Well, first, she's a zionist likely to support murdering innocent people. Second, she's a cheat, and has plagiarized from others in her work. Lastly, she is married to a hedge fund ghoul, Bill Ackman, he one of many responsible for Harvard's president getting fired, and for doxxing students who support Palestinians.
That's good to know. She is also someone who uses her sex appeal quite a bit and that's how the press likes her. Probably Epstein and Maxwell looked at her picture and said "Hmm that's a good one."
I'm not a fan of the outrage culture which currently seems to be working a lot harder at finding ways to disagree than agree. But I would love to see folks question the way in which architecture culture uncritically promote individuals and republish press releases as if it were journalism and criticism...
Citation issues aside, which is very possible to overlook on something 330 pages for example in a PhD treatise. On the other hand, she probably should have done better. I'm not in a valid position to discern if she was intentionally plagiarizing or if it was an accident because of omission. As for the other issues with Neri, that too is complicated.
While she has sex appeal to boot, no question about that...the news surely suggests her ethics and character doesn't match her sex appeal.
I did see her once in person at University of Oregon back in 2010s when she was with her previous husband, guy, whatever he was.
Her desire to be with guys a generation or two older than her seemed odd and seemingly about the wealth security than any particular love.
Probably makes sense logically and mathematically to marry wealth because she would never be able to have her plush lifestyle.
As for the zionist argument made, is there some credible source regarding it? I haven't personally looked into it.
Her previous husband was a douche, though significantly less wealthy than Ackman. I have always wondered how someone as bright and beautiful as Neri could consistently end up with the worst men.
Don't be ashamed of finding her sexually attractive. She just is.
As for the rest of her personal character, it's hard to say but no fucking person is an absolute perfect saint. Her disdain for Hamas is understandable. Hamas are terrorists and there is decades of terrorism by them. However, I also hold disdain for Israel's leadership manner of addressing the Hamas terrorists when they have the most highly trained fighting force on earth, even better trained than U.S. soldiers. There basic training level is at the equivalent of Navy Seal, Army Delta Force, and Marines special forces. There advanced trained force goes above that by a considerable margin. Why are they not surgically sniping and taking down Hamas terrorists instead of shock and awe Missile striking the Gaza Strip? What the fuck is wrong with Natanyahu? If you didn't know, Neri served in Isael's air force. Zionists is a political label. If you are a Jew by religious faith which you are technically a form of, if you are a Christian, then your faith in God and the city of Zion. It is part of the faith of the judeo-christian faith. Now, I understand her patriotism for Israel. Even if she doesn't explicitly identify with the Zionist political movement, she is going to share values that they do as any Jew born in Israel since the 1950s would and most Jews by faith would.... it's fucking law of God so to speak... Biblically speaking from the parts you find in the Tohrah as non-Christian jews customarily do not recognize the "New Testament". Don't conflate a jew's support for Israel as a sovereign state as supporting Natanyahu or particularly his approach. I am not aware of any contemporary statements for or against Israel indiscriminate method of targeting Hamas and the innocent people that are non- combatants getting killed. If someone were to ask her position on that, then we will have a better idea of her moral position. Either way, it would be clear. As a former Israel Air Force, can she speak negatively of Natanyahu's approach in the Gaza Strip. Would she lose her military benefits that she may receive? I don't know. As a high profile person, it might be a problem for her if she did. As for her husband, he's kind of a...._________ from what I can tell. I wouldn't say his doxxing was cool by any means.
For one, I don't want to judge her without all the facts. I am reserving judgements on her online posts. Has she given everything about her feelings on the issues or only spoke to certain issues. What exactly did she do with regards to the now former Harvard President or was it mainly her husband's actions? Facts please, not accusations. As in evidence of her actions not third party allegation or claim without the evidence to prove. I met her but don't know her. Makes sense.
I'm not sure its particularly offensive to her. "American-Israeli designer and MIT faculty member Neri Oxman is the shining embodiment of what has been called winning the genetic lottery: intelligence, beauty, giftedness, hard work, and an original vision inherent in a versatile person who is not afraid to blur the lines between disciplines." - https://nerioxman.tilda.ws/en#filosofia
She pretty much uses her attractiveness to her benefit.
Why shouldn't heterosexual males find attractive women attractive the same as heterosexual women find attractive men attractive? I'm not saying that Neri doesn't have other qualities that are appealing. Donna does basically the same thing about Brad Pitt. Discussion of these other aspects would be extraneous discussion beyond what Le Courvu above said. Is your issue about yourself or is this all about turning heterosexual people into homosexuals? If the latter, it doesn't work that way. Humans are a two gender species biologically speaking and biologically requires both genders to procreate. That is plain factual natural science. This doesn't mean I'm opposing same gender relationships between those who desire that for a number of reasons. My for or against would be irrelevant.
Jan 7, 24 8:39 am ·
·
archanonymous
Rick I (probably like most people here) have you blocked so I can't see what bullshit you posted, only that you posted something.
Please accept the fact that nobody wants to hear what you have to say and kindly fuck off to somewhere else.
Then you have no legitimate right to reply. You can just go fuck off and never reply to me again. If anyone is to reply to anyone, at least read what they wrote. You only saw lulu's post which is blatantly excessive reaction to what I wrote that she was replying to. Yes, Neri is intelligent and her ideas intellectually and academically intriguing however it has a lot of pragmatic and practical barriers as well as other barriers for her ideas reaching mainstream architecture. Her work is quite on the edge that it is difficult to see it reach practical professional realm where practicing architects and building design professionals work in. Fine art but not easy to get the people who actually builds buildings to even attempt to apply it. They'll veto such because they aren't going to risk their insurance coverage and license on it. As a real world professional, I find it difficult to apply.
In short, I don't feel sorry for thinking she has an attractive looks nor feel sorry about others who feel the same way. A beautiful flower is a beautiful flower. A beautiful rainbow is a beautiful rainbow. Sorry, I'm not sorry.
Chad, I said those. However, yes it can be read sexist. The point wasn't that she doesn't have other quality but it is an asset she has used to her benefit as has Brad Pitt has as well. She does indeed have intellectual qualities. My comment about her attractive looks is cotextual to whom I was replying such as *yourname and later with regards to the fact there is a general consensus that she has attractive looks which is an asset she as any person with such as asset has used. Do you really think that her dissertation and research on material-aware design is of high interest to a hedge fund executive? I think her looks and that she's Jewish were things that attracted him to her. Do you not think she been benefitting from the plush comfort of billionaire luxury? She has a golden parachute of sorts regarding her business where she has money without actually having to make money with it. She can just research all day long. Speaking the obvious facts isn't necessarily being sexist.
So now her husband has threatened to research every academic to root out any and every one who may have plagiarized, no doubt leading to chaos and embarrassment and prolonged ridiculous culture wars and it makes me feel even more strongly that the guy I read on Threads this morning was right: “Just one. We eat *just one* billionaire and the rest will fall in line.”
If he ever went to college, then we'll go after him. At some point, you just ignore and stop news reporting that stuff and take the wind out of the sail because 100% of students over the past 100 years errored on citing sources at least once.
On one hand, plagiarism is a serious academic issue but there should be professionalism and tact in handling allegations and mindfulness students often err through omissions. All the citation styles are tedious, complicated issues. There's a point in time that MLA, APA, Chicago, etc. styles didn't have a proper way to cite websites and Wikipedia articles so how would you cite such? They are complex and evolving with multiple editions. Weaponizing this into some derange WWE trash talking clown show is where it gets inane.
I think the Harvard president that resigned, was not because of the plagiarism issue so much as these other issues with how she responded to Congress or whatever it was. I personally think there are individuals in Israel's administration and the Hamas terrorists that are responsible for the Gaza Strip deaths. They are both bad actors in this whole debacle.
As for Neri's husband Bill, I'm not going to bother with his petty b.s. If he goes after me, I'll respond to his trash talking garbage and start looking at his extensive FERPA violation he would potentially run into. As well as class action lawsuits in the trillion dollar level levied at him. Maybe he wants to back off before millions sue for $1-10 MILLION each for lifetime earnings damage and defamation by characterization and FERPA violations. This can bankrupt him. Does he want to be like Trump is soon to be?
Jan 7, 24 1:12 pm ·
·
curtkram
i would be happy to bring a charcuterie tray and wine when you're ready.
Neri is married to a nepo-billionaire hedge fund asshole Bill Ackman who made a lot of money shorting the housing market in 2009. She is an Israeli Zionist who cannot acknowledge any nuance regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Neri's lab at MIT was funded in part by Jeffrey Epstein. Her massive new lab in midtown Manhattan is owned by her husband and the renovation was done by Rafael Vinoly. Their penthouse apartment overlooking Central Park is being done by Norman Foster.
Neri is lazily referred to as an architect by many, but has completed no architectural work and holds no architectural licensure (that I'm aware of). The "projects" listed on her practice's website are comprised of hypothetical research and temporary installations. The sole client for these projects is her own ego.
P.S. she looks like Bellatrix Lestrange... I take exception to claims that she is objectively attractive.
Can someone please read the 5,139 word Xitter post Neri’s husband made about how it’s acceptable for people he likes to plagiarize but not people he doesn’t? I don’t have the energy but would love to know the highlights.
I’ll add this: When I saw Mrs. Ackman’s talk at the AIA conference in Philadelphia I was completely blown away, and absolutely loved it. I stand by that, because the work is actually really interesting (there’s a podcast out there where I talk about it). And the fact that she is extremely well-crafted in how she presents her work, and also beautiful, doesn’t necessarily take away from how interesting the work is. Other characteristics of her might/do, but being able to captivate an audience isn’t always used for bad.
