---

From: Usenet To: All Msg #135, Oct-06-93 02:10PM Subject: Re: Forrest Mims: Setting the record straight on SciAm (Part 1 Organization: MSU Dept. of Physics & Astronomy Subject: Re: Forrest Mims: Setting the record straight on SciAm (Part 1 of 1) From: hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu Message-ID: <28vfo9$o10@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu> Reply-To: hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins [If I've included a lot of "insults" in this reply, let it be known that it mostly arose due to Stephen's very *selective* editing of my words, that pissed me off early on. Oh, and his refusal to make a point, but simply harp on my ephesis that SA was not "obligated" to hire Mims -rwh ] For Mr. Matheson I ask ONE this if he chooses to respond to this post...if you answer no other question at least answer this one: Is the point of Mr. Mims's post to argue that he should indeed have been hired, or is it simply a vehicle for general grousing about Scientific American and Mr. Piel in particular? Now if the answer is affirmative to the first clause (ie arguing that he should have indeed been hired) then let us do away with all the stuff below that has NO bearing on that issue. Namely (for instance): the Rolex ad, that other publications hired him, that he *himself* thought he was right for the job. In article <28v3oe$ak6@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes: >From article <28urgm$rpf@msuinfo.cl.msu.edu>, by hatcher@msupa.pa.msu.edu: >> In article <28tr10$sca@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>, >> sfm@manduca.neurobio.arizona.edu (Stephen Matheson) writes: > >>>4. Jonathan Piel offered to buy and publish three of my columns >>>during a telephone call he placed to me on October 4, 1989: >> **************** > >> Was this call recorded? > >Yep. Okay, so now we know...was there some _reason_ Mims felt it necessary to record this call? Or is it simply paranoia? Oh, and was it legal? >> Or is this simply Mim's recollection of how it went. > >Nope. > >> Frankly I -can-NOT- consider him a disinterested >> party and simply accept his word of what was said based solely >> only his "word". > >Surely that's why he recorded the call. He "knew" before the call was even made that future questions would arise from the conversation? This certainly doesn't bode well for the workplace relationship. >>> "There's no question that on their own merits the columns >>> are fabulous! If you don't do them for us you ought to do >>> them for somebody because they're great...Give me three of >>> them and I'll run them and give Jearl [Walker] a >>> vacation...I'll buy them from you...Forrest, I trust you >>> implicitly. You're a man of honor and integrity...In its own >>> right what you've written is first rate. That's just not an >>> issue. It's the public relations nightmare that is keeping >>> me awake." > >>> (Published in part in HARPER'S, March 1991.) > >> That it was "published" means nothing > >It means that you can go look it up. Which still means nothing unless you believe the source. Frankly I have my doubts. >> ... only that Mims repeated >> this (HIS) story of the conversation to someone and they printed it. >> It says nothing about the truthfulness of what was asserted. > >The article is a transcript of the recorded call. According to Mims, >only the uhs and ums were edited out. According to Mims? So we're back to hearsay, again. Unless you can come up with some disinterested third party to verify that indeed (1) such a recording exists (2) that both individuals are correctly identified as Mims & Piel. Also I have questions about the "..."'s above. Were these truely pauses, or is it the result of selective editing? >[deletia] > >>>Yet prior to the barrage of publicity >>>that arose after they fired me, SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN never >>>questioned my qualifications. > >> No one here asserted that they in fact did. > >In fact, many people did make the assumption -- and occasionally, >the assertion -- that Mims's qualifications were at issue. Just a few >lines below, you do the same. This all hinges on how Mims defines "qualifications" doesn't it. Above I meant it in the more tight definition, which is why I qualified what I was saying below. Fine, okay, I'll grant you this one bit of hyperbole on my part....many of us DO question his qualifications. But I find it equally incorrect for Mims to state that SA *never* questioned his qualification...what do you think this is all about? >> But actually I think in >> a way some at SA DID "question [your] qualifications" -- >> not all of them, just your scientific judgement. I guess it >> depends on whether one includes scientific integrety in >> the class of "qualifications". If some guy with a PhD in