Comments by "L.W. Paradis" (@l.w.paradis2108) on "Pete Judo" channel.

  1. Right. The breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed.
    1
  2. @be12  But why would contractually-protected tenure and Title IX be "bad policies?" That's like saying the Fourth Amendment is "bad policy" because Jeffrey Epstein. It doesn't follow at all. On the contrary, it is pandering.
    1
  3.  @bjorntorlarsson  There won't be any.
    1
  4.  @ablebaker8664  The indications are that this will be settled.
    1
  5. @ablebaker8664  The comparison need not be perfectly congruent. She can make her argument, then Harvard can state it had an independent reason, other than her being female, to act as it did. Harvard's problem is that in the case of procedure, rather than substance, that's hard to do. Substantively, they don't have a problem, imo.
    1
  6. @commontater1785  If you read the case, you'll see that so far, Harvard's position has been pretty bad. They tried to claim she has not had tenure removed, she's just on leave with her pay suspended. The judge would have none of it.
    1
  7. @IdonttrustyouIreallyreallydont  That is never treated at the motion to dismiss stage. That could be resolved by summary judgment. If it is not, I predict they will settle. There is a simple, intellectually honest course to take here, that involves giving no credence whatsoever to strangers: Read the case. I cannot do it for you.
    1
  8. @IdonttrustyouIreallyreallydont  BTW, this case has more twists than you might think. Harvard suddenly changed some fundamental procedures for faculty retention, without going through the usual process to change material contract terms, then removed all tenure-related rights and privileges from Gino, and then had the temerity to represent to the judge that her tenure was not removed. You can imagine how well the judge appreciated that. 😂
    1
  9. @RIbigDave  Just the opposite. But you don't see that, because you're not supposed to. Good job. Laws cover everyone equally, from Jeffrey Epstein to Jeffrey Dahmer to this woman. At this rate, the principle won't last. What's really puzzling is your assumption that Harvard is blameless. Or better yet, read the opinion and tell me whether the judge is "defending the indefensible." Or is something else going on, possibly? Something that might be worth your while to understand, something you might need to know about someday, etc.?
    1
  10. @Headhunter_212  I'm not sure why you're mentioning this to me, but anyway. It's basically right. In fact, Harvard drastically changed its procedures in midstream. The opinion is fascinating. People should read it to get a feel for how convoluted the "upper echelons" really are. To be fair to the people commenting, many come from a place of simpler morals. That's not what's going on here.
    1
  11. The Supreme Court is not a trial court.
    1
  12. @dlxmarks  The title is "It's Over - Gino v. Harvard. Yes, I saw the correction to the misleading impression this title and the video obviously gave. (When non-lawyers talk about a case, look up the case. And no, she cannot be held criminally liable.) What is merely procedural? We accord due process to the Manson Family, much less to corrupt academics . . . .
    1
  13. My vote: "More than a decade after he first transplanted a synthetic trachea into a patient, the Italian surgeon and researcher Paolo Macchiarini, 64, has been sentenced to two years and a half in prison by a Swedish court. On 21 June the Court of Appeal in Stockholm concluded that Macchiarini’s interventions on three patients who later died amounted to serious assault." Macchiarini is the worst scientist. Of course he had retractions, too.
    1
  14. I looked up the case. According to the Memorandum Opinion, several of her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. The opinion is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has until mid-October to file an amended complaint. So, this video is misleading as well.
    1
  15.  @jvanek8512  😂 good point
    1
  16.  @hb1338  It's all outlined in the Memorandum Opinion. Turns out he's exactly over the 🎯 Read it and find out what Harvard did. It's really funny.
    1
  17. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center story is worse. See Carl Elliott on that.
    1
  18. ​ @johnpublic6582 Exactly the idea.
    1
  19. "Veritas"
    1
  20.  @andybrice2711  Omg, I just saw it. Perhaps it only shows up under the Newest sort.
    1
  21. Her contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. Look up the case.
    1
  22. Her claim for breach of contract against Harvard is allowed to proceed.
    1
  23. The investment bankers' bonuses were not clawed back in 2008-2009. Tony Hayward's very recent sale of stock was allowed to stand when BP blew up the well in our Gulf. Where have you been? By the way, I looked up the case. According to the Memorandum Opinion, several of her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. The opinion is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has until mid-October to file an amended complaint, against Harvard alone. So, this video is misleading as well. When nonlawyers tell you about a case, look up the case.
