the question, Benny-Boy: What should Abbie be doing with her time and career instead of her current passions and what do you yourself do that is of much greater value and interest? You must be a sooper-jeenyus doing Reel Big Stuff, right?

  38. #38 Brian X
    August 8, 2009

    Ben Rabb:

    What the bloody blue fuck are you on about? You know damn well what ERVs are relevant to.

  39. #39 Reed
    August 8, 2009

    It’s amazing how much fail Ben manages to pack into one short post.

    Why on earth do you study endogneous retroviruses? These are totally, clinically irrelevant. They cause no disease.

    Leaving aside for the moment the assumption that science for it’s own sake isn’t worthwhile*, maybe you should have listened to the show. Abbie mentioned several real clinical conditions where ERV remnants are implicated. Or maybe you are saying cancer is clinically irrelevant ? Just because they no longer produce the original virus doesn’t mean having that gunk floating around your genome has no effect!

    you are wasting your career with scientific trivialities.

    Hrm, Abbie’s primary scientific work, AFAIK, is on HIV. Specifically in areas that are intended to lead to better treatments. Is that the “scientific triviality” you think she’s “wasting” her career on ? What would you suggest instead, writing data deficient books on science communication ?

    * This is an bad assumption, even if you don’t value knowledge for it’s own sake. The history of science is littered with apparently pointless curiosities that turned out to be really important down the road.

  40. #40 Brian X
    August 8, 2009

    It would be like studying the flotsam and jetsom of genetic cellular debris.

    That’s exactly what it is. Your mistake is assuming that this is somehow uninteresting; it’s the biological research equivalent of dumpster diving.

  41. #41 Azkyroth
    August 8, 2009

    Learning being valuable for its own sake? Umm, right. Are you conceding that, as a matter of science and medicine, endogenous retroviruses are absolutely, positively worthless?

    Even assuming there was no reason to expect the research to result in practical avenues or insights for medical therapies, it would be worth doing. The fact that you don’t understand this is deeply pathetic.

    ignoring good falsifiable science.

    Such as?

    Please, Abbie, could you please abandon this phony, tough-chick, sorority girl, hyper-specialized, pseudo-science and do some real, RELEVANT, work?

    And exactly what real, relevant work have you been doing?

  42. #42 Travis
    August 8, 2009

    Eap, I used to work in experimental particle physics. If Ben does not like science involving ERVs as he thinks it is worthless I wonder what he thinks about that field. It does not exactly cure any diseases. I thought it was pretty worthwhile at the time, still do. I guess I know better now.

  43. #43 Brian X
    August 8, 2009

    Travis:

    I wonder if he’s not one of those people who thinks that if it can’t be productized it’s not science worth doing. There are a lot of those people out there, and many of them are the sorts of people M&K should be trying to reach but are coddling instead.

  44. #44 Travis
    August 8, 2009

    It does seem he is one of those people. And perhaps that is why he also dislikes all the criticism of M&K. Though it seems like he is also just an ignorant ass which probably does not help.

    Had he done a tiny bit of reading he could have seen that there is a little more than a small amount of disagreement, that Mooney has hardly been some innocent guy with a different view, but has also been childish and a bit of a wanker. He deserves much of the ire directed at him.

  45. #45 Rrr
    August 9, 2009

    Travis: He deserves much of the ire directed at him.

    “Him” being, I guess, Ben & Mooney?
    Gaah, now I want icecream!

  46. #46 Azkyroth
    August 9, 2009

    Eap, I used to work in experimental particle physics. If Ben does not like science involving ERVs as he thinks it is worthless I wonder what he thinks about that field. It does not exactly cure any diseases.

    Some of the equipment from the high-energy experiments could perhaps be adapted to cure what’s wrong with Ben…

  47. #47 Travis
    August 9, 2009

    I actually just meant Mooney, as Ben was complaining about everyone being so mean and nasty to him. Ben also does as he was quite a jackass, but it is quite separate.

    Azkyroth,
    Well, the radiation is very high in places, maybe it would make Ben into a superhero. More likely it would cure him of the pain of life.

  48. #48 Shirakawasuna
    August 9, 2009

    Or… we could all just note that Ben is still a pompous idiot and move on. Congrats on the PR win, Abbie!

