2 ms·

I think the difference of opinion stems from others seeing this as a continuation of a pattern of behavior, whereas you seem to be considering this in isolation

I think the difference of opinion stems from others seeing this as a continuation of a pattern of behavior, whereas you seem to be considering this in isolation. I'd certainly feel differently about it if he hadn't done something similar with 'Oumuamua, leveraged that for a media tour, and framed any criticism of him as evidence he was the only person researching the possibility of extraterrestrial intelligence. The last one especially is why I don't give him the benefit of the doubt, it's entirely disingenuous. It's not that I have a problem with scientists being imaginative. It's that I have a problem with anyone running a grift, regardless of their background. It certainly isn't pearl clutching to judge his intentions by the broader constellations of actions and statements that he's made. I'm confused why you seem to be taking offense and have begun dispensing insults. I don't think anyone is criticizing you. I'm certainly not. I'm disagreeing with you about this matter in particular, and that is the beginning and the end of it for me.

anigbrowl 3y ago
I haven't insulted you. By 'pearl clutching' I refer to your use of italics to emphasize words for purely rhetorical effect, like it's a Daily Mail scandal. I'm well aware that he has made bold claims on this topic in the past, some of which I found more persuasive than others. I'm fine with him doing that as long as he's not fabricating evidence, and nobody is suggesting such.
- maxbond 3y ago
  Emphasis is definitely not the defining feature of pearl clutching, and rhetoric isn't a dirty word. I used emphasis to draw your attention to what I thought was most important - pretty normal behavior. That's all well and good if you are okay with what he's doing, I personally think he's skirting the edge of professional ethics while attacking the people who are actually doing this work, and I think that's pretty crummy. Frankly if you want to tell me that I'm "pearl clutching" and that my rhetoric is "like the Daily Mail" in an exasperated tone, but that you aren't being insulting, then I don't think you're being entirely honest with me. (For what it's worth I don't take offense.)

anigbrowl 3y ago

I haven't insulted you. By 'pearl clutching' I refer to your use of italics to emphasize words for purely rhetorical effect, like it's a Daily Mail scandal. I'm well aware that he has made bold claims on this topic in the past, some of which I found more persuasive than others. I'm fine with him doing that as long as he's not fabricating evidence, and nobody is suggesting such.

maxbond 3y ago
Emphasis is definitely not the defining feature of pearl clutching, and rhetoric isn't a dirty word. I used emphasis to draw your attention to what I thought was most important - pretty normal behavior. That's all well and good if you are okay with what he's doing, I personally think he's skirting the edge of professional ethics while attacking the people who are actually doing this work, and I think that's pretty crummy. Frankly if you want to tell me that I'm "pearl clutching" and that my rhetoric is "like the Daily Mail" in an exasperated tone, but that you aren't being insulting, then I don't think you're being entirely honest with me. (For what it's worth I don't take offense.)