physics >> came up and told me that the speed of light was infinite, >> I'd question his "qualifications". > >There. A plain assertion that SA questioned Mims's qualifications. No, *not* a plain _assertion_ that they did, _speculation_. I wasn't there so I can assert nothing, but I can speculate. Sheesh, grab a dictionary. >Mims has asserted from the beginning that you and the others who >keep repeating this nonsequitur are just wrong. And all we have is his word that they didn't...not very objective is it. Look, you *have* to recognize that you are only hearing one side of the story from one of the players -- a little skepticism here in sci.skeptic should not be that surprising. You assert that our speculation is "just wrong" and I ask on what basis you make that judgement, and you respond "because Mims says so"... it's just not all that convincing. >His statements, >and the statements of others, including the 2 associate editors >at SA at the time, flatly contradict your baseless assertions. I think a lot of *your* confusion here arises due to the differences between the technical and general usage of the word "qualifications". >>>Instead, the editors sent letters >>>and made statements praising my work. > >> So those *particular* pieces had no/few errors. And maybe Mim's >> is a good writer. That still doesn't address the issue of >> whether he rejects a substantial body of work, contrary to >> evidence, based on religious bias. > >Who said that was an issue? That's *exactly* what Mims is >addressing in this part of his response: there was NO mention >of these issues by SA. Not then, not now. Oh, I didn't realize we had to segregate things into little "chunks" -- all I was pointing out that writing competance is necessary but not sufficient for the job. Thus simply because he could write a few decent columns doesn't mean that they were obligated to hire him. Other considerations come into play....like is he UNscientific. And since the answer to that question is "yes", then they are in their rights not to hire hime. They could have not hired him because he's a sloppy dresser for all I care. You feel that they must somehow give "acceptable" (to you and Mims) reasons for not hiring any particular individual. From what I've seen so far, I wouldn't have hired him either for a number of reasons. >>>When I visited SCIENTIFIC >>>AMERICAN at Piel's request, he said several times in the presence >>>of some of his staff, "We should have hired you 10 years ago!" > >> Hyperbole...I see no *obligation* to hire Mims. And certainly >> if at this time he had no knowledge of Mims's anti-scientific >> attitude. This just indicates that Mims is a pretty good writer. > >"Obligation"? Who said anything about obligation? What of >integrity? What of intent? What of "intent"? Must one hire *every* person they bring in for an interview? As for "integrity" they were released from any such commitment when it became clear that Mims lacked scientific integrity for holding ANTI-scientific beliefs. It seems to me that SA doesn't wish to hire Mims. So why carry on years after the fact? Sounds like it's time to move on, I certainly don't see anything that's going to change anyones minds here. >>>When I said I had applied when C.L. Strong died, he said if he had >>>known, "I would have snapped you up!" Members of the editorial >>>staff congratulated me for getting the assignment. > >> Again/still no *obligation* to hire Mims...maybe they would >> have snapped him up. Only to regret it later when a big stink >> arose as he used his SA credentials to give credence to some >> creationist literature. That's speculation, but not inconceivable. > >Ah, at last: a reference to the only motivation that has ever been >reasonably ascribed to SA's actions (other than raw prejudice). "resonably ascribed"? How blissfully they dismiss others that don't agree with their own viewpoint. "raw prejudice"? Please, save the hyperbole. Maybe it was deeply refined prejudice, or lightly cooked. Over easy, perhaps? >You say "not inconceivable". If you mean "not impossible", then >you're trivially correct. If you mean "a distinct possibility", >then IMO you're way out on a limb. In YOUR opinion. Do you have any support that would somehow trump my opinion? Or must we just kowtow to everything you state as a "God given fact"? Personally I'd say that the senario I wrote above is *very* likely. Look at all the creationist kooks who will stoop to all levels to attempt to gain credibiility. They use outright lying as their main tool for "creation science". I'd give it two months tops before we'd see the majority of the "creation science" newsletters with an item along the lines of "Mims believes in creationism; he works for Scientific American as a science writer; therefore creationism is good science". And that