|
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
L**********r
发帖数: 143 | 1 Report this comment | #48104
Bill Capricorn said:
Why ridiculous news articles in a prestigous academic jounal raise
suspicions
'Regular brain monitoring of editors' could help to dispel doubts.
For news in an academic journal, how ridiculous is too ridiculous? That
question might have dogged the editor of the British academic journal "
Nature". The recent news report by this journal "Why great Olympic feats
raise suspicions" has raised ubiquitous concerns about whether its editor
has experienced severe brain damage.
Was the ridiculousness of that news article anomalous?
Yes. Since Nature's first publication in 1869, never have people seen
news articles this ridiculous approved by its editors. The decision of
publishing this article is absolutely out of readers' expectations.
Dosen't serving as the editor of an academic journal rule of the
possibility of brain damage?
No, says Sister Pheonix, a well-known expert in the field of bran damage
research.
How would ridiculousness of articles be used to test for brain damage of
editors?
Readers need a better way of flagging anomalous ridiculousness of news
articles, says Sister Lotus. The Global Times, a news paper that views China
as simply freaking awesome and the rest
of the world pretty much piece of crap, dabbled in regular brain
monitoring of its editors.
Could an editor then be hospitalized simply for publishing articles too
ridiculous?
"That would be unfair", says Sister Pheonix. "The final verdict is only
ever going to be reached by medical examination. It has to be." Publishing
ridiculous articles is too far removed from brain damage of the editor and
influenced by too many outside factors, Sister Pheonix says. "When we read
this wickedly ridiculous news article approved for publishing by it editor,
that's not proof of anything. It asks a question or two." | Q*****n
发帖数: 4546 | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
