tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post2778077941191274008..comments2024-03-02T00:44:55.128-08:00Comments on Pleiotropy: Scientia Pro Publica 9 - with a twistBjørn Østmanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-21398339008233374952009-08-07T13:41:08.637-07:002009-08-07T13:41:08.637-07:00Greg said: Thomas, are you absolutely certain that...Greg said: <i>Thomas, are you absolutely certain that you want to call me a liar. It really was an utter coincidence.</i><br /><br />Greg, if I wanted to call you a liar, I'd call you a liar. Plain and simple, believe me. As Bjorn has said, I simply made the case that <i>given the circumstances</i> it should really not be as surprising as you claim you are, that Bjorn reached the conclusion he did.<br /><br />That's why I was very careful in how I couched my comments (words mean something), and if you go back and re-read them, you'll see I <b>did not</b> call you a liar. I am more than happy to believe you when you say that the stars simply aligned this way and we have what we have. I don't need evidence, I'm more than willing to take you at your word. However, I also can see Bjorn's point of view when he thought that seemingly <i>too many</i> stars aligned for this to merely "have happened". This isn't a case where I need to be strictly on one side or the other, and you don't need to turn it into that either. So while I believe you when you say this is mere coincidence, I can see how Bjorn felt differently.Thomas Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06146918395558249696noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-13278475623276566242009-08-07T11:51:39.290-07:002009-08-07T11:51:39.290-07:00Thomas, are you absolutely certain that you want t...<i>Thomas, are you absolutely certain that you want to call me a liar. It really was an utter coincidence.</i><br /><br />Thomas isn't actually calling you a liar at all, Greg. He's giving a good reason why I would think you submitted to me on purpose. Try to read his comment again.<br /><br /><i>Bjorn, yes, you contacted me, and I contacted you back, and you contacted me again and after a while I tired of the conversation and stopped. Shall I produce those emails (if I even have them)?</i><br /><br />I asked you for an explanation for including the comments about my person. You emailed me with a suggestion to rewrite that email and post it on my blog, but you didn't answer the question. I asked once again, and that was it.<br /><br /><i>What you are not getting is that this second draft of the post cut you totally out of it and started the process of changing your quotes</i><br /><br />No, really. I got that. I have not disputed this since you said so. You're very quick to draw conclusions about what I think and understand.<br /><br /><i>Actually, an email to me expressing your outrage would have been a good idea I would have suggested not posting the damn thing in this issue.</i><br /><br />I don't really need your advice on anything related here. Good idea for whom? I also don't have a problem at all with you thinking this all makes me "look kinda ... well, never mind."Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-23761268306785438202009-08-07T10:28:00.160-07:002009-08-07T10:28:00.160-07:00Thomas, are you absolutely certain that you want t...Thomas, are you absolutely certain that you want to call me a liar. It really was an utter coincidence. There is actually a person who if she chose to do so, could show up here and related details supporting the way in which this post came to be posted at this time. I can show you the request that went around from Grrrl asking for posts, and if you look at my blog over those two weeks, you'll see that this is the best choice. I think you are very much out of line calling me a liar.<br /><br />Bjorn, yes, you contacted me, and I contacted you back, and you contacted me again and after a while I tired of the conversation and stopped. Shall I produce those emails (if I even have them)? <br /><br />What you are not getting, bjorn, and this is making you look kinda ... well, never mind.. What you are not getting is that this second draft of the post cut you totally out of it and started the process of changing your quotes (that I totally disagreed with) with generalized paraphrases. I wanted to make this about the topic, not about you. But it becomes about you again because you made it so.<br /><br />Actually, an email to me expressing your outrage would have been a good idea I would have suggested not posting the damn thing in this issue.<br /><br />Regarding whether or not one is required to use every link one is sent: I support Bjorn on this. There's more than one way to do it, Bjorn was totally in range of what is normal, and it is up to the host. <br /><br />As to Bjorn adding the commentary, I'm not for or against that, I think it is fine. But, I have to say that would have done that very differently.Greg Ladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04857616630819182647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-49014846738869933522009-08-07T05:26:19.534-07:002009-08-07T05:26:19.534-07:00Greg said: I'm at a loss as to why you would d...Greg said: <i>I'm at a loss as to why you would do so.</i><br /><br />It's not hard to figure out why. Out of all the carnivals, out of all the blog entries, out of all the hosts ... you chose an old post to rewrite and then submitted it to the blog of the person you used as the basis of your entry in the one carnival they were hosting for this one particular week.