Wednesday, November 25, 2009

Those Hidden Pressgazette Comments


A small treasure!


The comments we have archived here were posted by readers of the article Editor of Scientific Journal Sues Nature. However, and this is what makes this archive particularly valuable, there is some misconfiguration of the DISQUS comment system at Pressgazette. It may be a simple programming error, a botched attempt at comment deletion, or something else. The effect is that scraping these eight comments (more if we find more) was tricky. Nowhere else on the Internet will you find the small but perfectly formed archive we here at El Naschie Watch have the pleasure of presenting to you, our loyal readers.

Pro El Naschie material is color coded green.

I have marked in red those posts whose actual author is "highenergy" in spite of the fake names used to sign them. We know this because highenergy's profile contains the list of posts he or she made, and the names used. Highenergy screwed up bigtime. Props to Shrink for smoking him out. For a similar, earlier, screwup by El Naschie's sockpuppets, click here.

COMMENTS


hilf, Sunday, November 01, 2009 9:39 PM
If this claim goes through it will have the effect, that any author who is not content with the refereeing result of his paper will sue the journal he sent it to.

This then would be the end of the present traditional refereeing system.
This system assumes that author and referee and publisher/editor are three different persons.

A way out would be to let the journal be Open Access, that is provide a publicly accessible digital copy on the web at no charge and no barriers. Then all colleagues and experts can discuss the paper,- all but one will be not the author..

Not to be misunderstood: In many journals the editor is publishing in the journal, he edits or is publisher; nothing wrong with it; but it is fair and a good and well established tradition that these papers are marked, - a comment added - that this is a file by the editor, and is not refereed by third persons.
Finally, an editor has to take the full responsibility for his professional work, that means here: if the reputation of his journal goes down due to articles published which have the editor as author and not marked that this is an editorial, than this negative result is just part of the system: to assure that it does not happen too often.


anonymous [highenergy sockpuppet -Ed], Friday, November 06, 2009 4:34 AM
Sarah Limbrick would surely be interested to know what the leading libel expert in England had to say about the Nature article complained of. He said he is in a state of disbelief that the worlds most respectable scientific journal Nature should publish an article which bears all the hallmarks of the tabloid press. Another interesting point is the conspiracy theory linking the plagiarism of El Naschies work published in Scientific American with the Nature article as well as a far worse article published in Die Zeit. Interestingly all of these three publications are owned by Macmillan. I understand from confidential sources that a mega surprise will be released at the trial engulfing highly reputed names some of whom are Nobel laureates.


sch_zub, Friday, November 06, 2009 9:37 PM
What El naschie had done for the articles of zeit and Guardian
http://www.zeit.de/2009/03/N-El-Naschie
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jun/30...
El naschie was kicked out of King Suad university before the appearance of nature article.
I think El naschie should show document for his official certified contract with King Saud university and when it was terminated.
I wonder how a respectfull univeristy can have a contrach with such an obvious crackpoet.


sch_zub, Friday, November 06, 2009 9:45 PM
The astonishing thing about El naschie is that he
could survive for a quite long time in Europe and remained as a Cheif editor of CS&F for almost nearly twenty years.

Also, I think he managed to damage the reputation of Cambridge to some extent by publishing numerous non sense papers using its affiliation.

Furthermore, he damaged the reputation of Nobel laureate G. Thooft when he dedicated some of his non sense papers to G. Thooft - (On quarks confinement and asymptotic freedom Chaos,Solitons and Fractals 37 (2008)1289–1291)-
, surprisingly enough Thooft kept silent about this. I think even a third class physicist wouldn't be happy if El naschie dedicated one of his non sense paper to him, and for sure he would complain and sue El naschie.

It is a tempting suggestion to invoke the issue to sue Elsevier and El naschie for damaging the reputation of scientific publishing. I think that the respectable institutes, universities and research centers that paid for that junk CS&F must sue Elsevier and El naschie and asking for penalties.