I don't have as strong feelings as others in the thread. I always thought Oxman's work was interesting. I think I can sum it up as turnabout is fair play and the billionaire hates it.
Yeah, Josh, I rarely feel good about dunking on people, but when they’re a billionaire, it just can’t bother me. The barbed language of an internet comment can’t (or shouldn’t, attn: Elon) hurt a billionaire. I mean Neri Oxman has everything in the world going positively for her, and if things are going badly she can just buy them back to being good again. I just have no energy to have pity for billionaires anymore.
She is a lying, pretentious sack of shit who has risen to fame based on her sugar-daddies (plz excuse the term) and her being Israeli. The fact that she married Bill Ackman testifies to this. Donna, i think even her work is stolen from students and she is an absolute no talent.
I am purchasing the world's tiniest violin for this privileged rich hack.
On a broader scale, I just love how the Zionists (like Bill Ackman) have aligned themselves with sex criminals like Epstein, and far-right douchebags like Christopher Ruso. They are essentially the same. One kills brown people, the other free speech.
SOD: She’s a strong presenter and self-promoter, and also wealthy independent of her professional practice. Frankly, I don’t think this is atypical of the field of architecture. Lot of these people out there, she’s just gotten a little further with it than most. Does that validate any sort of behavior, no. Could she have succeeded without any behavior objectionable to you … I think it’s likely.
As for Epstein… There were a really broad spectrum of people connected to him because he was an immense power broker… only a few were seemingly there for the sex crimes. Most of the time people bring up connections to him it’s in bad faith.
Right Donna, my mantra with these kinds of people is that theres never only one wrong they do. If her thesis got away unscathed for so many years, she probably got away with a lot of other crap. She and her sanctimonious husband should be ashamed of what they have done.
That said, she will probably stay in her position cuz otherwise MIT would be deemed antisemitic (which frankly and sadly has become a tool at attack anyone and everyone these days)
Chad I think it's ok to call out *anyone* for being unethical, right? Like, if both Clinton and Trump are on the Epstein rape boat passenger list they should *both* be punished, right? Regardless of political side.
That's what I assumed b3t means. Not that he'd be upset if someone called out a Palestinian for being unethical but would be OK with it if they were a Zionist.
I'm not sure about sod though . . .
Jan 8, 24 5:11 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor
Im totally ok if an unethical palestinian were to be called out. No issue with that at all.
That's good sod. I do find it odd that you're willing to point out when an unethical person is a zionist any chance you get.
Jan 8, 24 6:11 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor
Dude, Neri Oxman's husband literally doxxed Claudine Gay on the pretext of plagarism and got her kicked out (although the real reason was PERCIEVED anti-semitism). Now Neri the Zionist happens to be a cheat as well? Moral in this story - if you are a zionist and are super wealthy you can get away with shit.
Here's my point. Not all Zionists are Jewish, in fact Biden himself said he was. Palestinians are NOT political projects, they're human beings. I'm tying the hypocrites who lambaste a Black Woman, for technical mistakes, while covering for their own thievery, and trying to hide behind their racist misogyny, all while taking money from a pedophile, and supporting genocide. Now, if you want say there are individuals who are Palestinian, and do the same, then yes, those individuals are shit. I'm sure it's happening, but I'm also exceedingly confident they're not supported by billionaire hedge fund c#nts.
Was Epstein's pedophilia a known fact and criminally prosecuted for when the money was provided to the MIT lab or was it at the time a rumor and allegations. Yes, the victims knew but that doesn't mean the world knew. Let's make sure we have ALL the facts on that issue. Epstein had a lot of money and at the time wasn't blacklisted because his pedophilia wasn't yet a public fact. Every public figure has unsavory rumors. However, rumors are not necessarily fact. I can agree with you, b3ta, about the other issues.
Lets also not intentionally conflate Bill and Neri. Each are individuals and should be assessed independently of the other. Period. Got it. I see a lot of lazy conflation to perpetuate a narrative without proper investigation, analysis, and evaluation of each person's actions and statements. I can agree with SOD's statement about Mr. Ackerman. I can understand if you consider him a douchebag. Okay.
What is Neri's personal view on the issue?
She is not her husband. She has her own brain, mouth, and fingers to communicate her own thoughts. I think she has been a bit muted on the topic. Mr. Ackerman might be a Zionist but she might not be even if she supports some things that Zionists support.
"...I cry for Israel, for Palestine, for a vision of peace amongst all sentient beings in the Land of Milk and Honey, and beyond." (Neri Oxman twitter post, 2023)
So what is being said here? Is she for genocide against Palestinians? She might be okay with Hamas terrorists being wiped off the face of the earth. Hamas are terrorists so no shed of tear for those assholes. On the other hand, I don't support indiscriminate mass killing of non-Hamas... the innocent. Innocent people shouldn't be killed. The question is what does SHE feel about that issue not what I feel.
Regarding plagiarism. The issues with plagiarising Wikipedia, which often itself is plagiarised paraphrasing. Terms that are have long established meanings that has literally been expressed in every possible way to communicate the terminology at a level a non-professional in a particular field would understand. How many ways can you actually define the definition of a term in your profession? How do you define RAM? How do you define printer? In fact, you wouldn't cite Wikipedia in an academic paper. It is possible that a common term may be expressed in a manner simple enough that a 10 year old could understand it and there would be a similarly expressed entry on Wikipedia. There is a point, some of this comes straight out of a dictionary or otherwise is effectively public domain knowledge. Do you literally try to find out the original source of all original sources and cite the source of very single word used? I don't think so. Some of that plagiarism issue is just stupid and out of bounds with reasonable. The Harvard president was ousted not because of claim of plagiarism. They would of just go through the months long process of a hearing as they would with students and faculty. She was ousted because of how she handled antisemitism. In fact, she resigned to be correct. She might not have been fired regarding the allegations of plagiarism. There would be months of investigation and hearings on the issue and at worse she might have just had to issue corrections to the paper and an apology but being fired for that... no. She would have been potentially fired solely on how she handled the antisemitism. The plagiarism issue is just a straw that meant she was becoming too much of a liability and she was likely going to get fired (but not guaranteed) on the antisemitism controversy. That controversy alone would have been enough that would have been terminated from employment at Harvard University. The plagiarism was just extra controversial noise that would have had little to no bearing on the decision which was likely to happen if the antisemitism controversy doesn't subside.
Correction, I meant Mr. Ackman not Ackerman. The spelling should be correct and my error. Some people here probably don't care if his name is misspelled.
Jan 8, 24 10:46 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor
Balkins, I understand your point of Bill and Neri being separate people, but self-sanctimonious people that live in glass houses should not throw stones at others.
" Now, if you want say there are individuals who are Palestinian, and do the same, then yes, those individuals are shit. I'm sure it's happening, but I'm also exceedingly confident they're not supported by billionaire hedge fund c#nts."
Don't misunderstand me : the funding for Israel's war crimes is coming from some very shady people and it needs to be stopped. The same goes for Hamas though.
Actually the funding for Israel's war crimes mostly comes from our taxes, Chad. A lot of those funds go back to our politicians in the form of campaign funds (Isn't Genocide Joe the highest receiver of AIPAC funds in all of American history ?) and obviously a lot of those funds return in shady deals for well connected folk.
I'm quite aware of that SOD. The US gives around $14.3 billion a year to Israel with another $6 billion (ish) coming from other sources outside the US. I was responding to b3t's statement about how he's confident that Hamas isn't funded.
Jan 9, 24 1:25 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor
Yes Hamas is also supported by various sources for carrying out their shady operations, and hence deemed a terrorist organization. By the same token a nation that does those shady activities x 100 should also be deemed a terrorist nation. We know which country i am talking about...
Every country dose 'shady activities' like these. It's not an excuse to condone the activities though. The issue is that one persons terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Jan 9, 24 1:53 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor
Yes, so both Israel and Palestine are "terrorist nations".
"Balkins, I understand your point of Bill and Neri being separate people, but self-sanctimonious people that live in glass houses should not throw stones at others."
I agree with you there. Bill might have kind of brought the issue on himself and inadvertently his wife. But there are journalism ethics issues relating to the matter. Bill didn't even create the article about Claudia Gay's plagiarism. Then Business Insider engaged in some questionable journalism ethics of targetting Bill's wife and turned an albeit serious issue of plagiarism into a WWE-esque trash-talking circus sideshow of over-sensationalized cockfighting.
I am trying to be fair and reasonable about understanding the whole shitshow and really Bill and Neri should let this news dust settle and calm down because if it isn't perpetuated for weeks, it would not be on peoples' minds for weeks.
No nation is a terrorist nation unless every single person is absolutely controlled. Nations are the people. All nations have terrorists whether domestic, foreign, or transient. The government administration that does terroristic activities is an administration of the government liable for war crimes, in my opinion but I don't hold every individual of a nation liable for it.
I think Satan just makes you the bartender if you do that Non. It's a horrible job to have in hell. Ever try and strain out all the bones from a bloody Mary? It's tough.
Bill Ackman once personally called one of our writers and screamed at them for an hour on the phone, threatening to sue Archinect because he didn't like the way he was portrayed in a story we published about his NYT penthouse.
On one hand, actually you would use Wayback archive to cite the rules at the time. At the time, however, if you can't cite sources according to the citation rules, you don't use the source.
In fact, that rule applies today. If you can't cite the source under the particular 'style', you find another source that you can cite when writing academic papers. That's the way you are supposed to or otherwise expected to.
Wikipedia at the time was considered off limits considering Wikipedia sources are probably plagiarism in and of itself full of statements without crediting the source. Some of the sources for Wikipedia are parroted from so many times by rote from an original book are dictionary definition or other sources that people pretty much regurgitated those source almost verbatim but forgot the source. Like many stuff for 6502 programming can be traced right back to Jim Butterfield and a few other leading authors in the 70s and early 80s.
