Hey moron, that’s for you, personally

If you don’t think being the moron I’m addressing, you don’t have to read the rest of the post.
Exception made for those who may be concerned about the moron’s conduct. And what it could trigger.

There is a moron out there who despite the fact that he was warned that his crap isn’t welcome in the comments of my blogs or in my incoming e-mail box, still continues to send it.

He must first apologizes for his misconduct, false accusations, insults etc. That is personal. And I warned him that if his messages don’t start with that, there is no point to try to contact me.

He also must produce clear demonstration of the eventual connexion of his hypothesis to experimental data, say a picture where a pair of two counter-rotating vortices are visible in the chick embryo. This isn’t anymore personal discussion, this is about correct scientific conduct (#7 Do not mislead; present evidence honestly): if you name something « theory » one expects that you can readily prove what you claim. Especially if it is contradicting clearly what experts on the field have published, say that there is two counter-rotating vortices where you see four of them.

If the said moron have evidence against that he should address it as soon as possible at the authors saying otherwise, as well as the editors of the journals that published the papers. Science must go on and a corrigendum should be published. This is somehow urgent, as even close peers (that is physicists working on modeling developmental processes) when looking at the same images as the said moron, fail to see the second pair of vortices and lose time modeling just one pair of them! Scientific ethos should be a strong enough drive to make the movement and help colleagues, a lot of them, suffering blindness.
On the other hand, once this done, it would be wise to continue in such a glorious path, and demonstrate other claims, such as that the four vortices (including the two invisible ones for the moment) are positioned exactly as expected, that is with their center over the presumptive limb buds. That’s funny, that remembers me of a discussion with… Bah, nevermind.

Now, if the said moron don’t have evidence say against the two counter-rotating vortices images and videos interpretation by the experts, don’t have evidence about his models, nothing experimental to support his hypothesis, none hypothesis validated by experimental work to support his theory, but still enough time to spend elsewhere than trying to produce such evidence, say writing commentaries and e-mails addressed to me, he should consider seriously contacting the chief editor of the journal where he published in order to ask a corrigendum stating that those are hypothesis not experimentally tested and in clear contradiction with already published data.
It would be nasty if somebody else contact them to ask questions about the way the papers of members of their editorial board are reviewed and why they aren’t correctly labeled: « Hypothesis:[title] ».
And such a nasty thing could be triggered by any new unsolicited message, whatever path is employed, including webpages where one expect that published work is presented (thus said the lab manager).

I hope I made it clear enough, even for a moron. And, mostly important, no reply is expected or wanted, on the contrary I’m seeking forward to see the moron address the specialists of the field : Cornelius « Kees » Weijer, James A. Glazier or Timothy Newman and I’ll be scanning the scientific literature for the result.

I hope that Mme Anne Renault, Mme Sylvie Beaufils and M. Guy Jezequel are as eager as I am to see experimental evidence or retraction of the theory and will either help to obtain the former or do the necessary to produce the latter. Why those three persons? I think they do have a connection with the said moron, but I will not produce any evidence about it.

Some people could think that I’m addressing this message to Stuart Pivar, for Lifecode. This is not the case.

Posted under housekeeping, in an effort to keep the place clean and closed. I wouldn’t like to reopen this blog.

4 Réponses

  1. I have something to report here, directly connected with the moron Antoine mention in his post.

    Coward enough to avoid doing anything that could make Antoine mad enough to decide to take one further step and contact the Organogenesis editors, he posted a comment on my blog.

    As usually, he change the subject of the discussion, avoid to address the absence of the second pair of counter-rotating vortices he terms L2/R2 and deport the discussion at the « saddle point ».
    This is really weird, the guy should probably talk about his problems with a psychiatrist. He is unable to focus to a particular point, always trying to change the subject of the ongoing discussion. Or maybe is just a strategy to continue spreading his crap, avoiding to accept that it might be just crap.

    Fleury, your failed to provide evidence supporting your claims, unable to show that the L2/R2 vortices exist and that if they exist they are centered over the future hind limb buds. This is a sound public failure.

    Two alternatives: You provide evidence or you retract your theory and the papers at least for the period necessary to collect that evidence.
    Maybe a third one: you lose credibility as a scientist and that should be further examined.

  2. 😉 Hello Agathi,

    Look lady, I forgotten to close the comments in this post and it’s tedious to shut them off once the post is published.

    That doesn’t mean that youshould come here and comment.
    Why don’t you use your blog? You do have one and it’s empty.

    And reconsider joining Coffee and Sci(ence), you are welcome and there are people out there more interested about Science than about promoting Plato😉

  3. point hyperbolique, saddle point=>quatre recirculations, si, si. c’est dans le papier de Weijer himself dont je vous ai adressé la référence.
    ça devrait suffire, non?

  4. Never late to do the job

    Nope, this is bout four (4) vortices we are talking about, not the saddle point.

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :