Mehr zu El Naschie, mit Kleinigkeiten von meinem Schreibtisch Mon, Mar 2. 2009
Vor einiger Zeit gab es in eben dieser einen Artikel über Herrn El Naschie, Selbszitateur und Verwirrer der Impact-Faktoren (wir erinnern uns). Durch dunkle Machenschaften verschwand der Beitrag aber wieder, ebenso wie der ursprünglich verlinkte Ursprungsartikel. Es wird von Anwälten und politischer Einflussnahme gemunkelt, dunklen Gestalten die abseits der Netzöffentlichkeit finstere Drohungen ausstoßen.
Doch — blarghosphärisch-emergente Demokratisierung der Informationsströme ahoi! — glücklicherweise schuf ein wagemutiger Provokateur ein (bisweilen arg flapsiges) Watch-Blog, in dem sich all die verschwundenen Text finden — noch.
Andere wichtige Neuigkeiten: Eben rief das Fernsehen an; für einen Beitrag über Spielautomaten suchen sie einen Automatenexperten und wandten sich daher an meinen Chef (und damit auf dem Dienstweg erst mal an mich), denn der kennt sich mit sowas aus. Also, mit Automaten, sogar mit welchen, die mit Zufall zu tun haben! Der Fernsehmann bestand darauf, dass wir uns das erst mal ansehen, bevor wir ihn weiterschicken, und da ich schlecht im Abwimmeln bin, kriege ich demnächst was zugeschickt und darf mir dann überlegen, wohin ich ihn weiterschicke.
Und jetzt: Zurück in die Beweisminen! Die Vermutung Hyp 6.99.1 harrt seit Silvester eines Beweises, und Hyp 6.149.1’ ist falsch (wegen Bsp 6.150.1) und braucht eine Nachfolgerin. Kann ja nicht sein, dass sich das so ewig hinzieht. Wäre ich am Donnerstag nicht über ein überaus einsichtsreiches Lemma gestolpert wäre ich langsam frustriert.
#1 - Günther 2009-03-02 17:03 - (Reply)
Das ist doch die Gelegenheit, ins Fernsehen zu kommen, oder? Und wer will das nicht? ;-D
#1.1 - Erdferkel said:
2009-03-02 18:34 - (Reply)
Also, wirklich, Günther! Ich habe zwar mindestens 30 Vorlesungen zur Automatentheorie gehört und drei betreut, aber ich sehe mich eher als Sprachtheoretiker oder Wortkombinatoriker. Da kann ich mich doch nicht einfach als Automatentheoretiker ausgeben! Außerdem wollen die glaube ich nur einen Zettel, kein Interview, und noch dazu natürlich (mindestens!) von einem Professor.
PS: Nostalgie: Ich habe kürzlich den Dingdong Song auf einer alten Platte entdeckt.
#1.1.1 - Azundris said:
2009-03-03 02:37 - (Reply)
Das habe ich natürlich erst mal falsch gelesen weil ich dachte, nach Tomatentheorie kann als nächstes Wort ja nur "bereut" kommen, und gedacht, "Wie, nur drei?"
#1.1.1.1 - Erdferkel said:
2009-03-03 08:55 - (Reply)
Ich habe mich sogar mal mit Bau-Mau-Tomatentheorie beschäftigt! Die ist heutzutage in, wegen XML und so. Bau. Mau.
#1.2 - Erdferkel said:
2009-03-02 23:26 - (Reply)
Außerdem war ich schonmal im Fernsehen: http://erdferkel.blogger.de/stories/70706/
Und, wie ich gerade festgestellt habe: Der ist vom Radio, nicht vom Fernsehen. Oooooch. (Dies ist eine geheime Zusatzinformation für Kommentarlesende!)
#2 - Holger said:
2009-03-02 17:53 - (Reply)
Ich habe übrigens mal über das Kontaktfeld der ZEIT nachgefragt, was mit dem Naschie-Artikel denn passiert sei. Bisher habe ich noch keine Rückmeldung; das ist zwar erst am Freitag gewesen, aber dennoch vermute ich fast, dass da keine Antwort mehr kommen wird. Ich bin gespannt.