    1
  24. This is misleading. The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. I checked, and the docket shows she has until mid-October to amend the complaint. Obviously she has no defamation case. She defamed these researchers, not vice versa. Whenever someone tells you about a case, look up the case. 😒
    1
  25. ​​ @eldenfindley186  Because others do even worse, yes. That's sad.
    1
  26. The Memorandum Opinion I just read states that several breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. It is dated Sept. 11, 2024. When a nonlawyer presents a case, look up the case.
    1
  27. But Gino is already on leave without pay and has filed suit. Fraud in research is much more serious, comparable to massive plagiarism of one's thesis statement and concept, not just lazy plagiarism of prose here and there. I agree with you, though; the person themselves should offer to resign. Or, they should have to go back to assistant professor status and repeat their application for tenure. In a lot of cases, that would be fair.
    1
  28. In education, you are often evaluated on whether you affirm students' individual "learning styles;" as it turns out, research on this pedagogical method fails to support it. Remember Goleman's EQ -- "Emotional Intelligence?" This method of assessment was put in use LONG before there was much solid research to support it; it was based on observations Goleman had made as a management consultant, and they may have been pragmatically valuable to the businesses he advised. Only later was there some research (rather thin) that supported the positing of an EQ. It's more of an advertising slogan than a solid concept. Ironic, given that some of the uses to which IQ itself has been put have been shown to be questionable; all we need is a proliferation of more quotients.
    1
  29. The case isn't over. Her contract claims were not dismissed.
    1
  30. Correct
    1
  31. I looked up the case. According to the Memorandum Opinion, several of her breach of contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. The opinion is dated Sept. 11, 2024. She has until mid-October to file an amended complaint, with Harvard as the only defendant. So, this video is misleading as well. Figures.
    1
  32. Wait. If you know that you MUST do everything you can to advance your career because you have serious obligations, and you dare not fail, you will feel impure if you were to attend networking events?? You might feel resentful, perhaps, but impure? 😂😂😂 In other words, it does not pass the laugh test.
    1
  33. So you do need to question research on pharmaceuticals, where massive amounts of money are at stake.
    1
  34. No, this is significant plagiarism. Wherever a writer omits quotations or the citation of source, it is plagiarism. It is not academic fraud, true. But no one said it was. The fact that she is getting support from the people who she plagiarized is politics. But her persecution is far and away more political. This was a squabble between billionaires. But what I really think: not one of those three Ivy-league university presidents gave a spirited defense of the First Amendment and the importance of having First Amendment fora on campus, or showed any concern for the feelings of bewildered and frightened students, for that matter. You can do both.
    1
  35. Edit: No, they were not. The Podcaster issued a correction and pinned it.
    1
  36. That there was no relationship between the price of a buffet and the satisfaction with the buffet IS a STUPENDOUS result.
    1
  37. Noam Chomsky called it social studies.
    1
  38. I can.
    1
  39. Which retracted paper did this? A ton of his work clearly was not retracted. So, the video talks about a subset of his publications.
    1
  40. Only the government or its agents can violate the Fourth.
    1
  41. Why would someone have an opinion and then look for confirmation? You would think that the motive of preserving one's health and the health of children, especially one's own, would be enough to prevent people from being so irrational.
    1
  42. @blockyuniverseproductions6587  I find it odd that you would think the problem is journalism -- on a channel dedicated to carefully reviewing research fraud. How do people get away with it? Sort-of like a priestly class no one dare question, huh?
    1
  43. @augustaseptemberova5664  The evidence is the research fraud carefully documented here, and the fact that people get accolades for it for YEARS.
    1
  44. @felixjohnson3874  In America, jail is the first reflex, the "answer" to every problem. It's no accident we incarcerate more people than does China.
    1
  45. ​ @joycelynnelobert8779 Perfect
    1
  46. @anon69_q  Oh brother. Give it up. That is not accurate, and if you can't tell that I know what I'm talking about, well, . . . Never mind.
    1
  47. He misled you. The contract claims against Harvard were not dismissed. Whenever anyone talks about a legal decision, look up the decision. :/
    1
  48. No she didn't. She married her way in.
    1
  49. I could put every one of the perpetrators of fraud mentioned here in JAIL for a long time.
    1
  50. ​​ @hieronymusbutts7349  agreed Not fake data!
    1