Some may be inadvertantly regurgitating magazine articles that introduced computer aided design and what it is and it was memorized so well the person memorized the content of the article but fail to remember the author because that wasn't what they spent memorizing. So hey, this is the kind of stuff we got with Wikipedia. They been progressively filling in sources, after the fact. They been doing that in a hit or miss fashion back in 2009.
What they were citing as plagiarism, might not have originated with Wikipedia. She could have simply remembered a professor who used essentially that same way explaining it or a passage in a textbook (which itself could be an original source that the author of the Wiki entry used and failed to cite) by memory but not actually looking at the textbook and can't actually cite. So it is possible she didn't actually use Wikipedia.
However, academic papers for doctoral degrees shouldn't be use Wikipedia as a source. In fact, if Wikipedia cites a source, you go to those sources and find the passage you need and cite it. Wikipedia articles *can* be a good source for finding source material. So you go to the bottom of the article where citations are placed and use those if possible.
That's the idea and when I had to write academic papers, I should go to sources that Wikipedia may have listed or other sources to cite. If you are a student, it is looked at with scrutiny if you cite yourself except photos you take. You back your thesis with third-party support unless you actually perform actual science research or something that you can speak for yourself like your own data collection and analyzing that. Unless you invent it, you cite it.
I can write about Spork 64, a video game two individuals and I made, and what I did in that project. However, I can't credibly write about video game design without citing other sources as I alone in no way invented video game design so in an academic paper, I need to cite others not just myself. That matters. Again, it is still not recommended to directly quote or directly paraphrase from a Wikipedia article and if you do, you now have a means and form of citing it that is recognized. However, if there wasn't you are supposed to find another source material that conveys to support and not use that uncitable source.
Things you don't need to cite the source, necessarily, is something in public domain that the source is still unknown. If you know the source, even though it is public domain, you still cite it.
Plagiarism and academic standards for writing papers are independent of copyright laws. They are separate issues but can be a legal issue. Therefore, it is prudent to do legal review of legal issues if there are potential issues.
I think if Neri in fact used Wikipedia and not cite, then that is in fact laziness on her part. In 2009, she probably should have not directly quote from Wikipedia. If the article did in fact have cited sources, she should have obtain a copy of that source material and quote & cite the applicable passage or directly in her own words paraphrased it AND cited the source of the original passage. This would have took more time and be tedious. May have required another 3 months before she is done with the dissertation.
"Things you don't need to cite the source, necessarily, is something in public domain that the source is still unknown. If you know the source, even though it is public domain, you still cite it. "
I'll probably add that if your source is secondhand and the original source is both public domain & original creator/artist/author is not known, you STILL cite the second-hand source but if the citation format has a method for citing such a source (which I believe MLA, APA, Chicago/Turabian, and even Harvard styles does in fact to have a manner in which you cite such sources), then you cite accordingly. You should seldom if ever have a situation where you quote or utilize that isn't your own, to cite.
There is even a means of citing another work of your own. While you don't need to cite yourself for your new/original thoughts, expressions, etc. in your writing, anything you reference from another body of work you wrote or created, you cite yourself as you would other authors/creators.
I must have not recalled that article on Archinect. Shows how much of a petty douchebag he appears to be. Add to that supporting Donald Trump is a a radioactive mark where I would not want to do business with someone that supported Donald Trump.
I may give Neri a possible pass on that accepting funds from a real douchebag, in context with the time that occurred. What we know of that douchebag now may not have been publically known and was more a rumor than as established fact in the eyes of the nation. That depends on whether the douchebag was known to be a pedophile as an established fact before or if it was afterwards. So I would be fair and reasonable on that. Especially if there were no institutional flags about that person yet. A lot came to light but that appears to have been after the issue of the funds were accepted.
I saw one of her videos where she seemed to be talking about organic fabric buildings as if they were going to be the wave of the future. Apparently she was never aware of oiled cotton fabric tents that go back several hundred years. Kind of lost interest after that. Nice to look at though.
Some of her work is kinda navel-gazing academia, but her experiments using chitin to build buildings is actually awesome, and the research no doubt added to the knowledge base for using biological materials to build shelter and other long-lived products.
I happened to have met her at the HOPES conference at the University of Oregon about 10-12 years ago. So I recognized her and her work. Yes, very academic in nature but I can see potential of the research going into building product designs but it needs to be productized in some fashion for this research to go into practical world architecture. There are interesting potential for the the ideas so I don't entirely dismiss it.
My opinion of Neri is independent of my opinion of her husband, Bill Ackman. To me, Bill Ackman, I have no particular love loss. He's not exactly someone whom I hold highly of. I think he's kind of a douchebag in ways he goes about things which could have been handled far more amicably. As for Neri, I can understand her being upset not by plagiarism itself but the ethics issue of why it was brought up as an attack on her because of her husband which is journalistically unethical. The timing and intent of the release is the issue. It was how Business Insider and the articles authors went about and attacking her to attack him. Those I can understand a gripe about. She accepted responsibility for the plagiarism for accepting she erred but did not intend it. Lazy... yeah. Intentional.... likely not so malign.
It just got a bit ugly and snowballed into a clusterfuck of a clown show.
Neri's fanciful ideas about beehives are devoid of any knowledge about how bees actually live and operate. Hives are beautiful, but they are not art installations, they aren't built for our viewing pleasure, and bees are legitimately an endangered species now. She's a jerk.
Serious question - how is she a scammer? I don't know anything about her.
Jan 16, 24 11:38 am ·
·
golgonooza
SOD, how so? I am curious. This is a real question.
I find her ideas interesting up to a point, but they are exactly the hot air you would expect from someone who lives in the rarified atmosphere of excessive money and privilege. She has nothing motivating her to actually make something happen, and it shows. I'm a professional beekeeper btw so I find her ideas about honeycomb etc. to be especially inane. She doesn't know even the most basic facts about queens. Does she have some funny pyramid scheme I don't know about?
It's standard procedure in USA architectural academia for a person to have a line of bullshit like "the similarities between architecture and beekeeping" that they use a premise for their "investigations" (aka jargon-writing, art projects, and maybe some fantasy unbuilt building designs). You really can't get hired to teach at any US school otherwise.
Jan 16, 24 4:37 pm ·
·
golgonooza
For me a "scam" has to involve a calculated attempt to squeeze money out of someone through dishonest means. I think Neri's ideas are half-baked, not very good, and loaded with academic blather, but I will bet anything that she believes they are good ideas. I could be wrong. Also her husband is subsidizing her. She's just not a serious person.
You're basically saying that because you don't like a persons academic or professional work then they're a scammer. By that logic you're a scammer.
Jan 16, 24 6:04 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
SOD is correct. The scam she is perpetrating is the idea that her work is leading to anything remotely resembling architecture, and I mean that in the strictest sense, given this fucking professions proclivity to exclude Hejduk, Lebbeus, Abraham and Pichler from their ranks. Add on top of that she’s leading gullible students into an area wholly situated in the mental masturbatory realm, which will ultimately lead to VC shills, and billionaire asshats tilting at Herbalife short sells. She’s a grifter, just like that fidget she married. There. Is that good enough?
Your premise is that her academic work isn't real architecture. I don't think much of your and my work would be considered real architecture.
Do I find her 'work' shallow, pretentious, and non functional? Yes. That doesn't make her a scammer.
As for her leading gullible students astray - that may be true. How often do you and SOM criticize students here for not 'thinking' about the programs they're in. Each of you have said that it's up to the student to figure these things out.
I get it - you don't like this woman because of her husband and her political views. I agree with you on this. That's fine. Just say that. Don't be disingenuous about your reasons and lie to justify your dislike.
I probably agree in overall point of Chad. I would call it a stretch to call her a scammer. Not technically in a legal sense of the word 'scammer'. She's more an artist/sculptor than architect. I haven't been see actual practical work. If she is not licensed, has she ever applied this in a practical way to design a house? Actually having a house designed and built drawing from these design ideas. Anywhere?
I don't dislike the woman. I don't particular have a lot of fondness of her husband. I haven't really followed her whole political history so maybe there is an issue here and there on where someone has a problem with her position publically stated which may or may not capture her whole position.
Jan 16, 24 7:41 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Correct me if I’m wrong, but architecture, and by real I mean what most of us do, as licensed professionals, not esoterica by a non architect hack. Does her work create habitable spaces? Does it maintain life, health, safety, and dignity of the individual? I’ve stopped believing that my queries of students have value to them, I still believe that if you’re applying to graduate programs, and you don’t know what your question is, coming here and asking a bunch of anonymous randos how to plan life decisions, is stupid as fuck.
Jan 16, 24 7:49 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Yeah, they’re gullible, and she’s stealing money from them, just like many of the grad programs; they’re part of human centipede that is this profession.
Jan 16, 24 7:50 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor
Chad, I think you are arguing for the sake of argument. Firstly you say you dont know her work cuz you dont follow academia, and now you are violently defending here lol. She is a scammer cuz the only way she could "teach" is because of her connections, and she continues to scam gullible kids by showing them beehives that can become building materials. What in the holy F! Not sure about you Chad, but I dealt with many such characters in Grad School, a good 50% were there as they had married the right person.
Jan 16, 24 7:52 pm ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
I hate her husband, I don’t like her. I hate her husband primarily because he reminds me of the King from Shrek, a fidget. And mostly because he uses his stolen wealth to blacklist students for practicing their free speech rights. Believe me, I’d totally jerk one in his clam chowder if he came into a restaurant I worked at.