#2.1 - Erdferkel said:
2009-03-02 18:30 - (Reply)
Bei diesem Blogeintrag: http://www.scienceblogs.de/mathlog/2009/02/wissenschaftsjournalismus-und-pressefreiheit-die-zeit-zieht-den-schz-ein.php
äußert sich ab 1.3. der Autor. Anscheinend wird der Artikel gerade überarbeitet und entschärft, da mit schrecklichsten Konsequenzen gedroht wurde. Der Grundtenor wird aber wohl der gleiche bleiben.
#3 - Jason said:
2009-03-04 09:33 - (Reply)
Thank you for linking to my blog!
Jason
El Naschie Watch blog
#4 - Martin Klicken said:
2009-03-06 14:36 - (Reply)
Der ZEIT Artikel ist wieder online!
Es wurde fast nichts geändert!
#4.1 - Erdferkel said:
2009-03-06 15:26 - (Reply)
Vielen Dank für den Hinweis! Das ist doch mal eine eher beruhigende Nachricht.
#5 - Michael Wachonski 2009-11-15 20:19 - (Reply)
Sehr geehrter Herr Blog-Intendant,
Ich nehme an, dass Sie nicht an einer Verleumdungskampagne teilnehmen wollen, denn dafür gibt es im Internet genügend Personen die ihr Leben damit vertrudeln andere Menschen aus Frust zu beschimpfen und ihnen alles Mögliche in die Schuhe schieben. Wenn ich in dieser Annahme richtig bin, dann möchten Sie sicherlich folgendes wissen.
1. John Baez ist kein ernsthafter Mathematiker und noch weniger Physiker. Er hat sich lediglich durch seine große Klappe einen Namen gemacht.
2. Renate Loll hat viele Arbeiten veröffentlicht, die letzte in Scientific American, die nichts anderes sind als eine Reformulierung der Theorie von Mohamed El Naschie, Laurent Nottale und Garnet Ord. Dies ist eine wissenschaftliche Unehrlichkeit in größtem Maße.
3. Als Rache an EL Naschie hat Loll die mit Baez sehr befreundet ist ihn beauftragt die Verleumdungskampagne zu inszenieren. Nature, Quirin Schiermeier und Christoph Drösser waren nur Werkzeuge von John Baez.
4. Rückenstärkung bekommt Professor Renate Loll von ihrem Chef dem Nobellaureat Geradus `t Hooft. Schließlich wird das Preisegeld zusammen geteilt.
5. Geradus `t Hooft ist ein enger Freund und Kollege von El Naschie. Was für eine Freundschaft. Der Rest ist Schweigen.
6. Wenn Sie im Obergericht in London nachfragen, werden Sie wissen, dass El Naschie Nature, Quirin Schiermeier, DIE ZEIT und Scientific American vor den Kadi genommen hat. Das ist das erste Mal in der Geschichte der renommierten Zeitschrift Nature, dass sie vor Gericht stehen. Glauben Sie im Ernst, irgendein Professor wird diesen Schritt wagen wenn er im Unrecht wäre. Sie müssen auch wissen, das die größte Anwaltskanzlei Londons Professor Mohamed El Naschie repräsentiert. Diese Kanzlei würde niemals jemanden gegen Nature repräsentieren wenn er im Unrecht wäre. Die haben einen Namen zu bewahren.
Das sind die Tatsachen und wenn Sie es unverändert in Ihrem Blog veröffentlichen dann helfen Sie dabei die Wahrheit ans Tageslicht zu bringen.
#5.1 - Erdferkel said:
2009-11-16 10:55 - (Reply)
Sehr geehrter Herr Wachonski,
vielen Dank für Ihren Kommentar. Die von Ihnen skizzierten postulierten Zustände sind allerdings für das Kernproblem vollkommen irrelevant. Es ist doch ohne Probleme öffentlich nachvollziehbar, dass Herr El Naschie seine Theorien in einer Zeitschrift veröffentlicht hat, in der er selbst einzige und abschließende Instanz für alle Entscheidungen über Annahme und Ablehnung war, statt sich dem wissenschaftlichen Wettbewerb zu stellen.
Unabhängig von allen anderen Aspekten der Affäre El Naschie ist solch eine Karikatur der wissenschaftlichen Arbeitsweise indiskutabel und ein Schlag ins Gesicht für jeden, der sich regelmäßig mit dem notwendigen aber lästigen System der Peer Review auseinandersetzt. Statt zu prozessieren sollte Herr El Naschie sich schämen und die Größe haben, seinen Fehler einzugestehen und für eine ordentliche Begutachtung seiner Arbeiten zu sorgen.
Übrigens scheint mir Ihr Bild von Anwaltskanzleien stark von Fernsehserien in der Art von Matlock geprägt zu sein. Auch renommierte Anwaltskanzleien haben keine Probleme damit, hoffnungslose Fälle zu übernehmen, da gerade dann das Scheitern nicht auf die Arbeit der Anwälte zurückzuführen ist. Solange Herr El Naschie genug Geld hat sollte es für ihn also kein Problem sein, immer wieder renommierte Anwaltskanzleien engagieren zu können (und immerhin hat er ja anscheinend kürzlich erst die Kanzlei gewechselt).
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
der Blog-Intendant
#6 - Sharif 2009-11-23 18:40 - (Reply)
If there is anybody who should be ashamed of himself it is the owner of this blog who knows nothing about publication, nothing about peer review and yet he finds himself fit to defame people without knowing anything. There is not a single Editor in Chief of a journal who does not publish in his own journal. Prof. El Naschie was not only a full professor and financially independent before he became the Editor in Chief of the journal he founded, but his publications are outside his professional work because he is an engineer not a mathematician nor a physicist. You have no excuse for this campaign instigated by Renate Loll the German professor who works in Holland except coming again and again to the fallacy of peer review. In England we would say peer review, my foot! Are you totally incapable of seeing the merit of a new theory and you just go on repeating any excuses to get Renate Loll out of her hopeless case of plagiarism? Can’t you read the hundreds of papers dealing with Cantor sets in high energy physics based on the work of El Naschie? You may read a recent paper by TN Palmer in the Proceedings of the Royal Society where he succinctly said ‘quantum mechanics is blind to fractals’. It is the serious work of Garnet Ord, Laurent Nottale and Mohamed El Naschie which brought an open minded and intelligent person like Prof. Palmer of Oxford to understand the shortcomings in quantum mechanics formalism using complex numbers. You should stop victimizing Mohamed El Naschie and start educating yourself. If you spend as much time on learning mathematics as you spend on gossip on the internet, there would be no problem. The entire campaign against El Naschie is motivated by a single issue which is a diversion from the plagiarism committed by Renate Loll in Scientific American a year ago. I have no doubt that you will take this comment off your site. That does not matter at all. Just wanted you to know that there are other people who know the truth which at the end always prevails. Those who fear the Court of law must have something to hide and there is nothing dishonorable at all in resorting to the force of the law to protect yourself as has been done by El Naschie. What is despicable is to call on your friend John Baez who calls himself a one man internet army to call on his army of journalists to defame and intimidate an entire family. Not only Mohamed El Naschie was subjected to harassment by a spider’s web of journalists but also his entire family, including his wife and two daughters. I guess that does not bother you as long as you can amuse yourself behind your computer screen.
#6.1 - dlg 2009-11-24 06:58 - (Reply)
I know of no other researcher that attacts such a devout, almost religious group of followers. It’s impressive. I want to be like that once.
#6.2 - Rictus said:
2009-11-24 08:13 - (Reply)
Wall of text crits for over 9000. Ausserdem TL;DR und ich habe meinen ersten Kommentar in einem wissenschaftlich orientierten und scheinbar hoch kontroversem Artikel abgegeben. Das erster im Gegensatz zu zweitem keinen bis wenig Gehalt hat macht ja nichts.
#6.3 - Jason said:
2009-11-24 10:47 - (Reply)
OMG please don’t delete Sharif’s comment. This thread is pure comedy gold, and I’m linking to it.
#6.3.1 - Erdferkel said:
2009-11-25 21:20 - (Reply)
Of course I would never try to silence this voice of truth, trying to illuminate our dark corner of the net.
#6.4 - Erdferkel said:
2009-11-25 21:18 - (Reply)
Dear Sharif,
you wrote: "Those who fear the Court of law must have something to hide"
This is an interesting point. If, for the sake of argument, Renate Loll were to sue you for libel (or slander), would you be willing to provide your full name and postal address?
