Message-id: <24578.58290.qm@web52403.mail.re2.yahoo.com> Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2008 11:23:50 -0800 (PST) From: Jeffrey Martz To: VRTPALEO@usc.edu Sender: owner-VRTPALEO@usc.edu Envelope-to: mike@indexdata.com Delivery-date: Fri, 07 Mar 2008 09:00:42 +0100 Subject: Lucas' rebuttal and What We Want I can assure everyone that we are at least as tired of this as you are. We have been at this now for the better part of a year, and could have been devoting ourselves to much more rewarding pursuits. If Lucas' rebuttal contained a substantial refutation of our allegations which could convince us that nothing unethical had occurred, we would be thrilled (if embarrassed) to simply admit we erred, give up this onerous campaign, and get back to work. We all have things we'd rather be doing. Unfortunately, the rebuttal from Dr. Lucas, which we had repeatedly asked both the DCA and UNM for in the past (and been denied until Tuesday), is based on outright falsehoods and bizarre interpretations. Granted, it certainly is very well-written. We can understand better how the DCA and Executive Committee allowed themselves to be swayed, and regret that we were not given the opportunity to address Lucas's rebuttals earlier. Bill is currently pulling together his documentation that shows that several of Lucas' assertions, which figure heavily into his accusations of Bill as having behaved unethically, are blatantly false in a way that is hard to chalk up to a memory lapse on Lucas' part. We are also preparing a longer document which outlines why Lucas' arguments are illogical and inconsistent. We will hopefully have this ready to post within the next week. The DCA hearing was conducted even more shadily than we expected. It is pretty obvious that the DCA wants this to die without having to even risk admitting to any wrongdoing, either on Lucas' part or its own. They only asked for testimony from the accused (Lucas and Hunt) and two close associates (Silberling and Anderson), both of whom begin their testimony by expressing their admiration of him. If we had been allowed to sit in, and asked to comment, we could have dismantled the claims and arguments presented without much difficulty, and then given them the immediate opportunity to respond. Unfortunately we are going to have to do it by stance correspondence, yet again. It is also interesting that both Lucas and the DCA provided lists of possible editorial changes to the bulletin mirroring our own -- almost as if they either recognized the need for these changes, or simply wanted to appear to be addressing our requests so that we would go away without them having to acknowledge any serious problems. So why are we still messing with this? Why don't we just accept that they are proposing editorial changes such as we requested, and conveniently drop the accusations? Three reasons: 1) The proposed editorial changes are meaningless unless it is clear what they are intended to prevent. If the wrongdoing is not acknowledged, then clearly the editorial changes are not intended to prevent the sort of abuses we have accused them of. 2) Lucas has attempted to acquit himself of ethical wrongdoing by accusing Bill, and using false statements in order to do it. This must be answered. 3) If we drop the case now, we send the message that a biased and unethically conducted investigation can convince the accusers to abandon their case. This is a dangerous message to send, and our hands are morally tied to demand it be done right. We are also realists about the impact of Lucas' letter, and the DCA decision. Few people, even those really interested in the case, are intimately familiar with the literature and evidence either for or against our accusations, and will therefore either remain noncommittal, or be swayed by the most superficially compelling argument. This is human nature. We hope that those more interested in the truth than in a comforting silence will show more patience.