Jan 16, 24 7:54 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor
I dont hate her either, but I just think her work is a sham. But yes, this is true of about 90% of academics at fancy architecture schools in the US
"Chad, I think you are arguing for the sake of argument. Firstly you say you dont know her work cuz you dont follow academia, and now you are violently defending here lol."
Not at all.
I didn't know who she was until this thread. Then I did a bit research into her and her work.
I'm not defending her work or her political views. I personally don't like either.
What I am doing is asking why you consider her a 'scammer'. You've given none and b3ta's reasoning is BS.
Jan 17, 24 9:55 am ·
·
b3tadine[sutures]
Because you don't agree, doesn't mean shit to me. I find it evergreen that someone who both sides the murder of civilians, or defending c#nts blacklisting students for free speech rights - ie cancel culture - has an opinion worth entertaining.
If you don't like her then just say so. There is plenty of examples of her behavior that supports support our unfavorable views of her. Don't take the low road and fabricate things about her. It just makes your opinions less credible.
I doubt it. If he wanted out, I am sure the prenup provides an easy and discreet way to do that. Also I don't believe Oxman would ever divorce him-- she has about 4 billion reasons not to.
It's funny, abra, that when the rumor of them dating came out I was super-excited and figured they'd make the most beautiful babies ever. There's an article or thread here somewhere.
"...Jeb Bush...asked Biden why he didn’t pursue the Presidency himself in 2016. Biden offered an emotional explanation hinging on the death of his son, Beau Biden, in 2015, but cut the answer short with the comment: “I’m sorry . . . I’ve said enough.”
Ackman, his mouth apparently outrunning his brain, quipped: “Why? That’s never stopped you before.”
Biden, according to Fox sources who were present, turned to a nearby guest and asked regarding Ackman, “who is this asshole?”
He then addressed Ackman directly: “Look, I don’t know who you are, wiseass, but never disrespect the memory of my dead son!”
One wonders whether Ackman was more wounded by the former Vice President’s harsh words, or by the fact that he didn’t know who Ackman was. But the hedge funder reportedly attempted an apology. Biden responded by telling him to “just shut the hell up.”"
I bolded the part that I think is true. What a self-important weasel.
Bill Ackman really does seem like a downright jackass if the above is in fact, true.
Jan 17, 24 12:56 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor
On a very different, but related note, I can not comprehend, for the life of me how someone like Biden, who has seen so much loss in his life can sit with a dumb poker face when so many civilians and kids are dying by bombs we are sending there. Guess people get hardened after seeing so much loss, or guess brown lives
Probably because Israel is the only US alley in the area. The same reason why other nations support Hamas and Hezbollah. Nobody cares about the people of the region, only what political and strategic advantage each group can provide to their supporting nations.
Oh dear God, Neri Oxman is demented! Look what I found. Her tweets sound like the random deep thoughts parody on SNL or Cunk on Earth, only without the humor:
Brainy nerds aren't necessarily comedians. If someone who has worked with her as a colleague can speak out about how Neri is like authentically... without any ulterior motives that may distort the factual accounts. That would help. My personal experience with Neri is too short to amount to much on that front. This is mainly because she was just a visiting lecturer / presenter at an event and doesn't say much about her as a person.
Jan 17, 24 12:56 pm ·
·
sameolddoctor
Yes, I know of said article and tweets. The ONLY reason she is famous is cuz she was born into Israeli privilege, sucked upto rich people and married an insanely rich asshole. And yes, she is good looking as well.
I agree with Chad. I wouldn't call her a scammer. Trump is a scammer. Neri doesn't exactly fit the definition. Privilege and nepotism, sure. Were there misrepresentation of her? Yes. Is it her fault? Not necessarily. Did she misrepresent herself? From the issues of not properly quoting some sources, several of them are types of sources that shouldn't be used in an academic paper especially at the time. If the source is a type that there isn't a method of properly citing in the particular edition of 'style' (MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard, etc.), then you are not to use that source and find another source that you can use that may use.
At the time, Wikipedia should not be directly cited. Wiki articles are questionable, especially back then. Part of the problem is some wikipedia articles were basically plagiarism in and of themselve so citing that article is citing a source that is itself a plagiarized source. However, there were many sources she could have cited that conveyed her point that she paraphrased lazily. She could have just verbatim quote the source and give it credit. Then moved on to her point. When you paraphrase a simple and short explanation of what computer aided design is, there is only so many ways you can really explain it. Beyond that and they would be barely unique. At some point, there will be a source out there that may have explained it in the same manner. I think she got lazy. She probably could have just quoted a text book on CAD and would be credible enough on that. I don't think she was being maligned but she erred. I accept that she accepted responsibility for it and not try to justify it, herself. Her husband is kind of being a douche about it. Does it bother Neri? Maybe. She just haven't been public about it.
The Business Insider was a little unethical by publishing the article on the reason WHY they published it. It was to attack Bill Ackman by attacking his wife. That is journalistically unethical. Yes, it would be ethical to cite a wrong by Neri. Sure. If that was the reason WHY they were publishing it and SOLELY for that reason and that there was NO other reason why it was being pushed. We all know it was a vengence publication which is journalistically unethical to do. The timing was precisely telling because this was purposefully a journalistic attack on Bill Ackman by attacking his wife. A sleezy underhanded journalism tactic. Why wasn't this brought up 2 years ago or 5 years ago? The driving reason why that article was written and published was because her husband's push for the ousting of the then-Harvard President. Ethical journalism is not only about writing and publishing the truth but ethical motive of writing and publishing the article. I have my criticism of the journalism ethics behind the whole issue.
I am not defending Bill Ackman. I am not defending plagiarism or lazy errors is citing sources in an academic paper by Neri. That, I am not defending in and of itself. This became a mess that should have been handled differently. This is a consequence of the unethical world we live in. People will dig up dirt against your spouse or children just to attack you if you are perceived a douchebag or outright a douchebag.
One could say Bill kind of brought it on to himself. That is not holding everyone accountable to ethics. then again war (political war) has no rules anyone actually follows. So it turns to shit quick.
Jan 17, 24 9:58 pm ·
·
golgonooza
That hit water bottles designed by Droog looks like a butt plug. And if Oxman cares about sustainability, there is nothing charming about her flower pressing kit.
Do you think she was trying to be funny? I think she posted with the utmost seriousness. Maybe she is trying to be Yoko Ono? If Ackman really wants to take on higher ed, I hope someone is advising him that his wife is not going to come out of this smelling very good.
Academia is goofy, so who knows. Maybe he feels it's the same, but I don't think it is.
There are a lot of ad-hominem and race-bating attacks connected to the latest celebrity examples of sloppy attribution (ie, Gay and Oxman). AZP had something else going on. It was more about petty personal politics than the national and racial politics connected to this thread. This stuff is a lot more muddy and harder to discuss on its own terms.
I have no idea what's going on with Neri Oxman, and at this point I'm too afraid to ask.
Actually just too lazy to go read any of the numerous articles.
Anyone care to fill me in?
Well, first, she's a zionist likely to support murdering innocent people. Second, she's a cheat, and has plagiarized from others in her work. Lastly, she is married to a hedge fund ghoul, Bill Ackman, he one of many responsible for Harvard's president getting fired, and for doxxing students who support Palestinians.
All around pieces of shit, both of them.
That's good to know. She is also someone who uses her sex appeal quite a bit and that's how the press likes her. Probably Epstein and Maxwell looked at her picture and said "Hmm that's a good one."
There were some peripheral relations to Epstein as well.
I'm not a fan of the outrage culture which currently seems to be working a lot harder at finding ways to disagree than agree. But I would love to see folks question the way in which architecture culture uncritically promote individuals and republish press releases as if it were journalism and criticism...
Citation issues aside, which is very possible to overlook on something 330 pages for example in a PhD treatise. On the other hand, she probably should have done better. I'm not in a valid position to discern if she was intentionally plagiarizing or if it was an accident because of omission. As for the other issues with Neri, that too is complicated.
While she has sex appeal to boot, no question about that...the news surely suggests her ethics and character doesn't match her sex appeal.
I did see her once in person at University of Oregon back in 2010s when she was with her previous husband, guy, whatever he was.
Her desire to be with guys a generation or two older than her seemed odd and seemingly about the wealth security than any particular love.
Probably makes sense logically and mathematically to marry wealth because she would never be able to have her plush lifestyle.
As for the zionist argument made, is there some credible source regarding it? I haven't personally looked into it.
Her previous husband was a douche, though significantly less wealthy than Ackman. I have always wondered how someone as bright and beautiful as Neri could consistently end up with the worst men.
Basically, we should probably be ashamed of the crushes we had on her in school during the 2000s
She taught Brad Pitt everything he knows about architecture!
Don't be ashamed of finding her sexually attractive. She just is.
As for the rest of her personal character, it's hard to say but no fucking person is an absolute perfect saint. Her disdain for Hamas is understandable. Hamas are terrorists and there is decades of terrorism by them. However, I also hold disdain for Israel's leadership manner of addressing the Hamas terrorists when they have the most highly trained fighting force on earth, even better trained than U.S. soldiers. There basic training level is at the equivalent of Navy Seal, Army Delta Force, and Marines special forces. There advanced trained force goes above that by a considerable margin. Why are they not surgically sniping and taking down Hamas terrorists instead of shock and awe Missile striking the Gaza Strip? What the fuck is wrong with Natanyahu? If you didn't know, Neri served in Isael's air force. Zionists is a political label. If you are a Jew by religious faith which you are technically a form of, if you are a Christian, then your faith in God and the city of Zion. It is part of the faith of the judeo-christian faith. Now, I understand her patriotism for Israel. Even if she doesn't explicitly identify with the Zionist political movement, she is going to share values that they do as any Jew born in Israel since the 1950s would and most Jews by faith would.... it's fucking law of God so to speak... Biblically speaking from the parts you find in the Tohrah as non-Christian jews customarily do not recognize the "New Testament". Don't conflate a jew's support for Israel as a sovereign state as supporting Natanyahu or particularly his approach. I am not aware of any contemporary statements for or against Israel indiscriminate method of targeting Hamas and the innocent people that are non- combatants getting killed. If someone were to ask her position on that, then we will have a better idea of her moral position. Either way, it would be clear. As a former Israel Air Force, can she speak negatively of Natanyahu's approach in the Gaza Strip. Would she lose her military benefits that she may receive? I don't know. As a high profile person, it might be a problem for her if she did. As for her husband, he's kind of a...._________ from what I can tell. I wouldn't say his doxxing was cool by any means.