WOULD be an embarrasment to SA and hurt their reputation and probably even diminish sales with real scientists. I'd call it a quite reasonable business decision not to hire Mims. >[deletia] > >>>Although Piel was clearly concerned >>>about my failure to accept Darwinian evolution, he did not fire >>>me until AFTER a female editor asked me about abortion and then >>>met with Piel and asked him to call me. > >> As far as I can assertain he hadn't HIRED Mims yet...therefore >> he certainly couldn't have fired him. > >He was there to accept the job. He was congratulated by the staff >for landing the position. But he wasn't hired yet was he? Your not hired until the paper- work is done....thus he wasn't "fired". No matter how often you repeat it the fact is Mims wasn't fired. >> Had a contract been signed by the time he left this visit? > >If the issue is SA's (and specifically Piel's) integrity and intent, >the existence of a legal contract is irrelevant. If you're trying >to show that no laws were broken, you're hoisting a straw man. And what about Mims's integrity and intent? All we have is his word on intent...and we've already shown that integrity isn't a strong point for creationists. You *have* to look at both sides of the equation and look for balance. If Mims had admitted earlier to holding UNscientific views then most of this heartrending "almost hired" stuff could have be avoided possibly. >> So this unnamed female editor had >> such influence that she could unilaterally force Piel not to >> hire Mims? Somehow I doubt it. > >Somehow. Somehow. Somehow, what? Somehow I doubt that one lone woman could "force" Piel not to hire Mims? Why do you have a problem with such a straightforward suggestion? Could it be that the "lone woman" was a red herring from the start? Or is it simply a reflection of some underlying belief on the part of Mims that there is always a woman to blame for anything that goes wrong? So what you are saying is that Piel refused to hire this great writer that one would kill for, simply on the basis of this unnamed female editor's opinion? That Piel was such a pushover that he could be swayed by this lone voice against Mims? Or did you perhaps consider that Piel made his own decision based on a number of different inputs, of which this was but one? >> Maybe she added to Piel's doubts >> whether Mims was right for the job -and- whether he could work >> alongside the current (productive) workforce. > >So, um, pro-life beliefs ARE a fair criterion for hiring and >firing at scientific publications? Wow. No, I didn't say that. But YOU are the one speculating that it (not hiring Mims) was based solely on her input. As I've said I don't think he'd fit in socially into the workplace enviornment, anti-abortion beliefs or no. Please to try to put words in my mouth as I wrote below: [re: strictly personal beliefs] >> NO. On abortion I'd agree with you. >>>7. At least one message questioned my ability to do science. My >> [snip...] > >> Depend what you mean by "do science"...could Mim's continue to >> dabble in areas removed from his religous bias and make sense? >> Probably. But that isn't the question at hand, it's about >> scientific integrety and potential negative publicity towards SA. > >According to SA, Mims, Piel, other editors, etc., you're half >right: it was about "potential negative publicity towards SA". Okay, so they DID have a valid business reason for not hiring him. QED, end of discussion. >The silly, ceaseless references to "scientific integrity" and >qualifications and ability to do science are irrelevant. No! They aren't "irrelevant", that's the whole point! SA is under no obligation to hire someone who has the potential to be a major embarrasment to them and who simply can't be trusted to take a scientific attitude. >> [descriptions of devices built deleted as irrelevant to this >> issue, unless Mims can produce a signed contract specifying that >> SA would pay for them _and_ publish about them] > >Irrelevant only to those who think that integrity is measured >only by adherence to the law. Retaining the integrity towards their readership would seem more important than some vague promises towards a single individual. To do otherwise would undercut their entire purpose -- a scientific magazine must have scientific integrity. To have a recognized writer on the staff that simply rejects the scientific method at his leisure is a disservice to the readership. You keep harping about "integrity" as if all promises of employment must ALWAYS be adhered to, irrespective of mitigating circumstances. That's a large pill to swallow. In the real world deals fall through, job positions dry up, promises are forgotten, new information is acquired about the potential employee...."integrity" isn't the endall and if Mims simply wishes to