…and this is a 
That's my recipe for dealing with crackpots; feel free to use it, it's easy.
You all may remember Vincent Fleury, the French fellow who ascribes developmental processes to swirls of cellular movement in development, who wrote a peculiar paper in a European journal of applied physics (which I mocked mercilessly), and who then went crying to fringe journalist Suzan Mazur, and then demanded withdrawal of my review and an apology. He's done it again. I just received a copy of a letter from France, which was also sent to the vice chancellor of academic affairs of my university, demanding that I be gently chastised. He claims he is the "victim of a fierce attack". If you really must know all the details, here are some scans of the letter.
Just a gentle hint for future complaints: the vice chancellor's name is Cheryl Contant, not "Content", and she should be addressed as Dr Contant, not Mrs Content. You're welcome.
Otherwise, there's nothing in his letters that I think needs to be answered.
Comments
Posted by: Bjørn Østman | November 10, 2009 2:28 PM
Wow. What a cry-baby.
Did you really ban anyone who may defend his work? Is that an admission that not too many people can?
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
November 10, 2009 2:28 PM
You can apaologize to Fleury, then Stein, Reverend Moon, and you sure owe Bozo an apology for calling him a clown.
Since Expelled it's been established that ridiculous ideas are to be accorded the utmost respect and deserve to be taught to students.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: Celtic_Evolution
|
November 10, 2009 2:30 PM
Here's a tip, dear Mr. Fleury:
If you want to be taken seriously by a person such as Dr. Contant (or anyone else, for that matter), I would highly recommend against citing yourself as evidence for your own crackpot theories.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 2:32 PM
He should thank his lucky stars he's just some crackpot and not a cracker.
Posted by: PZ Myers
|
November 10, 2009 2:32 PM
I haven't banned anyone for defending his work. Heck, I haven't banned Fleury himself, who has commented here a few times.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 10, 2009 2:34 PM
Vincent Fleury is not a man to bear a grudge, oh no, wait...
It would seem that Dr. Fleury takes a similarly dim view of scientific critique as the British Chiropractic Association, both apparently more than keen to cry "calumny", rather than address the case... Maybe he'll sue PZ as a libel tourist in England?
Posted by: H.H. | November 10, 2009 2:34 PM
Crackpots really hate being called crackpots, don't they?
Posted by: Sastra
|
November 10, 2009 2:36 PM
You are fortunate. All he asked for is that you receive a "gentle chat." It could have been the rack -- or even the comfy chair.
Or, you could have been asked to give him a camera. There are worse fates.
Posted by: charley | November 10, 2009 2:37 PM
How would one go about officially withdrawing the word "crackpot" as he requests? Is there some kind of form?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 10, 2009 2:39 PM
Dr. Fleury, the non-professional behaving crackpot, wants an apology? My, my, someone is sure full of himself, especially since there appears to be no real evidence to back his paper, which also doesn't seem to be garnering any support from fellow scientists.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 10, 2009 2:41 PM
"I'm telling Mom!" Holy crap.
Do he seriously think that anyone at UMM even bothers to read complaints about you anymore, Mr Myers?
Posted by: Mu
|
November 10, 2009 2:41 PM
Very simple solution for M. Fleury, prove your research and win the Nobel prize. Until then, if you publish stuff that's way out there you better have a thick skin.
Posted by: Michelle R | November 10, 2009 2:41 PM
Excuse his french. He thought your chancellor was a happy lady.
Which she no doubt IS but you know...
Posted by: uppity cracka | November 10, 2009 2:42 PM
ouch. i hope i never get "defamated". it sounds gross...and kind of painful.
Posted by: Ted Dahlberg
|
November 10, 2009 2:42 PM
If Mrs Content is not the name of a Terry Pratchett character, it ought to be. For that matter, Vincent Fleury would make a good comic villain. The character would just need to be made slightly less unhinged than the original. Suspension of disbelief only stretches so far.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 2:44 PM
I think I saw a German film about that once.
Posted by: Damien Trotter | November 10, 2009 2:45 PM
Vincent, if you are reading this:
For chuff's sake, grow a pair you big cry-baby.
dt
Posted by: Lynna | November 10, 2009 2:46 PM
Well there is one more thing that needs to be corrected in the letter. The phrase "toiled drain" should read "toilet drain", ... and my bill for proofreading will be in the mail, Mr. Fleury.
Posted by: Margaret's Cat
|
November 10, 2009 2:50 PM
Um, he studies chickens and thinks he has an exciting new discovery about the development of the navel? Chicken navels? Seriously? Uh...
Posted by: Ed Darrell | November 10, 2009 2:50 PM
Why didn't he just send you copies of the papers that prove his point?
What? He couldn't find them?
Why would he think anyone would think you would pretend not to have called a crackpot a crackpot?
Do we need a restraining order to keep this guy away from the Texas State Board of Education?
Posted by: uppity cracka | November 10, 2009 2:51 PM
"DAS WUNDER-PUEPEN"
Posted by: Not Vincent Fleury | November 10, 2009 2:52 PM
I am not a crackpot.
I'm not whiny either!
Posted by: cag
|
November 10, 2009 2:54 PM
Sound and Fleury, signifying nothing.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | November 10, 2009 2:55 PM
Shorter Dr. Fleury
Posted by: uppity cracka | November 10, 2009 2:56 PM
"Zwei Mydchen, Eine Becher"
Posted by: Ryk | November 10, 2009 2:57 PM
I gather from your complete lack of concern that your Vice Chancellor is not a complete freaking idiot. It seems the crackpot was under the impression she was.
Posted by: uppity cracka | November 10, 2009 2:59 PM
stop.
SAYING.
"CRACKPOT"!!!!!!
Posted by: woobie | November 10, 2009 3:05 PM
Hey PZ - he's got evidence from before you were born (first bibliography entry). BAM!!! Take that. Add the fact that when I now see clouds floating by, I only see bellybuttons. That is unsurmountable evidence. At least to Fleury.
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2009 3:10 PM
He probably means the place where the yolk sack and the allantois attach.
…I hope.
The wonder-what? Which word of my native language are you trying to approximate? ~:-|
Two gyrls (…Mädchen), one of whom is called "One Suddenly Emasculated Cup"?
And what's the connection to Fleury, who is French?
Please help me out here.
Posted by: David | November 10, 2009 3:11 PM
I only skimmed through, but the references to Callebaut et al 2003, Chuai 2006 and Cui 2005 doen't seem to mention vortices. They seem to be perfectly ordinary papers about perfectly ordinary topics in developmental biology. Maybe I didn't read closely enough. I didn't check the 3 citations to his own papers. I'm sure they do mention vortices. The only other reference is to something written in 1929. I wouldn't be surprised if it does mention vortices. "Cutting edge" indeed!
Posted by: Bill from MN | November 10, 2009 3:11 PM
How is this being recieved by other developmental biologists with credibility?
Apparently he doesn't get that the process of putting something out there like that it has to pass peer review also. He needs to defend it scietificcally, not whine to someone saying he is being hurt by it. If it has any credibility the work will show it and stand up to outside scrutiny.
