# Cuccinelli vs Science **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 4, 2010, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307 "2010-05-04T18:05:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/81 "2010-05-05T20:55:34Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > … there are dozens of legal minds on this board … Oh, Merciful Og, no! No! ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/82 "2010-05-05T20:56:00Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > As Mann’s employer, could Penn State investigate his work emails, work product, and source code? Bet they could. They can ask to do so but they cannot _compel_ him. That is the crucial difference. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/83 "2010-05-05T20:56:46Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > What would be their probable cause? From my link - allegations of research misconduct. Three allegations were dismissed, an expanded inquiry into the fourth allegation is ongoing. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/84 "2010-05-05T20:59:11Z")
“Allegations” are not probable cause. ☹ Try again. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/85 "2010-05-05T21:04:07Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > “Allegations” are not probable cause. ☹ Try again. More importantly “research misconduct” isn’t fraud. Kinda like the difference between having your employer ask why you missed work yesterday and having the police take you downtown to answer questions about where you were last night and if you don’t they arrest you. It’s very subtle difference apparently. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 9:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/86 "2010-05-05T21:16:54Z")
It’s quite obvious that you guys already attacked Bricker for an opinion he didn’t hold, and now are having to come up with rationalizations on why it is okay. How about this: Keep threads about a political topic about that topic. If you want to say shit about a poster, take it to the fucking Pit. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/87 "2010-05-05T21:21:16Z")
Look, before you accuse me of any confusion, trust me I am aware of the different roles being played by the various parties here. It doesn’t escape me that the most Penn State can do is fire Mann - and that the most Cuccinelli can do is prosecute him (assuming the worst case possible in either scenario). I was merely pointing out above that this notion that Mann has been totally exonerated is a premature notion at best. And this complaint about the state being overly interested rings particularly hollow - the public owns UVA, they own Penn State, they fund many of the grants involved. It is decidedly true that both Penn State and UVA are more exposed to public outcry because of their public status - perhaps it is unfortunate that this is so, but is is so. The report on Professor Mann explicitly states that they were forced to open an investigation because of the volume of complaints received, and the public pressure generated. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/88 "2010-05-05T21:29:28Z")
> [@Mr.Moto](#): > > I was merely pointing out above that this notion that Mann has been totally exonerated is a premature notion at best. He has been exonerated of fraud. Multiple times. He has not yet been exonerated of “research misconduct”, which has nothing in the least to do with fraud against the people of Virginia, which is what Cooch is using his power to “investigate”. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/89 "2010-05-05T21:42:47Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > So, in other words, you let your emotion get away from you and you posted something angry about someone you didn’t agree with who didn’t deserve it, because of your long-held political stance. > > Think about that. Now think about this thread. > > Doesn’t the OP have a right to be angry at Cuccinelli? I mean, he actually did the thing that the OP is mad about, unlike your situation with Obama. The OP didn’t brag that he was going to rub Cuccinelli’s supporters’ faces in the mud when Cuccinelli lost–which is what you did in that thread. The OP didn’t even say that he was that mad–just that he was “embarrassed” by Cuccinelli and “wanted to turn him off”–again, revisit your own OP. > > Apparently with you hindsight is 20/20. You’re free to make an overly-emotional, partisan post, but oh boy, nobody else is going to get away with that mistake, even if it’s a tenth as cringeworthy as yours! “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone”–now what nincompoop said that? Of course. Indeed, the OP’s reaction is more temperate than mine was, and the offense at which he rails was more invidious than the one that prompted my outburst. But by the same token, my outburst produced condeming response, and considering those responses led to my apology. So I absolutely grant the OP the understandable reaction. But am I not allowed to point out that, along with a huge tub of bathwater there was a very tiny baby? In other words, in my thread, I got angry, my error was pointed out, and I apologized. Here, I have pointed out a small error of the OP’s. What’s wrong with that? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/90 "2010-05-05T21:51:35Z")
What’s the point of getting personal with Bricker here? I’m more interested in whether his substantive points about Cucinelli are valid. How should a neutral observer view Cucinelli’s action in this case? I have to admit that given what I know about Cucinelli already – the gay thing and the boob thing, for example – make me not want to give him the benefit of the doubt in this Mann thing. