[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: The Scientific American Blog

For someone who complains about others not reading his posts, you sure always 
seem to avoid doing so yourself and almost inevitably answer things 
tangentially even when you do answer.

The short answer is to read the bloody post - the answer is there.

But to reword in case you actually read it this time, when  Kalliopi decided to 
blog this on the official SA website, she ceased being an independent party as 
the corporation sponsoring the blog has a self-interest in one side of the 
argument. And that was basically the only side presented in the blog. As such 
it goes down as publicity and not journalism or the press. I assume she was 
unaware of this problem but it is there and I would hope she will modify the 
blog to note just how much of the Greg Paul look came from other sources and 
inspirations as it seems to imply the whole ball of wax was not there until you 
did it - and you've finally admitted this is not the case in various posts.

And as far as the challenge the status quo crap - we all know you've been 
applying for martyr-dom on this but it just does not wash.


-----Original Message-----
>From: GSP1954@aol.com
>Sent: Mar 18, 2011 12:49 PM
>To: dinosaur@usc.edu
>Subject: Re: The Scientific American Blog
>I have from early on been urging that the press cover this important issue. 
>They can of course include all sides. I welcome it. And my apologies to 
>Kalliopi, she contacted me and was just trying to get the issue out there. Why 
>go after her? Challenging the status qou in paleo sure can get you real 
>Greg Paul
>In a message dated 3/18/11 10:23:32 AM, ralphchapman@earthlink.net writes:
><< One more thing, though, am I the only person who was really disturbed by 
>blog on the Scientific American website by Kalliopi Monoyios?
>First of all, I found it to be a real one-sided extraction of what the
>dialog was on these topics - even when it was written there were plenty of
>significant counter arguments already to Greg's claims out there. Now, the
>whole thing has pretty much deflated for Greg, frankly, and it is real sad.
>Instead of accepting a deserved position as a top illustrator and using that
>position to help and inspire more great paleoartists, this boat-load of crap
>has really exposed the emperor's clothes.
>Second, she goes on to make a direct statement about people violating Greg's
>"copyright" when she does nothing to demonstrate she has any expertise in
>that area. That is real dangerous and one of the reasons most people need be
>really careful about blogging. If I were one of the people mentioned in that
>paragraph I would be contacting Scientific American about a retraction or
>potential lawsuit.
>Finally, for this, if this was just one of a zillion blogs out there, I
>would not care much and would just think the blogger needed to think it
>through a bit more and would have suggested it. However, Scientific American
>is one of the main outlets most people get science from, so it is important.
>Further, it is one of Greg's main publishers so it has a vested interest in
>keeping this franchise of theirs going. So there is really a conflict of
>interest for them to publish a slanted blog that essentially tells the
>general public that their resource owns the copyright to anything like this
>type of illustration. Not good and actually pisses me off a good bit.
>I don't know Kalliopi and presume she's a great person and was just trying
>to do good and really had no idea that what she was really doing was
>actually a problem, but, frankly, it really is.
>Ralph Chapman >>

Ralph E. Chapman
29102 El Morro St.
Los Alamos, NM 87544
(505) 672-2240 [Home]
(505) 500-5266 [cell]