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