#7 - David 2009-11-30 19:32 - (Reply)
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.
#7.1 - Erdferkel said:
2009-11-30 19:42 - (Reply)
Fun fact: David and Sharif post from the same IP.
Coincidence??? You decide!
#8 - Anon 2009-12-01 21:33 - (Reply)
Erdferkel is a kind of a pig if my German is not too rusty. I did not know it meant sleuth if only a malfunctioning one.
#8.1 - Erdferkel said:
2009-12-01 21:59 - (Reply)
Fun fact: David, Sharif and Anon post from the same IP.
Coincidence??? You decide!
So, what if I get another of you guys? Am I supposed to shout "bingo"?
#9 - dlg 2009-12-01 22:57 - (Reply)
I have a new goal in life. I don’t want a submarine yacht any more, I want a group of followers that will meet up in an internet cafe and defend me from the pigs of this world. The more insane they appear to be, the better.
I congratulate you, pig host, on this incredibly amusing thread. Please don’t close comments.
#11 - Clive 2009-12-04 20:46 - (Reply)
I do not get the logic Erdferkel. I have not claimed that Renate Loll plagiarized the work of Garnet Ord, Laurent Nottale and Mohamed El Naschie, others have done that. Why should I be afraid from the Court if I had said it and if it was true. If it was not true I would not repeat it. As far as I know, everyone is saying that Renate Loll should have included all the above three names in her references. She shot herself in the foot. That happens when you think you are safe and have a Nobel laureate on your side. The days of such scientific bullying are over. All what Gerard ‘tHooft did was a long algebraic manipulation to normalize a well known theory. Actually he only proved it can be normalized. In retrospect it is a trivial exercise. In fact the man who shared the prize with him, who happens to be his teacher, does not have a high opinion of Gerard ‘tHooft at all. So why should Renate Loll be so arrogant to think that because she has the trust of ‘tHooft, she can take the work of others and call it hers. It is a stupid thing to do. If you are caught doing that you apologize. Instead it is now common knowledge transacted in Courts both sides of the English Channel that she draughted John Baez, the one man internet army, to turn the tables on Mohamed El Naschie because he is the leader of the three. More importantly for her as well as for certain currents in the establishment was to close down Chaos, Solitons & Fractals by intimidating Elsevier. They seem to have succeeded but English libel law now stands in the way. They have only one alternative. Either they change English libel law or pay a hefty fine and be disgraced on top of that. What is so bad about justice when it once works for the underdog. Erdferkel you should be the first to cheer the prospect of the underdog winning against Goliath.
#11.1 - Erdferkel said:
2009-12-05 12:25 - (Reply)
I do not get the logic, Clive. You have not claimed anything here, as this is your very first comment to this entry — at least under this name. So, before we continue this conversation, would you please stick to one (single) alias, and clarify which of the previous comments are yours?
#11.2 - shrink said:
2009-12-09 14:19 - (Reply)
Yeah, right, Clive:
Veltman hated his student so much that he dedicated a major part of his Nobel lecture to him:
http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1999/veltman-lecture.pdf
LOL
#13 - Jason said:
2009-12-09 17:02 - (Reply)
Hi Erdferkel, If it’s not too much trouble, please email me the IP addresses of Clive and the others so that I can compare them with my records. Hasten dot Jason at gmail dot com.
#13.1 - Eye said:
2010-01-11 08:05 - (Reply)
Brian = brian300 = Sven Hanson = David = david4910 = Brad = Clive = Sharif = Anon = El naschie
El naschie is a good fixed point all false identities and affiliations approach him
#13.1.1 - Jason said:
2010-01-11 10:31 - (Reply)
Eye, there is just one problem with that theory.
http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/el-naschie-does-not-use-internet.html
;)
#14 - Brian 2009-12-12 12:36 - (Reply)
Before you check any IP addresses or at least simultaneously, could you please find out about blogs such as: The Scholarly Kitchen, L’Affaire El Naschie and so on and so forth. Surprise, surprise, they are all one and the same blog. They are all sock puppets of John Baez, the one man army internet. Vanity and Oh Vanity and everything is vain. These famous words are not coming from Rembrandt. He is dead. It is coming from John Baez’ aunt. Try as hard as he can, he will never be a respectable pop star. You don’t achieve respectability whether as an artist or a scientist by being a cheap hired hand for framing and defaming people. As for Jason what could you possibly say to a person like him. Christoph Drosser hired him to do a job for Die Zeit and a creature must do what a creature must do. So long folks!