sch_zub, Sunday, November 08, 2009 5:41 PM
I think that Elsevier is doing dirty jobs in scientific publishing. The CSF journal is owned by Elnaschie and Elsevier is getting money out of this apart from the journal subscription fees. El naschie pays for getting credibility of Elsevier and to have the chance to publish his great scientific ideas in journal hosted by a supposed reputable publishing house like Elsevier. There are other many similar cases in Elsevier.
El naschie keeps publishing junks in CSF for a quite long time and kept unnoticed by mentoring system of Elsevier which seems very odd. While it was so obvious from the far beginning that we have a crackpot.
The same applies to Cambridge university which allowed him to publish his articles for nearly ten years 1993-2001 using its affiliation, while, for sure, he wasn t a staff member there. It is far from reality to imagine that people in Cambridge have been fooled for that long time. According to the following data base
http://www.engineeringvillage2.org
One can find:
17 articles where the affiliation is DAMTP, Cambridge, UK.
72 articles where the affiliation is Dept. of Appl. Math. & Theor. Phys., Cambridge Univ., UK
40 articles where the affiliation is Univ of Cambridge.
No prize for one who guesses at which journal those articles have been published.
It is not enough for Elsevier just to step down Elnaschie , they should explain how these things happened and what their future precautions to prevent such a misusing of editorial power. On the other side, Cambridge people should explain how it was possible for El naschie to use its affiliation for a quite long time, harming their reputation without charging him and any legal action.
The papers of El naschie would be a permanent black record for both Elsevier and Cambridge for too long time in the future.


sch_zub, Sunday, November 08, 2009 5:44 PM
El naschie deserves the name of the great corrupter.
A lone single handed and with his own money.
He has managed to corrupt Elsevier for almost twenty
years, 1992-2009. He has published few hundered (347)
non sense articles in CSF. Up till now, Elsevier can not
get rid of him. There is no article for El naschie in
the recent article of 2009 in CSF, which is a good sign.
But most of the articles trumpeting the E-infinity theory
and citing El naschie works.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/
science?_ob=PublicationURL&_tockey=%23TOC%235300%239999
%23999999999%2399999%23FLA%23&_cdi=5300&_pubType=J&_auth
=y&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&
md5=faf5d2a06ff9be6c0d0126fdc479017c

Not only that but the great man (El naschie) has also
managed to corrupt Cambridge for ten years.
According to the following data base
http://www.engineeringvillage2.org
One can find:
17 articles where the affiliation is DAMTP, Cambridge,
UK.

72 articles where the affiliation is Dept. of Appl.
Math. & Theor. Phys., Cambridge Univ., UK

40 articles where the affiliation is Univ of Cambridge.

No prize for one who guesses at which journal those
articles have been published.

All of these indicates the power of money not of self
publications or citations.
It is sad, that we lost the joke papers and now one can
not find any new paper for him. His papers are source of
infinite jokes.

The great man can establish his own publishing company
and calling it Elnaschievier to compete Elsevier in
publishing science fronteir.

We hope the great man not to waste a lot of time with
his socckpuppets and return producing lovely, joke
papers in Elnaschievier publishing house


E-infinity Group [highenergy sockpuppet -Ed], Monday, November 09, 2009 4:31 AM
Dear Ms. Limbrick,
We are pleased that the fake defamatory comments published under your article, taking advantage of the free wheeling internet, have been removed by your goodself. We think you either have to monitor your site very well or close it for comments altogether. We know for sure that there is a whole group of people to put it mildly and politely with a vested interest who think they can pervert the course of justice by publishing fake comments against the Editor in Chief of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals, Prof. Mohamed Saladin El Naschie.

E-infinity Group



NJ [highenergy sockpuppet -Ed], Sunday, November 15, 2009 10:06 AM
This is probably the first time in history, someone let alone an Editor in Chief takes Nature to Court. The Nature article would undoubtedly have caused someone like Charles Darwin to turn in his grave. Charlie Chaplin would have called it modern times. I call it bad times, when something as big and great as Nature descends to the level of Schiermeier’s article. Incidentally El Naschie is not taking only Nature to Court. He is taking Macmillan to Court. That means he is taking Scientific American, Nature and Die Zeit to Court. Anyone who can put the pieces together will get the point.

NJ



Buddy [highenergy sockpuppet -Ed], Monday, November 16, 2009 4:36 AM
Deadly right. The time of Huxley and Darwin were the golden age of science. Now we have funding, American style. Once you have money playing such a fundamental role, as is the case in big science, then for better or worse, ethical standards change. You remember a theorem a day means promotion and pay. Mohamed El Naschie was of course quite naïve. He is an engineer. High energy physics is not his professional work. He practices it in a gentlemanly manor as a hobby. He was woken up in a bitter way. Unlike engineers prizes are the only way for theoretical physicists to come to big chunks of money. Do I need to say more? Good luck with your litigation. You will need all your savings, El Naschie that is, to pay your lawyers.

