RE: The Scientific American Blog

["ralphchapman" <ralphchapman@earthlink.net>]

You are full of such crap Greg. As much as you really want to try and get
Kalliopi to do whatever dirty work you want to do here with that cowardly
ending, you really need to look at what the words are and, perhaps, a
remedial reading class in order for you. In the first post I stated I didn't
think she knew she was in that position and hence the inference was that
this was an accidental position she finds herself in;

" I don't know Kalliopi and presume she's a great person and was just 
trying to do good and really had no idea that what she was really 
doing was actually a problem, but, frankly, it really is."

So there is no problem with that and she would have nowhere to go. 

So the Scientific American organization no longer sells your book? There
will never be the possibility of a new edition or working with them again
based on this experience? Have they stated they no longer have any
affiliation with you?

Get Real Greg. You really need a timeout.

R




-----Original Message-----
From: owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu [mailto:owner-DINOSAUR@usc.edu] On Behalf Of
GSP1954@aol.com
Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 3:00 PM
To: dinosaur@usc.edu
Subject: Re: The Scientific American Blog

In messages dated 3/18/11 ralphchapman@earthlink.net writes:

<<Further, it is one of Greg's main publishers so it has a vested interest 
in
keeping this franchise of theirs going.>> 

<< when  Kalliopi decided to blog this on the official SA website, she 
ceased being an independent party as the corporation sponsoring the blog has
a 
self-interest in one side of the argument.  >>

Woah Nellie! The above, and frankly old buddy Ralph irresponsible 
allegations, about the ethics of Kalliopi and SciAmer need clarification
real fast. 
Ralph went so far as to suggest law suits. Those who live in glass houses 
should not cast stones. By making allegations about Kalliopi's and SA's
ethics 
without first verifying them Ralph -- who is usually a nice enough fella -- 
is literally risking slandering a person - I am not making this up, Kalliopi

could sue Ralph for defamation. Am just stating the facts, don't get after 
me about it. I really wish Ralph had contacted either or both of us first to

avoid the misimpression he gave -- again, this is one reason I get ticked 
off about how these lists are used without first being more sure of the 
facts. But I will stay nice -- this time. So just the facts. 

I have no current connection with SciAmer. They commissioned a print 
article way back in the last century. A number of years ago a brief online
piece. 
The book I edited was through an independent publisher (check the pubication

page), the folks at SA didn't care and I never interacted with them. As for 
me being one of their go to guys I wish. Of late - in part hoping to 
generate some cash -- sent in two or three proposals for articles. The
response 
each time. Nooooo. A SA/GP franchise? Oh come on. Why anyone who could say 
something like that is a gol da.... uh-oh, getting ticked off again, steam 
comin out of my ears and everything (but ya know, if I really let Ralph have
it 
for impuning the ethics of a fine person like Kalliopi here without first 
checking with the pertinent parties I would really be justified -- but I'm 
holding back baby). I have not the teeniest doubt that Kalliopi was in no
way 
influenced by the people at SciAmer, she just saw an interesting and 
important topic to cover. If it is otherwise I am sure she can let us know. 

Now hey folks, am I not right here. And well justified about being very, 
very unhappy about this. How about it? 

Please note that I am not claiming Ralph is attacking my ethics, he is 
making the charge against others. I'm just standing up for em. It is the
never 
ending burden I bear as I fight for truth, justice, and the Scandinvian way 
(OK I admit it, I have fun doing this). 

G Paul</HTML>