The Gospel Brian
#14.1 - shrink said:
2009-12-12 16:23 - (Reply)
Brian, we do not need to check your IP; we already know about all of your good selves:
http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/arent-they-cute.html
LOL
#14.2 - Jason said:
2009-12-12 19:39 - (Reply)
Brian,
On another thread, and I’m sorry I don’t at the moment remember which and I don’t feel like checking, Zoran Škoda made an apt observation about you El Naschie supporters. He noted a tendency among you to assume that everyone who opposes El Naschie is part of a monolithic conspiracy. You are unable to imagine that people could arrive independently at the conclusion that The Great Man’s work is garbage.
Let me elaborate on Skoda’s remark in my own words: You believe, or pretend to believe, that I, Christoph Drösser, Quirin Schiermeier, Martin Klicken, John Baez, Renate Loll, and Said Elnaschaie are part of a Jewish-run cabal that exists to award Nobels to Mossad agent Ahmed Zewail and withold them from the genius Dr. El Naschie, whose ideas have been stolen by Baez, Loll, `tHooft and Zewail. And that we all do this because El Naschie is a Muslim, an Arab, and named Mohamed. We are racists who are not content to steal Arab oil, we insist even on destroying their very pride.
Now you tell us The Scholarly Kitchen and L’Affaire El Naschie are also part of the conspiracy.
Listen, people. This really is what Brian and the others think! All this is well documented on El Naschie Watch, a venue El Naschie’s sockpuppets are afraid to patronize.
We in the anti El Naschie camp have a more scientific way of ascertaining collusion: We simply note that El Naschie’s supporters have many names but few IP addresses. The effectiveness of this approach is enhanced by the fact that friendly blogmasters provide us with Naschie Party IP records to supplement our own.
Jason
#15 - Brian 2010-01-02 23:29 - (Reply)
No Jason, you got it wrong. I do not think anyone thinks of you as a member of a Mossad conspiracy against Mohamed El Naschie. Mossad is a highly intelligent organization. You are plain dumb. No one has contributed more to the cause of Mohamed El Naschie than you. The obscenity and vulgarity of the comments and pictures on your blog led every reasonable person to the conclusion that Mohamed El Naschie must be a victim. Your whole blog is not only over the top, it is simply dumb. If it is rated high then there is one and only one inescapable conclusion which I am sure even your IQ will allow you to make. Likewise stupid people form the majority of humanity and that is your fortune old boy.
#15.1 - Jason said:
2010-01-03 05:05 - (Reply)
Brian, OK, I’m stupid and vulgar, but this isn’t about me. It’s about the bizarre things The Great Man published in his vanity journal. And it’s about the absurd things he says in Egyptian media interviews. And it’s about the belligerent demeanor of his supporters, aside from your goodself.
Please do read the horytna.net interview of December 27 with him if you have not already done so. In particular, read El Naschie’s answer to the interviewer’s question of why El Naschie didn’t win the Nobel. It’s the fault of G.W. Bush and Israel, El Naschie says.
You sound like a reasonable person. Surely you don’t agree with him on that.
#15.2 - shrink said:
2010-01-03 17:47 - (Reply)
What about your goodself, Brian? Aren’t you (and your goodselves) as dumb as others:
http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/11/arent-they-cute.html
and as illiterate as others:
http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2009/11/a_tactic_named_sue.php#comment-2116957
?
