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

Re: The Scientific American Blog



In messages dated 3/18/11 ralphchapman@earthlink.net writes:

<<Further, it is one of Greg's main publishers so it has a vested interest 
in
keeping this franchise of theirs going.>> 

<< 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.  >>

Woah Nellie! The above, and frankly old buddy Ralph irresponsible 
allegations, about the ethics of Kalliopi and SciAmer need clarification real 
fast. 
Ralph went so far as to suggest law suits. Those who live in glass houses 
should not cast stones. By making allegations about Kalliopi's and SA's ethics 
without first verifying them Ralph -- who is usually a nice enough fella -- 
is literally risking slandering a person - I am not making this up, Kalliopi 
could sue Ralph for defamation. Am just stating the facts, don't get after 
me about it. I really wish Ralph had contacted either or both of us first to 
avoid the misimpression he gave -- again, this is one reason I get ticked 
off about how these lists are used without first being more sure of the 
facts. But I will stay nice -- this time. So just the facts. 

I have no current connection with SciAmer. They commissioned a print 
article way back in the last century. A number of years ago a brief online 
piece. 
The book I edited was through an independent publisher (check the pubication 
page), the folks at SA didn't care and I never interacted with them. As for 
me being one of their go to guys I wish. Of late - in part hoping to 
generate some cash -- sent in two or three proposals for articles. The response 
each time. Nooooo. A SA/GP franchise? Oh come on. Why anyone who could say 
something like that is a gol da.... uh-oh, getting ticked off again, steam 
comin out of my ears and everything (but ya know, if I really let Ralph have it 
for impuning the ethics of a fine person like Kalliopi here without first 
checking with the pertinent parties I would really be justified -- but I'm 
holding back baby). I have not the teeniest doubt that Kalliopi was in no way 
influenced by the people at SciAmer, she just saw an interesting and 
important topic to cover. If it is otherwise I am sure she can let us know. 

Now hey folks, am I not right here. And well justified about being very, 
very unhappy about this. How about it? 

Please note that I am not claiming Ralph is attacking my ethics, he is 
making the charge against others. I'm just standing up for em. It is the never 
ending burden I bear as I fight for truth, justice, and the Scandinvian way 
(OK I admit it, I have fun doing this). 

G Paul</HTML>