1. While at breakfast this morning at one of my usual kook-infested spots, I watched a grown man talk to (full volume) and gently stroke his laptop computer for over 30 minutes. He was saying things like "Oh... that's so sweet of you," and "You're full of surprises today, aren't you?" Maniacal laughter was a frequent bonus. I even checked to see if he had some kind of cam device. Nope.
2. I swear that the person down the hall uses her office as a place to have sex during spring and summer breaks.
3. Man hits woman on his way to anger management class. (Thanks to Princess BitchKitty!)
4. I received just now a request from a journal to review a paper submitted for publication. [In case you don't know, my corner of the academic world thrives on double-blind review: When you submit something for consideration for publication, it is sent out to experts on the topic of your paper for evaluation. They don't know your identity, and you don't know theirs. The process is supposed to ensure fairness. ] What's weird about this is that the paper I've been asked to review is explicit in being aimed at my own views. My name is in the damn subtitle of the piece-- it says something like: "Blah, Blah: Why Spiros is a Stupid Idiot." I of course understand the journal's interest in getting a fair assessment of the paper, so I can see the motivation for sending it to someone not opposed to the view being criticized. But still, it seems to me wrong-- a violation of the aspiration for fairness-- to send a paper criticizing Philosopher X to X herself. Fellow philosophers: Am I wrong?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
Re 4, one bias you might have is to supress the paper so as to squelch criticism. another bias you might have it to promote the paper and thus boost the literature about you. Whatever your biases, if they are too extreme, presumably the editor and the other referee can balance that out.
I've been in this situation before and didn't decline to review the paper.
I declined, but then suggested others who are appropriately sympathetic (but not partisan). We'll see what happens.
I thought that maybe declining would be better in the case that the paper survives the review process, because I could then offer to write a rejoinder w/o giving the impression that I had the second of the two biases you mention.
In regard to #2: Precisely, how do people know about this? Just curious...
729: I can HEAR it.
Well, that does explain it.
That person *might* actually *like* that people can hear it.
Probably. And she seems to not mind walking the halls with an obvious case of "sex hair."
Post a Comment