Sunday, December 19, 2010

ND "Christopher Maloney is a Quack", Still [according to google.com]

well, when you do a google.com web search with the parameters >maloney quack<, you get these first-page results:

#1. 2010-12-08 - "Christopher Maloney is a Quack" at scienceblogs.com's Thoughts From Kansas;

#2. 2010-02-17 - "Christopher Maloney is a Quack" at scienceblogs.com's Pharyngula;

#3. 2010-02-18 - "Christopher Maloney: Still a Quack" at scienceblogs.com's Pharyngula;

#4. 2010-05-04 - "Christopher Maloney is still a QUACK!" at scienceblogs.com's Pharyngula;

#5. and #8. 2010-02-18 - "Christopher Maloney is a Quack" at A Hot Cup of Joe;





Note: and it goes on and on.  

I don't even rank in the top 100! I have seven Naturocrit pages regarding Maloney, by the way [this is the eighth], and I never called him a quack therein. I cited those who did, surely.

I take it that Myers will not be gifting ND Maloney this holiday season with his desired 'cease and desist': the deadline was the 2010-12-14 if you use Myer's posting date of 2010-12-07, or it was 2010-12-07 if you use the letter's as written date of 2010-11-30.

I must also add, Maloney called Atwood a quack [by post title] regarding Atwood's Medline piece, and engaged in quite obvious ad hominem.  The Medline papers are rock solid, in my view, and Atwood didn't get into the pigpen -- in terms of ungrounded personal attacks on competence and integrity.  But Maloney went the muddy way -- possibly libeling Atwood's "level of knowledge within his own area" -- and doesn't seem to have even read the entire Medline Atwood-published arc.

The irony is killing me: NCNM ND -- a place that irrationally labels the science-exterior and the science-interior as all the some kind of science stuff [a level of knowledge akin to forth grade?] -- who claims defamation,  apparently doesn't have a problem dishing it out.
Post a Comment