Buddy



anonymous [highenergy sockpuppet -Ed], Wednesday, November 18, 2009 12:57 AM
Here is what a great Swedish scientist Tonu Puu said about Mohamed El Naschie or M.S. El Naschie in his beautiful book Art, Science and Economics published by Springer in 2006. The last paragraph of the preface says I was most honoured when some time ago Professor Mohammad El Naschie, Editor-in-Chief of one of the most exciting and successful journal publishing ventures (Elsevier) I have ever been involved in, suggested to publish this essay in parts in the shape of articles, though I naturally prefer the present connected publication form. This does not sound like a man who is a fake or imposter. I am sure people high up in the hierarchy of Nature will have to reconsider their position towards journalists working from outside British jurisdiction with its strict libel law and spreading unfounded allegations causing their Headquarters a great deal of embarrassment not to mention financial losses in legal fees.


anonymous [highenergy sockpuppet -Ed], Tuesday, November 24, 2009 10:49 PM
It seems to me to be an extremely uneven battle when a multinational like Macmillan defame via Nature a simple university professor. Nature and therefore Macmillan must stand on the side of their irresponsible journalist, assuming he was irresponsible. The only thing left for the simple professor is the Court of law but this does not come free of charge. A trial of this kind can cost as much as half a million pounds if not more. The professor will have to mortgage his life and he is unlikely to spare half a million pounds given university salaries. By contrast ten million pounds are peanuts for Macmillan and the like of Macmillan. Where is justice? Do you not see that our system is extremely faulty? If no legal aid is given to the professor, which is rarely done, he has not a chance in hell to win against this scientific bullying.


brian300, Sunday, November 29, 2009 9:46 AM
It is not only funding. I think pretigious prizes play a fundamental role. I heard that the Nobel prize is involved. Sometime ago it was written that not even the devil could have thought of something worse than the Nobel prize particularly for science. It is not the Nobel prize money. It is what comes after the Nobe prize. The razmataz. Som Institutions could do with some razmataz. They translate that into hard cash. Did you hear about the scandals with some Ivy Leagues in the USA? I am sure you did. Why should Einstein Institute or for that matter the University of Utrecht be above those things. The names involved in this story are quite interesting. I would not be astonished if some best sellers are going to be written about this story in the next few years. This could be fine for some and even lucrative. On the other hand, try as I may, I cannot fathom how the Editor in Chief of Nature could allow this tabloid piece to be published. Maybe I have too much respect for Nature. I used to have too much respect for the Nobel committee too. This is all too sad. Nothing is sacred any more in this world. Nature will have a hard time however proving that Mohamed El Naschie acted in self interest. The man had fame and money long before he ever published a paper in theoretical physics. Thereis something wrong with his brain however. Any person who leaves a successful career in engineering to become a theoretical physicist should have his head checked.


david4910 [Hilarious! david4910 can't see brian300's post just above which we have archived because of the strange behaviour of DISQUS. -Ed], Monday, November 30, 2009 8:55 AM
It is not just a matter of funding which is behind the defamatory article in Nature. I think prestigious prizes also play a fundamental role. I read that somewhere on the net but strangely it was removed. The prize in question seems to be the Nobel Prize. Some say that not even the devil could have thought of something as harmful to science as the Nobel Prize. They reckon it is not the prize money itself but the publicity which the Nobel Prize brings. In turn this is translated into money. Noting the recent discovery of the sleaze at the Ivy Leagues in the US I am not astonished that this cash is badly needed. If this is true for Harford why should it not be true for the Einstein Inst. in Berlin or the University of Utrecht in Holland. The names involved with Mohamed El Naschie are quite interesting. Somebody wrote yesterday that he would not be astonished if a best seller comes out of this horrific story in the next few years. It is alright for some. The same writer said try as hard as he can, he simply cannot fathom how the Editor in Chief of Nature could allow this tabloid piece to be published in his journal. He must have his reasons or he had a very deep snooze. He added that he may have had too much respect for Nature just as he used to have for the Nobel Committee. This implies that he has none any longer which is interesting. Finally the writer noted that Mohamed El Naschie had no vested interest and certainly no materialistic interest in publishing his papers because he was sufficiently rich and famous before turning to theoretical physics. The author of this remarkable comment closed by noting that any successful engineer who leaves engineering to be become a theoretical physicist should have his head checked. In other words, he doubts the sanity of theoretical physicists, Mohamed El Naschie included.


