Oh, Merciful Og, no! No!
They can ask to do so but they cannot compel him. That is the crucial difference.
From my link - allegations of research misconduct. Three allegations were dismissed, an expanded inquiry into the fourth allegation is ongoing.
“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.
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.
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.
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”.
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?
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.
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.
<looks around>
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)
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.
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.
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.
Well, seldom do I need to defend my usual opponents, because the board is full of people interested in doing that. However…
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?
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.
Many times; I’ve even been called an apologist on this board for my troubles.
You pushing for Miss Congeniality two years in a row? Unprecedented…
Fair enough; I don’t personally recall that but have no trouble whatsoever imagining it.
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.