So stop your whining and defend it!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 3:13 PM
David I think it was in reference to my comment #16 on his comment #14
my apologies
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | November 10, 2009 3:13 PM
I do so admire PZ's crank collection. In 10+ years of being annoying on the internet, I've only had one crank who cared enough to (yawn!) telephone me at home (an acupuncturist, FFS) to "call me to account" "in person" *sigh* It must be wonderful in the big leagues, PZ. Tell me, do you envy Salman Rushdie? Now that is a fatwa. Let us know if Dr. Contant ever gets a letter about you from a head of state, will you?
Posted by: Haruhiist | November 10, 2009 3:13 PM
@Ted Dahlberg, #15:
I think we have a president for the guild of spinsters here:)
Posted by: Karl Haro von Mogel | November 10, 2009 3:16 PM
High-larious!
Can't wait to see him commant here. I mean Comment. Then we can "Defamate" him some more. I wonder what specie he is?
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | November 10, 2009 3:16 PM
And.
Why on earth did he include his age? Does he think UWM's administration is a dating service?
(Insert obvious joke about Archeology Dep't here:________________________.)
Posted by: MadScientist | November 10, 2009 3:21 PM
I'm surprised he wrote 'Mrs Content'; I would have expected 'Ms Content' to go along with the Mal Content he was whining about.
Posted by: Ahcuah | November 10, 2009 3:31 PM
Do chickens have navels?
Posted by: NixNoctua
|
November 10, 2009 3:32 PM
Being a whinny-ass baby ain't exactly an attractive trait.
Posted by: Sili
|
November 10, 2009 3:34 PM
Well, I guess it just goes to show that there're nuts everywhere.
I admit I expected better from the French, but I have been duly chastised in my stereotyping.
Posted by: Narvi | November 10, 2009 3:34 PM
I laughed at the words "My name is Vincent Fleury. I am 45". How many grown-ups try to impress people with their age? That's something a six-year-old would do.
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | November 10, 2009 3:36 PM
Well look at that: I flipped the first "M." Obviously I meant to say "UMM." Um? Am I in the running for Typo Queen yet?
Posted by: Peter G | November 10, 2009 3:40 PM
I am curious. How many thousands of square feet does the PZ Myers complaint archive now occupy?
Posted by: WRMartin | November 10, 2009 3:40 PM
Posted by: AdamK
|
November 10, 2009 3:41 PM
If chickens did have navels, no doubt they'd be swirly.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 10, 2009 3:43 PM
Hey I liked Pivar's balloon animals, I think that would have made a freaky cool poster of the balloon tiger.
Swirls of cellular movement is no way near as fun. If you are going to go for crackpot status you should do it properly.
Posted by: Blondin
|
November 10, 2009 3:47 PM
A moose once defamated my sister.
Posted by: otrame
|
November 10, 2009 3:49 PM
Mrs. Content was the midwife who was replaced by a doctor (whose name is escaping me) when Lady Sybil nearly died giving birth to young Sam Vimes (Jr.).
Posted by: PaulM | November 10, 2009 3:49 PM
#15 and #34, Mrs. Content *is* a Discworld character. She's a midwife mentioned in _The Fifth Elephant_ and _Night Watch_. Even I though it sounded like a Pratchett name before I read the comments to this post.
Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | November 10, 2009 3:50 PM
I agree. It's like he's saying "I'm right because I say I am! See! I said so in these papers right here!"
Kinda goes to his stage of mental development with the "I am 45" statement, as if age lends credit to his abilities.
I think it does the opposite. If you have to state your age, as part of your expertise, I highly question your expertise.
Posted by: BandTheory | November 10, 2009 3:58 PM
On behalf on physicists, I apologize. I have a deep interest in biology and biophysics. I really do think that biologists and physicists have a great deal to gain from dialogue and interdisciplinary studies. Look at the great work being done in protein folding problems and membrane dynamics. Or look at the work on the mechanical and optical abilities of mantis shrimp (stomatopods for you sticklers).
Stuff like the Fleury's article inhibits the growth of such collaboration and should be discouraged accordingly.
Posted by: Darby | November 10, 2009 3:59 PM
Chickens do have navels - all of the blood vessels that extend around the yolk gather into a structure that goes into the chicken's belly.
Interesting that the reference list is his own papers. I wonder how many times Haeckel referenced his "proofs" that human embryos spend time as fish...
Posted by: Ted Dahlberg
|
November 10, 2009 4:07 PM
otrame and PaulM @ 48 & 49
Thank you! It did sound awfully familiar. Now I don't have to read through all the books looking for it (ahem, or do a simple google search possibly).
The doctor, incidentally, is "Mossy" Lawn.
Posted by: Peter G | November 10, 2009 4:08 PM
The "I am 45" is significant to his complaint because it means "one of the older boys is picking on me". It is unfortunate that Mr Fleury strayed into the wrong area of the schoolyard but them's the breaks.
Posted by: Phodopus
|
November 10, 2009 4:13 PM
Ah Mr. Fleury 45, I think you misunderstood the concept of peer review. It doesn't mean that you have to write complaints to your peers' bosses to make them review their behaviour towards you. YOUR work gets reviewed by others. It's confusing, I know...
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | November 10, 2009 4:14 PM
My name is Vincent Fleury, and I am 45 and a half years old.
Posted by: Benjamin Franklin | November 10, 2009 4:17 PM
and, I have a drinking problem.
http://mo.bernard.tk/getThe/pictures/these/TheseKS%2BMOB11.jpg
Posted by: Phodopus
|
November 10, 2009 4:22 PM
Here's the actual footage...
Posted by: confuseddave
|
November 10, 2009 4:25 PM
I work in the lab next to Manli Chuai and Kees Weijer, and frankly I find the fact that Fleury keeps citing them hysterical.
Incidentally, I understand they find it somewhat embaressing.
Posted by: bastion of sass | November 10, 2009 4:27 PM
Peter G wrote:
Really? I thought Fleury mentioned his age so that the reader of the letter wouldn't assume it was written by an adolescent.
and Narvi wrote:
That's something that my MIL used to do once she reached 70. For example, we'd go somewhere to eat, and she'd always feel the need to tell the waitress, "I'm 78*." I think it was supposed to impress the hearer. "Wow! This lady is old!"
I don't think anyone would be impressed with Fleury living to age 45 though.
*or whatever age she was at the time.
Posted by: Glen Davidson | November 10, 2009 4:35 PM
"I'm 45, but I'm at a reading level of a 49 year-old".
If he'd said that, I'm sure Contant would have been impressed.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
November 10, 2009 4:36 PM
A physicist writes a biology paper. An actual biologist critiques the paper and calls the physicist a crackpot. The physicist whines to the biologist's
mommyvice-chancellor "make him stop picking on me." The biologist laughs.Have I missed anything?
Posted by: logiclounge.wordpress.com
|
November 10, 2009 4:40 PM
This is the whiniest thing I've read since Bill Gatess letter to hobbyists back in 1976.
Posted by: strangest brew | November 10, 2009 4:42 PM
Okay ...methinks the bigger crackpots in this scenario might well be the muppets/Crackpots who thought it was a jolly good idea to employ another muppet/crackpot at the 'Centre National de le Recherche Scientifique'?
Surely it is not beyond reasonable doubt that they might at least have some idea what their colleague/fellow muppet is about?