montasser, Thursday, February 04, 2010 5:24 AM
The identity of this person who refuses to disclose his true name is well known to us all. He has a personal vendetta against Prof. El Naschie and he is constantly defaming him on all blogs. You may wish to find out for yourself that he is a criminal and he was dismissed from Penn State University for his criminal record. Check this website for more details: www.saiedelnashaie.blogspot.com

This hate and vicious campaign of false allegations has been going around for quite some time. We truly know his motives but your site should not allow this to happen.



adam_Jake, Saturday, February 06, 2010 4:46 AM
I am pleased that the truth has prevailed. Nature is now accused of trying to undermine Mohamed El Naschie deliberately. This accusation is not frivolous. How else can we explain the blind vicious attack by certain doubtful blogs on the golden mean work of El Naschie and how Quirin Schiermeier the journalist working for Nature utilized these vicious attacks to write a completely unacceptable article in Nature. Then came the heavenly justice when a German professor von Storch complained on his blog that the Nature article of Schiermeier deliberately misquoted him. He was gentle enough to say that the harm was not great. However in principle the harm could have been great. No one has the right to smear the reputation of anyone whether deliberately or recklessly due to irresponsible journalism. Now to the burning scientific question. How does the golden mean enter into quantum mechanics. The answer is as simple as it is ingenious. Mohamed El Naschie reformulates quantum mechanics in spacetime following the same concepts used by Richard Feynman as well the classical work of Einstein. Since the building blocks of spacetime are his elementary random Cantor sets and because these random Cantor sets possess the golden mean as a Hausdorff dimension, the golden mean slips into the fundaments of quantum mechanics. Nothing that quantum mechanics is the most fundamental theory upon which science is based, the golden mean could rightly be described as the basis of science. From this reasoning the ideas which Ed Nash expressed in his previous comment follows effortlessly.


Larsom, around February 10, 2010
I am amazed that you are allowing your site to be used for perpetuating defamation. You are taking out any positive comments regarding the case of El Naschie and instead put only slanderous and obscene comments of an obvious nutter whose identity is not very difficult to guess. All five comments emanate from the same person if you care to analyze them and they should be removed. You should either provide a balanced comment list or none at all.


darrylmoffet, Wednesday, February 17, 2010 11:30 AM
Nature’s Lawyer Taylor Wessing supposedly a reputable law firm is losing its marble. The reason is as childish and idiotic as one could possibly think. El Naschie is giving interviews in Arabic newspapers scorning Nature and its low standards. Quoting from the obscene site called Watching El Naschie day and night, they say he gave false information about the High Court Case El Naschie versus McMillan, Nature and Quirin Schermeier. El Naschie is supposed to have said he more or less he won the case and that Nature will pay him ten million pounds. I am not sure about the ten million pounds but I am sure that El Naschie has more or less won the case. Nature has no case whatsoever. Anyone familiar with British libel law knows that for sure. The third point is that Taylor Wessing is using all conceivable delay tactics. Complaining about interviews in Arabic newspapers must be an expression of Taylor Wessing’s desperate attempt to defend their client. They should know better. England is not the USA where noise and big words could score anything with the court. English judges are very cool. On the other hand, Taylor Wessing could not find a client who is more willing to pay than the rich McMillan. The lawyers of El Naschie are confident that they will win the case. Collyer Bristow are far more professional than Taylor Wessing. They have their client under control. They are calling the shots and setting out the tactics. By contrast Taylor Wessing are counting time sheets. I am ready to bet one to ten that Nature is going to lose this case no matter how well connected they think they are. Nature has been twisting things for too long and there is something like a backlash now particularly with regards to environmental issues. Quirin Schermeier lied and his colleague in Die Zeit Christoph Drosser, is on the records of the courts in Hamburg as a blatant liar. Wouldn’t it be better for Nature to donate the money they are spending on a hopeless lawsuit to some charity or even to scientific research?


