RD.net to be re-revamped!

[Rum]

We have only ever heard one side of the story here, let's not forget.

Not really, since I'm posting her unedited emails to me in their original form - without misrepresenting what at least was her true and accurate "side of the story" then, at the time of going to press.

And I don't imagine that she could convincingly backtrack out of her statement to me about Dawkins' minimal involvement in the lawsuit. I wouldn't put it past her to try - but I don't believe she could do it convincingly.

Also - there's more... and it just isn't ambiguous...

Not sure that is fair. I don't want to argue with you as I think we have patched up our differences over this matter, but lets face it, you have posted what you want to post and what supports your accusations in a form presented by you. The emails may not be edited but they are selected by you for your purposes and we have no idea if others (emails or facts) refute your accusations.

I would urge you to send your evidence to somewhere it matters if you think you have a case. Here it just causes discomfort in my view. I for one am a huge fan of Dawkins, though I don't keep him on a pedestal. I can live with him being a twat in some compartments of his life. Most of us are after all.

[lordpasternack]

Trouble is, even though I have RD's E-Mail address, I think he would probably be pretty hacked off if I steamed in asking awkward questions out of the blue. Consequently, obtaining the "other side" might be a tad problematic here.

Doesn't stop me!

Hehe... In response to Richard having claimed that he'd never bought Cornwell any apartments - I sent him an email detailing that I knew of his expressed intent to buy her property, and discussed ones that I already knew about, which are on the public record.

I then followed up with this email, which I am inordinately proud of:

RDconvo5.png (16.41 KiB) Viewed 2716 times

...we now have legal documents in the public domain suggesting that RD's management, and that of some of his acolytes, is either incompetent or derelict.

They have been in the public domain for quite some time - and have already been amply commented on, in that vein, on RatSkep:

So, on the basis of no new information whatsoever, Dawkins folds.

Not surprising, but not rational, either. The man can't manage shit, clearly, and seems to know so little about what he's doing in areas like the web and the law that he's unaware that his hired help are as out of their depth as he is. It's sad, really.

My emphasis.

And:

As far as I'm concerned, the Foundation may as well wind up now. No proper financial oversight, and when they say someone has been pilfering the money as a result, they spend several months being slapped around by a judge for not getting their act together, and end up getting nothing back. How are they supposed to claim they are a good bunch of people to give money to? They'd better think up an answer in case the Charity Commission decides to ask them.

[lordpasternack]

We have only ever heard one side of the story here, let's not forget.

Not really, since I'm posting her unedited emails to me in their original form - without misrepresenting what at least was her true and accurate "side of the story" then, at the time of going to press.

And I don't imagine that she could convincingly backtrack out of her statement to me about Dawkins' minimal involvement in the lawsuit. I wouldn't put it past her to try - but I don't believe she could do it convincingly.

Also - there's more... and it just isn't ambiguous...

Not sure that is fair. I don't want to argue with you as I think we have patched up our differences over this matter, but lets face it, you have posted what you want to post and what supports your accusations in a form presented by you. The emails may not be edited but they are selected by you for your purposes and we have no idea if others (emails or facts) refute your accusations.

I would urge you to send your evidence to somewhere it matters if you think you have a case. Here it just causes discomfort in my view. I for one am a huge fan of Dawkins, though I don't keep him on a pedestal. I can live with him being a twat in some compartments of his life. Most of us are after all.

I would be willing to give you login details to my email inbox - although you'd have to take my word for it that I hadn't selectively deleted emails, I suppose.

Even still, though - there will be enough - even of what I selectively address - for it not to be ambiguous.

[Rum]

You do seem to be accumulating evidence of cockupness, I grant you, but I will leave any satisfaction to be gained by exposing it to you Heather. If it was me I would walk away, but there you go..

[lordpasternack]

Oh fucking hell, I just have to laugh at this sentence from the June 2011 snapshot ...

As an evolutionary psychologist, her research has examined the underlying mechanisms of human mate selection

That's a sentence that could come back to haunt them both.

