Thursday, March 5, 2009

Why are you doing this?


What's not to like about Mohamed El Naschie?



There are superb practitioners in any area who are awful people, are unfaithful to their wives, and have any number of character flaws. And there are fine people who are good at their jobs as well. Generally, the details of peoples personal lives are not good predictors of their professional lives. Similarly, the question of whether El Naschie has wronged me (he hasn't) may be personally interesting, but it is irrelevant to whether the assertions I make about him are true or false.

I got an email asking

Are you a private person who got into an argument with El Naschie? A faculty member at UW who got deprived of credit for some of your research? Has he wronged you in some way? Why don't you state your case clearly and concisely the way scientists usually do, and then we can judge for ourselves. In the short time spent on your blog, I could not establish why you don't like him or dedicated an entire website to criticizing a single person without giving any reasons. Your email address and signature does not give any indication of affiliation; for all I know you could just be somebody who got into a fight with him over a woman and got upset with losing her.


There is only one sentence here that has anything to do with the rightness or wrongness of my bloggery: "Why don't you state your case clearly and concisely the way scientists usually do, and then we can judge for ourselves."

I'll do my best.

The other questions are entirely irrelevant to the justness of my blog. However, people are people. They are curious. I understand, and I don't mind answering.

  • I've never met El Naschie.

  • Years ago I was an assistant professor at the UW.

  • I have no current affiliation.

  • I've never been deprived of credit for my research, afaik.

  • He's never personally wronged me.

  • After the UW I worked at a huge software company widely and stupidly regarded as evil. Eventually I quit. I'm taking time off and doing what amuses me.

  • Discomfiting this creep amuses me. No one pays me to do it.

  • We are not rivals for any woman's affections. (Too bad. It would be great for traffic.)


Now I'll explain why he's a creep, and deserving of the scorn we here at El Naschie Watch cast upon him.

But first, two non-reasons:

  • Many of his papers are rambling stream-of-consciousness numerological nonsense.

  • Chaos, Solitons and Fractals is a $4,520.00 per annum ripoff.


No doubt he'd rather write good papers. He just can't. That doesn't make him a creep. Nor did he as Editor-in-Chief set the price. Elsevier did that. That's not his fault, and it doesn't make him a creep.

These are the things that make him a creep deserving of all the derision this blog can dish:

  • He's a hyperenlawyered bully.

  • He lies about his credentials, e.g., claiming to be a full professor.

  • He claims to be a great scientist deserving of a Nobel prize.

  • He unloads this garbage to an uncritical Arab media and successfully hoodwinks the gullible.

  • For his lack of a Nobel prize, he blames racism against Arabs; and prejudice against those named Mohamed; and against Muslims.


That last one is the most egregious. It is scapegoating. He promotes victim mentality and encourages anti-Western xenophobia among Arabs even while living his cushy gazillionaire life with homes in Alexandria... and in Surrey. It's the reason this blog uses the Arabic stylistic ornaments (faux Arabic writing in the header and Arabesque tiles on the sides) that some visitors here have objected to. It's my way of throwing the poseur's crap right back at him. It's not to offend Arabs or Muslims, many of whom know that El Naschie is a fraud: It's to offend M. S. El Naschie.

This is getting long, so I'll talk about the hamas photoshop in another post.


Translate English to Arabic


محمد النشائي El Naschie Watch محمد النشائي El Naschie News محمد النشائي
محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائي

StumbleUpon.com

7 comments:

  1. To those of us who have been aware of him for many years, it is clear that you have neither connection nor prior experience with M S El N, for the simple reason that you've only emerged as consequence of the blog activity begun a few months ago. None of us had the time or energy to research and collect the material, but now that it's received real publicity (in large part due to the equally community-minded efforts of Skoda starting a year ago, who as a young mathematical physicist was simply irate as a matter of principle, and finally broke through via a comment to Baez's blog last Nov), it has been efficiently crowdsourced as a collective enterprise.

    It is now an outstanding exercise to see whether web 2.0 can finally bring down someone who has long abused underly permissive UK libel law (to which even US citizens are subject if they travel to the UK after conviction in absentia) to bully all previous critics into silence, and abused the gullibility of his devoted public to portray himself as a credible researcher. The original versions of Die Zeit and Nature articles if anything went far too easy on him, and it's shameful they back down so quickly.