So Vortices/Cellular Swirls in embryonic development...well! well! well!
I apologise completely and unreservedly to all Crackpots/Muppets alluded to in this post if that is indeed a repeatable and natural phenomenon which might gain a French Nobel winner in biological development...
Or at least be a giant step forward in the study of French chicken navels which is always a good thing on which I think we can all agree.
But somehow...something...somewhere...confers a very slight not to say intransigent scepticism on the process of actually believing the point...if indeed point there be?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 10, 2009 4:43 PM
Just the unprofessional attempted defense of the paper on the blog. Answering direct questions, professional. Defending the paper without direct questions, for weeks on end, not professional.Posted by: F
|
November 10, 2009 4:44 PM
Oh my, no, Monsieur Myers! How could you? You should really get down on your knees and, er... revisit your opinion.
Narvi @ 41:
I fully expected to read, "How are you? I am fine." immediately after.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 10, 2009 4:46 PM
Even Pivar hasn't been banned and he tried to sue PZ for 15 million dollars.
Posted by: JimNorth | November 10, 2009 4:53 PM
"My name is Vincent Fleury. I am 45 years old --- you killed my paper, prepare to die..."
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook
|
November 10, 2009 4:59 PM
I'm disappointed in the content of the Callebaut paper. It's not what I expected at all.
Posted by: Flea | November 10, 2009 5:02 PM
It looks like this gentleman thinks your University is the Vatican.
Posted by: Joffan | November 10, 2009 5:04 PM
A few too many pucks to the head, I'd say.... what? Oh right, not that Fleury.
Posted by: Amenhotepstein | November 10, 2009 5:09 PM
Cath @ #69
Well, Marc Callebaut IS Belgian, but I don't know if he's related to those Callebauts!
If I asked him, do you think he could get me a discount?
Posted by: Irene Delse | November 10, 2009 5:16 PM
@ Sili (#40): Alas, we have quite a nice collection of crackpots in France too. Remember Dr. Jacques Benveniste, the guy who thought he had proved that water had a memory and that it "explained" how homeopathy "worked"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_memory
Posted by: uppity cracka | November 10, 2009 5:19 PM
@29-
poop. an american who doesn't understand german might assume the german word for poop is "puepen"
"two girls, one cup" i just used an online translator. don't know german...sorry.
took two years of it once...long ago.
i'm going high brow from here on out.
Posted by: Don | November 10, 2009 5:29 PM
The new Pratchett is in the shops. I'll be picking one up at the weekend. Anyone read it yet?
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2009 5:29 PM
OK, but I still don't get it.
No, but see comment 29.
He's the only person so far to have won two IgNobel Prizes.
Posted by: Draken
|
November 10, 2009 5:34 PM
"I'm Vincent, I'm 45, and I'm imitating Woody Woodpecker"
I suppose Dr Contant has a bottle of PZ's favourite whisk(e)y in her cupboard, and by the looks of it, it needs replenishment.
Posted by: Ted Dahlberg
|
November 10, 2009 5:37 PM
I'm about halfway through listening to the audio book, and am quite enjoying it so far. It's no Night Watch (my personal favourite), but quite good. And I'm frankly impressed that I'm liking anything that has to do with football (or soccer for the geographically impaired).
Posted by: Sili
|
November 10, 2009 5:42 PM
There are crackpots everywhere, I s'pose. Holger Bech Nielsen is a Dane after all - as is that AGW denialist with cosmic rays on the brain.
My apologies.
And David, Two Girls, One cup is a rather infamous shock video. I wouldn't recommend that a man with your sensitive constitution go looking for it.
Posted by: Parasky | November 10, 2009 5:46 PM
Interesting. He claims it is well documented and proven, yet all his references are to his own work. I may still be just a student, but as someone who is very interested in science and on the road to becoming a cosmologist, I believe I can say that it's not really credible if your only sources of evidence for YOUR theory is YOUR work.
Posted by: KiwiInOz | November 10, 2009 5:56 PM
And if you do not go away, we shall taunt you some more.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 10, 2009 6:00 PM
That's o.k., uppity cracka #74. The way you did it was uproarious.
Posted by: Xavier | November 10, 2009 6:04 PM
I'm sorry for my ignorance I'm nary but a botanist - but isn't the navel JUST a scar? Of where the umbilical cord was attached? Like it's not actually developmentally any more significant than that is it?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | November 10, 2009 6:04 PM
Lots of internet memes and some rumors of some German porn flicks combined with poor translation and 13 year old humor.
Nothing to see here, move along.
Posted by: cag
|
November 10, 2009 6:10 PM
Parasky 80 - Are you talking about Fleury or the bible?
Posted by: vf | November 10, 2009 6:11 PM
@ Why didn't he just send you copies of the papers that prove his point?
the letter reads : "the list of references and figures below"
Myers did not scan the last page.
Misconduct.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
November 10, 2009 6:12 PM
We need someone to write a paper on the darkon theory of light and submit it to Dr. Fleury for peer review.
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 10, 2009 6:14 PM
Re RevBDC
Considering the subject, that is highbrow. How long is this Fleury guy going to push his swirly sasquatch hair hunt?Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 10, 2009 6:15 PM
Wrong again, any misconduct was you sending the letter about a legitimate scientific disagreement to a third party uninvolved in the disagreement. In fact, your whole behavior in this episode has been distinctly unprofessional.Posted by: Damitall | November 10, 2009 6:20 PM
Now we have Dr. Contant's address, a few short, polite letters suggesting PZ be commended for his efforts in outing crackpots and maintaining standards in world science may be in order.
Nothing extravagant, mind. And perhaps a material award - may be a book on "How to choose inoffensive neckties"?
Posted by: Multicellular | November 10, 2009 6:21 PM
My name is Vincent Fleury. I am 45
Madam Fleury, I think you forgot the "or" between the 4 and the 5.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 10, 2009 6:26 PM
What's offensive about a crockaduck tie?Posted by: Screechy Monkey | November 10, 2009 6:39 PM
Two important questions:
1) Did Fleury get Chris Crocker to ghostwrite that letter for him?
2) Where does Fleury fit on the Timecube Scale?
Posted by: Charlie Foxtrot
|
November 10, 2009 6:43 PM
Ha! and that is why I keep coming back to Pharyngula :)(oh, yeah, sure...
and the science,
and the catholic poking, well all-religion poking,
insights, comments, crackpots etc
but moose are right up there, near the top)
Posted by: uppity cracka | November 10, 2009 7:01 PM
moose! ha!
Posted by: uppity cracka | November 10, 2009 7:05 PM
monty python, the first and last name in translation humor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbI-fDzUJXI
Posted by: Copernicus | November 10, 2009 7:12 PM
Seems he forgot one other reference from his bibliography:
V. Fleury. "Les nombrils des poulets: dedans ou dehors?" Revue des Stupidités Scientifiques, 201 (2) 239-241 (2008)
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | November 10, 2009 7:23 PM
eeeew,eeeew,pick me pick me.
It's too bright in here, hit the dark switch...
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 10, 2009 7:25 PM
Hold on folks, seems we have the man himself, Monsieur Fleury, at #86- fire away boys!