  49. #49 Hu
    August 9, 2009

    Ben Rabb reminds me of a cartoon I once saw. A rather hairy guy was rubbing two pieces of wood together, making them smoke, while two others were watching nearby. One of the onlookers commented to the other, “Why is he wasting his time on those silly experiments rather than doing something productive, such as picking bananas?”

  50. #50 Tyler DiPietro
    August 9, 2009

    “Learning being valuable for its own sake? Umm, right. Are you conceding that, as a matter of science and medicine, endogenous retroviruses are absolutely, positively worthless?”

    Ben is very good at logic, he clearly knows how to avoid non-sequitors.

  51. #51 SLC
    August 9, 2009

    Just finished listening to Ms. Smith and I must say that she was certainly rather diplomatic on the subject of Mr. Chris Mooney, not inviting him to perform an impossible sex act as she did a few threads back.

  52. #52 Ben Rabb
    August 9, 2009

    Man, this really is a snake-pit of lunatics.

    Look, Mooney wrote a book about the massive scientific illiteracy in this country. His thesis is well-taken.

    The problem, though, isn’t with the masses. The problem is with the scientists and scientific acolytes — such as the low caliber morons who blog here, and the commentators who follow suit. It is the obnoxious blind leading the blind.

    I wouldn’t hire any of you morons. Endogenous retroviruses? What an utter waste of time. This blog would have Newton, Faraday, Einstein, Pasteur and Koch rolling their collective graves.

    This isn’t science — this is schoolyard skirmiches among a few idiots making $10/hour, doing meaningless research, using scientific jargon, and posing as upcoming PhD’s.

    No wonder America has such a sorry state of scientific literacy. Look in the mirror. Have fun being unemployed or underemployed for the next decade. I’m done.

  53. #53 Tyler DiPietro
    August 9, 2009

    So according to Ben Rabb, the demarcation criterion for science is that its practitioners earn lots of money. Clearly, this is the best work in philosophy of science since Popper and Kuhn.

  54. #54 Anton Mates
    August 10, 2009

    This blog would have Newton, Faraday, Einstein, Pasteur and Koch rolling their collective graves.

    Me and a bunch of friends totally rolled our graves last night. It was mad fun, until the cops showed up.

  55. #55 windy
    August 10, 2009

    I wouldn’t hire any of you morons.

    Eh, and we should care because…? Who the hell is “Ben Rabb”?

    This blog would have Newton, Faraday, Einstein, Pasteur and Koch rolling their collective graves.

    Heed the words of St. Carl of Ithaca, patron saint of Mooney!

    Maxwell wasn’t thinking of radio, radar, and television when he first scratched out the fundamental equations of electromagnetism; Newton wasn’t dreaming of space flight or communications satellites when he first understood the motion of the Moon; Roentgen wasn’t contemplating medical diagnosis when he investigated a penetrating radiation so mysterious he called it “X-rays”; Curie wasn’t thinking of cancer therapy when she painstakingly extracted minute amounts of radium from tons of pitchblende; Fleming wasn’t planning on saving the lives of millions with antibiotics when he noticed a circle free of bacteria around a growth of mold; Watson and Crick weren’t imagining the cure of genetic diseases when they puzzled over the X-ray diffractometry of DNA; Rowland and Molina weren’t planning to implicate CFCs in ozone depletion when they began studying the role of halogens in stratospheric photochemistry.

    These discoveries and a multitude of others that grace and characterize our time, to some of which our very lives are beholden, were made ultimately by scientists given the opportunity to explore what in their opinion were basic questions in nature.

    Cutting off fundamental, curiosity-driven science is like eating the seed corn.

  56. #56 Azkyroth
    August 10, 2009

    Cutting off fundamental, curiosity-driven science is like eating the seed corn.

    Is that a step up or a step down from Ben Rabb’s paste-eating?

  57. #57 Martin
    August 10, 2009

    Did I miss it, or did Ben ever deign to inform us peons of what amazingly valuable and cutting edge stuff he does to, you know, save the world and stuff? Cos, call me crazy, but it seems like going off on a big bluster about how everyone is stupider than you only works if you can walk it like you talk it. Otherwise, youre just wearing your ass as a hat, eh?

