Holy crap! I gave quick and short preliminary responses to a large number of questions. That was in no way dismissive. Did you actually think you were giving me a list of new blog posts to write? And yes, when I write something in response to something, it is my opinion. I can’t believe you expected me to solicit other opinions and report them to you!!!

And no, I pretended nothing. As I’ve said numerous times, I’m simply passing on a request from a fellow blogger. The email she sent me was descriptive of her post, and that information was all I needed.

Seriously, I thought that was a great group of questions, and that is why I spent the time bothering to produce a few sentences in answer to each of them. I quite consciously made the decision to do that instead of something else.

I think you are probably a nice person and you seem fairly smart, etc. but you need to make some adjustments in regards to what you think this bloggy internety thing is and how it works.

Terse, dismissive, pontificating, know-nothing, know-everything, “answers” way down the comment trail.

Well, what do you expect when you phrase your questions that way?

Terse, dismissive, pontificating, know-nothing, know-everything, “answers” way down the comment trail. No opening of new threads, no inviting of comments from others (including experts). That’s fair, I suppose â?? why, on your blog, should we want or expect opinions other than yours? (Coturnix’s, for example on “open” versus “closed” publishing.)

I deserve nothing more, I suppose, being merely a long-time lurker. But not raising important questions simply because the one who raises them is no one you know is very unscientific and unscholarly IMHO.

And OMG! You didn’t even read Sheril’s “original” post (as you refer to it) before making your “original” post (as I refer to it?) And you pretended all day that you did? OMG!

Actually, I didn’t read her post. I got an email from a fellow blogger and helped her out. That was just before the merger. This is called “linking” and perhaps “pointing” … I leave it to you and everyone else to decide if you want to send her photos. You know, free will and all.

Is there // should there be a difference between the PLoS model of open publishing for scientific papers, and the model of “closed,” if you will, publishing of “trade” and “mass market” books.

Well, there IS a difference. With the PLoS model, the author pays for the distribution of the work. This is not cheap but affordable because there is grant money to cover that cost for many, they give you a break if you don’t have the grant, and it is entirely on line.

For trade and mass market books, the books are printed at a printer and distributed throughout meatland, either via UPS/Postal from Amazon or someplace, or via a bookstore. The reader pays for the book. Only by having each reader pay a smallish amount could such an operation be afforded.

I’m not quite sure how else you are going to fund the writing, production, and distribution of books. I’d be interested to hear, though.

Indeed, does there exist any “long form” publishing on scientific topics â?? other than the PhD thesis â?? than is *not* “trade” or “mass market.” Why not?

Yes, they’re called monographs or academic books, depending. Sheril’s book is not one of those. Acamemic books are usually WAY more expensive than trade or mass market because there is no economy of scale at all (very few are printed).

There is definitely room for a PLoS like model for this kind of publication. Off hand I don’t know of any, but there should be something out there somewhere. Only a tiny percentage of academic work (in terms of numbers of words written) is published in this form in the sciences.

Is there animal kissing? For what purpose (is it part of their foreplay?) How did it evolve. etc. etc.) (I can await Sheril’s book on this topic.)

I don’t know what sheril says, but I can tell you a couple of things: First, “kissing” in humans is not one thing, so the question “is there animal kissing” is automaticaly problematic.

Second, no, unless you define poking with the nose as kissing regardless of its function, not much kissing. But there is a lip-using kissy thing that captive and zoo chimps and bonobos do, and I believe wild chimps do in some groups, but I don’t know bout bonobos. This is a frienship/bonding/social tension reducing thing, it seems I don’t know if anyhting we would call kissing in chimps/bonobos is related to intercourse. Sexuality in chimps and bonobos is actually very different than in humans, so it would surprise me a great deal.

Is there animal pornography? As distinguished from animal behaviour that is interpreted by humans as pornographic? Can/do animals other than humans “see” behavior by others of their species as “sexy.”

