Glatz criticisms.cwk (WP) - Calodema

Calodema, 157: 1-11 (2011)T.J. Hawkeswood- Richard GlatzAs for giving names….. I said previously I gave mine directly to Hawkeswood when I raised the issue DIRECTLY withhim through his website (PRIOR to any blogs…. and just copped abuse as I outlined above)…..who caresanyway?….the argument was about Calodema, until TJ brought my background into it to avoid the main questions.His approach was to try and make me look bad rather than deal with key questions for which there are no goodanswers.There is no need to defend your blog……anyone here heard of free speech? TJH and friends are using this concept toit’s maximum, so why do they complain when others do. At least our comments are independent. You will also notethat I never used nicknames.This is R, the molecule monster (sic) signing off for the last time and wishing you all a good day.9. 2nd Email from C.J. Parker to the Medlar Comfits blog site (21 March 2011)Chris J Parker said...Anna perhaps you would allow me just one more post? I guess a guy can change his mind? Please understand I am nota very smart man and I recognise this but all my life I have tried to improve my lot. There is so much I don’tunderstand but fortunately I have been able to learn a bit as I have meandered through my almost 50 years of life. Ihave been quite successful in business, mainly on account of very good luck than anything else. Right place at theright time etc etc.Anna, what spun my hoop was the likes of “R” and “marek” criticising this guy Hawkeswood who, from what I can see,has stood up, done the hard yards in the field, and published scientific material. OK, so possibly he did it outside the“accepted parameters”. Well who the hell cares? It’s certainly infinitely better than anything I could produce so heinstantly receives my admiration. Does it mean if I go blundering around in the bush and some across (say) a new frogspecies and write my observations, opinions, and thoughts about the find that elitists like “R” and “marek” will callme a crackpot because I don’t have a PhD from UQ? Does this mean that someone like me has no right to contribute toscience?Finally I am stunned that Hawkeswood, the so called “crackpot”, can ruffle the feathers of so many highly educatedgeniuses. It just doesn’t seem to add up to me. How can Hawkeswood’s journal, publications, and website upset somany so badly? There must be another agenda. Insecurity perhaps? Jealousy? Maybe their minds are closed to othersoutside their comfy clique? I suggest they do something worthwhile that the average punter can relate to.What Hawkeswood has done is make science, at least in his field, available to anyone and it sure as hell won’t worrythe vast majority that the work is not officially sanctioned by the CSIRO. I love reading his work. Sure, I understandonly 25% of it but that’s my problem. I say let the man alone to achieve what he will. I have to tell you that the mostinteresting people I have ever met are those who were thought to be a bit loopy, unconventional, or “out there”. I don’tknow if Hawkeswood falls into that category but he certainly appears to be an interesting bugger to me!CommentsIn the first paragraph of Letter 1, Richard Glatz criticises Calodema as being a “boys ownannual”. Well, so what, most journals in the world are exactly the same. They publish oftenesoteric research only understandable to a few people in the world and if a submitted paper is notsuitable for any reason they will reject it. Most of these journals are of very limited scope, sothey are really more a “boys own annual” than Calodema, which will accept a diverse range ofresearch in the biological sciences as well as discussion letters and responses. Most journals in theworld are not prepared for open discussion, which should be a serious concern for the scientificcommunity.Glatz, also in his first letter, states that the content of Calodema is not science. According toone dictionary definition, science is “The observation, identification, description, experimentalinvestigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Calodema is a mostly a descriptivejournal with observations and identification. There are also experimental and theoretical paperspublished as well. Therefore, again Glatz’s comments are false and meant to smear the journal andits staff and contributors. Well I can honestly say that his smear tactics DID NOT WORK. Thejournal Calodema and its website www.calodema.com is thriving beyond all expectations. Thewebsite has been top of the Google search engine for years and at the time of writing had overPage 8