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/91 "2010-05-05T21:52:32Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Of course. Indeed, the OP’s reaction is more temperate than mine was, and the offense at which he rails was more invidious than the one that prompted my outburst. > > But by the same token, my outburst produced condeming response, and considering those responses led to my apology. > > So I absolutely grant the OP the understandable reaction. But am I not allowed to point out that, along with a huge tub of bathwater there was a very tiny baby? In other words, in my thread, I got angry, my error was pointed out, and I apologized. Here, I have pointed out a small error of the OP’s. What’s wrong with that? Well, for starters, maybe you shouldn’t be the one to be wading into a thread acting all high and mighty that people aren’t debating things in exactly the way you’d like, seeing as you haven’t been up to your own high standards all the time (and the Obama thread was just the most high-profile one I could find). One also wonders why, in a forum designed to allow venting and raging, you have to run in to nitpick about one tiny thing about the OP. What, are you the next **ivn1188**? Venting’s only allowed if we do it in the **Bricker** -prescribed fashion? One also has to have a tiny, tiny wonder as to why the vast majority of your nitpicks are to defend political allies. Yes, you brought up your defense of Patrick Kennedy early, but it is the exception which tests the rule; you certainly don’t proclaim your political opponents whom you defend to be “unjustly accused” (and if the OP is too early to accuse them of misdeeds, how is it soon enough to declare the accusation unjust?) as if you have somehow been given the task of defending their honor. ---
**Author:** ![Euphonious\_Polemic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/euphonious_polemic/32/3002_2.png) [@Euphonious\_Polemic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Euphonious_Polemic)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/92 "2010-05-05T22:06:47Z")
> [@BigT](#): > > If you want to say shit about a poster, take it to the fucking Pit. \ I thought we were in the fucking Pit. (off topic - I don’t think I’d like to be in a fucking pit. It would probably get all nasty if it wasn’t cleaned out regularly) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 10:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/93 "2010-05-05T22:16:10Z")
While it may be true that these parking violations are not, in and of themselves, proof that global warming is the bunch of bullshit that all thinking persons know it to be… Nonetheless, they cast some light that the paragon of moral virtue and scientific rectumtude claimed by “warmies” has feet of clay. No better than he should be. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/94 "2010-05-05T22:29:58Z")
Update on another instance where a state Attorney General decided that he needed to take on a scientific consensus - the strange case of Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who started an “investigation” to bully the Infectious Diseases Society of America into reconsidering its recommendations for the treatment of Lyme disease. The issue was what to do about so-called “chronic Lyme disease”, where there is no objective evidence of infection, but certain practitioners put patients on long-term, potentially hazardous antibiotic therapy. Acting on behalf of these special interests, Blumenthal decided that there were “conflicts of interest” on the IDSA (which establishes general guidelines for infectious disease therapy for physicians to use) and that it wasn’t taking into account “divergent” opinions. Unbelievable as it sounds, the AG decided this was a matter for him to jump into, and under pressure the IDSA agreed to review its guidelines. Happily, they’ve now decided that the guidelines [are scientifically justified and will not be changed](http://www.idsociety.org/Content.aspx?id=16556). I had not heard of this case before, but find it despicable for an attorney general (or any other politician) to try to pervert science for their (or any special interest group’s) benefit. One situation still up in the air is the Center for Disease Control’s investigation of so-called “Morgellons disease”, an ailment which sufferers believe involves a mysterious organism or other agent that causes them to have itchy skin lesions and other symptoms, often involving the generation of strange fibers that appear on the skin (the vast majority of physicians think that overwhelmingly, such cases are psychiatric in nature). Helping to prod the CDC into researching this question were politicians such as Hillary Clinton (when she was a N.Y. senator). Supposedly the CDC is nearing release of its conclusions in the matter. It’ll be interesting to see what happens if the mystery disease is not validated in the manner in which “Morgellons” patients expect. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/95 "2010-05-05T23:06:10Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > One also has to have a tiny, tiny wonder as to why the vast majority of your nitpicks are to defend political allies. Yes, you brought up your defense of Patrick Kennedy early, but it is the exception which tests the rule; you certainly don’t proclaim your political opponents whom you defend to be “unjustly accused” (and if the OP is too early to accuse them of misdeeds, how is it soon enough to declare the accusation unjust?) as if you have somehow been given the task of defending their honor. Well, seldom do I need to defend my usual opponents, because the board is full of people interested in doing that. However… [Defending Ted Kennedy.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5080273&postcount=45) > [@Bricker](#): > > This is absurd. > > If there is any evidence of Ted Kennedy’s drunkeness when the accident occurred, let’s have it. Otherwise, he’s not remotely a murderer. Defending Pelosi against the charge that she was a diva insisting on a big plane: > [@Pelosi's Palatial Plane Preference: Piggishness or Republican Pablam?