    > After the UW I worked at a huge software company widely and stupidly regarded as evil

    Careful, the number of UW ass profs who went to work for MS El evil is an easily denumerable set.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Great comment, thank you!

    >Careful, the number of UW ass profs who went to work for MS El evil is an easily denumerable set.

    Not a problem. I'm not hiding behind a pseudonym. I'm Jason Rush. That's my real email address in my profile.

    ReplyDelete
  3. > Not a problem. I'm not hiding behind a pseudonym.
    > I'm Jason Rush. That's my real email address in
    > my profile.

    But then that's presumably your real address looked up in google, and a real close-up photo of your residence from above in google maps satellite view, not to mention street view. (If this were Vinge's "True Names" that would mean your residence could now be targeted by a satellite-based missile or laser system.)

    According to your five given grievances, it's not clear what would provide a time-horizon for this blog. With the possible exception of giving up his claim to full professorship (though don't bet on it), your grievances are unlikely to be redressed in the foreseeable future.

    Something will or has happened with his editorship of Chaos, Solitons, and Fractals (though incidentally there's no positive scenario for Elsevier, since it will cost resources to clean up the past, and the journal has no future at this point), his malfeasance in all other regards will continue unabated. That means a long-term job for the El Naschie Watchmen. (For the movie version, consider David Suchet in the role of MSElN, based on his performance in the 1996 move Executive Decision.) Or is there some other circumstance that would convince you that your job is done?

    The irony is that this is a person that probably did receive a legitimate PhD training in mechanics in London, and could have used that leverage in the long term to build and promote the cause of science in his native country. His unrelenting self-promotion instead leaves little credible physics research in Egypt. (By contrast, his Chinese accomplice mutual promoter Ji-Huan He, a bogus editor of his own journal ijnsns.com in which El N has also published, and whose output listed at http://works.bepress.com/ji_huan_he/ is equivalently nonsensical, does little harm in the context of a more robust overall Chinese research community.)

    ReplyDelete
  4. It is now an outstanding exercise to see whether web 2.0 can finally bring down someone who has long abused underly permissive UK libel law (to which even US citizens are subject if they travel to the UK after conviction in absentia) to bully all previous critics into silence.

    Interesting. I have checked out CS&F from time to time over the past few years with increasing amusement and shudder, but was not aware of such machinations by its editor-in-chief. Can you give more hints about previous cases when critics have been silenced by libel law? What had they critizised, and how?

    ReplyDelete
  5. > Can you give more hints about previous cases when critics have been silenced by libel law?

    "Under British libel law, newspapers sued are required to prove the truth of the allegations they print --- the opposite of the situation in the United States" (where the plaintiff has to prove the info is false): the defendant in a UK libel suit is thus assumed guilty until proven innocent.

    "English judges have traditionally been so sympathetic to libel plaintiffs that many people from abroad have sued in English courts --- even if the publications in question have tiny circulations here — because they have had a much better chance of winning here than at home."

    "An American scholar facing libel charges in Britain has turned to the American legal system and the New York State Legislature for help. Rachel Ehrenfeld, author of Funding Evil: How Terrorism Is Financed and How to Stop It (Bonus Books), was hit with a $225,000 judgment in a British libel suit brought against her in 2004 by a Saudi billionaire, Khalid bin Mahfouz."

    See e.g.
    http://www.campus-watch.org/article/id/4856
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/12/world/europe/12britain.html
    http://chronicle.com/news/index.php?id=4160&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en

    google "british libel law" for more

    Recall also the famous case of british author/politician Geoffrey Archer who sued the Daily Star for libel, and won 500,000 pounds, but it later emerged that the story in question was true, so he was subsequently jailed for lying (they're serious both ways...)
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2001/archer_trial/default.stm
    This couldn't possibly happen in the US

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thanks for the explanations about British libel law. But what I actually was asking for, more specifically, are hints about previous cases where El Naschie has silenced critics using British libel law, as alluded to by anonymous at 3:10 pm earlier today. Sorry for not have been precise enough.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Re: Your noting D.D. Guttenplan's reporting sloppiness. See the correction in the International Herald Tribune of Dec. 13, 2010 on an article he wrote about blacks at Oxford and Cambridge.

    ReplyDelete