Well, I’ve heard that sex-tapes are shown to pandas but I don’t know if it ‘worked’ or just amused them.

Question number 5 is kinda big. I believe Sheril’s book is a trade book, not an academic book.

I can tell you that I once loaned someone a photo and it ended up as the front cover of an academic book accredited to her because he publisher (Oxford University) press fucked up. When they came out with the paper edition of the book they were supposed to change the attribution of the photo but they failed to do so. For this reason, next time Oxford University Press asks me for a favor they won’t be getting it. Well, actually, I’ve had the opportunity already to do that but I have not forgiven them yet so I’m likely to do it again.

This discussion has come to the point where more heat than light is being generated. Stephanie says fucking porn is not illegal and then chastises me for an example of non-fucking porn that clearly is illegal.

Greg uses my construction “Greg/Sheril” to imply that I think they’re siamese twins (“merged as a single entity,” he says) when the construction would more normally be interpreted as I intended: “Greg AND/OR Sheril.” And indeed, neither the original post nor anything subsequent indicates whether Greg has accurately interpreted what it is that Sheril wants except for pictures of grizzlys kissing fish.

I love to strike sparks, and I enjoy being warm, but I’d be much happier if genuine discussion continued in a forum where riposte was not the medium of exchange.

Of the topics I’ve engaged today, the following seem to me interesting enough to warrant further discussion here on this blog or elsewhere. No particular order, despite the numbering.

1) Is there // should there be a difference between the PLoS model of open publishing for scientific papers, and the model of “closed,” if you will, publishing of “trade” and “mass market” books.

2) Indeed, does there exist any “long form” publishing on scientific topics â?? other than the PhD thesis â?? than is *not* “trade” or “mass market.” Why not?

3) Is there animal kissing? For what purpose (is it part of their foreplay?) How did it evolve. etc. etc.) (I can await Sheril’s book on this topic.)

4) Is there animal pornography? As distinguished from animal behaviour that is interpreted by humans as pornographic? Can/do animals other than humans “see” behavior by others of their species as “sexy.”

5) If one is (or twos are, etc.) a scientist publishing a scientific work, and one asks generally for contributions to that work, what does one owe the contributors? How much of what one owes must be made explicit “up front?” How, if at all, has the internet changed this? Where, if at all, is the code of conduct available to potential contributors? Where, in a nutshell, does plagiarism begin and end?

Greg â?? I have been required to post my e-mail addy on each of my posts today, including this one. You have my permission (1) to contact me privately via that e-mail, and (2) To provide that e-mail addy to Stephanie Zahn so that she may privately contact me.

We have merged as a single entity, Sheril and me!

I don’t think my alter ego, Sheril said a thing. I mad a very low key joke. Such a big deal we did not make, individually or collectively.

Mere genius will not do it. One must be endowed with extratemporality. (or is that “uberzeit”?)

And for fuck’s sake, porn is not illegal. Stop talking as though it were.

Granted. So why did Greg/Sheril make such a big deal of it? As I noted, Sheril’s upcoming book will arguably be deficient without a treatment of kissing in porn and a treatment of of animal kissing.

Also, fucking /= porn except among a very restricted (I hope) segment of the populace. So, “and for chastity’s sake, porn is not illegal…” either.

That is, you could have made your point without the four-letter expletive. I think in any case that porn is more often associated not with f**king, but rather with solitary masturbating. Maybe you should more accurately have said “For wank’s sake…”

But ask someone you know who is a photographer whether there are any more restrictions to posting on the internet (1) a picture of two ten-year-olds dressed in cutsey dutch costumes kissing each other or (2) a picture of the same two ten-year-olds fully nude kissing each other. Would Greg have been justified in suggesting that the one type of picture, but not the other, be posted to Sheril and himself? But not justified in calling it porn?

And for fuck’s sake, porn is not illegal. Stop talking as though it were.