Re: I Spoke to Nancy Online and all I got was this Lousy T-Shirt!
Greg Neill wrote:
>
> "Nancy Lieder" <nancy@zetatalk.com> wrote in message
> news:3C2249D2.E656DDC8@zetatalk.com...
>> Stig Bull wrote:
>>> I went to the Zebratalk channel on IRC Saturday to see
>>> what was up. It was actually quite amusing, I asked why
>>> "they" so obviously flunked in astronomy and physics
>>> and wham, the channel got moderated and I (as the
>>> only one), was not allowed to speak. So, either "they"
>>> were extremely cranky (perhaps it was that time of the
>>> month?), or critical questions were not tolerated.
>>>
>>> Anyway, Nancy thought I was a Michael Cunningham
>>> (why didn't the almighty Zebras foresee who I was?)
>>> after I asked the question.
>>
>> Because Nancy is not a Zeta. I'm a dummy, like you, a mere human. It
>> was I, NANCY who thought that. I'm an old lady and no longer have that
>> time of the month, Stig, and those who were cranky with you were the men
>> in charge of the session. If critical questions are not tolerated, then
>> what the heck am I doing here on sci.astro? Having fun?
>
> Please advise us all of the first opportunity in which you will request
> and accept agenda items here on sci.astro for an IRC session.
>
> It would appear that what you are doing here is advertizing for
> your cult. Please note that it would appear that any questions
> or responses posed to you in sci.astro which are not your to your
> own liking do not seem to show up in the ZT web pages for your
> minions to worry about. And even more interestingly, those items
> that do make it to the website seem to contain rather one sided,
> selected portions of the actual threads (generally only your own
> diatribe and none of the respondent's). This form of academic
> dishonesty belies a low character.
Oh, please. As if. Since when do academicians always rigorously
provide material they think is irrelevant or does not support their
contention? If this were the case, published papers would be much more
inclusive of contrary points of view, but they are not. Professor 'A'
is trying to prove theory 1 and Professor 'B' is trying to prove theory
2 and the theories are mutually incompatible. They will both select the
facts arguments and data which support their position and at best
provide lip service to the *fact* that there is a contrary point of
view. Professor 'A' is not in the business of selling Professor 'B's
point of view, and vice versa.
I'm not trying to condemn the practice because if everybody had to be
all inclusive all the time those papers would be even longer and even
more impenetrable than they already are. Sometimes you just cut to the
chase.
Do you really think anybody who has access to sci.astro is not also
sufficiently capable of going to google and reviewing an entire
discussion should they have even the slightest motiviation? Besides,
much of the dialog degenerates to "yes it is" "no it isn't" "yes it is"
or "you're a moron so I won't pay attention to you anyway [stick fingers
in ears] blah blah, I can't HEAR you, blah blah."
Show me one example of a published academic paper (that is not an
explicit overview or summary) where the author goes to lengths to
present viewpoints contrary to their position and I'll show you 20 that
behave EXACTLY like Nancy does. Most of the papers I read hand (and
yes, I do read papers) pick test cases and present data substantiating
their position while ignoring questions or viewpoints that might
undermine the result. I've attended many conferences where this or that
was being presented and a question from the audience would go something
like "did you look at Dr. Jones' results" or "did you consider that
foobar might be better" and the presenter freezes like a deer caught in
the headlights and mumbles some lame excuse instead of just standing
there and saying, "Well, actually, no. I didn't have time with the
paper deadline coming up." or "Hmm, Dr Jones, well frankly I didn't
know about his work. Can we meet after and you can give me some
references to look up?"
The Small Kahuna