<br /><br />While it may be a coincidence, it sure is a whopper of one. It doesn't take much of a stretch to think it was done intentionally.<br /><br />Lastly, I think it's commendable that Bjorn included it as well. It's a stand up thing to do, and I think it's perfectly fine to include commentary at the bottom to address it.Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14211618861743447072noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-82723966617570111782009-08-06T14:12:47.639-07:002009-08-06T14:12:47.639-07:00I don't think it's required to post everyt...I don't think it's required to post everything submitted, but if feasible, I think the host of SPP shouldn't leave out posts for personal reasons.<br /><br /><i>Are you saying that if you'd received 327 submissions, you'd have published them all?</i><br /><br />I implied nothing of the kind. Please, this is inane.<br /><br /><i>You and the original author should take this to a private discussion.</i><br /><br />Why? The original post was a public post about me. Additionally, I did contact Greg privately after he posted it, and received no reply. Is there a new blog-rule that says I can't post this for all to see? Does it only apply to me? Your 'should' is your personal opinion. I don't share it.Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-63993279894457354942009-08-06T13:42:34.615-07:002009-08-06T13:42:34.615-07:00Since when is a carnival editor required to post e...Since when is a carnival editor required to post everything that is submitted? Isn't the concept to publish the best blogs of the week? Are you saying that if you'd received 327 submissions, you'd have published them all? You and the original author should take this to a private discussion.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-73505483499116040452009-08-06T11:26:27.586-07:002009-08-06T11:26:27.586-07:00What a tedious, needless discussion. You were unde...<i>What a tedious, needless discussion. You were under no obligation to post the item. If anyone is guilty of spite, it is you. It seems you chose to include the item for the purpose of flogging the author.</i><br /><br />In terms of spite don't you think it matters who initiated the ad hominem? You may find it tedious and needless, but then skip it. As I was the one who was verbally abused, I can see why most other people wouldn't care.<br /><br />The post is included because it was submitted, of course. I included everything submitted (except for one that wasn't really science), plus a few solicited.Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-74321874585721427402009-08-06T11:13:20.394-07:002009-08-06T11:13:20.394-07:00What a tedious, needless discussion. You were unde...What a tedious, needless discussion. You were under no obligation to post the item. If anyone is guilty of spite, it is you. It seems you chose to include the item for the purpose of flogging the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-71755614610240123112009-08-06T11:12:25.276-07:002009-08-06T11:12:25.276-07:00You have incorrectly misinterpreted this as some s...<i>You have incorrectly misinterpreted this as some sort of nefarious prank. I'm at a loss as to why you would do so.</i><br /><br />Because you wrote nefarious stuff about me in the first place, and ignored my requests for an answer as to why.<br /><br /><i>Frankly, I've essentially lost track of who you are and have not been following your blog.</i><br /><br />Likewise.Bjørn Østmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08859177313382114917noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-75041195408323674072009-08-06T09:35:26.593-07:002009-08-06T09:35:26.593-07:00Very interesting. Well done carnival.
A clarif...Very interesting. Well done carnival. <br /><br />A clarification: It is not true that I rewrote my submitted post and submitted it to this carnival because I knew you were hosting this. Honestly, I did not know that you were hosting it.<br /><br />Also, please note that part of my rewriting was to totally separate out your comments as the object lesson... my point was to make this post not about you and your comments, but rather, about the subject matter at hand. You have incorrectly misinterpreted this as some sort of nefarious prank. I'm at a loss as to why you would do so.<br /><br />There is a bigger picture here, that I am bound to not talk about but I think I can give a little more info. The Naturalistic Fallacy post is slated for use in a future publication. The present re-write was the first step in reaching three objectives:<br /><br />1) To remove you and your particular comments from the post. In this step I reworded them to make them more generalized. In the next version I'll totally re-do the comments, surveying the web more widely for this sort of good example of bad thinking;<br /><br />2) To make the argument itself more integrated with the broader biology referred to; and<br /><br />3) To simply clean up the writing.<br /><br />I've not yet read your extensive remarks in the above carnival, but I will. I just wanted it on record right now that I really had no idea that you were hosting this carnival. Frankly, I've essentially lost track of who you are and have not been following your blog.Greg Ladenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04857616630819182647noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4989966954446423670.post-21724795629580065932009-08-03T15:35:24.512-07:002009-08-03T15:35:24.512-07:00Great Line-up. Thanks for including mine.
AKGreat Line-up. Thanks for including mine.<br /><br />AKAKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10905636789614137068noreply@blogger.com