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 10, 2009 7:31 PM
Hey Nicolaus, un peu de translation silver plate!
Posted by: Copernicus | November 10, 2009 7:35 PM
Maggie,
V. Fleury. "Les nombrils des poulets: dedans ou dehors?" Revue des Stupidités Scientifiques, 201 (2) 239-241 (2008)
translates as:
V. Fleury. "Chickens' navels: innies or outies?" Review of Scientific Stupidities, 201 (2) 239-241 (2008)
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 10, 2009 7:41 PM
Not so much "review" as "journal".
Posted by: bastion of sass | November 10, 2009 7:52 PM
Why is it that crackpots never seem to know that if you want to prove you aren't a crackpot, you don't write letters to uninvolved and not-likely-to-become-involved third parties, whining about what someone wrote about you on a blog, mention that you are--gasp!--45! (Zut alors!), and cite your own work in support.
And then follow that with a comment on aforesaid blog with a charge that the blog owner has engaged in "misconduct" for apparently not scanning page three of the letter to said disinterested third party.
Fleury, if you're trying to convince people you're not a crackpot, you're doing it wrong.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 10, 2009 7:54 PM
David,
Vous êtes peut-être correct, bien qu'il y ait de nombreuses possibilités également: périodique, publication, gazette, bulletin, etc.
Je concéderai à votre plus grande autorité!
(mais je suis curieux aussi- où est exactement le nombril d'un poulet?)
Posted by: Ron Sullivan | November 10, 2009 8:28 PM
Strangest brew, 64: So Vortices/Cellular Swirls in embryonic development...well! well! well!
Of COURSE! That's it! Why didn't I see it before! Fleury is basing his work on the rock-solid scientifical premises of Lawsonomy!
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 10, 2009 8:38 PM
Ron Sullivan, I think you got it:
Posted by: Pareidolius
|
November 10, 2009 8:56 PM
Okay, so I bet these vortices are how Pivar's balloon animals get started.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 10, 2009 8:59 PM
Ummm, Nicolaus?
Posted by: PKJ | November 10, 2009 9:10 PM
How about:
Fleury, V. (2006) Oui, j'utilise toujours une pompe suédoise. Annales de gynécologie. 12(3).
Posted by: Copernicus | November 10, 2009 9:12 PM
Maggie,
exactly where is a chicken's belly button?
Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | November 10, 2009 9:14 PM
So when is someone going to complain that PZ is picking on the mentally ill again?
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 10, 2009 9:20 PM
PKJ
"This sort of thing is my bag, baby"
Posted by: 'Tis Himself
|
November 10, 2009 9:30 PM
Ron Sullivan #105
Just last month I drove past the University of Lawsonomy outside of Racine, Wisconsin.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | November 10, 2009 9:39 PM
Tee hee. You said "penetrability". And "suction".
My name is Blake Stacey, I am 12.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 10, 2009 9:42 PM
LOL Ron and 'Tis...
The following "zig-zag-and-swirl" poster shows exacly why they say "he stood throughout the age of extreme falsity, like an immovable rock of righteousness, for the improvement of man, before God"
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 10, 2009 9:48 PM
Perhaps chickens have navels on Andalus through broken symmetry?
Posted by: atomjack
|
November 10, 2009 10:05 PM
BandTheory, as a physicist, you have nothing to apologize for. Fleury's misunderstanding of fluid dynamics is appalling, if I read his stuff correctly. It "nips" in the swirl- meaning that the navel is a "dent"? If that's the csae, it follows no known flow model I have ever seen- the flow terminates and leaves a "dent"? Maybe he thinks it comes to a point? Flow doesn't work like that, as you probably well know. Fleury has obviously NEVER held a newborn baby, complete with umbilicus, nor been offered the opportunity to cut same, based on the stuff he publishes.
RIP him a new umbilicus, PZ. Or, maybe you can make a "dent" in his head by using a toilet swirly. sheeze.
Posted by: SquidBrandon
|
November 10, 2009 10:19 PM
Re:PKJ@109
Maggie Moo beat me to it, but I can't help myself:
Fleury V. «Cette sorte de chose est mon sac, bébé». Progrès en urologie. 1994;4:1009-16.
Posted by: EboTebo | November 10, 2009 10:52 PM
I am 55 and I've tripped and I can't get down!!
Posted by: Katkinkate | November 10, 2009 11:47 PM
Posted by: Ted Dahlberg @ 15 "If Mrs Content is not the name of a Terry Pratchett character, it ought to be..."
She is. She's a midwife working in Ankh-Morpork. Probably a witch too, but they don't advertise it in the city.
Posted by: Katkinkate | November 11, 2009 12:10 AM
Posted by: Don @ 75 "The new Pratchett is in the shops. I'll be picking one up at the weekend. Anyone read it yet?"
Unseen Academicals? Yep, just finished it very early this morning (about 2.30am). It's pretty good, not one of my favourites though. I don't enjoy the wizards half as much as the Watch or the witches. But, it was an enjoyable read. Centred around football with lots of the expected football (ie. soccer) references, but with a bit of fashion, fame, power, Romeo & Juliette and a 'new' (to the city anyway) lifeform making it's way in the big city and I won't tell you what he is. :)
Posted by: Katkinkate | November 11, 2009 12:24 AM
Posted by: vf @ 86 "@ Why didn't he just send you copies of the papers that prove his point? the letter reads : "the list of references and figures below"
Myers did not scan the last page.
Misconduct."
No, it's on the scan of the second page, which is beside the scan of the first page.
Posted by: Feynmaniac | November 11, 2009 12:39 AM
"J'ai toujours fait une prière à Dieu, qui est fort courte. La voici: Mon Dieu, rendez nos ennemis bien ridicules! Dieu m'a exaucé." - Voltaire
Posted by: Dr. P | November 11, 2009 12:48 AM
Copernicus,
Now that would be a sig...Posted by: Monkey | November 11, 2009 1:50 AM
I, think, that he needs, to add, more punctuation to allow his, writing, style to flourish.
Posted by: DingoJack
|
November 11, 2009 2:37 AM
Where can you buy tins of "Dr Vincent Fleury* Swirly Chicken Navel Soup"?
Uh, paging Andy Warhol, Andy Warhol to the great white courtesy phone please! -DJ
---
*guaranteed aged in cracked pots for 45 years!
Posted by: aaron | November 11, 2009 3:07 AM
Quick question regarding the reference list. Not sure if biology follows the same structure as psychology, but was his reference list composed incorrectly (ie. In the wrong sort of structure)...granted, one COULD find the references easily enough, but surely one should keep to the correct format. I could be, of course, wrong though.
Posted by: truth machine
|
November 11, 2009 3:09 AM
No, it's on the scan of the second page
The third page is on the scan of the second page? Fleury's numerous evident flaws is no reason to so completely abandon intellectual honesty.
Posted by: vf | November 11, 2009 4:04 AM
@122 : there was a third page.
Misconduct.
Posted by: Narvi | November 11, 2009 4:08 AM
@129:
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
Posted by: Pope Maledict DCLXVI | November 11, 2009 4:30 AM
vf | November 11, 2009 4:04 AM @ 129
Sure you haven't dug deep enough, with just pages 1 and 2?
