« Casey Luskin Wrong on Tiktaalik | Main | As Good As Dowsing »

January 12, 2010


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It's hard to be sure from the context, and I'm afraid I'm too lazy right now to dig up the original source, but isn't Wallace quoting someone else in that extract? If the quote is accurate, then Fisher's issue should be with whoever is being quoted.

Nope. Never crossed my mind when I emailed it to Conde Nast's attorneys...

Let's see - Fisher sues Wallace and Wired. Wallace and Wired sue Handley. If there is a valid lawsuit, wouldn't it be more efficient to just have Handley pay Fisher?

Wouldn't it be better to sue the man (I didn't get his name) the author was quoting?
I was watching House recently, one of the reigning fictitious skeptics! He was interviewing a new-age-esque mom about her ill baby. The mom said she didn't believe in vaccinations, not mentioning autism, but bc she believed it was "big business." House said the same thing about baby coffins. Bazing.

Is "guess who" a call for us to guess who it is (in which case I wonder why you put a question mark at the end of it) or is it a strangely worded question asking us whom some people guess?

Sarah, Offit is also included in the lawsuit, along with the publisher.

Apparently there are lots of lies being passed around about Offit. These included that he was on the committee that voted in the use of the vaccine he co-invented (he was not, he had left it several years before), and the stated amount he got for co-invented is multiplied several times (since he shares the patent with two others the actual figure is around $6 million, an amount I assume you would want for something you spent twenty years working on), and that he wants mandatory vaccine (which is one that Fisher flogs around without any evidence, I guess she can claim she is psychic).

Bloggers are the type of people who use to stand on street corners or in the local square and rant on hoping that someone was listening, because, like bloggers if they blurted on as they do dace to face with the people they know their conversation would be over within very short time.
Bloggers have been given a free hand to broadcast world wide and hopefully find some like minded nutcase who's attention they can maintain on their same level.
Some fortunate folk have been given a sofa in front of TV cameras, get paid millions and broadcast their _mind-numbing_ waffle ( as is the purpose: to numb the mind with waffle)to millions of like minded nutters on all on their same wave length.
Now you can delete this as you wish, your prerogative, and yet this posting here is the result of critical thinking of an irrational world of which you are a part and contribute to in your own little way.
Yours Expressfully,
Cappucino De Vinci

Wow, just wow.

Dear Ms. Knutter, the biggest difference between a blogger and the person ranting on the corner is that you must actually choose to read a blog.

What brought you here? What part of your comment is an illustration of critical thinking? And what does it have to do with Barbara Loe Fisher attempting to silence critics with a lawsuit?

Bloggers are the type of people who use to stand on street corners or in the local square and rant on hoping that someone was listening

So what does that say about people who post dismissive comments on blogs? Who is more foolish - the fool, or the fool who comments on him?

Wow, Emma, talk about a style over substance fallacy.

That's right: Don't bother looking at the research done, sources cited, the logic involved in reaching conclusions, or anything like that. Judge a book by the fact that it's a book!

You have a very appropriate last name.

Um, yeh, ok. Hello? Another sherry for the lady please.

Don't you think she's already imbibed considerably more than might be considered wise? It's the only explanation I can think of for that rambling, ill-punctuated post.

There two commas in the rant, and they were correctly placed, as far as it went. However, they were both near the beginning. After the second, the lady seems to have had enough of them. She left a dead set-up for a parenthetic phrase, but only the left parenthetic comma was used. I'm getting blue in the face waiting for the resumption of the main clause.

I was hoping a few more swigs might help her get to the point.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search site