"The Scientific American" has been, for at least 25 years, little more than "The Scientific Democrat". In other words, it is politics posing as science. BTW: I was an adviser to Dukakis's platform committee in 88' and I first used the term "The Scientific Democrat" around that time, the bias was so obvious and embarrassing.
I don't know what happened to SciAm in the 80's. Does anyone have an explanation? In any event, the important thing to note here is that they feel it necessary to sacrifice one of their pawns. What can be the point of this to "The Scientific Democrat"'s political agenda? Is it just a random spasm? On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 4:40 PM, Jed Rothwell <jedrothw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Ouellette explained: > > > "FYI, there have been some technical problems with the commenting system, > but as I announced at the start of the post, I am also moderating the > comment thread heavily — because every time anyone criticizes cold > fusion/low-temp nuclear reactions, the same people descend upon the comment > thread with the same arguments, links, and so forth. That has certainly > been the case with this post, as expected. > > I reiterate what I said in my original caveat: my blog, my rules. I am > under no obligation to publish every single comment, and I will not let > obsessive acolytes hijack this space with multiple comments the way I’ve > seen done at many other sites. . ." > > > > So I wrote another message. I expect these mysterious technical glitches > she refers to will soon magically erase it. For the record, here it is: > > > "If you are going to quote Robert Park, it seems to me you owe it to your > audience to quote him when he brags publicly that he has never read a > single paper. That is what he has said, repeatedly. He said it to a large > crowd of people at the APS. If you do not believe me, ask him yourself. It > is misleading to quote him as some sort of expert when he brags about the > fact that he knows nothing. > > The editors of the Scientific American also told me that they have read no > papers on this subject, because 'reading papers is not our job.' Their > assertions about cold fusion also technically wrong. I published their > comments here: > > http://lenr-canr.org/wordpress/?p=294 . . ." > > - Jed > >