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pelosis-palatial-plane-preference-piggishness-or-republican-pablam/391385/7): > > The Speaker is the second person in line for the Presidency. It seems utterly obvious to me that she should have a government plane that is capable of taking her back home without refueling. Hastert did, but of course his home is Illinois, much closer, so this didn’t come up. > > Thirty years ago, I’d have said that the Speaker should suck it up and fly commercial. Today, that would be madness. Ms. Pelosi should fly on whatever military plane is equipped to move her and her staff non-stop. > > Now, I don’t know details of plane models, but that’s my view of what the policy should be, and it’s a no-brainer. Pitting the GOP for their disingenuous defense of Foley: > [@I Used to Privately Snicker at the Dems](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/i-used-to-privately-snicker-at-the-dems/375236/1): > > My reaction to the ACTUAL ill remains as it was yesterday: Foley’s resignation was correct; he should be criminally investigated; and the GOP leadership should be vigorously investigated as well. If it develops that Hastert, or anyone in the GOP leadership, knew about these criminal acts and did nothing, he should resign or be forced out, and subject to criminal process as well. It’s a very simple equation. > > My reaction to the tactics that are appearing from the Right on this is utter disgust. “The Dems set him up!” Yeah, suuuure they did. And even if they did – what of it? He DID the acts in question. Defending Keith Olbermann against sneers: > [@New York Post - Page Six Jerks!](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/new-york-post-page-six-jerks/374638/1): > > Yesterday’s Page Six in the New York Post includes: > > Now, seriously – the reaction was not ridiculous. We had actual people get anthrax powder in the mail. Why they chose to be so dismissive and contempteous of Olbermann is beyond me. This was just crumby, crappy, jerkish behavior. Pitting Ann Coulter: > [@Conservatives - Where Is Your Outrage at Coulter?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/conservatives-where-is-your-outrage-at-coulter/344299/1): > > Mine is right here. > > [“Post-9/11 our philosophy should be: Raghead talks tough? Raghead faces consequences.”](http://news.ft.com/cms/s/fdbb21ea-9c35-11da-8baa-0000779e2340.html) > > This from Ms. Coulter. A stunningly awful and racist comment. > > There is absolutely legitimate room for scorn and derision for radical Islamists who threaten our existence with terrorist tactics and violence. What they wear on their heads is irrelevant. The phrase “ragheads” is ugly and devoid of meaning. Literally, it encompasses peaceful people who choose to cover their heads for traditional or religious reasons. No reasonable person could take issue with that; no reasonable person would use a derogatory term that lumps such people in with murderous bastards. > > My ire is saved for those who use terror and violence as tools. Also, for those who spew ignorant hatred. Today, that’s Ms. Coulter. Praising Senator Kerry: > [@Ghosts of Viet Nam: Bush, Kerry, and The War](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ghosts-of-viet-nam-bush-kerry-and-the-war/227374/2): > > But I certainly agree it would be proper and fitting to acknowledge that Kerry’s service to the country took a far more personally dangerous form than Bush’s own did, and that Kerry faced that challenge with honor and dignity, and was a true American hero. I guess these are all exceptions that prove the rule? That’s one mighty rule, huh? Just out of curiosity: how many times have YOU defended the opposition? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 11:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/96 "2010-05-05T23:08:10Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > Well, for starters, maybe you shouldn’t be the one to be wading into a thread acting all high and mighty that people aren’t debating things in exactly the way you’d like, seeing as you haven’t been up to your own high standards all the time (and the Obama thread was just the most high-profile one I could find). > > One also wonders why, in a forum designed to allow venting and raging, you have to run in to nitpick about one tiny thing about the OP. What, are you the next **ivn1188**? Venting’s only allowed if we do it in the **Bricker** -prescribed fashion? How was I high or mighty? I simply pointed out a more accurate statement, something that every single person on a board supposedly dedicated to fighting ignorance should welcome. ---
**Author:** ![Duke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e8c25b/32.png) [@Duke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Duke)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2010, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/97 "2010-05-05T23:21:16Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Just out of curiosity: how many times have YOU defended the opposition? Many times; I’ve even been called an apologist on this board for my troubles. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/98 "2010-05-06T00:45:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Well, seldom do I need to defend my usual opponents, because the board is full of people interested in doing that. However… > > [Defending Ted Kennedy.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=5080273&postcount=45) > Defending Pelosi against the charge that she was a diva insisting on a big plane: > > Pitting the GOP for their disingenuous defense of Foley: > > Defending Keith Olbermann against sneers: > > Pitting Ann Coulter: > > Praising Senator Kerry: > > I guess these are all exceptions that prove the rule? That’s one mighty rule, huh? > > Just out of curiosity: how many times have YOU defended the opposition? You pushing for Miss Congeniality two years in a row? Unprecedented… ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 12:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/99 "2010-05-06T00:46:32Z")
> [@Duke](#): > > Many times; I’ve even been called an apologist on this board for my troubles. Fair enough; I don’t personally recall that but have no trouble whatsoever imagining it. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2010, 1:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307/100 "2010-05-06T01:30:36Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > What is his evidence, because I’ve seen nothing that would justify starting an investigation into possible criminal or civil actions. Maybe you have some that I’ve missed that would indicate what this “fraud” that Mann supposedly might have done, but I have yet to see it. The ONLY thing even close is the trumped up “climategate” which has no actual evidence of fraud. So please, do share this “evidence” Cooch is using to justify this investigation. Again, please share. Because there is nothing in Cooch’s history, nothing in the climategate, and nothing in his letter to indicate there is any evidence. I know you have your hands full trying to portray yourself as a unjust victim, but if you could pull yourself away from that Bricker, I’m still waiting for you to fight my ignorance. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/cuccinelli-vs-science/538307.md?page=6)