For one, I don't want to judge her without all the facts. I am reserving judgements on her online posts. Has she given everything about her feelings on the issues or only spoke to certain issues. What exactly did she do with regards to the now former Harvard President or was it mainly her husband's actions? Facts please, not accusations. As in evidence of her actions not third party allegation or claim without the evidence to prove. I met her but don't know her. Makes sense.
R
Disgusting sexist comments Rick
I'm not sure its particularly offensive to her. "American-Israeli designer and MIT faculty member Neri Oxman is the shining embodiment of what has been called winning the genetic lottery: intelligence, beauty, giftedness, hard work, and an original vision inherent in a versatile person who is not afraid to blur the lines between disciplines." - https://nerioxman.tilda.ws/en#filosofia
She pretty much uses her attractiveness to her benefit.
Why shouldn't heterosexual males find attractive women attractive the same as heterosexual women find attractive men attractive? I'm not saying that Neri doesn't have other qualities that are appealing. Donna does basically the same thing about Brad Pitt. Discussion of these other aspects would be extraneous discussion beyond what Le Courvu above said. Is your issue about yourself or is this all about turning heterosexual people into homosexuals? If the latter, it doesn't work that way. Humans are a two gender species biologically speaking and biologically requires both genders to procreate. That is plain factual natural science. This doesn't mean I'm opposing same gender relationships between those who desire that for a number of reasons. My for or against would be irrelevant.
Rick I (probably like most people here) have you blocked so I can't see what bullshit you posted, only that you posted something.
Please accept the fact that nobody wants to hear what you have to say and kindly fuck off to somewhere else.
Then you have no legitimate right to reply. You can just go fuck off and never reply to me again. If anyone is to reply to anyone, at least read what they wrote. You only saw lulu's post which is blatantly excessive reaction to what I wrote that she was replying to. Yes, Neri is intelligent and her ideas intellectually and academically intriguing however it has a lot of pragmatic and practical barriers as well as other barriers for her ideas reaching mainstream architecture. Her work is quite on the edge that it is difficult to see it reach practical professional realm where practicing architects and building design professionals work in. Fine art but not easy to get the people who actually builds buildings to even attempt to apply it. They'll veto such because they aren't going to risk their insurance coverage and license on it. As a real world professional, I find it difficult to apply.
In short, I don't feel sorry for thinking she has an attractive looks nor feel sorry about others who feel the same way. A beautiful flower is a beautiful flower. A beautiful rainbow is a beautiful rainbow. Sorry, I'm not sorry.
luvu - I find Rick's comment sexist. I find that your shaming Oxman for using her sex appeal even more disgusting and sexist than what Rick has said.
Chad, I said those. However, yes it can be read sexist. The point wasn't that she doesn't have other quality but it is an asset she has used to her benefit as has Brad Pitt has as well. She does indeed have intellectual qualities. My comment about her attractive looks is cotextual to whom I was replying such as *yourname and later with regards to the fact there is a general consensus that she has attractive looks which is an asset she as any person with such as asset has used. Do you really think that her dissertation and research on material-aware design is of high interest to a hedge fund executive? I think her looks and that she's Jewish were things that attracted him to her. Do you not think she been benefitting from the plush comfort of billionaire luxury? She has a golden parachute of sorts regarding her business where she has money without actually having to make money with it. She can just research all day long. Speaking the obvious facts isn't necessarily being sexist.
So now her husband has threatened to research every academic to root out any and every one who may have plagiarized, no doubt leading to chaos and embarrassment and prolonged ridiculous culture wars and it makes me feel even more strongly that the guy I read on Threads this morning was right: “Just one. We eat *just one* billionaire and the rest will fall in line.”
If he ever went to college, then we'll go after him. At some point, you just ignore and stop news reporting that stuff and take the wind out of the sail because 100% of students over the past 100 years errored on citing sources at least once.
On one hand, plagiarism is a serious academic issue but there should be professionalism and tact in handling allegations and mindfulness students often err through omissions. All the citation styles are tedious, complicated issues. There's a point in time that MLA, APA, Chicago, etc. styles didn't have a proper way to cite websites and Wikipedia articles so how would you cite such? They are complex and evolving with multiple editions. Weaponizing this into some derange WWE trash talking clown show is where it gets inane.
I think the Harvard president that resigned, was not because of the plagiarism issue so much as these other issues with how she responded to Congress or whatever it was. I personally think there are individuals in Israel's administration and the Hamas terrorists that are responsible for the Gaza Strip deaths. They are both bad actors in this whole debacle.
As for Neri's husband Bill, I'm not going to bother with his petty b.s. If he goes after me, I'll respond to his trash talking garbage and start looking at his extensive FERPA violation he would potentially run into. As well as class action lawsuits in the trillion dollar level levied at him. Maybe he wants to back off before millions sue for $1-10 MILLION each for lifetime earnings damage and defamation by characterization and FERPA violations. This can bankrupt him. Does he want to be like Trump is soon to be?
i would be happy to bring a charcuterie tray and wine when you're ready.
But what does one pair with billionaire?
Left bank bordeaux
Neri is married to a nepo-billionaire hedge fund asshole Bill Ackman who made a lot of money shorting the housing market in 2009. She is an Israeli Zionist who cannot acknowledge any nuance regarding the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Neri's lab at MIT was funded in part by Jeffrey Epstein. Her massive new lab in midtown Manhattan is owned by her husband and the renovation was done by Rafael Vinoly. Their penthouse apartment overlooking Central Park is being done by Norman Foster.
Neri is lazily referred to as an architect by many, but has completed no architectural work and holds no architectural licensure (that I'm aware of). The "projects" listed on her practice's website are comprised of hypothetical research and temporary installations. The sole client for these projects is her own ego.
P.S. she looks like Bellatrix Lestrange... I take exception to claims that she is objectively attractive.
Even Bellatrix has a certain attractiveness about her. True, she doesn't have the nerdy school girl look.
All Israel born Israeli would almost by definition be a Zionist as that is so loosely used.
Can you describe how fake of an architect she is in units of Rick?
some of us have had crushes on Helena Bonham Carter for forever dammit. Bellatrix is my ideal goth girl
Clearly Brad Pitt (Fight Club) is the common denominator
If an erection lasts for longer than 4hrs after reading this post, call your doctor.
^ Do you mean doctor, or "doctor"? Are we talkin' lab coats and urine samples, or turtlenecks and footnotes?
Can someone please read the 5,139 word Xitter post Neri’s husband made about how it’s acceptable for people he likes to plagiarize but not people he doesn’t? I don’t have the energy but would love to know the highlights.
I’ll add this: When I saw Mrs. Ackman’s talk at the AIA conference in Philadelphia I was completely blown away, and absolutely loved it. I stand by that, because the work is actually really interesting (there’s a podcast out there where I talk about it). And the fact that she is extremely well-crafted in how she presents her work, and also beautiful, doesn’t necessarily take away from how interesting the work is. Other characteristics of her might/do, but being able to captivate an audience isn’t always used for bad.
I don't have as strong feelings as others in the thread. I always thought Oxman's work was interesting. I think I can sum it up as turnabout is fair play and the billionaire hates it.
Yeah, Josh, I rarely feel good about dunking on people, but when they’re a billionaire, it just can’t bother me. The barbed language of an internet comment can’t (or shouldn’t, attn: Elon) hurt a billionaire. I mean Neri Oxman has everything in the world going positively for her, and if things are going badly she can just buy them back to being good again. I just have no energy to have pity for billionaires anymore.
She is a lying, pretentious sack of shit who has risen to fame based on her sugar-daddies (plz excuse the term) and her being Israeli. The fact that she married Bill Ackman testifies to this. Donna, i think even her work is stolen from students and she is an absolute no talent.
I am purchasing the world's tiniest violin for this privileged rich hack.
On a broader scale, I just love how the Zionists (like Bill Ackman) have aligned themselves with sex criminals like Epstein, and far-right douchebags like Christopher Ruso. They are essentially the same. One kills brown people, the other free speech.
There are a lot of non Zionists that align themselves with sex criminals and douchebags (left and right).
Sure, but she is a Zionist thats doing the same.
SOD: She’s a strong presenter and self-promoter, and also wealthy independent of her professional practice. Frankly, I don’t think this is atypical of the field of architecture. Lot of these people out there, she’s just gotten a little further with it than most. Does that validate any sort of behavior, no. Could she have succeeded without any behavior objectionable to you … I think it’s likely.
As for Epstein… There were a really broad spectrum of people connected to him because he was an immense power broker… only a few were seemingly there for the sex crimes. Most of the time people bring up connections to him it’s in bad faith.
sameold, I wouldn't doubt that a lot of students pulled a lot of all-nighters uncompensated to get her work done, true.
Right Donna, my mantra with these kinds of people is that theres never only one wrong they do. If her thesis got away unscathed for so many years, she probably got away with a lot of other crap. She and her sanctimonious husband should be ashamed of what they have done.