You wouldn't believe it - but I thought the exact same thing when I saw that!

Anybody has a RELIABLE record of where she went to college, what places granted her sheepskins, and what she's done with her life that she'd claim expertise in anything beside boning dirty old men?

Ahem... Good question. I've found no clear record anywhere, of anything she was doing before her reported attendance of the University of Colorado Springs, and then St Andrews University (where Dawkins' daughter did her undergrad) - which was reportedly when in her 40s.

It was for precisely this reason that I included the suggestion to contact Richard requesting a copy of her CV, near the bottom of my open letter.

As she's his Executive Director - he should obviously have her CV on file... but he probably doesn't...

[lordpasternack]

You do seem to be accumulating evidence of cockupness, I grant you, but I will leave any satisfaction to be gained by exposing it to you Heather. If it was me I would walk away, but there you go..

hitch.jpg (33.22 KiB) Viewed 2707 times

[Calilasseia]

Meanwhile, I've decided to put these claims of her having researched into these fields to the test. Google Scholar is very informative here.

For example, we have this paper, namely:

Women’s Physical And Psychological Condition Independently Predict Their Preference For Apparent Health In Faces by

Benedict Christopher Jones, T, Anthony C. Little, Lynda Boothroyd, David R. Feinberg, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Lisa M. DeBruine, S. Craig Roberts, Ian S. Penton-Voak, Miriam J. Law Smith, Fhionna R. Moore, Hasker P. Davis & David I. Perrett, Evolution & Human Behaviour, 26(6): 451-457 (November 2005)

Then we have:

Menstrual Cycle, Trait Estrogen Level, And Masculinity Preferences In The Human Voice by D.R. Feinberg, B.C. Jones, M.J. Law Smith, F.R. Moore, L.M. DeBruine, R.E. Cornwell, S.G. Hillier & D.I. Perrett, Hormones and Behaviour, 49(2): 215-222 (February 2006) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Then we have:

Commitment To Relationships And Preferences For Femininity And Apparent Health In Faces Are Strongest On Days Of The Menstrual Cycle When Progesterone Level Is High by B.C. Jones, A.C. Little, L. Boothroyd, L.M. DeBruine, D.R. Feinberg, M.J. Law Smith, R.E. Cornwell, F.R. Moore & D.I. Perrett, Hormones and Behaviour, 48(3): 283-290 (September 2005) [full paper downloadable from here]

The Voice And Face Of Woman: One Ornament That Signals Quality? by David R. Feinberg, Benedict C. Jones, Lisa M. DeBruine, Fhionna R. Moore, Miriam J. Law Smith, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Bernard P. Tiddeman, Lynda G. Boothroyd & David I. Perrett, Evolution & Human Behaviour, 26(5): 398-408 (September 2005) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Then we have:

Facial Masculinity Is Related To Perceived Age But Not Perceived Health by

Lynda G. Boothroyd, T, Ben C. Jones, D. Michael Burt, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Anthony C. Little, Bernard P. Tiddeman & David I. Perrett, Evolution & Human Behaviour, 26(5): 417-431 (September 2005) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Then we have this:

Facial Appearance Is A Cue To Oestrogen Levels In Women by M. J. Law Smith, D. I. Perrett, B. C. Jones, R. E. Cornwell, F. R. Moore, D. R. Feinberg, L. G. Boothroyd, S. J. Durrani, M. R. Stirrat, S. Whiten, R. M. Pitman and S. G. Hillier, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Part B, 273: 135-140 (22nd January 2006) [Full paper downloadable from here and here]

That last one is rather impressive, because Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B doesn't publish any old crap.

Then we have this:

Maternal Tendencies In Women Are Associated With Estrogen Levels And Facial Femininity by

Miriam J. Law Smith, Denis K. Deady, Fhionna R. Moore, Benedict C. Jones, R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Michael Stirrat, Jamie F. Lawson, David R. Feinberg & David I. Perrett, Hormones & Behaviour, 61(1):, 12-16 (January 2012) [Full paper downloadable from here]

Sadly this one is behind a paywall (sigh) ...