PZ did say "some scans", and sure enough that's what he posted...
Posted by: Rorschach | November 11, 2009 4:32 AM
Reading what PZ actually wrote might help :
He didn't say he scanned them all.Lazy, maybe, probably not even that given that it seems to be just a list of references that are hardly interesting for his global audience.
Misconduct ? Get a grip man.
Posted by: Wes | November 11, 2009 4:49 AM
Stop defamating vf's chicken navels, Mr. PZ, or he's gonna have to whine at you some more!
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 11, 2009 4:58 AM
-Oh my, no, Monsieur Myers! How could you? You should really get down on your knees and, er... revisit your opinion.
Well, i've never heard it called that before ;p
Since no-one has done it I declare that you shouldn't pick on Mr Fleury. He is clearly deranged and should therefore be shown oodles of compassion.
and no-one should make fun of his swirly chickens. It's rude.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 11, 2009 5:04 AM
Think of the
childrenchickens!!!Posted by: faithless | November 11, 2009 5:07 AM
@ Benard Bumner #6
You are misinformed (don't worry, almost everyone on the internet is similarly misinformed).
The British Chiropractic Association's libel claim against Simon Singh - as I have to repeatedly and ubiquitously point out - is not because they claim he challenged the science of chiropractic. It's because (they claim) he challenged their honesty and probity.
It's a very important point which repeatedly gets lost in the humanist/atheist/scientist web pages, not least because Simon Singh likes to spin it this way.
It may be that it is perfectly fair to challenge the honesty and probity of the chiropractics of this world - all or some of them - but that would be a different discussion. Nobody can doubt that the science of chiropractic is blatant rubbish.
Posted by: faithless | November 11, 2009 5:13 AM
'Defamate' isn't a word in the US?
I'm astonished. It's the sort of thing you guys do all the time: you know, turn a perfectly respectable verb like 'burgle' into the nasty and very kitsch 'burglarise', simply because someone who burgles is called a 'burglar' and the entire continental US apparently forgot that the noun was based on a verb that already existed.
Go on, I dare you: look it up. I bet 'defamate' is in Websters...!
(I guess that should be 'burglariZe'...)
Posted by: Matt Penfold | November 11, 2009 5:15 AM
The reason they believe he challenged their honesty and probity is because he pointed out they have no evidence to support claims chiropractic works for anything other than mild lower back pain, and even then the evidence is not strong. That the association may be sincere in believing that chiropractic works is irrelevant. What matters is the evidence.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 11, 2009 5:46 AM
I'm afraid not, because I've followed the entire thing, and from the very beginning.
The only way that they could believe this is if they did not read the original article. The context is clearly given to qualify the label "bogus". Note that the statement that the BCA promotes bogus treatments is immediately preceeded by the statement that:
The context is very clear; that the BCA promotes treatments which are bogus because they are unsupported by evidence, but make clear claims of nearly medical efficacy. The implication is that the BCA makes outrageous claims, not that they knowingly do so.
Note that the article refers to evidence, and that the BCA neglected to counter these arguments with their own counter-evidence (up until they offered a few paltry crumbs of supposed evidence, which turned out to be very megre indeed). The BCA have since made various arguments which could be seen to be in bad faith, and to suppress scientific critique.
If the BCA had a real case to make on the evidence, then why didn't they demand a right to reply, prior to initiating a libel case against Simon Singh? After all, the claims he made were matters of fact, not of opinion. Whatever their writ for libel may say, their motives seem to be only to silence a critic, rather than show him to be factually wrong.
Posted by: Richard Eis | November 11, 2009 6:13 AM
Lets not forget the bleaching of websites demanded by the other chiropractic organisation when this case hit the public arena (of exactly what the BCA were allowing). Yep, real chiropractic honesty all around.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 11, 2009 6:14 AM
Actually, defamate is in the OED:
The OED accepts the usage.
Posted by: Strasbourg | November 11, 2009 6:41 AM
Would be interesting to see what the guys from his reference list think about his work... to get a bit more peer review
(I think about C.J. Weijer)
Maybe one should ask them for an opinion about the Fleury paper, should be fun...
Posted by: Anri
|
November 11, 2009 8:04 AM
I dunno, that moose looks shopped to be.
I can tell by the pixels.
And because I'm 45 and have looked at a lot.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 11, 2009 8:07 AM
Bernard @ 142
I'm afraid I cannot agree. Based upon a search from 1,024 dictionaries (the first 75 are listed here), the word "defamate" is not considered appropriate for modern usage- it is not even considered obsolete but is only considered "v. rare" by OED because it is a historical dictionary and reflects the mis-use and appropriation of the word but specifically does not support it's usage. I'm sure however, that we will be more likely to find "chicken navel" and "bumner".
_____________
Compact Oxford English Dictionary: [41947 words, 22Nov2008, More info]
The Word Spy: [2645 words, 13Jun2009, More info]
V2 Vocabulary Building Dictionary: [2042 words, 30Mar2009, More info]
American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: [90491 words, 13Jun2009, More info]
Encarta® World English Dictionary, North American Edition: [107301 words, 14Aug2003, More info]
Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary, 11th Edition: [107545 words, 27Sep2008, More info]
Cambridge International Dictionary of English: [66408 words, 19Nov2007, More info]
InfoVisual Visual Dictionary: [3884 words, 9Apr2006, More info]
Wiktionary: [580200 words, 22Feb2009, More info]
Webster's New World College Dictionary, 4th Ed.: [80134 words, 15Sep2008, More info]
The Wordsmyth English Dictionary-Thesaurus: [47719 words, 09.01.2001, More info]
Infoplease Dictionary: [127110 words, 25May2008, More info]
Dictionary.com: [775929 words, 1Apr2008, More info]
Online Etymology Dictionary: [21462 words, 30Mar2009, More info]
UltraLingua English Dictionary: [103294 words, 22Jan2009, More info]
Cambridge Dictionary of American English: [37791 words, 4Jul2002, More info]
Cambridge International Dictionary of Idioms: [5132 words, 4Jul2002, More info]
Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia: [3201550 words, 2Sep2007, More info]
Cambridge International Dictionary of Phrasal Verbs: [1929 words, 4Jul2002, More info]
Online Plain Text English Dictionary: [111729 words, 23May2009, More info]
Webster's Revised Unabridged, 1913 Edition: [88773 words, 31Oct2003, More info]
Rhymezone: [229780 words, 23Dec2008, More info]
CMU Pronouncing: [118581 words, 18Nov2007, More info]
My Hebrew Dictionary: [974 words, 16Apr2008, More info]
Grandiloquent Dictionary: [2039 words, 10Aug2008, More info]
Faclair G?idhlig - Beurla Gaelic - English Dictionary: [5173 words, 26Dec2008, More info]