That said, she will probably stay in her position cuz otherwise MIT would be deemed antisemitic (which frankly and sadly has become a tool at attack anyone and everyone these days)
sameolddoctor wrote:
"Sure, but she is a Zionist that's doing the same."
True. She seems like a really unethical person.
Would you be upset if people were to point out Palestinians who do the same?
Yes.
b3t - I must be misinterpreting this.
Are you saying that you'd be upset if someone called out a Palestinian for Oxman's type of behavior however it's OK to call out a Zionist for this?
Chad I think it's ok to call out *anyone* for being unethical, right? Like, if both Clinton and Trump are on the Epstein rape boat passenger list they should *both* be punished, right? Regardless of political side.
That's what I assumed b3t means. Not that he'd be upset if someone called out a Palestinian for being unethical but would be OK with it if they were a Zionist.
I'm not sure about sod though . . .
Im totally ok if an unethical palestinian were to be called out. No issue with that at all.
That's good sod. I do find it odd that you're willing to point out when an unethical person is a zionist any chance you get.
Dude, Neri Oxman's husband literally doxxed Claudine Gay on the pretext of plagarism and got her kicked out (although the real reason was PERCIEVED anti-semitism). Now Neri the Zionist happens to be a cheat as well? Moral in this story - if you are a zionist and are super wealthy you can get away with shit.
Here's my point. Not all Zionists are Jewish, in fact Biden himself said he was. Palestinians are NOT political projects, they're human beings. I'm tying the hypocrites who lambaste a Black Woman, for technical mistakes, while covering for their own thievery, and trying to hide behind their racist misogyny, all while taking money from a pedophile, and supporting genocide. Now, if you want say there are individuals who are Palestinian, and do the same, then yes, those individuals are shit. I'm sure it's happening, but I'm also exceedingly confident they're not supported by billionaire hedge fund c#nts.
.
Was Epstein's pedophilia a known fact and criminally prosecuted for when the money was provided to the MIT lab or was it at the time a rumor and allegations. Yes, the victims knew but that doesn't mean the world knew. Let's make sure we have ALL the facts on that issue. Epstein had a lot of money and at the time wasn't blacklisted because his pedophilia wasn't yet a public fact. Every public figure has unsavory rumors. However, rumors are not necessarily fact. I can agree with you, b3ta, about the other issues.
Lets also not intentionally conflate Bill and Neri. Each are individuals and should be assessed independently of the other. Period. Got it. I see a lot of lazy conflation to perpetuate a narrative without proper investigation, analysis, and evaluation of each person's actions and statements. I can agree with SOD's statement about Mr. Ackerman. I can understand if you consider him a douchebag. Okay.
What is Neri's personal view on the issue?
She is not her husband. She has her own brain, mouth, and fingers to communicate her own thoughts. I think she has been a bit muted on the topic. Mr. Ackerman might be a Zionist but she might not be even if she supports some things that Zionists support.
5 months ago, Neri wrote on Twitter: https://twitter.com/NeriOxman/status/1679685315005407233
"...I cry for Israel, for Palestine, for a vision of peace amongst all sentient beings in the Land of Milk and Honey, and beyond." (Neri Oxman twitter post, 2023)
So what is being said here? Is she for genocide against Palestinians? She might be okay with Hamas terrorists being wiped off the face of the earth. Hamas are terrorists so no shed of tear for those assholes. On the other hand, I don't support indiscriminate mass killing of non-Hamas... the innocent. Innocent people shouldn't be killed. The question is what does SHE feel about that issue not what I feel.
Regarding plagiarism. The issues with plagiarising Wikipedia, which often itself is plagiarised paraphrasing. Terms that are have long established meanings that has literally been expressed in every possible way to communicate the terminology at a level a non-professional in a particular field would understand. How many ways can you actually define the definition of a term in your profession? How do you define RAM? How do you define printer? In fact, you wouldn't cite Wikipedia in an academic paper. It is possible that a common term may be expressed in a manner simple enough that a 10 year old could understand it and there would be a similarly expressed entry on Wikipedia. There is a point, some of this comes straight out of a dictionary or otherwise is effectively public domain knowledge. Do you literally try to find out the original source of all original sources and cite the source of very single word used? I don't think so. Some of that plagiarism issue is just stupid and out of bounds with reasonable. The Harvard president was ousted not because of claim of plagiarism. They would of just go through the months long process of a hearing as they would with students and faculty. She was ousted because of how she handled antisemitism. In fact, she resigned to be correct. She might not have been fired regarding the allegations of plagiarism. There would be months of investigation and hearings on the issue and at worse she might have just had to issue corrections to the paper and an apology but being fired for that... no. She would have been potentially fired solely on how she handled the antisemitism. The plagiarism issue is just a straw that meant she was becoming too much of a liability and she was likely going to get fired (but not guaranteed) on the antisemitism controversy. That controversy alone would have been enough that would have been terminated from employment at Harvard University. The plagiarism was just extra controversial noise that would have had little to no bearing on the decision which was likely to happen if the antisemitism controversy doesn't subside.
Correction, I meant Mr. Ackman not Ackerman. The spelling should be correct and my error. Some people here probably don't care if his name is misspelled.
Balkins, I understand your point of Bill and Neri being separate people, but self-sanctimonious people that live in glass houses should not throw stones at others.
b3tadine[sutures]
" Now, if you want say there are individuals who are Palestinian, and do the same, then yes, those individuals are shit. I'm sure it's happening, but I'm also exceedingly confident they're not supported by billionaire hedge fund c#nts."
Are you sure about that?
https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/hamas-cash-to-crypto-global-finance-maze-israels-sights-2023-10-16/
https://nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/hamas-leaders-wealth
Then there are:
Ismail Haniyeh - $4 billion ne worth
Khaled Mashaal - $11 billion net worth
Abu Marzouk - $3 billion net worth
Don't misunderstand me : the funding for Israel's war crimes is coming from some very shady people and it needs to be stopped. The same goes for Hamas though.
Actually the funding for Israel's war crimes mostly comes from our taxes, Chad. A lot of those funds go back to our politicians in the form of campaign funds (Isn't Genocide Joe the highest receiver of AIPAC funds in all of American history ?) and obviously a lot of those funds return in shady deals for well connected folk.
I'm quite aware of that SOD. The US gives around $14.3 billion a year to Israel with another $6 billion (ish) coming from other sources outside the US. I was responding to b3t's statement about how he's confident that Hamas isn't funded.
Yes Hamas is also supported by various sources for carrying out their shady operations, and hence deemed a terrorist organization. By the same token a nation that does those shady activities x 100 should also be deemed a terrorist nation. We know which country i am talking about...
Every country dose 'shady activities' like these. It's not an excuse to condone the activities though. The issue is that one persons terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Yes, so both Israel and Palestine are "terrorist nations".
Yes. I think their actions make them terrorists and not combatants.
"Balkins, I understand your point of Bill and Neri being separate people, but self-sanctimonious people that live in glass houses should not throw stones at others."
I agree with you there. Bill might have kind of brought the issue on himself and inadvertently his wife. But there are journalism ethics issues relating to the matter. Bill didn't even create the article about Claudia Gay's plagiarism. Then Business Insider engaged in some questionable journalism ethics of targetting Bill's wife and turned an albeit serious issue of plagiarism into a WWE-esque trash-talking circus sideshow of over-sensationalized cockfighting.
I am trying to be fair and reasonable about understanding the whole shitshow and really Bill and Neri should let this news dust settle and calm down because if it isn't perpetuated for weeks, it would not be on peoples' minds for weeks.
No nation is a terrorist nation unless every single person is absolutely controlled. Nations are the people. All nations have terrorists whether domestic, foreign, or transient. The government administration that does terroristic activities is an administration of the government liable for war crimes, in my opinion but I don't hold every individual of a nation liable for it.
wow.
I have the sound of Hawking's robo voice saying 'oh baby' over and over again. If there is a hades I'm going there.
Don't worry, Chad. I'm sure Seth MacFarlane has the entire Hades Hilton eternally booked for creating all those (often hilarious) SH bits.
Whoops! I guess I'm going, too!
Chad, I’ll save you a seat up at the bar.
^ Sure, but try to get him to buy a round...
Wait, Daniel Day-Lewis is going to be there too? Sweet.
Yeah, but bring yer wallet.
What percent do you tip in hell?
It's hell so either 100% or 1%. It's hard to tell.
If you skip out on the bill, do you get tossed out and land in heaven? Satan hates this one simple trick.
I think Satan just makes you the bartender if you do that Non. It's a horrible job to have in hell. Ever try and strain out all the bones from a bloody Mary? It's tough.
I wonder if Hawkins had "good communication skills" in his resume. He is lucky he was good looking or he would be jobless in my book...
Can we go back to talking about Helena Bonham Carter?
I just…what a baby. Paying lawyers to pathetically defend something that’s commonly acknowledged as lazy plagiarism. Money can’t buy intelligence.
Just because you can doesn't mean you should.
Also, lawyers using the Wayback Machine? Shows what thin evidence these losers are standing on. Either ways, Neri will remain untouched, I guess.
A fun fact:
Bill Ackman once personally called one of our writers and screamed at them for an hour on the phone, threatening to sue Archinect because he didn't like the way he was portrayed in a story we published about his NYT penthouse.
Lol. On that note, eat the rich.
whomever it was screamed at, can wear it as a badge of honor.