More Women (And Men) That Never Evolved by R. Elisabeth Cornwell, Craig T. Palmer and Hasker P. Davis, Behavioural & Brain Sciences, 23(4): 598-599 (August 2000) [Abstract available here]

That's interesting to put it mildly - she's co-authored a paper with Craig T. Palmer, who is, to put it mildly, a controversial figure in the world of evolutionary psychology (see the furore in the Times Higher Education Supplement on Thornhill & Palmer's extrapolations on rape, for an example of why he's controversial).

Finally, here's another one from Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, which isn't one of hers, but cites her work, namely:

Correlated Preferences For Facial Masculinity And Ideal Or Actual Partner’s Masculinity by Lisa M. DeBruine, Benedict C. Jones, Anthony C. Little, Lynda G. Boothroyd, David I. Perrett, Ian S. Penton-Voak, Philip A. Cooper, Lars Penke, David R. Feinberg and Bernard P. Tiddeman, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Part B, 273: 1355-1360 (7th June 2006) [Full paper downloadable from here and here]

Seems she has genuinely been active on the research front. This little lot would make her well and truly armed and dangerous in a Mata Hari role.

[lordpasternack]

Yeah - I checked with Google Scholar a while back, but I'd still be wary of how the record looks at face value... It's easy to get your name appended to a research paper for fairly little input thereto... And I personally put nothing past her when it comes to calculating how to advance herself. To be honest, I'd be reflexively sceptical and insist on fact-checking, if she were to tell me that the sky is blue, water is wet and the Pope is a Catholic.

And as we know from a few past instances - academic success doesn't always lend itself to soundness of academic character.

[Svartalf]

LOL, I got my name appended to a research paper because I acted as the author's expert and consultant on some of the matters he dealt with... I never did research, I just used my memory on certain subjects and checked that he had correctly understood certain French texts which he deemed ambiguous due to lack of practice.

[lordpasternack]

And I had my name appended to a paper just for making some observations, giving some ideas, and making brief editorial criticisms...

[Calilasseia]

Usually, though, if your contributions are minor, you're at the back end of the list of names. Cornwell's name appears roughly about the middle, which suggests that she might have been doing something a little more substantial than proof reading. Of course, if you want to be sure, you could always contact the authors at the head of the list. If it transpires she was doing something important, such as designing the experiments from the ground up, then we can't take that away from her. If on the other hand she was little more than the typist for the papers in question, well, that'll be another stick for LP to beat her with.

[lordpasternack]

If it transpires she was doing something important, such as designing the experiments from the ground up, then we can't take that away from her.

Indeed. Though I'm not planning on digging in that direction, yet.

If on the other hand she was little more than the typist for the papers in question, well, that'll be another stick for LP to beat her with.

I have a fair stick collection already.

[Svartalf]

Iz funneh.

"Dr R Elisabeth Cornwell", whoever she is, doesn't even have a wikipedia page... I know much less prominent people who have one, and AFAIK, they weren't the ones trying to get publicity that way (like the obscure prof with U Pennsylvania who once appended me to one of his papers)

I'd really like to know what U she got her PhD from, and in what subject.

[lordpasternack]

Iz funneh.

"Dr R Elisabeth Cornwell", whoever she is, doesn't even have a wikipedia page... I know much less prominent people who have one, and AFAIK, they weren't the ones trying to get publicity that way (like the obscure prof with U Pennsylvania who once appended me to one of his papers)

I'd really like to know what U she got her PhD from, and in what subject.

Reportedly St Andrews University in Scotland - and in Evolutionary Psychology. Follow that link I included earlier, to snapshots of her RD.net bio. It's in there.

All of which left unmentioned in her current biography, though.

[Svartalf]

Funny... I didn't even know that "evolutionary psychology" was enough of a subject for reputable institutions to deliver PhDs in... and if it disappeared from or went unmentioned in he bio, how likely is it?