keep harping on Piel's integrity then I can't stop him, but my respect for him drops monotomically. >>>8. There have been several messages about the Rolex Award I >>>received in May which was advertised in the June issue of >>>SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. The award was for an international network >>>(Sun Photometer Atmospheric Network) that will use an advanced >>>version of the TOPS instrument developed for but rejected by >>>SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN. The upper half of the instrument can be seen >>>in the photo in the ad and the entire instrument is shown in a 2- >>>page ad that was published in various international magazines. > >> Again...this is COMPLETELY irrelevant. > >It was in SPECIFIC reference to posters who discussed the Rolex >Award. Irrelevant to you and your agenda, perhaps, but hardly >irrelevant to those who brought it up. And what did those specific posters have to say on the issue that makes it of relevance. Again, I notice you've done a *LOT* of selective editing -- wiping out my entire argument on WHY it's irrelevant under ANY case and reducing it to a single line...all without any indication that I said more. Hell, this says a lot about YOUR integrity. Again, I say ... so Rolex featured him in an ad. That ad was published in SA. What obligation does SA have to hire Mims due to this? Come on give some support or at least some -hint- for your line of reasoning. Of what import is the Rolex ad? >> Just because >> Rolex published some ad in SA concerning Mims doesn't mean that >> SA is somehow obligated to hire him. > >WHO ON EARTH SAID IT DID?!?! Then what relevance does it have to the question of "Mims vs. SA"? That *is* the topic at hand. So why was it included? And why are you so worked up (ALL CAPS!!!) when I point this out? Perhaps because you see that the overall argument on Mims part is so weak that he must resort to irrelevant issues? >> This looks sadder and sadder the further I read, > >You're reading with a clear agenda, and applying all sorts of >odd criteria to Mims's statements. And you read it with another "clear agenda". As for "odd criteria", this seems to simply be a label you apply to arguments that you disagree with...try taking off your rose colored glasses. >> as it indicate Mims is simply grasping at >> straws and is completely clueless about the concept of employment >> contracts. > >Contracts? What contracts? Are you in the habit of going back on >your word after you realize (whew) that you haven't yet signed the >contract? If necessary. Especially if new information has come to light or I've thought up an issue that I hadn't previously considered. In the real world "my word is my bond" just doesn't cut it. It's a nice ideal but simply IMPRACTICAL to hold to in *every* case...and we're discussing a case where indeed it didn't make sense to hold to a promise. That's why the business world *has* contracts; so *both* parties know what they are getting into and what to expect, and what was *really* agreed upon. Now, that isn't to say I go back on my word lightly or often, just that it is sometimes necessary. >>>9. I had absolutely no hidden agenda with respect to writing "The >>>Amateur Scientist," and I had no intention of ever attempting to >>>embarrass the magazine. > >> So you say. > >Yes. So he says. No contract, though. Does that mean it must >not be true? Does it mean that it therefore "must be true"? You've got you vantage point and I've got mine and sending back and forth "is too"/"is not" messages doesn't get us anywhere. All I was doing was pointing out Mims's (and apparently your own) biases. Neither of us will ever truly "know" because we can't get inside both participant's heads and examine all that went on. >>>In a letter to me, Jonathan Piel >>>specifically stated he had no concern about my motives. (I will >>>be glad to post this letter verbatim.) > >> Okay, so Piel possibly thought Mims wouldn't WILLFULLY embarrass >> the magazine. That doesn't mean that it wouldn't happen. A >> third party could easily do it without Mims's cooperation >> (or even knowledge) and it would still be a problem for the >> magazine. > >Pitiful hand-wringing. No, safe business practice. An editor for a profit making magazine is under no obligation to willfully bring about negative publicity towards his organization. It might be "hand-wringing" but I still argue that such a senario is *probable* given the history of the third parties. >>>My beliefs about abortion >>>and Darwinian evolution were strictly personal. > >> NO. On abortion I'd agree with you. But evolution is a >> scientific theory and if Mims rejects that based on religious >> bias > >Why do you assume that he rejects it based on "religious bias"? >Do you know if he has put forth an alternative