AllWords.com Multi-Lingual Dictionary: [175063 words, 12Aug2002, More info]
R-O-Matic Italian/English Dictionary: [3504 words, 30May2009, More info]
The Spoken Taino Language: [334 words, 13Dec2007, More info]
GREEK-SERBIAN DICTIONARY: [3932 words, 23May2009, More info]
Strange and Unusual Dictionaries: [1769 words, 20Oct2007, More info]
Langtolang English from/to French dictionary: [20075 words, 29Aug2002, More info]
Webster's 1828 Dictionary: [62949 words, 27May2008, More info]
1500 acronymes de l'�cole: [8239 words, 18Nov2007, More info]
18 LANGUAGES MULTILINGUAL DICTIONARY: [9309 words, 10Mar2006, More info]
1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica: [34595 words, 31Jul2008, More info]
A to Z list of the most popular idioms: [207 words, 21Nov2008, More info]
ANTIDICO (L') - LE DICTIONNAIRE DES MOTS ABSENTS DES AUTRES DICTIONNAIRES: [7027 words, 18Jan2009, More info]
All About Homonyms: [1506 words, 18Nov2007, More info]
American-Britih Dictionary: [362 words, 23May2009, More info]
Bali: The Online Travel Guide: [978 words, 26Sep2008, More info]
Britih-American Dictionary: [365 words, 23May2009, More info]
Celtic Dictionary: [129 words, 17Aug2008, More info]
Chinese Characters: [398 words, 23May2009, More info]
Cl�sica expresi�n Canaria: [320 words, 25May2008, More info]
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition: [50831 words, 18Nov2007, More info]
Columbia Gazetteer of North America: [33247 words, 12Mar2008, More info]
Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition (Encyclopedia.com): [7267 words, 5Mar2006, More info]
Dict.cc Englisch/Deutsch Wörterbuch: [750745 words, 15Mar2006, More info]
Dict.cc Englisch/Deutsch Wörterbuch: [293932 words, 15Dec2007, More info]
Dictionary of Americanisms (1848): [2158 words, 23May2009, More info]
Dictionary of Phrase and Fable (1898): [14825 words, 11Apr2003, More info]
Dictionary/thesaurus: [412668 words, 18Jan2009, More info]
Dizionario Esoterico: [1855 words, 14Mar2006, More info]
Double-Tongued Word Wrester: [1249 words, 13Dec2007, More info]
E Cobham Brewer, The Reader's Handbook: [5272 words, 30May2009, More info]
ESL Idiom Page: [401 words, 21Aug2008, More info]
Election glossary: [61 words, 23May2009, More info]
Encarta® Online Encyclopedia, North American Edition: [4994 words, 26Aug2003, More info]
Etymologically Speaking: [236 words, 10Aug2008, More info]
Etymologies & Word Origins: [429 words, 4Mar2006, More info]
Eurodict Online: [81035 words, 23Jan2009, More info]
Foreign Words and Phrases: [73 words, 28Nov2008, More info]
Free Dictionary: [254453 words, 18Feb2008, More info]
GREEK-CATALAN DICTIONARY: [2470 words, 13Jan2009, More info]
GREEK-ENGLISH DICTIONARY: [2403 words, 22Nov2008, More info]
GREEK-SLAVONIC (LANGUAGE OF THE FORMER YUGOSLAV REPUBLIC OF MACEDONIA: [3776 words, 9Feb2009, More info]
Gaelic Language (Manx): [48957 words, 18Nov2007, More info]
General English-Spanish: [20735 words, 29Aug2002, More info]
Hutchinson Dictionaries: [17065 words, 15Apr2008, More info]
Hutchinson's Dictionary of Difficult Words: [14455 words, 13Dec2007, More info]
Japanese Kanji & Chinese Calligraphy Dictionary: [1958 words, 26Jan2009, More info]
Langtolang: [51081 words, 29Aug2002, More info]
Le Dicomoche: [553 words, 23May2009, More info]
Lexical FreeNet (shows word connections): [134189 words, 4Jul2002, More info]
Posted by: Ryan F Stello | November 11, 2009 8:09 AM
Classic Crackpot:
Makes a lot of references to his own work as supporting his work and then complains when noone takes his references seriously in order to take his work seriuously.
Oh yeah, and doesn't understand what the right forum is in which to air his grievances.
Posted by: daveau
|
November 11, 2009 8:13 AM
There he goes again, bragging about his IQ.
(I can't believe it took me a day to think of that. But I was at work. Today is a bank holiday and I am equally incredulous that this is the first thing I do with my day off.)
Posted by: JBlilie | November 11, 2009 8:19 AM
KiwiInOz @81:
Your tag reminds me of my travels in New Zealand and Australia. When we were in NZ, an older gentleman heard that we were going on to Oz. He got very serious and said, "Australia!? You watch out for those Aussies -- they'll take a stick to ya!"
We had many laughs over this as we traveled through Australia and discovered that the Aussies are truly the most friendly people in the world.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 11, 2009 8:22 AM
LOL Maggie, nice one! (guess some still assume you're a dessert and don't account for your work at the phrontistery)
L.E Farceur. "Et les poulets ont des lèvres aussi." Personal communication with Mme. Fleury, Paris, 1965
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 11, 2009 8:27 AM
Yes, it doesn't give it as an approved usage, but it notes the usage. The fact that it is in the OED tells us that it is a coined (albeit, very rare) usage.
I wouldn't use it myself or argue that it is a good and useful word, but the OED accepts the usage, and does not consider it to be a nonce- or non-word.
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 11, 2009 8:36 AM
With respect Bernard, faithless @137 specifically referenced Webster's and American usage- we could go on and on in circles on this if you keep on insisting "it doesn't give it as an approved usage" and then it "accepts the usage"... oh wait, I don't have to participate, I'll just watch you!
(and if you go fast enough you may also discover swirls and vortices!)
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 11, 2009 8:42 AM
Hey Nicolaus, the Brits among us may not understand "et les poulets ont des lèvres aussi"- not the French (L.E.Farceur = the jester!) but the idiom
Posted by: Copernicus | November 11, 2009 8:48 AM
Alright Maggie,
"et les poulets ont des lèvres aussi" translates as "and chickens have lips too"- similar expressions would include "does Dolly Parton sleep on her back", "do frogs have water-tight assholes", and "do one legged ducks swim in circles" [thereby creating swirls and vortices!]- the vernacular would be "are you fucking kidding me?"!
(seeing as Monsieur le Farceur gleaned this from Vincent's mom at the moment of his birth, one might understand the sentiment)
Posted by: Blondin
|
November 11, 2009 8:57 AM
So... does this mean that belly-buttons swirl counter-clockwise in the southern hemisphere?
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 11, 2009 9:09 AM
Erm, I'm not quite sure what you're accusing me of. You correctly identified the OED as a historical dictionary. It is a catalogue as much as it is a guide. What I noted was that it lists the word - i.e., it accepts that it is a word. It offers no approval.
Faithless, unless I very much misread the post, was suggesting that it is some kind of non-word Americanism which might only be found in American dictionaries. I was simply pointing out that the OED accepts the usage as a word. Nothing more, nothing less.
Honestly: it was a casual aside, rather than some impassioned plea for the acceptance of this cool neologism...
I think that is that.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 11, 2009 9:22 AM
LOL, Blondin! You know there are still some college-level textbooks that claim that sinks drain in a clockwise or counter-clockwise based upon hemisphere? My understanding is that the Coriolis effect is a few orders of magnitude smaller than various random influences and so it totally depends...