#16 - Brian 2010-01-06 23:10 - (Reply)
Whether it is true or not is neither here nor there Jason. Granted Mohamed El Naschie may be suffering from an oversized ego and was bragging in one way or another, why should this bother you so much? You don’t really think that any intelligent person will buy the stuff you are saying. El Naschie’s story amuses you so much that you cannot help working day and night on a worthless blog proving worthless things about El Naschie who is needless to say, a worthless person in your considered view. Come on. Why should you waste your life writing worthless things about worthless people? Not only that, now you have passed the Cambridge or should I say Cairo proficiency exam in Arabic. No matter how hard anyone tries, you are a hired hand. There is no doubt you are just repeating what your pay master told you. What do you care about Bush, Israel, Egypt or the Middle East? If it is not about you and your questionable taste and it is surely not about a worthless guy living in a worthless country, what is it all about? Please remind me. Suppose Egypt and I mean modern Egypt, disappeared from the surface of the earth, what would be the affect in any way in the part of the world where you live? You claim to live in Seattle. Sleepless as you may be, I do not think you are dreaming of El Naschie at night. Maybe you should if he is as powerful and influential as your blog is unsuccessfully trying to prove. For all practical considerations I must therefore conclude that Jason is not Jason but a pseudo name for a lunatic with a grudge against Mohamed El Naschie, whoever he is. It could be of course that you are earning a few pennies from advertising on your blog as a means of sustenance after a failed university degree. For all I what I know, I do not know and I do not care. I have independently looked at the article of Renate Loll in Scientific American. There is not a shred of a doubt that she plagiarized the work of El Naschie, Laurent Nottale and Garnet Ord. I also looked at the mentally afflicted Said Elnashaie who must be a very close relative of Mohamed El Naschie. It makes for sad reading. You can try it yourself (http://thecaseofsaidelnashaie.blogspot.com/2009/01/case-of-said-elnashaie.html#comments). If you know the word decency, then you should leave these people in peace and spare your readership and blog sphere the language and the pictures with which you have inundated us. If you can’t, then just go on. I do not think any intelligent person will take notice of you. Sorry, I mean will take notice of your blog.
#16.1 - Jason said:
2010-01-07 08:43 - (Reply)
Brian,
You are giving El Naschie a pass he does not deserve.
I have explained at length
http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-are-you-doing-this.html
why I despise him. If you can’t bring yourself to head on over to my blog for the explanation, I’ll put the relevant part inline here:
____________________________
Now I’ll explain why he’s a creep, and deserving of the scorn we here at El Naschie Watch cast upon him.
But first, two non-reasons:
(1) Many of his papers are rambling stream-of-consciousness numerological nonsense.
(2) Chaos, Solitons and Fractals is a $4,520.00 per annum ripoff.
No doubt he’d rather write good papers. He just can’t. That doesn’t make him a creep. Nor did he as Editor-in-Chief set the price. Elsevier did that. That’s not his fault, and it doesn’t make him a creep.
These are the things that make him a creep deserving of all the derision this blog can dish:
(1) He’s a hyperenlawyered bully.
(2) He lies about his credentials, e.g., claiming to be a full professor.
(3) He claims to be a great scientist deserving of a Nobel prize.
(4) He unloads this garbage to an uncritical Arab media and successfully hoodwinks the gullible.
(5) For his lack of a Nobel prize, he blames racism against Arabs; and prejudice against those named Mohamed; and against Muslims.
That last one is the most egregious. It is scapegoating. He promotes victim mentality and encourages anti-Western xenophobia among Arabs even while living his cushy gazillionaire life with homes in Alexandria… and in Surrey. It’s the reason this blog uses the Arabic stylistic ornaments (faux Arabic writing in the header and Arabesque tiles on the sides) that some visitors here have objected to. It’s my way of throwing the poseur’s crap right back at him. It’s not to offend Arabs or Muslims, many of whom know that El Naschie is a fraud: It’s to offend M. S. El Naschie.
____________________________
The Said Elnaschaie site is known to me. I tried months ago to add a comment there asking why they are so critical of the talented and lovely Jihan Fadel,
http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/04/jihan-fadel.html
but the moderator disallowed my comment. What’s up with that, I wonder. Let me ask you, since you recommend the site. What do you and they have against her? She’s just an actress, and like every other human being she did not choose her mother and stepfather.
#16.2 - shrink said:
2010-01-07 12:07 - (Reply)
Brian,
your words are not truly original:
http://elnaschiewatch.blogspot.com/2009/03/sven-hanson-naschie-party-spokesman.html
I’m tempted to write down another sockpuppet equation. :D
A purely rhetorical question: who is willing to buy anything from a multiple personality?