theory? I was sure that he had forthright stated that it was due to Christian beliefs that he held the creationist viewpoint. He admitted writing for a Christian publication, so it would have been no great "leap of faith" to make the connection. But actually it doesn't matter why he rejects evolution as long as it isn't for scientific reasons. And since I haven't seen any *scientific* reasons proposed by Mims, then you should simply go ahead and replace "religious bias" in my statement with the phrase "UNscientific reasons". Maybe it isn't religious bias, maybe Mims is simply a nut case. >Why, if abortion and evolution are such obviously different issues, >did SA ask Mims about abortion? They probably shouldn't have. But did SA ask, or did an individual (without "authority") ask? Maybe (and this is speculation) they asked not because they cared one way or the other about his answer, but instead as a means of how determining how invasive his religious bias was and whether he could make rational arguments or whether certain areas were simply closed off due to dogma. You see one of those characteristic trademarks of being a "scientist" is being open to alternative ideas. Now, abortion wouldn't be my first choice topic :-) for such a probe, but it does often sound out how well one reasons. Besides, I still don't see why he didn't take the "fifth" on this issue. Why not just politely state, "that's a personal issue that has no bearing on this job" and be done with it. >> then one must also question what _other_ well supported >> scientific theories he's willing to similarly reject. To >> reject a scientific theory for reasons OTHER than scientific >> evidence is _a_priori_ evidence of being UNscientific and >> thus *not* suitable for a writing position on a scientificly >> oriented magazine. > >Mims claims to have rejected Darwinian evolution on scientific >grounds. As far as I know, he has not advanced an alternative >theory based on unscientific premises. These are self contradictory statements...to have some _scientific_ bais for rejecting a theory that has good solid evidence, one must at *least* propose an alternative theory that accounts for the same evidence. And then to really distinguish the two one needs to show some evidence (new or old) that the new one accounts in a better manner. I'd be laughed out of town if I were to openly reject the theory of special relativity, but not advance an alternative nor provide new evidence. So what does Mims have for *rejecting* evolution? If it's scientific let's hear it. If it's not then he no candidate for such a respected position. He can't have it both ways. Either he goes against scientific opinion based on SCIENTIFIC evidence (which he is then obligated to present if he wishes to have any credibility). Or he's just another ANTI-science nut who has not right to demand a job as a writer for a science magazine. >> I'd ask Mims to turn the question around >> and consider "Would an athiest (strictly personal beliefs) >> be a good candidate for writing religious articles for a >> church newsletter?". > >In so doing, you'd demonstrate *exactly* what is wrong with >SA's actions and motivations. No, and if you hadn't broken up my full statement then it would be clear...but I guess people with blinders on like you can't read and comprehend that much information at one time. I'd certainly be open to the argument that the athiest is "unqualified" to write religous article for a church newsletter. How does this demonstrate *exactly* what is wrong with SA's actions and motivations...he's not qualified, thus they don't *have* to hire him. Spell it out if you can, but I doubt you can since you pass up numerous opportunities to do so. >> That isn't to say that science is a >> religion, > >Oh, certainly not. No. Never. Oh, piss off! You and your selective editing are really starting to bug me. >> but an admission that personal beliefs INFLUENCES >> what one writes and thus make acceptable criteria for *not* >> hiring someone for a writing position. > >Some free associations to consider: > The Amateur Scientist > Embarrassment by creationist abuse > No mention of qualifications > Two associate editors say "hire him" > Never written on evolution/creation > Abortion I don't see any rebuttal to my argument here...a complete nonsequitor. Sort of like Mim's reasoning...haphazard and confused. I'll take them slowly one more time: > The Amateur Scientist A column that he was considered for the position of writing. > Embarrassment by creationist abuse A very likely possibility if he had been hired. > No mention of qualifications A meaningless statement. Unless you don't include "judgement" in "qualifications". > Two associate editors say "hire him" And others saying "don't"...or must SA follow majority rule based solely on