tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post1462542614211908020..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: The Judge Doesn't Want to Be ReversedEliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-1794764041131935712012-04-22T21:54:36.968-04:002012-04-22T21:54:36.968-04:00David Appel links to a story in the Washington Tim...David Appel links to a story in the Washington Times (of all places) reporting that the judge subsequently threw ATI out on their asses. On to the appeals!Rattus Norvegicushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03449457204330125792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-49425431342404449122012-04-19T14:06:30.558-04:002012-04-19T14:06:30.558-04:001) Schnare's description of GMU's goodness...1) Schnare's description of GMU's goodness on FOIA is, shall we say,incomplete.<br /><br /><br />1) There have been several sets of FOIAs. The one in 2010 was quite specific to the CSDA article and its 3 Federal funding agencies, i.e., on a topic for which there was already strong evidence of plagiarism in a Federally-funded paper<br /><br />2)Among other things, he forgot to mention that no later than Fall 2005, Wegman and Said were using offcampus email addresses (gmail, hotmail) for most of their communications, even those for work in which they claimed GMU affiliations, like the Wegman Report or the CSDA article.<br /><br />3) Of course, Schnare is yet another GMU J.D., along with <a href="http://www.desmogblog.com/curious-coincidences-george-mason-university-ed-wegman-milton-johns-and-ken-cuccinelli" rel="nofollow">Cuccinelli and Milton Johns</a>, who is Wegman's lawyer. To be fair, unlike Johns, as far as I know, Schnare never was Cuccinelli's law partner. <br /><br />4) Of course, it is unclear why Schnare thinks he's qualified to speak credibly about competitive free markets. Maybe affiliation with a thinktank automagically confers such? Oddly, such credentials don't carry much weight around here in Silicon Valley.John Masheynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-26811051649140969372012-04-19T04:20:31.017-04:002012-04-19T04:20:31.017-04:00Curious how Schnare frames pretty much everything ...Curious how Schnare frames pretty much everything academic within the context of a free market ideology and system, yet uses Lysenkoism when it suits his argument, although I fail to see how it's possible for Lysenkoism to operate successfully within the framework of a free market.J Bowersnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-10877954442039012702012-04-18T16:03:21.340-04:002012-04-18T16:03:21.340-04:00Waiver issue is serious - I used the same thing to...Waiver issue is serious - I used the same thing to stop secret negotiations between land use agencies and developers here in California.<br /><br />Waiver because the emails went to Mann before joining suit is a technicality - I don't know how it'll be handled, but it's a technicality.<br /><br />OTOH, waiver because the emails were to and from people outside of UVa isn't a technicality.Brianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09301230860904555513noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-65876374445094992092012-04-18T11:43:36.468-04:002012-04-18T11:43:36.468-04:00First: I'm of mixed opinion as to whether FOIA...First: I'm of mixed opinion as to whether FOIA should apply to university professors. They are paid from public funding, but I feel that given the nature of the job there isn't a great public interest in most emails: first, they aren't involved in making laws, second, I think an argument can be made that academic investigation would suffer from being under a potential microscope. The exception to this is if there is evidence that moneys are being spent improperly: but that is where an IG or Attorney General should have a role (and not in the Cuccinelli fishing expedition fashion, but rather in the GSA 800,000 dollar party fashion). <br /><br />Second: I don't know about the letter of the law, but it seems sensible to me that the person who was the author or recipient of the emails in question should have a privileged position with respect to being able to see the email trove. The fact that skeptic sites are jumping up and down saying "Mann got to see them! Therefore, the glove fits!" without acknowledging Mann's special position are, once again, showing that they aren't real skeptics. (Now, it is possible that the letter of the law doesn't have room in it to make such an exception, but I don't think that the skeptics have any better sources of lawyerly knowledge than I do). <br /><br />Third: to the extent that the University system is treating the Mann FOIA differently than the Wegman or Michaels FOIAs, that is unfortunate. I can think of some reasons: Wegman was actually shown to be guilty of plagiarism, and was involved in a Report to Congress that is a different beast than scholarly publications; maybe the Mann FOIA was more kitchen-sink than the Wegman FOIA?; and the Michaels emails never ended up being released, so there is no indisputable evidence that his emails were less aggressively defended. But I don't know enough about any of the three cases to be able to judge why and whether they might be different.<br /><br />-MMMAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-62277641383744088052012-04-18T09:50:10.567-04:002012-04-18T09:50:10.567-04:00The elephant in the room is that the ATI only want...The elephant in the room is that the ATI only want the e-mails so they can leak passages selectively to the media. After that, they will "sincerely apologise".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com