There is a new blog you should know about. It's called "The Worst of Scienceblogs.com" and it contains, so far, only three posts (so maybe we are not so bad after all). I thank Terra Sigillata, one of WOS's victims, for pointing this out.
Note, by the way, that the self-described curmudgeonly Right Winger who runs this new blog (Gerald Harbison) might be an ideologically driven moron. He takes Terra Sigillata to task for quoting Martin Luther King (on MLK's birthday-Monday, which is today). In his verbal lashing, Harbison notes: "Problem is, like most of King's published work, including his doctoral thesis, the words are not really his."
Well, that is simply not true. Only a third of King's doctoral thesis is thought to have been plagiarized. But, that is not really the point: Harbison also states: "King was an incurable plagiarist. Of course, merely mentioning that indisputable fact will usually get you branded a racist."
Personally, I don't think that mentioning King's inappropriate academic activities makes you a racist. But why do I have the feeling that Harbison is one anyway? Well, because I've read his other blog, I guess...
Harbison also does a very annoying thing that right-wingers almost always do. He invites people to comment on his blog, almost daring one to comment, but makes it clear that comments are moderated and only certain ones will be published. This is fairly typical. I see that kind of crap on right wing moron sites all the time.
Finally, I'm deeply disappointed that nothing I've written is mentioned yet on his site.
You can find the site here, on The Internet.
- Log in to post comments
That's only slightly more annoying than writing a post about another blog and not linking to it.
I know. My point in this post is to be as annoying as possible. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to meet that goal.
Hey, at least Greg gave us a map!
Here's the link to The worst of scienceblogs.com blog, in case anyone wants it: http://homepage.mac.com/gerardharbison/blog/wosb.html
I'm having trouble with my sarcasm detector today. Are you implying that theses that are less than 1/3 plagiarized are okay? I was under the impression that plagiarism of any amount is frowned upon. Or were you really targeting just the word "most" in RWP's statement; that by using "most" he's exaggerating the extent to which MLK borrowed others' words? Or (shudder) is it a case of "it's not plagiarism when we do it"?
I need some clarification, stat!
;)
Matt: Actually, the only thing I said about plagiarism was that it was inappropriate. I never said it was OK. It is definitely not OK.
Yes, I am criticizing Gerald's inaccuracy. But even that, I don't care about. Mostly, I'm parodizing the overall obnoxiousness of his blog, and not because it is critical of Sb.
Harbison, on his blog, is mostly correct on the analysis of the BPA data.
How is he mostly correct? In the graph he shows, all of the values after adding BPA are above basal, and the error bars are small. How can you call that "noise"?
And his comment that "At that level, less than 1% of the sites are occupied, and the chances of a physiologically relevant effect are zero" is completely baseless. I don't see any evidence linking a 1% response rate to physiological outcomes. The system could easily be sensitive enough to change based on this level of activation.
First of all, you couldn't even spell my name right. That's pretty moronic.
Second of all, I've read King's thesis. And I have a copy. By my accounting, about 70% is plagiarized. In fact, the Boston University committee that examined the case put it at 50%. But heck, don't take my word for it, or anyone else's. Get hold of the second volume of King's papers, which contain his thesis. The King Papers project, in what I consider one of the better examples of academic integrity, annotated most of the plagiarism.
http://www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/6315.html
I'm using a free web comment system, by the way, and I don't have the option of editing comments on my blog. So you're wrong about that too. Go ahead and write what you want.
And by the way, Greg, the reason you've haven't been mentioned in the 'Worst of Scienceblogs.com' is I just haven't gotten around to it. I have this job, and a research group, and classes to teach. But don't feel left out. I'm planning to devote a lot more time to WOSB this semester!
Well, um, right wing idiots have been ranting about MLK for years, mostly about his "extracurricular" love life. I hadn't heard about the "plagiarism". So none of this is really new. What gets me, though, is the way these same wingnuts will turn around and lift parts of MLK's speeches to oppose affirmative actions or "minority-friendly" policies, and lift other parts, to oppose any sort of gun control. Ugh, ugh, ugh!
Anne G
Don't forget to get around to me. I'd consider it a badge of honor to be featured on your WOSB site. Granted, I'm actually probably one of the two or three most conservative SBers (before G. W. Bush, I almost always voted Republican), but that's probably far enough to the left of you to get you ranting. For example, you could see what I've written about Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee.
Oh, by the way, why no comments allowed on your WOSB blog? That's really, really lame.
I just don't see why it matters. The man is revered for what he accomplished, despite the human failings he shares with all of us. Nobody's contesting that he plagiarized. But right-wingers bringing it up every January 21st just comes across as a lame attempt to show how put-upon they are by the evil liburul PC police. Harbison, we know, we get it, and we don't care. There's no conspiracy here, freaking get over it.
the Decidintator can't read a map? AHA!! a Left wing soccer mom masquerading as a righty pundit!
Orac, as far as ranking ScienceBloggers on an ideological scale, I can state with absolute certainty that I am the most conservative of all of us. You probably do hold second place, but only because there is an abyss of biblical proportions on your left side, making you look like Ronald Reagan!