Rayschimmer, Wednesday, August 11, 2010 at 12:19 PM
I am not astonished that Nature declined to the standard of a tabloid. I wander what is really behind global warming and the like. Did money change hands? One has to distinguish between science and scientific publishing. Nature has become a business enterprise.

Ray



Jason, Wednesday, August 11, 2010 at 12:56 PM
When was Nature not a business, Ray?


Rayschimmer, August 14, 2010
At the time when we had scientists like Darwin. The American model of funding is the source of evil in modern science. I do not care about El Naschie story because it is one off and of no consequence. The business with the climate is serious and I am troubled by the rumor of corruption among the editors of Nature. Some of these editors take free meals, free tickets and free holidays at the Alma Mater of some of the notable scientists who publish their work in Nature. I feel that this is very serious Jason.

Ray



Jason in reply to Rayschimmer, August 14, 2010
That's all very interesting Ray. At least potentially interesting, but you need to be specific with names and dates of the alleged corruption in Nature.

The El Naschie story isn't one-off. Ji-Huan He joined El Naschie in the citation scam, and many of his students. Enormous amounts of scientific trash were published in Chaos, Solitons and Fractals. There's an E-infinity club devoted to El Naschie numerology.

Nature's first issue was published in Nov 4, 1869 and I don't know how much it cost but it wasn't free. It has always been a business.


Rayschimmer, August 21, 2010 at 6:08 AM
Business does not need to be a dirty business. Not necessarily. Corruption and backhands for editors to publish tentative results about climate and bolster it by famous publishers like Nature is scandalous. I could not find the Nature article about El Naschie on the net. They clearly took it out. I was able to get a photocopy though. It is a harmless article about harmless offenses if at all. It should be left to the experts to judge and there was no need for the article in the first place. If the journalist was sure of what he was writing El Naschie would not have sued Nature. In one of the blogs I browsed through, I noticed allegations that Renate Loll and others from a University in Belgium plagiarized the work of El Naschie and Ji Huan-He. There was a furor in many angry letters sent to scientific American regarding the Loll paper. It is alleged that the Nature article was engineered by Loll and her friend John Baez as an act of revenge on El Naschie. Furthermore, another article was published in a german newspaper called Die Zeit. The responsible journalist is Christoph Drosser who is a friend of Schermeier the author of the Nature article. It is alleged that Drosser hired Internet bloggers to establish a defamation center against E-Infinity theory as well as El Naschie and Ji Huan He. What I find particularly disturbing is that scientific american, Nature as well as Die Zeit are all owned by the same publisher, Macmillan. In fact reading the original writ El Naschie did not sue Nature per se, but he sued Macmillan. Any objective reader of these facts must at least sense a grain of conspiracy. It is not for us to decide because we do not have all the facts. We must wait for the outcome of the trial in England. I doubt El Naschie can win because it is going to be very costly. Having said that, I doubt very much that Macmillan can win. In all event I am sure the lawyers of both parties will make a huge amount of money for defamation in England is very costly. Libel law in England is a very complex body of special rules and conventions. It is a maze which can work to the advantage of either side and nobody could predict what will happen.


Craig, August 21, 2010 at 6:44 AM
Jason is nothing but a pseudo name to some criminal internet elements who could be hired by those who have interest in defaming somebody. El Naschie has sued Macmillan which is the owner of Scientific American, Nature and Die Zeit. All three have published defamatory articles in a concerted action to cover up a plagiarism committed by a group working in Belgium against Mohamed El Naschie and Ji Huan He and their school. The group in Belgium is headed by a Nobel Laureate. They seem to have used the prestige of the Nobel Laureate to induce Nature to publish the defamatory article in retaliation to the complaint by El Naschie supporters who consider the paper published in Scientific American and not quoting the work of El Naschie to be scandalous. That is all what could be said correctly about this case.

Craig, barrister trainee.



Antonio, August 28, 2010 at 2:05 PM
If this Mohamed El Naschie were on the wrong side of the law Nature would have succeeded by now to get a Court order against him. Two years since the said article in Nature and nothing has happened. This is amazing. Nature and Macmillan with all their money need more than two years to prove their article was not a sham. I find this difficult to swallow. Who knows maybe Nature is withholding a surprise in this poor man`s Hitchock film.

Antonio



Jason, August 28, 2010 at 2:11 PM
He could use a win, Antonio. He is on a losing streak.