C&D letters are meant to be framed and hung on a wall. That's about all they're good for anyway
Here I go (scurries off to read the Ackman penthouse article)
Donna, we took it down. The article was not worth a lawsuit. You can see the archive of it here: https://web.archive.org/web/20211117000137/https://archinect.com/news/article/150288537/billionaire-trump-supporter-unveils-designs-for-a-penthouse-that-will-concretely-secure-his-status-as-an-unassailable-asshole
Gee, I wonder why he got so upset. Very odd. ;)
Ha! To be fair, that version was only up for a couple of minutes before an editor changed it to this.
It was the edited version that Ackman saw and complained about.
why do crooks get upset when they're called out?
Ha, thats amazing Paul. I think these kinds of billionaires sit around all day googling if someone is writing about them and then go after them
archinect, legendary to repost the link using wayback machine
Thank you Archinect
LOL I had completely forgotten about that article and I commented on it, TWICE, including this:
Personally, when I hear the word “plutocrat” what I always hear is “asshole”.
I swear I did not see Josh's original headline!
On one hand, actually you would use Wayback archive to cite the rules at the time. At the time, however, if you can't cite sources according to the citation rules, you don't use the source.
In fact, that rule applies today. If you can't cite the source under the particular 'style', you find another source that you can cite when writing academic papers. That's the way you are supposed to or otherwise expected to.
Wikipedia at the time was considered off limits considering Wikipedia sources are probably plagiarism in and of itself full of statements without crediting the source. Some of the sources for Wikipedia are parroted from so many times by rote from an original book are dictionary definition or other sources that people pretty much regurgitated those source almost verbatim but forgot the source. Like many stuff for 6502 programming can be traced right back to Jim Butterfield and a few other leading authors in the 70s and early 80s.
Some may be inadvertantly regurgitating magazine articles that introduced computer aided design and what it is and it was memorized so well the person memorized the content of the article but fail to remember the author because that wasn't what they spent memorizing. So hey, this is the kind of stuff we got with Wikipedia. They been progressively filling in sources, after the fact. They been doing that in a hit or miss fashion back in 2009.
What they were citing as plagiarism, might not have originated with Wikipedia. She could have simply remembered a professor who used essentially that same way explaining it or a passage in a textbook (which itself could be an original source that the author of the Wiki entry used and failed to cite) by memory but not actually looking at the textbook and can't actually cite. So it is possible she didn't actually use Wikipedia.
However, academic papers for doctoral degrees shouldn't be use Wikipedia as a source. In fact, if Wikipedia cites a source, you go to those sources and find the passage you need and cite it. Wikipedia articles *can* be a good source for finding source material. So you go to the bottom of the article where citations are placed and use those if possible.
That's the idea and when I had to write academic papers, I should go to sources that Wikipedia may have listed or other sources to cite. If you are a student, it is looked at with scrutiny if you cite yourself except photos you take. You back your thesis with third-party support unless you actually perform actual science research or something that you can speak for yourself like your own data collection and analyzing that. Unless you invent it, you cite it.
I can write about Spork 64, a video game two individuals and I made, and what I did in that project. However, I can't credibly write about video game design without citing other sources as I alone in no way invented video game design so in an academic paper, I need to cite others not just myself. That matters. Again, it is still not recommended to directly quote or directly paraphrase from a Wikipedia article and if you do, you now have a means and form of citing it that is recognized. However, if there wasn't you are supposed to find another source material that conveys to support and not use that uncitable source.
Things you don't need to cite the source, necessarily, is something in public domain that the source is still unknown. If you know the source, even though it is public domain, you still cite it.
Plagiarism and academic standards for writing papers are independent of copyright laws. They are separate issues but can be a legal issue. Therefore, it is prudent to do legal review of legal issues if there are potential issues.
I think if Neri in fact used Wikipedia and not cite, then that is in fact laziness on her part. In 2009, she probably should have not directly quote from Wikipedia. If the article did in fact have cited sources, she should have obtain a copy of that source material and quote & cite the applicable passage or directly in her own words paraphrased it AND cited the source of the original passage. This would have took more time and be tedious. May have required another 3 months before she is done with the dissertation.
"Things you don't need to cite the source, necessarily, is something in public domain that the source is still unknown. If you know the source, even though it is public domain, you still cite it. "
I'll probably add that if your source is secondhand and the original source is both public domain & original creator/artist/author is not known, you STILL cite the second-hand source but if the citation format has a method for citing such a source (which I believe MLA, APA, Chicago/Turabian, and even Harvard styles does in fact to have a manner in which you cite such sources), then you cite accordingly. You should seldom if ever have a situation where you quote or utilize that isn't your own, to cite.
There is even a means of citing another work of your own. While you don't need to cite yourself for your new/original thoughts, expressions, etc. in your writing, anything you reference from another body of work you wrote or created, you cite yourself as you would other authors/creators.
I must have not recalled that article on Archinect. Shows how much of a petty douchebag he appears to be. Add to that supporting Donald Trump is a a radioactive mark where I would not want to do business with someone that supported Donald Trump.
I may give Neri a possible pass on that accepting funds from a real douchebag, in context with the time that occurred. What we know of that douchebag now may not have been publically known and was more a rumor than as established fact in the eyes of the nation. That depends on whether the douchebag was known to be a pedophile as an established fact before or if it was afterwards. So I would be fair and reasonable on that. Especially if there were no institutional flags about that person yet. A lot came to light but that appears to have been after the issue of the funds were accepted.
BILL AND NERI SITTING IN A TREE - P.L.A.G.E.R.I.Z-ING!
clever panda
What an effing douchebag:
https://www.npr.org/2024/01/08...
.
I saw one of her videos where she seemed to be talking about organic fabric buildings as if they were going to be the wave of the future. Apparently she was never aware of oiled cotton fabric tents that go back several hundred years. Kind of lost interest after that. Nice to look at though.
Until this thread I'd never heard of Oxman or seen any of her work.
You didnt miss much ... academia for academia's sake...
That's probably why I've never heard of her. I don't follow any academic work.
She did some cool stuff with beehives, but that's closer to sculpture anyways
Some of her work is kinda navel-gazing academia, but her experiments using chitin to build buildings is actually awesome, and the research no doubt added to the knowledge base for using biological materials to build shelter and other long-lived products.
I happened to have met her at the HOPES conference at the University of Oregon about 10-12 years ago. So I recognized her and her work. Yes, very academic in nature but I can see potential of the research going into building product designs but it needs to be productized in some fashion for this research to go into practical world architecture. There are interesting potential for the the ideas so I don't entirely dismiss it.
My opinion of Neri is independent of my opinion of her husband, Bill Ackman. To me, Bill Ackman, I have no particular love loss. He's not exactly someone whom I hold highly of. I think he's kind of a douchebag in ways he goes about things which could have been handled far more amicably. As for Neri, I can understand her being upset not by plagiarism itself but the ethics issue of why it was brought up as an attack on her because of her husband which is journalistically unethical. The timing and intent of the release is the issue. It was how Business Insider and the articles authors went about and attacking her to attack him. Those I can understand a gripe about. She accepted responsibility for the plagiarism for accepting she erred but did not intend it. Lazy... yeah. Intentional.... likely not so malign.
It just got a bit ugly and snowballed into a clusterfuck of a clown show.
Neri's fanciful ideas about beehives are devoid of any knowledge about how bees actually live and operate. Hives are beautiful, but they are not art installations, they aren't built for our viewing pleasure, and bees are legitimately an endangered species now. She's a jerk.
and a scammer
Serious question - how is she a scammer? I don't know anything about her.
SOD, how so? I am curious. This is a real question. I find her ideas interesting up to a point, but they are exactly the hot air you would expect from someone who lives in the rarified atmosphere of excessive money and privilege. She has nothing motivating her to actually make something happen, and it shows. I'm a professional beekeeper btw so I find her ideas about honeycomb etc. to be especially inane. She doesn't know even the most basic facts about queens. Does she have some funny pyramid scheme I don't know about?
"but they are exactly the hot air you would expect from someone who lives in the rarified atmosphere of excessive money and privilege"
In my world that counts as a scam, goig
It's standard procedure in USA architectural academia for a person to have a line of bullshit like "the similarities between architecture and beekeeping" that they use a premise for their "investigations" (aka jargon-writing, art projects, and maybe some fantasy unbuilt building designs). You really can't get hired to teach at any US school otherwise.
For me a "scam" has to involve a calculated attempt to squeeze money out of someone through dishonest means. I think Neri's ideas are half-baked, not very good, and loaded with academic blather, but I will bet anything that she believes they are good ideas. I could be wrong. Also her husband is subsidizing her. She's just not a serious person.
That's not a scam SOM.
You're basically saying that because you don't like a persons academic or professional work then they're a scammer. By that logic you're a scammer.
SOD is correct. The scam she is perpetrating is the idea that her work is leading to anything remotely resembling architecture, and I mean that in the strictest sense, given this fucking professions proclivity to exclude Hejduk, Lebbeus, Abraham and Pichler from their ranks. Add on top of that she’s leading gullible students into an area wholly situated in the mental masturbatory realm, which will ultimately lead to VC shills, and billionaire asshats tilting at Herbalife short sells. She’s a grifter, just like that fidget she married. There. Is that good enough?
Not really.
Your premise is that her academic work isn't real architecture. I don't think much of your and my work would be considered real architecture.
Do I find her 'work' shallow, pretentious, and non functional? Yes. That doesn't make her a scammer.
As for her leading gullible students astray - that may be true. How often do you and SOM criticize students here for not 'thinking' about the programs they're in. Each of you have said that it's up to the student to figure these things out.
I get it - you don't like this woman because of her husband and her political views. I agree with you on this. That's fine. Just say that. Don't be disingenuous about your reasons and lie to justify your dislike.
