Comments

  3. Christian Burnham says

    ‘The author appears to be P. Z. Myers…’

    Hmmm, I wonder who else the author appears to be? Martha Stewart?

  5. says

    The author in question appears to be P.Z. Myers, a professor at the University of Minnesota. Morris and his writings are fun, hip, and squarely in the face of anyone with an antiscience bent. [Emphasis mine.]

    Who’s Morris?

  6. Christian Burnham says

    Yes- who’s this ‘Morris’ and why is he appearing to be P. Z. Myers? I want some answers.

  7. drerio says

    Subscribers….
    Heh, heh.
    GEN started showing up in my mailbox about two years ago, and now I can look forward to an approximately monthly call asking if I want to continue my free personal subscription, to which I say, “No” as I know I’ll still get the magazine and the phone calls but not have to answer their stupid questionnaire.

  9. bernarda says

    That rather reminds me of restaurant reviews in newspapers. Good going, your restaurant should be getting some more grazers.

  10. TAW says

    “Evolution, development, and random ejaculations from a godless liberal”

    HA! that makes it sound disgusting….

  12. says

    According to their key, the red X icon means “weak points”. That is, PZ’s “weak point” is that he writes about “nothing significant” — which is (a) bollocks and (b) not really consistent with the review text itself. Perhaps the reviewer’s estimation of the harm “antiscience folks” are causing is not concordant with mine.

  13. says

    Also, the blue ribbon means “excellent”. How can you be “excellent” while writing “nothing significant” I don’t know. Maybe I’m reading this completely backwards, and they really mean that PZ has no significant weak points?

  14. Christian Burnham says

    Blake- I think you’ll find that it means there are no significant weak points. At least, that’s my interpretation.

  16. says

    Right, it means no significant weak points. They must not have dwelt on the page for long, or they caught me on a good half hour.

  17. Kseniya says

    Right.

    Pros: “Well written, topical.”

    Cons: “Nothing significant.”

    I think it’s interesting to see which entry was chosen for the screen shot: “We Need A New Gender,” which was, as I recall, a spirited exchanged.

  18. says

    Vmartin and/or JAD attack in 3…2….1….

    btw, are they actually separate people, or is vmartin like a tiny outgrowth from JAD’s flank, like a little awful conjoined twin? not the friendly conjoined twin.

  19. says

    now that i think of it, that will be 3, 2, 1 weeks, for a letter to the editor. yeesh.

    i wonder how insane letters to the editors from the idiot twins will sounds

  20. dkew says

    GEN had a nice article 15 Mar 2006, by Alan McHughen, of UC Riverside, “Implications of Faith-Based Science” starting
    “Pressure is mounting to install faith-based beliefs into science classrooms. This movement subverts the very foundation of science–a search for the truthand turns science curricula into religious education. In schools and courts, religious crusaders equate faith-based beliefs with scientific theories, arguing, for example, that because the theory of evolution is unproved, alternative faith-based theories are equally valid and should be taught in science classes. .”
    My attempts to embed links don’t work, but http://www.genengnews.com/articles/chitem.aspx?aid=1410
    Several creationists complained, and McHughen had a great last word, in May 2006, but I can’t find letters to the editor in the GEN archives. GEN does have more than its share of right-wing editorials, though

  21. Liam says

    Aaaaaaah I seeee … University of Minnesota *COMMA* Morris and his…

    I feel (slightly) less dumb now..

  22. says

    Pharyngula was featured blog in Focus, the BBC’s science and technology mag, too. They particularly liked the idea of a belly-dancing commenter.