Joined: July 2006
What a whiner
|Update on the status of our application with ResearchBlogging.org|
Here are the facts of this situation:
(1) On Feb. 3, I posted this blog post. A co-worker had recommended that I include a graphic that said this was discussing peer-reviewed research. At the time, I was unaware of ResearchBlogging.org and the fact that they requested registration in order to use their graphic. Important note: It should be clear that when I first posted my post, I had not yet seen ResearchBlogging.org and was unaware of how it worked.
(2) On Feb. 4, I became aware of the fact that ResearchBlogging.org requested registration to use their graphic, and I immediately attempted to register--twice. Both times when I tried to register, when I submitted the request, I was directed to a page that looked something like garbled code, so it wasn't clear to me if the registration process was working properly. I then submitted an inquiry to ResearchBlogging.org wondering if they could correct the problem. I asked them for guidance, requesting direction for how I should proceed.
(3) On Feb. 5, I received a response from ResearchBlogging.org that, among other things, directed me to a discussion page which stated that the graphic I originally used was copyrighted by them. At the time that I posted this post, I was not aware that the graphic I had used was owned by ResearchBlogging.org. ResearchBlogging.org did not request that I remove their graphic, and in fact their rules are ambiguous, and they do not say that the graphic I used cannot be used while one is seeking an application with Researchblogging.org. Nevertheless, I never had any intention of violating anyone's copyright, and so I removed their graphic from this page and the EvolutionNews.org server at my own choice.
(4) In the response from ResearchBlogging.org, they also told me that, (a) they did receive my registration requests, (b) registration requests were granted at their discretion, and © a discussion thread was taking place about whether I should be granted registration. I was told that, "At present, after 26 comments, the consensus appears to be that your post is in violation of our guidelines. If you believe your post does meet our guidelines, I would encourage you to post your explanation in the discussion there." The conclusion was therefore: "We can't approve your registration at this time because your post does not appear to follow our guidelines, but if you can show us either that your post does now follow the guidelines, or if you can append the post itself so that it follows the guidelines, then we'll proceed with approving your registration."
(5) I then went to the discussion thread and replied back to the users ResearchBlogging.org as follows: (I am in the process of composing this response right now).
What an ass
So he was "unaware" of ResearchBlogging.org but is happy to steal the logo in question and add it to his post?
Why, Casey, why? If you wanted a logo then you could have created your own!
I can't wait to read his "response", especially his justification for the "no comment" policy on the post in question (and all others!)
I guess his response will appear here at some point.
I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".
if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot stand