Just anyone, August 30, 2010 at 9:55 AM
Dear Jason, You seem to know a lot about this and you are spending an unreasonable amount of time feeding your blogs with information about Mohamed El Naschie and his friends. I hope I will be forgiven for wondering who is paying for all of that? You do not seem to have any other life of your own so to be credible, you have to declare your income. Don`t get me wrong. I am just genuinely asking and wondering. I read many times that you are a defamation `hired hand`working for Die Zeit in Hamburg and Nature in London. Is this true and if not who is paying you to do all this work?
Regards,
Just anyone



Jason, August 30, 2010 at 10:10 AM
Just Anyone, I blog on El Naschie Watch because I enjoy it and it's the right thing to do. Nobody pays me for it. I am aware of the accusations of me being a hired hand. They are untrue.

To read about why El Naschie is objectionable, start with this:

http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2010/05/concise-introduction-to-mohamed-el.html


Brissago or Sutter, August 31, 2010 at 8:56 AM
Who are you Jason to object about anybody? Why don't you look at yourself in the mirror if you can do that? As for your ascertion that you are not paid by anybody, I do not regret to tell you that it sounds like a pack of lies. I have seen your blog and it does not inspire any respect. My guess from what I have read is that you are acting on behalf of someone and most probably those from Die Zeit. In other words you are most probably just a front man for the journalist of Die Zeit, Christoph Drosser who uses a cover name Martin Klicken as well as the journalist of Nature Quirin Schiermeier. It is possible that you are connected to the internet one man army as he likes to call himself, Prof John Baez. I don't care one way or another but I find this close circuit internet defamation extremely disturbing for righteous people. If you are not really paid and if you do not have a hidden agenda, then you must be a very lonely and misfortunate child to spend years of your life collecting trash. By the way, you have not achieved a thing except contributing to an increased sense of indignation that the internet could be used in this despicable way.

Sutter



Jason, August 31, 2010 at 1:16 PM
Dear Mr. Brissago-Sutter, I find El Naschie objectionable and so do many other people. It's our opinion. We need no special license or qualification for that. I say again, I blog because I enjoy it and for no other reason. My blog doesn't even have ads or a tip jar.

What is your real name? Are you Mohamed El Naschie's brother Amr Elnaschai? Are you Mohamed Mustafa of http://mohamed-elnaschie.blogspot.com ? Are you Mohammed of http://mohammed-golden.blogspot.com ? Zahy would probably say you're Mohamed El Naschie himself. Whoever you are, you are welcome to comment on El Naschie Watch. In fact, I invite you to do a guest post!

If you are El Naschie, you should stop attributing El Naschie Watch to Die Zeit, or you'll get in legal trouble, because Die Zeit sued over that and won.

http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/die-zeit-lawsuit-news.html


Schimer, September 6, 2010
It is astonishing that an internet criminal like you Jason is concerned about legal troubles. Your comments show clearly who is your paymaster. Anyone can see that. Now yu are really in your element throwing dirt in all direction is what you have been instructed to do.

Anonymous



Jason, September 8, 2010
Schimer, There is a new Scientific American article about E8, Garret Lisi, etc. and so far there are no comments from El Naschie sockpuppets. Why don't you go remedy that?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=rummaging-for-a-final-theory


FreidrickMP September 16, 2010
Jason, you are the expert on El Naschie, aren’t you? How do you see this new Scientific American article? Did El Naschie publish his papers first? You know best. You said somewhere that El Naschie is objectionable. Will all due respect Jason objecting against someone because he is objectionable cannot take the form which I saw on your blog. What you are doing is stalking El Naschie in an extremely objectionable way, to put it mildly. Anyway, if you are really objective then you should say what you think and send it to Scientific American not as a comment but as a letter to the Editor which carries far more weight. Hope you don’t mind the plain speaking. Regards,
Freidrick



Jason September 17, 2010, in reply to FreidrickMP
FreidrickMP, I think Lisi's theory is incorrect, Renate Loll et al's theory is silly, El Naschie's theory is ludicrous, and discussions about whose ideas among them are the true originals are therefore hilarious. As to the stalking accusation: El Naschie seeks and gets, all the time, huge publicity for ostensibly deserving the Nobel Prize but being denied it by Zionists and George W. Bush. My blog is an antidote to his ostentatious lying hype. It's not as if he's a shy private citizen trying to go about his life and keep a low profile. He goes on TV and does newspaper interviews with his baloney every chance he gets. I'm not stalking. He's painted a huge bull's eye on his butt.


