Replies

The ultimate irony is that Rosenberg is charging a leading scientist with being unqualified to do his speciality, in an article for which she has misrepresented her own professional status. Rosenberg identified herself to the Los Angeles Times as "a research professor of molecular biology at State University of New York at Purchase." In fact, she is a "research professor" of environmental science, a much less prestigious title. And there is no "state university" in Purchase; Rosenberg's employer, Purchase College, is a four-year, state performing arts school, for which she neither teaches nor conducts research.

The author got it ALMOST right. The school is SUNY Purchase as in "State University of New York"....not Purchase College. It is in fact a State University. It is also one of the most Liberal PERFORMING ARTS Colleges I've ever visited. This type of outlandish fabrication - claiming to be faculty at a school that has neither a history nor any program remotely related to your field of study should be more than enough to discredit Rosenberg. A scribe from the LA Times wouldn't have mixed up a name like Purchase with say other SUNY sites like Binghamton, so I doubt it was a transcription error on the reporter's part.

. The only "Biology" Rosenberg would have been able to lecture on or practice on that campus would be of the Lesbian/Gay Sexual Practices variety. The place is like FAME meets Harvey Milk High.

....and something I forgot to add...

How many people do you know, when asked where they work (and they know the answer will be published and read)will lie about it? What reasons would someone have to lie about something like that?

Now ask yourself what SCIENTIST would do so? I can imagine some run-of-the-mill Joe giving an incorrect answer by citing a former employer when he or she is new to a job doing it but not a detail-oriented person like a scientist.

You know, before you claim that someone got something wrong, it always helps to know what you're talking about. The author got it right, period, when he called the school, "Purchase College." As a SUNY grad, I knew that, and since you are not (I hope) a SUNY grad, if you had checked the school's web site, you would know that it goes by the name, "Purchase College." Period. It used to go by "SUNY College at Purchase," as did all the second-tier SUNY schools during my childhood.

Purchase College

IIRC, in one of his exposes on Rosenberg, the author explained that only faculty from four different campuses -- those of the state university centers in Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, and Stony Brook -- may properly refer to themselves as "State University of New York" faculty.

If you did your homework on Rosenberg, you would also know that she stopped operating in a scientific fashion many years ago, and is wholly unreliable where details are concerned.

The reason she would lie about her title is obvious: to give herself a credibility she lacks. Reporters and editors collude with her, because they want her to appear authoritative.

Now, what is your reason for defending a fraud like Rosenberg, while making demonstrably false, if petty, charges against the expose writer? Are you merely a lazy, petty, mischief-maker?

I just re-read BOTH of your incompatible posts, and see that you know something about SUNY, even though you were wrong about the name of the school, and do not seem to be defending Rosenberg, so much as making petty, incorrect criticisms of the writer.

And so, I am concluding for the moment, that you're basically impossible. And so, I still don't feel that I love you.

Maybe the third time will be the charm.