  58. #58 Aj
    August 10, 2009

    I wonder if it was just by chance that Ben Rabb left Darwin off of that list of scientists he claims are engaged in post-mortem revolutions over this blog? Perhaps he can help clarify by telling us exactly what scientific career has now closed its door to ERV, on the basis of his disapproval (maybe the Disco Institute needs a bottle washer)?

    The mere prospect of never working for this noted intellectual must have her wailing and gnashing teeth in despair.

  59. #59 RBT
    August 10, 2009

    @52

    Look, Mooney wrote a book about the massive scientific illiteracy in this country. His thesis is well-taken.

    Mooney, is that you?

  60. #60 phantomreader42
    August 10, 2009

    I wonder if Ben Rabb’s vision of “worthwhile” science is like the one in “Idiocracy”, where the last smart person’s life’s work involved drugs for baldness and erectile dysfunction? Who cares about understanding reality, Ben wants a boner and he wants it NOW!

  61. #61 Travis
    August 10, 2009

    Oh, I never thought he was coming back! Hi Ben!

    I notice you are still making statements without backing them up. Other than announcing that ERV’s were useless and worthless you have made no effort in describing why this is so. I guess I’ll just have to take your word about that. That is the American way already isn’t it? “I do not need to know science, some scientist already made my TV and computer, and my medicine, they can do it for me. Oh, and I love Jesus, and science I dislike is wrong.”

    And of course you did not even take on the question of what problems should be tackled by science, and whether only those with immediate practical benefit should be undertaken. I guess that question has already been answered by Ben and his word is law.

    But, in the end I see no reason so far to take anything Ben Rabb says seriously. Who is this person, and why should I think they know anything worth listening to?

  62. #62 minimalist
    August 10, 2009

    Who the hell is “Ben Rabb”?

    I envision the pointy-haired boss from Dilbert. If he doesn’t understand it or it doesn’t make a lot of money, it ain’t worth doing.

    Meh. Low-grade troll anyway. It’s lucky that it got any responses at all; it just picked a rare time when Wally or Rhobot weren’t belching out much finer quality stupidity.

  63. #63 Prometheus
    August 10, 2009

    #52 Ben Rabb

    “Look in the mirror. Have fun being unemployed or underemployed for the next decade. I’m done.”

    I was counting on that $10.00/hr gig doing real science for Ben Rabb.

    Now I’m screwed.

    Thanks for nothing ERV!

  64. #64 antistokes
    August 10, 2009

    @ benny boy (ps sorry for feedin’ the troll)

    don’t need your job. already got a postdoc— in neurochemical cancer imaging, and i make more than $10/hr, not that i’m in it for the goddamn money. i’m in it so i don’t get bored (and trust me, you don’t want me to get bored). also, hey, considering some ERVs seem to have a significant role in oncogenesis (as just a cursory pubmed search shows), color me interested.

  65. #65 TheDailyJokelahoman
    August 10, 2009

    Mooney is such a puss.

  66. #66 Joshua Zelinsky
    August 11, 2009

    Hey, maybe Chris Mooney can blame every nasty, juvenile thing he does on his publicist. Something like “I’m sorry. It didn’t actually defriend you on Facebook. That was my publicist.” This has major excuse potential. I’ll have to look into getting myself one of these publicist things.

    Incidentally, can anyone name a single scientists who ever had a publicist? It wouldn’t surprise me if Sagan or Gould did, but other than those. There’s an interesting contrast here that sort of reflects the entire problem of M&K really going for style over substance.

  67. #67 Siamang
    August 13, 2009

    Maybe Ben Rabb is Mooney’s publicist.

  68. #68 Blake Stacey
    August 13, 2009

    Incidentally, can anyone name a single scientists who ever had a publicist?

    Well, I wouldn’t be surprised if the publishing company who prints a scientist’s book has people on staff for booking lecture-circuit venues, sending out review copies, coordinating the advertisement campaign, etc. Only loser authors have to do all the marketing themselves.

  69. #69 Travis
    August 13, 2009

    Poor Blake…

    I notice Stuart Pivar is back in action and suing Robert Hazen. Does he have a publicist? I mean, he is a scientist, right? It says so right in his complaint. Sadly his does not appear to be very good. Actually, not sadly.

  70. #70 Blake Stacey
    August 13, 2009

    Don’t forget to see Pivar’s cameo appearance in that very thread! The fractal dimension of his wrongness keeps increasing.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.