Martinbrt September 16, 2010
Dear Jason, You are only partly correct. You are right in saying that the article makes no mention of El Naschie. On the other hand there are some 34 comments so far. Many of them are mentioning El Naschie. Furthermore El Naschie is credited worldwide with having discovered the relevance of a fuzzy version of E8 and that is long before Lisi. El Naschie found that adding all the 8 exceptional Lie groups dimensionally together gives 4 multiplied with the inverse of the electromagnetic fine structure constant. This is incredible, if true. However you are right because omitting mentioning El Naschie seems to round off the picture. Why are they victimizing this guy in this way? A person can be a bad father, a bad husband or a bad human being and he could still be a good scientist, don’t you agree? How bad can this Mohamed El Naschie be to justify this witch hunt against him? Someone told me you are the expert on El Naschie and therefore you should dig out the truth. I mean you should find out the scientific truth, not the gossip and personal attacks. Granted Mohamed El Naschie is an arrogant Moslem and an even more arrogant Arab than most but is he a good scientist? You cannot have your cake and eat it. If he is a bad scientist why are they all picking up his ideas. Renate Loll took the Cantor sets and published it in Scientific American. This is the second Scientific American article which appears to hijack important ideas first presented by El Naschie. If I am wrong, I will stand corrected. I claim no expertise in the field and whatever I have said here, I picked up from your site. I await your opinion and verdict.
Martin



Jason September 17, 2010, in reply to Martinbrt [This comment was blocked by a moderator at Pressgazette!]
Martinbrt, Yes, now there are some El Naschie comments there. Possibly my post here pointing to the new SCIAM article was partially responsible. I think El Naschie is a bad scientist and also a bad person -- an anti-Western ethnic scapegoater and a liar. The problem isn't that he's arrogant about his religion and ethnicity but that he pretends they are the reason he can't win a Nobel Prize. It is possible in principle to be a bad person and a good scientist, but El Naschie is bad in both. He also (and I have not blogged about this but perhaps I will) seems to be faking his marital history for an Egyptian audience to hide his divorce. So I think he is also not a good husband.


Elnw September 18, 2010
http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2010/09/im-banned-from-pressgazette.html


Guest73 September 18, 2010 [6 minutes after Elnw]
Jason Rush is not the name of a man or even a creature. This thing is a weed. Unfortunately the internet is fertile land for weeds of the kind of Jason Rush so there is nothing original about it. All what this weed is doing is harming Nature’s defence. On face value it looks as if Nature could have been enticing the weed to spread its poison. At least collusion with Die Zeit’s journalist Christoph Drosser could not easily be dismissed. That is all that this weed is doing. Not worth a single line more.


Joshua49 September 19, 2010
A big applause to Sarah Limbrick for banning this ElNaschieWatch. This is the hallmark of a serious, respectable journalist and we congratulate her. In fact we congratulate the UK for its higher standards. The US may be the country of absolute freedom but absolute freedom and absolute anarchy seem to have something in common.

Joshua



Dominicponsford September 20, 2010 in reply to Joshua49 [in response to my email]
A couple of posts by 'Jason' were blocked automatically because off words which alerted our automatic moderator settings. Having looked at them I think they were potentially libellous so they will have to stay unpublished. I am going to close this thread now.
Regards,

Dominic Ponsford
editor
Press Gazette




Editor of scientific journal sues Nature
2 November 2009
By Sarah Limbrick


Scientific journal Nature is being sued for libel by the former editor of another science journal.

Professor Mohamed El Naschie is demanding damages from Nature and journalist Quirin Schiermeier over a story headed "Self-publishing editor set to retire".

The story, which appeared in November 2008, was accompanied by a photo captioned "Apparent misuse of editorial privileges has sparked calls for a clearer peer-review process across journals."

El Naschie, who was editor-in-chief of the Elsevier-owned Chaos, Solitons and Fractals journal for seventeen years, claims the story was defamatory.

According to a writ filed with the High Court by legal firm Collyer Bristow, El Naschie claims the story alleges he used his editorial privilege to self-publish numerous papers he’d written, which would not have been published elsewhere as they were of poor quality and had received no peer review.