Carl-Gustaf Arvid Rossby. "Remous, vortexes, et placentas aviaires: comment les canards unijambistes nagent en cercles." La Grenouille en Descendant, 38, 7, 41-42 (1988)
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 11, 2009 9:28 AM
We are in agreement, Bernard, connatural, consonant, and consilient...
LOL Nicolaus: "avian placentas" and "one-legged ducks", and a frog without a water-tight asshole!
Posted by: Andrew | November 11, 2009 9:51 AM
"I'm astonished. It's the sort of thing you guys do all the time: you know, turn a perfectly respectable verb like 'burgle' into the nasty and very kitsch 'burglarise', simply because someone who burgles is called a 'burglar' and the entire continental US apparently forgot that the noun was based on a verb that already existed."
Burglar is a noun. Until the middle of the nineteenth century there was no related verb; the British made up the humorous verb "to burgle", while the Americans followed the usual rules for converting a noun to a verb. Per the OED, "burglarize" occurred in print in 1871, while "burgle" occurred in print first in 1872.
Posted by: Andrew | November 11, 2009 9:53 AM
"I'm astonished. It's the sort of thing you guys do all the time: you know, turn a perfectly respectable verb like 'burgle' into the nasty and very kitsch 'burglarise', simply because someone who burgles is called a 'burglar' and the entire continental US apparently forgot that the noun was based on a verb that already existed."
Burglar is a noun. Until the middle of the nineteenth century there was no related verb; the British made up the humorous verb "to burgle", while the Americans followed the usual rules for converting a noun to a verb. Per the OED, "burglarize" occurred in print in 1871, while "burgle" occurred in print first in 1872.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 11, 2009 9:58 AM
Good, good, good...
Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | November 11, 2009 10:19 AM
Y en a pôôôô. Comme le nombril est l'endroit où le sac vitellin rudimentaire, l'allantois rudimentaire, et bien sûr le [argh !] placenta s'attachent chez l'embryon, j'espère que le Pr. Fleury veule parler de l'endroit où le sac vitellin et l'allantoïs sont attachés ; leur taille se réduit dans les étages embryonnaires avancés, et ils sont complètement resorbés avant l'éclosion, ne laissant aucune trace.
Oo! Oo! A ridiculously large radioactive dinosaur monster? :-) :-) :-)
There isn't any single correct format, each journal has its own. Of course, the references aren't in any kind of order, which is wrong, but the list is so short that it obviously doesn't matter.
Very few journals don't want the titles of of cited works, though. Maybe Prof. Fleury is training how to write manuscripts for Nature.
Haven't you been to that thread? The noun is not based on a verb. It's the other way around. Yes, seriously. Both burgle and burglarize are back-formations.
If the noun were based on a verb, it would be "inbreaker", as it is in German (Einbrecher).
There is no such thing as "the OED accepts any usage". It is not a prescriptive dictionary. It's a descriptive one: a word appears in print and isn't an obvious typo, it lands in the OED.
Posted by: Bernard Bumner | November 11, 2009 10:28 AM
But they don't list non-words, and clearly differentiate nonce-words. I wasn't trying to imply that the OED promotes or otherwise sanctions usage of the word, only that it is a word in English. That the OED accepts the usage was meant to convey merely that. (I am aware of how the OED is compiled.)
Bloody hell, but I seem to have created confusion with this one...
Posted by: Blondin
|
November 11, 2009 10:35 AM
So... burglarise is a bastardised burgle? Well I'll be buggerised!
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 11, 2009 10:35 AM
As Andrew points out (with emphasis!), the verb to burgle does not follow the usual conventions, however to describe it as a "made up verb" is both accurate tecnically, but also innaccurate in implication: English, as "poor" a language as many might consider it to be as compared with many other world languages, Romantic cousins included, is a "living language" and word-formations are part and parcel of it's continued growth.
The coining of "to burgle" is an example of "back-formation", which, along with "change in accent", "root creation", "shortening", and other modes of derivative formation, is an acceptable practice in word-making.
The word burglar was regarded as containing the suffix seen in liar; and, by a piece of false logic, it was assumed that, as liar presupposes to lie, so burglar presupposes to burgle.
Similarly to sidle was made from sideling, taken for a participle. Other modern back-formations are to char (burn), from charcoal; to frivol from frivolous; to process from procession; to stoke from stoker; to subedit from subeditor; to sulk from sulky; and to swindle from swindler.*
* The Cambridge History of English and American Literature in 18 Volumes (1907–21). Volume XIV. The Victorian Age, Part Two.
Posted by: Copernicus | November 11, 2009 10:53 AM
Je comprends David, mais sien qui pense n'est pas "du gâteau"! Il semble être au loin-cible, une "cible facile" (certainement un canard unijambiste)! Peut-être vous vous référez à quelque chose comme un placenta choriovitelline?
(please forgive my idiomatic occlusion!)
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 11, 2009 10:58 AM
Pardon me, I haven't read past this comment, but I have to respond because I looked it up and it isn't a word on dictionary.com. :PI think you are getting confused because of words like defamatory, or perhaps you are confusing the Latin spelling for English. Defame is the word you are looking for. Now I shall probably find a comment below saying just that. (continues reading)...
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 11, 2009 10:58 AM
WTF Nicolaus? Cake, targets, ducks, and atheromata? Occluded indeed!
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 11, 2009 11:00 AM
Keep reading Aratina, you'll get there! LOL!
Posted by: Copernicus | November 11, 2009 11:10 AM
LOL Maggie... the world of French idiom is hilarious...
"c’est du gâteau" means "something very simple or easy"
"c'est une cible facile" means "sitting duck" (i.e. "easy target"), certainly a one-legged duck that swims in circles as the frog sinks (from the lack of a water-tight asshole) and chickens have lips... as well as and navels!
J'essayais de faire d'une pierre deux coups (I was attempting to "kill two birds with one stone"): both the chicken and the duck!
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 11, 2009 11:14 AM
You can find it next to cans of Fleury Slurry with Curly Noodles, it's mm-mmm-mmmmmMMMMM-GET-ME-A-BUCKET good.Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 11, 2009 11:24 AM
Just read #144. Good work, Maggie Moo! :) So it is a rare form not considered useful enough to get a place in 1,024 dictionaries. On consideration, I suppose it doesn't matter if defamate is not a common word because the way it boggles the mind and brings into memory the similar sounding words defecate and decimate works well to get the point across.Posted by: Copernicus | November 11, 2009 11:27 AM
Aratina, or perhaps in the homeopathic aisle next to Iris pseudacorus...?
Posted by: Maggie Moo | November 11, 2009 11:32 AM
Nicolaus, you got me there... Iris pseudacorus?
Posted by: Copernicus | November 11, 2009 11:45 AM
You gave in too easily Maggie...
the is the yellow-flag iris, the probable origin of fleur-de lis which is obviously not a lily but an iris and does occur in the wild in northern France (the word "lis" or "lys" is a transliteration from the German Lieschblume, also "yellow flag iris")... the last name of our esteemed professor, Vincent Fleury of sinking frog and umbilical poultry fame, means "decorated with fleur-de-lis" and so we have lumped examples of pseudoscience together in the same aisle (interestingly under "PZ" in the Library of Congress Classification system for French-derived "Fiction and Juvenile belles-lettres"!)
