From: "Guédon Jean-Claude" <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2019 17:04:57 +0000

On 19-07-17 23 h 06, LIBLICENSE wrote:
> As for the term “conspiracy theory”: if you feel that it’s an
> appropriate characterization of the proposition that Frontiers was
> involved in the creation of Plan S, then feel free to use it. I
> haven’t said you shouldn’t use that term. I’ve just pointed out that
> characterizing the proposition as a conspiracy theory doesn’t
> magically make the evidence of Frontiers’ involvement go away. In
> other words, to the degree that we’re using “conspiracy theory” as an
> epithet designed to dismiss or shut down discussion of the issue, I
> think that’s inappropriate. If that’s not the intention of those using
> the term, then I have no particular objection to it.,

In response to Rick Anderson, I was using the term "conspiracy theory"
to describe those who see some direct plotting between Frontiers and R-J
Smits as the cause behind Plan S. This is roughly Schneider's
perspective and it seemed to be also present in K. Anderson's own piece.
That Frontiers did all it could to be heard by R.-J. Smits is pretty
obvious, and I believe that this is generally referred to as lobbying.
It still does not justify photoshopping Smits and Markram photos to
suggest various levels of hanky-panky, and use vocabulary to suggest
various Iorms of alleged collusion. I believe Rick Anderson knows
English well enough to manage such distinctions, and he should also know
that the point was not to dismiss or shut down discussios about the
implication of Frontiers simply because I question the way in which this
collusion is presented by the likes of Schneider. The latter point is
simply and obviously a question of elementary logic.

Jean-Claude Guédon