El Naschie claims his reputation has been seriously damaged and that he has suffered considerable hurt, distress and embarrassment as a result of the article.

He claims Nature Publishing Group and Schiermeier made no proper effort to contact him or to give him a chance to respond to the serious allegations and that as a direct result of the story his service contracts with the King Saud University of Saudi Arabia were frozen, and regular invitations to lecture in the Middle East dried up.

He is claiming aggravated damages as the story remained on Nature's website until March. He is also seeking an injunction banning repetition of the allegations at the centre of his claim.


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

18 comments:

  1. El Naschie has a very reliable rhythm when posting sockpuppet comments, maybe you will be entertained confirming this: he spots a site, then hits it and almost invariable leaves comments with different names with about 15-20 minutes between them! See for yourself, it's fun :) There are many comment sections at different newspapers, magazines etc. where for weeks is no activity at all and then, suddenly, two or three "independent" comments appear with different names and these 15-20 minutes in between.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Apparently, he's broken this rule when posting on Pressgazette:

    http://disqus.com/forums/pressgazette/editor_of_scientific_journal_sues_nature_press_gazette_22/latest.rss

    but his "clever" move didn't really help - thanks to the DISQUS system. :D

    shrink

    ReplyDelete
  3. By the way, "highenergy" and "Elisabeth Steinbach" from

    http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/thread-that-has-it-all.html

    are the same person, I have no doubt. I'm going to do a post on that.

    Jason

    ReplyDelete
  4. Updated this today with a new comment from "brian300" that's just appeared a few hours ago.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Comparing "brian300's" post with the latest ("David's") on FQXi one can derive another sockpuppet equation:

    "brian300"="David"

    :D

    shrink

    P.S. "David" pretends to cite another commenter (cleary "brian300") and complains about the deletion. Unfortunately for him, elnaschiewatch is always on the watch. :D

    ReplyDelete
  6. Haha awesome, shrink. I'll update FQXi and do a new post pointing out "brian300"="David".

    Jason

    ReplyDelete
  7. Updated just now with david4910's brand new post.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Got ya! Jason, now you can archive them all with dates and hours:

    http://disqus.com/highenergy/latest.rss

    http://disqus.com/brian300/latest.rss

    http://disqus.com/david4910/latest.rss

    Also:

    http://disqus.com/sch_zub/latest.rss

    http://disqus.com/hilf/latest.rss

    shrink

    ReplyDelete
  9. We should have soon enough two print two books with these sockpuppet comments. Maybe we can bind them and send them to El Naschie as a christmas gift. Such hard work on rephrasing the same shit over and over again. Maybe he wants to keep the years work in the bookshelf.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ooh, I like having the dates and hours. I will fix that.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hehe. Ok, this is updated. I have added highenergy's Nov 24 comment. Also, I have removed the confusing relative dating, and put in absolute dates and times. This allowed me to put the posts in chronological order.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Martin, they should comprise a special issue of Chaos, Solitons and Fractals.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Also add highenergy's first comment from Nov 6 - there are 6 comments in total.

    shrink

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thank you for pointing out the omission! Fixed now.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Updated with RaySchimmer's August 11, 2010 comment.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rayschimmer's and Craig's claims are misleading.

    Nature and Scientific American are owned by Nature Publishing Group which is a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd. But Die Zeit is not owned by Macmillan at all. It's a part of the Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group, which is the owner of Macmillan Publishers.

    So, if someone is suing Nature it means that the law-suit is pertinent to Nature Publishing Group at most, not to Macmillan or even to Georg von Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. Another example: If someone in Germany is suing Opel it doesn't mean that General Motors, which owns Opel, is also sued or (analogy to Die Ziet) that Daewoo in Korea is also sued.

    Craig, as barrister trainee, should know all this. :D

    Regarding the claim that Drösser hired internet bloggers one should be aware of the fact Die Zeit sued El Naschie to stop claiming that El Naschie Watch Blog had anything to do with them and Die Zeit won:

    http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/die-zeit-lawsuit-news.html

    ReplyDelete
  17. Macmillan Publishers Ltd, London, visit this blog every day. Hey guys, what's going on with the law suit? Come on, give us a hint, anonymously. We won't reveal your identity. You owe us. Your lawyers, Taylor Wessing, have even quoted El Naschie Watch in court.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Pressgazette comments have been updated.

    ReplyDelete