Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
My Blog List
-
-
-
-
Mission Accomplished16 hours ago
-
-
-
Reconstructing the Esper Reconstruction6 months ago
-
Energy output dented by wind drought6 months ago
-
ビタミンと勃起の関係10 months ago
-
What I’ve Been Up To11 months ago
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
14 comments:
I was told by Bob Russell at the MOU Paper Session that someone in the Forest Service was informed by someone on the Cornell search team about the Ivory-bill Woodpecker was found in Arkansas.
Bob Russell knew about about the discovery many months before the announcement as did Kim Eckert who knew about the discovery many months before the announcement as well ( Bob told Kim )
I also emailed Tim Barksdale who is a friend of mind and he told me in a private email that the leak came from goverment people ( Dept. of the Interior ).
I tend to believe Bob Russell since Bob is a avid IB searcher and is in the loop to know about these things.
Either way --- who in the hell cares!
There is a difference between knowing/being told (leaks) and posting the information to a birding listserv ("The Leak") as far as its ability to propagate, and for its propagation to be monitored.
As far as caring the issue is whether "The Leak" and its propagation influenced/rushed the acceptance process of the paper at Science. Did Kennedy know about "The Leak" before accepting the paper? Playing into this is Fitz telling the plenary session that the acceptance occurred before the leak (i.e. leak could not have influenced the acceptance), while in the Auk rebuttal he says the acceptance "coincidentally" occurred the day after "The Leak" as it was propagating (i.e. leak could conceivably have influenced the acceptance process.) Fitz's event shifting accounts add fuel for the conspiracy theorists in the crowd. I'm not convinced the outcome would have been any different if "The Leak" hadn't occurred given the secrecy built into the process. But Fitz's event shifting still doesn't sit too well.
anonanon
As usual Mike, you are full of ..... well...full of something that I can't say.
Your info is wrong and petty. Shows again that you are out of the loop in these things and a little name dropping still doesn't earn you respect.
Your personal attacks are sad. Your humour falls flat. Other than that, your blog is the perfect example of a person self destructing.
Mike, you never have understood this IBWO debacle. Just quit trying. Leave it to the adults.
Mike who?
Mike is a blogger that doesn't allow comments to his blog. What's up with that?
Gutless, maybe?
C'mon, the guy quotes Barkscrow...nuff said.
Yes, I think it's wrong-headed to have a blog and not allow comments. Tom does a good job. Even allowing anonymous comments. But mike's soap box and that Ivory Bill Live!! don't allow comments. It makes for an BORING blog.
What are they afraid of? The worse that could happen is someone could correct their misinformation.
Oh wait...maybe that's what they are afraid of!!
Yes, I think it's wrong-headed to have a blog and not allow comments. Tom does a good job. Even allowing anonymous comments.
But they're moderated. What's the difference?
amigos these ad hominim attacks on mike and his soap box have got to stop ...
and Tom, have you EVER refused Mike's soap box the oppourtunity to publish?
He seems to say that you "don't usually post his stuff" ...
what is your editorial policy?
Do you prevent people from expressing opinions that you disagree with?
Mike's Soap Box is not a serious blog, BECAUSE it does not accept comments. All serious blogs do.
So it is left to us to not accept Mike as a serious guy. It's just that simple. No one's saying he's evil. Just that his ideas are not to be taken seriously if he cannot or will not defend them by allowing comments to his blog.
Hey amigo,
It's not an Ad Hominem attack if Mike's arguments themselves against Tom have all been personal, which they have been.
Mike did make a totally ad hominem attack against Tom, as those familiar with Mike's blog well know. Where were you, Amigo, when those attacks took place? You say you couldn't defend Tom because Mike does not allow comments on his blog? Exactly! Now you see my point.
I'm sure Tom could care less. He can defend himself. And he allows comments on his blog But Mike's action does put into question the rest of his (Mike's) comments. "Consider the source" applies well to Mike.
"what is your editorial policy?"
I just make judgment calls as the comments come in. I strongly disagree with plenty of the published comments, but I do reject a small number (maybe 2%) of comments that I judge too obscene, too far off-topic, etc.
Tom has rejected two of my poems. That was good. They were (slightly) obscene and perhaps overly personal in their attacks.
So really, Tom just saved me from myself. They are probably 2 poems that I would have later regretted
(But man was one ever funny. It used all the good words that Paul (was it Paul?) gave me that rhymed with Fitzpatrick. Come to think of it I wish that one had been published.)
Post a Comment