#16.3 - Jason said:
2010-01-07 17:01 - (Reply)
Shrink asks a good question, Brian. Why do you post under so many different names?
Brian, brian300, Sven Hanson, David, david4910, and Brad, to name just a few.
#16.4 - Jason said:
2010-01-07 21:43 - (Reply)
Brian = brian300 = Sven Hanson = David = david4910 = Brad = Clive = Sharif = Anon
#17 - Jessica 2010-02-05 13:03 - (Reply)
Nature is a true victim of an alliance of evil. Mohamed El Naschie is without a trace of a doubt the most original scientist since Newton and Einstein. He is a natural talent. Suffice to know that he never formally studied physics or mathematics. Never the less his impact on science is incredible. Within ten years his scientific impact went from 0.2 per cent to 35 per cent. To appreciate this in a more tangible way you should read the recent book The Mathematics of Harmony by academician Prof. Alexey Stakhov. This book just appeared in World Scientific and has already been nominated for a possible Nobel Prize by Gennady Shypov and Yuri Mitropolsky as you can read on the back of the cover. Another book where El Naschie’s cosmology is discussed on page 180 is The Pea and The Sun by Leonard M. Wapner, published in 2005 by A.K. Peters Ltd, Wellesley, Massachusetts, USA. The book is a testament of the boldness and originality of El Naschie who used for the first time the Banach-Tarski theorem to elucidate the coming of the universe from nothingness. Mohamed El Naschie’s theory is now a fact. It is well known that he found the golden mean to be the basis of quantum mechanics. He was mercilessly mocked for this by the establishment for using something as esoteric as the golden mean in science. The joke is now on them because the establishment in Helm Holz Inst. and the University of Oxford have just found the golden mean in quantum mechanics experimentally a couple of weeks ago. Ironically this work is going to be published in Science which is the prime competitor of Nature. Mohamed El Naschie is probably the most envied scientist in the history of science. The reason is that he committed three sins wrapped up in a forth one. He is very affluent and never needed to beg for funding. He has a very happy family life. He is loved by everybody who knows him. This three attributes are then wrapped up in an extremely naïve and straight forward character which many charlatans used to attack him without his realization. The worst attack came from some of his closest so called friends. These friends are in his native country Egypt as well as Holland and unfortunately England. These friends conspired with a well known Nobel laureate in Experimental Chemistry to pressure Elsevier to shut down Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. When they did not succeed they enlisted the assistance of several subsidiaries of the world’s largest publisher, Macmillan. The tabloid article in Nature is just one of several others. It is the worst of them all. I do not need to repeat the details here because you will read it all in the transcript of the trial from the High Court in London. I sincerely hope Mohamed El Naschie wins his case so that this institutionalized bullying of large institutions will be dismantled. It will be the first time that a professor brings a multibillion institution to its knees using the simple sword of truth in the Courts of Justice.
#17.1 - Rictus said:
2010-02-07 22:51 - (Reply)
Oh, look, it’s the "Return of the Son of the Bride of Wall of Text!"
Seriously, though, if you want to be several posters at once, learn to use another style of writing. If not, stick with one name. Otherwise this gets more and more ridiculous, growing close to the point of a gravitational ridiculosity and its Deep End horizon, beyond which lies the fabled Anti-Laugh Equation and the undiscovered country from whose bourn no traveller returns.
Or, as Seth Green as Oz in Buffy:TVS once said: I mock you with my monkey pants.
Calendar
|
February '10 |
|
||||
| Mo | Tu | We | Th | Fr | Sa | Su |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
| 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 |
| 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 |
| 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 |
Quicksearch
Comments
Referrers
Links!
Andreas
Azundris
c.fe
Der Freddy
d.l.g.
Don Alphonso
Felix
Guenther
Harald
Holger
Ingo
Jeffrey Rowland
Jeffrey Shallit
jwz
Kris
Matthias
Nick Mamatas
Orkpiraten
Outrider
Planet Fachschaftsumfeld
plomlompom
Rictus Nr. 1, Nr. 2
Wilfried
Keine weiteren Links...
Syndicate This Blog
Categories
supersized.org
Owner login
Extrawurst?
Polls
Archives
Impressum
Choose Language
| | | | Back to top
Design by Andreas Viklund | Serendipity Template by Carl