I know. I said I would be quiet for a while. But now that NewSouth is
beginning to assemble on its website a long sampling of quotes from those
who, inexplicably, have chosen to defend this new publication, it seems
especially important to keep the discussion alive. The sense I continue to
have -- that many who should know better are responding to this event with a
yawn and a shrug -- is nicely highlighted in this editorial:
In this light, and after spending many hours looking at the public's
reaction to this news, I find it quite disappointing that there has been
little more than a whimper from the academic community. Indeed, it seems
some on this list can hardly wait for people to stop talking about it.
What's that all about? The world is looking to academia to help them
understand this news and its implications, but to date they hear little more
than crickets chirping.
If anyone here honestly considers Gribben's position defensible*, I'd
certainly like to see the argument laid out, point by point.
Keep in mind that it is a relatively simple matter to objectively prove that
Gribben's edits have altered the meaning of the text -- his rationalizations
to the contrary notwithstanding.
* When I say "defensible" I mean supportable by means other than emotional
references to Dr. Gribben's credentials, experience, reputation, or
all-around good-guy personality.