I certainly don't agree with the way the doc has chosen to handle this, but I sympathize to a degree. There's no shortage of ignorance about how the Internet w

I certainly don't agree with the way the doc has chosen to handle this, but I sympathize to a degree. There's no shortage of ignorance about how the Internet works among otherwise educated people. Also, the author seems a bit disingenuous. >The web site in question is Retraction Watch. I recently discussed other foolish threats made against them, and discussed their mission: offering a "window on the scientific process" by which scientific articles are criticized, retracted, or modified." The full statement is "Tracking retractions as a window into the scientific process". This is a 2200+ word post, seems unlikely those three words had to be clipped in the interest of brevity. >He's acted like an angry blustering oaf who is pathologically intolerant of criticism. Ask yourself — how much do you trust the work of a scientist who threatens to sue for true reports of peer review of his work? Would you feel comfortable ingesting a drug developed by a chemist who threatens criminal charges against someone who reports — truly and accurately — that other scientists have raised questions about his conclusions? Would you hire a consultant who makes foolish public legal threats without first acquiring any grasp whatsoever of the applicable law? Would you invest in a pharmaceutical company whose Chief Scientific Officer utters civil and criminal threats against reports of scientific dissent? That seems unnecessarily nasty.