Joined: Dec. 2007
Denyse demonstrates the gentle art of the Own Goal:
First, she has a very, very important announcement:
Book #5 in the Top Ten books to read on the intelligent design controversy series is (ta da!):
|Why Us? How Science Rediscovered the Mystery of Ourselves by James Le Fanu. The second international book to make the Top Ten list this year is Why Us? by James Le Fanu, a British medical doctor who publishes in peer-reviewed medical journals like the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine and the British Medical Journal, a columnist for the London Telegraph, winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Award for his book The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine (2001).|
She goes on to mention:
|This is a great book to give your Darwin-devoted friends. Intelligent design is never mentioned, but the foundation for the materialist, reductionist world-view is systematically dismantled by a well-known authority on science and medicine.|
Then she just has to tell the world about the evil New Scientist magazine:
|[From Denyse: A sideshow with respect to this story is that New Scientist (the National Enquirer of pop science mags) had to withdraw - due to a libel threat - an article bashing design in which Le Fanu and I were the only persons mentioned. So the cry went up, who made the threat? I don’t know who made it, but I can tell you who didn’t. I am a free speech journalist who finds Britain’s libel laws a scandal in need of serious reform. So some have assumed it was Le Fanu who complained. I do not know, but the article is back up now, with a comment from Le Fanu, so I assume this is a minor happy ending. Libel law reform in Britain would be a major happy ending.]|
Having set herself up for a faceplant, we continue on to the replies:
|Heinrich gives us some interesting information in reply #1:|
Denyse, this is what is written at the top of the New scientist article you link to:
| This article was temporarily taken down on legal advice after New Scientist’s editor, Roger Highfield, received a letter from a law firm on behalf of James Le Fanu, the GP and author of the book Why Us? Following discussions, New Scientist has now reinstated the article accompanied by a comment from Dr Le Fanu.|
I think there’s a hint in there about the identity of the complainant.
O'Leary shoots right back with reply #2:
Yes, a writer and editor who wants to reform the British libel laws and whose number five selection for ID book of the year is by an author who uses the unreformed British libel laws you so decry to censor an article criticizing himself! Great shot Denyse! Right into the center of your own goal!
Thanks for pointing that out, Heinrich. Okay, end of story.
However, I rather wish Britain would reform its libel laws.
Keeping publications on tenterhooks for months is not the way to go, in my view. But I am hardly an unbiased source; I am a writer and editor.
Surprisingly, the infamous Mung has the last, best laught in comment 3:
Very good Mung, that is certainly true in O'Leary's case!
But I am hardly an unbiased source; I am a writer and editor.
All writers are biased.
All editors are biased
All writers who are also editors must be extremely biased.
...after reviewing the arguments, Iâ€™m inclined to believe that the critics of ENCODEâ€™s bold claim were mostly right, and that the proportion of our genome which is functional is probably between 10 and 20%. --Vincent Torley, uncommondescent.com 1/1/2016