I probably agree in overall point of Chad. I would call it a stretch to call her a scammer. Not technically in a legal sense of the word 'scammer'. She's more an artist/sculptor than architect. I haven't been see actual practical work. If she is not licensed, has she ever applied this in a practical way to design a house? Actually having a house designed and built drawing from these design ideas. Anywhere?
I don't dislike the woman. I don't particular have a lot of fondness of her husband. I haven't really followed her whole political history so maybe there is an issue here and there on where someone has a problem with her position publically stated which may or may not capture her whole position.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but architecture, and by real I mean what most of us do, as licensed professionals, not esoterica by a non architect hack. Does her work create habitable spaces? Does it maintain life, health, safety, and dignity of the individual? I’ve stopped believing that my queries of students have value to them, I still believe that if you’re applying to graduate programs, and you don’t know what your question is, coming here and asking a bunch of anonymous randos how to plan life decisions, is stupid as fuck.
Yeah, they’re gullible, and she’s stealing money from them, just like many of the grad programs; they’re part of human centipede that is this profession.
Chad, I think you are arguing for the sake of argument. Firstly you say you dont know her work cuz you dont follow academia, and now you are violently defending here lol. She is a scammer cuz the only way she could "teach" is because of her connections, and she continues to scam gullible kids by showing them beehives that can become building materials. What in the holy F! Not sure about you Chad, but I dealt with many such characters in Grad School, a good 50% were there as they had married the right person.
I hate her husband, I don’t like her. I hate her husband primarily because he reminds me of the King from Shrek, a fidget. And mostly because he uses his stolen wealth to blacklist students for practicing their free speech rights. Believe me, I’d totally jerk one in his clam chowder if he came into a restaurant I worked at.
I dont hate her either, but I just think her work is a sham. But yes, this is true of about 90% of academics at fancy architecture schools in the US
sameolddoctor wrote:
"Chad, I think you are arguing for the sake of argument. Firstly you say you dont know her work cuz you dont follow academia, and now you are violently defending here lol."
Not at all.
I didn't know who she was until this thread. Then I did a bit research into her and her work.
I'm not defending her work or her political views. I personally don't like either.
What I am doing is asking why you consider her a 'scammer'. You've given none and b3ta's reasoning is BS.
Because you don't agree, doesn't mean shit to me. I find it evergreen that someone who both sides the murder of civilians, or defending c#nts blacklisting students for free speech rights - ie cancel culture - has an opinion worth entertaining.
But I do agree with you b3ta.
After researching Oxman I find her repulsive.
She's not a scammer though.
If you don't like her then just say so. There is plenty of examples of her behavior that supports support our unfavorable views of her. Don't take the low road and fabricate things about her. It just makes your opinions less credible.
Someone on Insta theorized that Ackman wants a divorce but doesn't want to say so, so he slash-and-burned his wife's career so she'll leave him.
I'm not one for idle gossip of course... (/sarcasm)
Rich people are weird.
I doubt it. If he wanted out, I am sure the prenup provides an easy and discreet way to do that. Also I don't believe Oxman would ever divorce him-- she has about 4 billion reasons not to.
Brad - "You party?"
Neri - "What's that?"
Brad - "OK, nice to meet you, bye..."
It's funny, abra, that when the rumor of them dating came out I was super-excited and figured they'd make the most beautiful babies ever. There's an article or thread here somewhere.
Yeah, I remember that. Probably would have been interesting for sure. Funny one, though, abra
This dude is shameless, indeed. From https://fortune.com/2017/06/24...
"...Jeb Bush...asked Biden why he didn’t pursue the Presidency himself in 2016. Biden offered an emotional explanation hinging on the death of his son, Beau Biden, in 2015, but cut the answer short with the comment: “I’m sorry . . . I’ve said enough.”
Ackman, his mouth apparently outrunning his brain, quipped: “Why? That’s never stopped you before.”
Biden, according to Fox sources who were present, turned to a nearby guest and asked regarding Ackman, “who is this asshole?”
He then addressed Ackman directly: “Look, I don’t know who you are, wiseass, but never disrespect the memory of my dead son!”
One wonders whether Ackman was more wounded by the former Vice President’s harsh words, or by the fact that he didn’t know who Ackman was. But the hedge funder reportedly attempted an apology. Biden responded by telling him to “just shut the hell up.”"
I bolded the part that I think is true. What a self-important weasel.
Sorry, that's not fair to weasels.
Bill Ackman really does seem like a downright jackass if the above is in fact, true.
On a very different, but related note, I can not comprehend, for the life of me how someone like Biden, who has seen so much loss in his life can sit with a dumb poker face when so many civilians and kids are dying by bombs we are sending there. Guess people get hardened after seeing so much loss, or guess brown lives
Probably because Israel is the only US alley in the area. The same reason why other nations support Hamas and Hezbollah. Nobody cares about the people of the region, only what political and strategic advantage each group can provide to their supporting nations.
Oh dear God, Neri Oxman is demented! Look what I found. Her tweets sound like the random deep thoughts parody on SNL or Cunk on Earth, only without the humor:
https://slate.com/human-intere...
This is what gets tenure at MIT? Seriously?
Brainy nerds aren't necessarily comedians. If someone who has worked with her as a colleague can speak out about how Neri is like authentically... without any ulterior motives that may distort the factual accounts. That would help. My personal experience with Neri is too short to amount to much on that front. This is mainly because she was just a visiting lecturer / presenter at an event and doesn't say much about her as a person.
Yes, I know of said article and tweets. The ONLY reason she is famous is cuz she was born into Israeli privilege, sucked upto rich people and married an insanely rich asshole. And yes, she is good looking as well.
Hence a damn scammer, Chad.
That's not a scammer. That's privilege and nepotism. One is illegal. One is unethical. Both are bad.
That Slate article is actually very funny.
I agree with Chad. I wouldn't call her a scammer. Trump is a scammer. Neri doesn't exactly fit the definition. Privilege and nepotism, sure. Were there misrepresentation of her? Yes. Is it her fault? Not necessarily. Did she misrepresent herself? From the issues of not properly quoting some sources, several of them are types of sources that shouldn't be used in an academic paper especially at the time. If the source is a type that there isn't a method of properly citing in the particular edition of 'style' (MLA, APA, Chicago, Harvard, etc.), then you are not to use that source and find another source that you can use that may use.
At the time, Wikipedia should not be directly cited. Wiki articles are questionable, especially back then. Part of the problem is some wikipedia articles were basically plagiarism in and of themselve so citing that article is citing a source that is itself a plagiarized source. However, there were many sources she could have cited that conveyed her point that she paraphrased lazily. She could have just verbatim quote the source and give it credit. Then moved on to her point. When you paraphrase a simple and short explanation of what computer aided design is, there is only so many ways you can really explain it. Beyond that and they would be barely unique. At some point, there will be a source out there that may have explained it in the same manner. I think she got lazy. She probably could have just quoted a text book on CAD and would be credible enough on that. I don't think she was being maligned but she erred. I accept that she accepted responsibility for it and not try to justify it, herself. Her husband is kind of being a douche about it. Does it bother Neri? Maybe. She just haven't been public about it.
The Business Insider was a little unethical by publishing the article on the reason WHY they published it. It was to attack Bill Ackman by attacking his wife. That is journalistically unethical. Yes, it would be ethical to cite a wrong by Neri. Sure. If that was the reason WHY they were publishing it and SOLELY for that reason and that there was NO other reason why it was being pushed. We all know it was a vengence publication which is journalistically unethical to do. The timing was precisely telling because this was purposefully a journalistic attack on Bill Ackman by attacking his wife. A sleezy underhanded journalism tactic. Why wasn't this brought up 2 years ago or 5 years ago? The driving reason why that article was written and published was because her husband's push for the ousting of the then-Harvard President. Ethical journalism is not only about writing and publishing the truth but ethical motive of writing and publishing the article. I have my criticism of the journalism ethics behind the whole issue.
I am not defending Bill Ackman. I am not defending plagiarism or lazy errors is citing sources in an academic paper by Neri. That, I am not defending in and of itself. This became a mess that should have been handled differently. This is a consequence of the unethical world we live in. People will dig up dirt against your spouse or children just to attack you if you are perceived a douchebag or outright a douchebag.
One could say Bill kind of brought it on to himself. That is not holding everyone accountable to ethics. then again war (political war) has no rules anyone actually follows. So it turns to shit quick.
That hit water bottles designed by Droog looks like a butt plug. And if Oxman cares about sustainability, there is nothing charming about her flower pressing kit.
Do you think she was trying to be funny? I think she posted with the utmost seriousness. Maybe she is trying to be Yoko Ono? If Ackman really wants to take on higher ed, I hope someone is advising him that his wife is not going to come out of this smelling very good.
What do you suppose AZP/tigerstoo thinks about this whole contretemps? As I recall he also plagiarized from Wikipedia.
Academia is goofy, so who knows. Maybe he feels it's the same, but I don't think it is.
There are a lot of ad-hominem and race-bating attacks connected to the latest celebrity examples of sloppy attribution (ie, Gay and Oxman). AZP had something else going on. It was more about petty personal politics than the national and racial politics connected to this thread. This stuff is a lot more muddy and harder to discuss on its own terms.
Plus AZP just went completely insane and racist. I'd say check his twitter, but no one wants to read that. He's horrible.
I'm very glad to no be on twitter. Eeeep.
Whooooaaa that is a rabbit hole I think I will sidestep.
A-hole-ckman at it again
Ted fellows resign from organisation after Bill Ackman named as speaker
That Bill guy sure seems like (hmm how to put this politely) a punter. I guess growing up that wealthy could do that to someone.
Yep. Making an ass of himself, even more.
I didn't know both her parents were architects and theorists
Nepotism started early i guess
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.