your sayso? Restructure the company, Steve the business wiz, says you're doing it all wrong. > Never written on evolution/creation So? Must SA hire everyone that has never published on the subject? > Abortion Probably shouldn't have been asked about...but not an illegal question. >>>Prior to >>>SCIENTIIC AMERICAN, none of the editors at the more than 70 >>>publications for which I have written ever asked me about my >>>personal beliefs. > >> So these other publications weren't as thorough, but then again >> they probably weren't as prestegious(sp?) and thus didn't have >> quite the reputation to uphold. > >Or maybe have higher ethical standards, and a purely scientific >mission. Maybe. By YOUR standards. And they judged him as wanting by theirs. So YOU hire him. SA is under no obligation (legal or even ethically) to hire him -- he's ANTI-scientific and luckily they found that out *before* they hired him. Or maybe he just suited these other publication's needs better. But I still think it's most likely that these other publications aren't as much in the spotlight as SA, so when they shone their investigative light into the cracks and crannies that others had overlook they noticed the rats scurrying away. >> Again, what others did or >> didn't do places no *obligation* on SA to hire Mims. > >Again and again and again and again and again and... so? Because you (and Mims) keep harping on some mythical "obligation" SA had to hire Mims, else what's the point of this discussion? >>> Hanley told me I should >>>submit future proposals to Piel, but Piel does not respond to >>>them. > >> His perogative. If those columns are all so great then why >> doesn't Mims simply get some other publisher to print them? >> And if SA loses sales to some other magazine then Piel can >> take the blame. > >And if your employer fires you because they don't like the >color of your skin, just find another place to work. If they ******************** What's the analog here? (1) Mims wasn't fired! repeat this to yourself 100 times: "in order to be fired, one must first be hired". (2) he wasn't rejected due to skin color (which would be irrelevant to the job), but because he's ANTI- scientific as demonstrated by his arbitrary rejection of a major theory of science. >go out of business after losing your expertise, then the >racist boss can take the blame. A closer analogy would be like a sports player...he may be "good" but the team owner isn't required to hire him. And he may not be hired for any number of reasons (1) he doesn't fit in with the rest of the team (2) he's outright antagonistic towards the goals of the team (3) he's "damaged goods" and quite likely will quickly become a liability rather than an asset. Being anti-scientific is NOT an irrelevant criteria when considering a scientific writing job. And just to finish up this silly analogy of your, it isn't always racist to reject a person for a job based on skin color: it *would* be relevant if the job were, say, acting the role of a black slave for a historically correct period movie. It's the relevance to the JOB that's important. >>>He has also declined to correct four specific errors in >>>SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN about which I have informed him, even though >>>I have assured him it is unnecessary to cite my name. > >> I'm sure they get such requests all the time...and I'm sure that >> they let all but the most egregeous slide. > >You're sure of a lot of things. As are you. But here my usage was more slang than certainty. "I'm sure" --> "I would probably guess". But then again you knew that and were simply going for the cheap shot. Probably because you still can't make a convincing COHERENT argument that SA was somehow obligated (legally or otherwise) do act other than the way they did. >> But somehow because >> Mims points them out SA is obligated to print something? > >There's that funny O word again... Is there a word for "missing >the point" that starts with O? Obscuring and obfuscating both >qualify... Yup, you're pretty good as "obscuring and obfuscating". Pray tell WHAT is your point. Mine is that SA acted in a perfectly acceptable self-interested manner. Your is that Mims is still whining about how he didn't get the job? A job, I and others assert, he wasn't QUALIFIED to perform. >> What I see here is a personality type that *I* would be distressed >> to see working with me. Maybe it wasn't the science after all >> that Piel rejected, but the fact that Mims would have been >> too disruptive. > >Piel didn't reject the science. You and others seem to think >that by repeating this groundless assertion often enough, you >can make it become true. So then what is Mim's gripe all about? Not getting hired because he's obnoxious? You still haven't made a case describing what YOU (or