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 11, 2009 11:51 AM
Copernicus,
An emetic (that works like magic) with a fleur-de-lis symbol on the vial? Perfect companion to a meal made from Fleury™ products, LOL! You can't buy one without the other.Posted by: Copernicus | November 11, 2009 12:27 PM
which brings us all the way back to Brain Hertz @ #24 "I fart in your general direction!"
Posted by: Alexis | November 11, 2009 1:42 PM
Victor Fleury is moving to Niagara Falls to observe the great whirlpool. He shall be vindicated when a great life form is born out of this giant vortex.
Posted by: Alexis | November 11, 2009 1:44 PM
Oops, I meant Vincent Fleury. Victor is a friend of Mrs. Content.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes | November 12, 2009 5:45 AM
Wasn't Mrs. Content also the name of the crackpot who believed numerous odd things, including that there were 3 dwarves who peered in her window at night, and by coincidence rather than observation, she was right about the dwarves?
That was the first bit I thought of when I tried to recall Mrs. Content, possibly because of the amusement that a crackpot would call a non-crackpot by the name of a fictional crackpot.
Posted by: Mark | November 12, 2009 9:41 AM
Dr. Fleury has daddy issues.
Posted by: vf | November 12, 2009 12:53 PM
Why does not anyone just try
"blastula vortex movement chicken development"
in google?
http://www.google.fr/search?hl=fr&rlz=1W1HPNN_fr&q=blastula+vortex+movement+chicken+development&meta=&aq=f&oq=
Posted by: aratina cage
|
November 12, 2009 1:06 PM
Eeep! I'm suddenly very afraid to flush the toilet or drain the bathtub.Posted by: Richard Smith | November 12, 2009 2:34 PM
Vincent:
The way you made it suffer,
Embryonic development inside the mother,
Filled PZ with the urge to defemate!
Posted by: vf | November 12, 2009 2:59 PM
I have given plenty of evidence that these vortices exist,and that they are studied by many leading scientists.
It is a total mystery to me why a mere sadistic internet defamator, who is completely ignorant of early stages of tetrapod embryo development, should be given the opportunity to continue cheating people has he does, from a blog.
Is this all they have for professors in Minnesota, or is he the shame of the faculty?
Posted by: Steve | November 12, 2009 4:20 PM
So, is Fleury's letter to Dr. Contant the academic version of crying to mama? This is about as unprofessional as it comes.
Posted by: Steve_C | November 12, 2009 4:23 PM
Crackpot says waaaaahhhaaaaaaahhhh phhhhhht. Poopie.
Posted by: John Phillips, FCD | November 12, 2009 4:53 PM
VF, cnecha bant.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 12, 2009 5:37 PM
Mr. Fleury, (you have disgraced the honorific Dr.) you are the only one with unprofessional behavior here. As it has been from day one. No one has to agree with your paper. No has has to claim you are right. You put your paper out for the scientific community to criticize, and falsify. That is doing a professional job. Constantly defending the paper from said criticism and falsification is unprofessional, and if the scientific community was organized sufficiently, you should lose your lab coat, lab privileges, and publication privileges. You are a disgrace to science. Your writing a letter in complaint of criticism, is absolutely unprofessional. And I speak as a 30+ year scientist. Time to do what you should have done in the first place. It is called "shut the fuck up".
Posted by: vf | November 12, 2009 5:46 PM
But I am not even the one who discovered these vortices, you do not understand? They have been known and studied for almost a century, and "rediscovered" lately independently by several groups. Just do google "blastula vortex movement chicken development", and read.
My paper was an invited review about the well known vortex flows in development. These vortices are very well known, there is nothing to falsify. Myers is constantly fucking all of you all the time, and everybody here seems to like it, as if he were some sort of an infaillible guru. He is just an incompetent ignorant. My hope is just to save a few students from this zero.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 12, 2009 5:51 PM
VF, what part of "shut the fuck up" don't you understand. You paper will stand or fail on its own merits, just like my papers in the literature. You don't need to defend them. Unless, of course, you are truly a crackpot, mentally ill, and psychotic. Go home a let Science do its job. If you are first with the publication, and your paper is abstracted, you will receive the credit.
Posted by: vf | November 12, 2009 6:21 PM
Do not worry, the true crackpot is Myers, and he is the most likely to loose his lab coat. I am confident about young students, they are not that stupid, certainly less than old rusty scientists. By a few clicks, they will rapidly know that everything I say is absolutely true, and that Myers is just a tremendously incompetent ignorant, just an empty shell.
And there is no way I will let him insult me, he should know. A coward hidden behind a keyboard, in addition to a sadistic internet defamator, and a scientific zero.
That is what they get as biology professor in Minnesota.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 12, 2009 6:27 PM
VF, you are the true crackpot. You can't shut the fuck up. Myers did after he posted his critic your insane article. You are the one who went on and one, and now who must shut up about it. The requires you to let science do its job. Which may mean ignoring your paper if it is worthless to science, biology, and rationality. You are in idiot to behave in any manner other than letting science take its course. You are a true crackpot, and your insanity cannot be denied by any observer, but you. You are immune to your own insanity.
Posted by: vf | November 12, 2009 6:33 PM
Sure, I upset you; but you are not Myers' student, you have 30 years of science behind you, and nothing left to loose.
THEY, will think it over. They will just go to read the papers, and conclude for themselves; nobody wants to pay for a stupid ignorant blogger as professor.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 12, 2009 6:41 PM
Sorry, VF, if I has hiring scientist you would be at the bottom of the list due to your actions. You lack honesty, integrity, truthfulness, and profession behavior that I would require for any hirees. You fail time and time again with your unprofessional posts here. Time to just shut the fuck up and let science do its job. Don't be surprised if science ignores your paper. The proper forums to describe this paper are professional meetings. Stop posting here, and start talking there.
Posted by: vf | November 12, 2009 6:45 PM
It is not professional to insult colleagues, and this is what Myers does. I would be very suprised that the faculties in Minnesota find this acceptable.
I certainly hope I meet this coward in a meeting.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 12, 2009 6:54 PM
VF, you are insulting Myers. Please give me contact information for your dean and VP Academic Affairs (or Chancellor) so I can complain to them about your behavior. The alternative is to shut the fuck up! I recommend you do so.
Posted by: vf | November 12, 2009 7:00 PM
Oh you are Myers? Is everybody here Myers?
That would explain many things.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
November 12, 2009 7:06 PM
VF, what part of "shut up you unprofessional scientist" are you having trouble with. Give me your contact information, so I can do to you what you tried to do to Prof. Myers. After all, there is this thing called the Golden Rule which even atheists use. Let's use it against you. You can always just shut the fuck up, and I will just ignore what you have done to this point. And I am not Prof. Myers.
Posted by: andrew | November 12, 2009 10:10 PM
Oh, the humanity!
Posted by: andrew | November 12, 2009 10:16 PM
ps
Hey VF,
Since you're here, can you post some links to some more trippy vorticies swirling around human skulls? I'm tripping balls and I could use a little stimulus...
Posted by: Richard Smith | November 13, 2009 11:07 AM
Just wondering: Is Miss Conduct any relation to Mrs. Content?