Mims) expect SA to do. Accept him despite his anti-science attitude? You implied (last go through) that it was all simply anti-christian bias on the part of Piel, but you have YET to give any evidence for that. On the other hand, we've given *numerous* alternative reasons that he wasn't hired. >I disagree with much of what you say, but it would be unfair >(and untrue) to say that I would be distressed to work with >someone of your "personality type". You're missing much of >what Mims is saying, and your focus on "obligations" is just >ridiculous. Ridiculous, because YOU say so? Okay, let's say I'm missing the "point" of what Mims is saying (not that I think I am, but this is the only way to get anything _substantial_ out of you). What IS his point? And don't give me the "integrity" bullshit, because that's equivalent to "obligations". As for personality types, they DO have a legitimate (abiet small) role in hiring decisions...if the the interviewee is such a jerk that it interferes with normal ongoing work then I see no reason to hire the person. But then again I wasn't saying that this was necessarily the case for Mims only that it was an alternative possibility at least as likely as anti-christian biotry. >>>Why do I >>>want to write for SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN in view of all that's >>>happened? "The Amateur Scientist" shaped my career. C. L. Stong >>>once told me I would some day write the column. And I want very >>>much to see "The Amateur Scientist" provide the same kind of >>>constructive, hands-on science that Stong and, to some extent, >>>Jearl Walker did. > >> Nice sentiments. > >Even convictions. They matter to some people. I see no convictions in the paragraph above. Unless you say that my lust for a Nobel prize lead me into science and shaped my career, and thus someday I want one, is somehow a "conviction". And leave off the insults: "They matter to some people". Ya, sure this is news to me! Boy, aren't you smart giving me such great insight. AGAIN, so all this paragraph tells us is that Mim desired the job. Big fuckin' deal. Even if he wanted it *real* bad, and even if he *thought* he could do a good job. It wasn't his decision to make. >> But still no *obligation* that SA hire *Mims* >> to write for them. > >Drip. Drip. Drip. Drip. Drip. Drip. Drip. Drip. Drip. Drip. Drip. Yup, you're a drip. Tell us something new. >> I still see an editorial decision not to >> hire someone and a bunch of whining by the rejected applicant. > >You see what you want to see. Your statement could be applied >equally to any situation involving blatant -- even illegal -- >discrimination. Not if he was rejected due to *RELEVANT* job criteria -- which he was. Nothing illegal, or unethical, to reject an unqualified applicant; too bad they found out so late in the process. >>>This message corrects the principle errors on the disk I >>>received. I'll be happy to answer questions relayed to me and to >>>post verbatim copies of correspondence to and from SCIENTIFIC >>>AMERICAN if anyone is interested. I have informed Jonathan Piel >>>and John Hanley at SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN about your discussions and >>>offered to post their response verbatim, but they have not >>>responded. > >> This last sentance gives the impression that Mims feels that >> it is their obligation to respond to him every time he contacts >> them. > >Your obsession with "obligation" is just bizarre. No. But you obsession with not having a point IS. If this isn't here to support the thesis that Mims _should_ have gotten the job, then it's irrelevant and serves no purpose. If the thread is simply a means for Mims to gripe about all things SA then you should state that up front and I would have ignored the whole thing. Pray tell, what IS the point of telling us that SA isn't printing every damn word that he sends to them? >> Besides, if I were SA I'd _certainly_ not submit any response >> *via* Mims. And I'm sure their lawyers would go white upon >> the suggestion that they make an informal response here on >> the net. So am I surprised by the lack of a rebuttal? No. > >I agree with this. For those that reached this far (whewh) let me repeat that Mr. Matheson is a master of selective and UNattributed editing. Key sentances *have* been removed from my previous words. >Steve Matheson Program in Neuroscience University of Arizona >sfm@neurobio.arizona.edu -robert

---

The views and opinions stated within this web page are those of the author or authors which wrote them and may not reflect the views and opinions of the ISP or account user which hosts the web page. The opinions may or may not be those of the Chairman of The Skeptic Tank.

Return to The Skeptic Tank's main Index page.

E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank