Who Does This Describe?

[4Knee Kate]

Narcissistic Personality Disorder

A pervasive pattern of grandiosity (in fantasy or behavior), need for admiration, and lack of empathy, beginning by early adulthood and present in a variety of contexts, as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

• has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)
  
• preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love
  
• believes that he or she is "special" and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)
  
• requires excessive admiration
  
• has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with his or her expectations
  
• is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve his or her own ends
  
• lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others
  
• is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
  
• shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

http://www.healthyplace.com/communities/...sorder.htm

[GG's Oberlin Dyke]

Yay! My daddy is winning! Go suck a giant cock daddy!

<3
cl-g

[Don Dresden]

as indicated by five (or more) of the following:

Tough call as to some of the others, since each has multiple instances, but since we are looking for five or more, definitely Gollin. He has all nine and is probably working on extra credit.

[Herbert Spencer]

He has all nine and is probably working on extra credit.

We all see it, just as certainly any normal, thoughtful person can see it. Will a jury of his peers see it?? Persistent rumor is that George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin), his employer, and quite possibly some of his nefarious associates are soon to be the subject of legal action stemming from his bizarre conduct. So far those who know won't say and those who say don't know. Be sure to answer the door George, it's probably just a nice man with some legal papers for you.

[Don Dresden]

Has anybody ever read Gollin's diss? It would be fun to run that through Turnitin.

[Dickie Billericay]

Has anybody ever read Gollin's diss? It would be fun to run that through Turnitin.

Turnitin would fall asleep like I almost did reading the abstract.

Here's a link to Gollin's diss, Charm production by muons and its role in scale-noninvariance, published Jan 1, 1981:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/prod...id=6090198

The author is shown to be "Gollin, G.D." only (i.e., all by his lonesome self with no help from any pals).

This is the abstract for that dissertation:

Interactions of 209 GeV muons in the Multimuon Spectrometer at Fermilab have yielded more than 8 x 10/sup 4/ events with two muons in the final state.

^After reconstruction and cuts, the data contain 20,072 events with (81 +- 10)% attributed to the diffractive production of charmed states decaying to muons.

^The cross section for diffractive charm muoproduction is 6.9 +- 1.4/sup 1/ /sup 9/nb where the error includes systematic uncertainities.

^Extrapolated to Q/sup 2/ = 0 with sigma(Q/sup 2/) = sigma(0)(1 + Q/sup 2//..lambda../sup 2/)/sup -2/, the effective cross section for 178 (100) GeV photons is 750 +- /sub 130//sup 180/ (560 +- /sub 120//sup 200/)nb and the parameter ..lambda.. is 3.3 +- 0.2 (2.9 +- 0.2) GeV/c.

^The nu dependence of the cross section is similar to that of the photon-gluon-fusion model.

^A first determination of the structure function F/sub 2/(c anti c) for diffractive charm production indicates that charm accounts for approximately 1/3 of the scale-noninvariance observed in inclusive muon-nucleon scattering at low Bjorken x.

Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka selection rules and unitarity allow the muon data to set a 90%-confidence lower limit on the psi N total cross section of 0.9 mb.

Now here's a link to a journal article entitled Charm production by muons and its role in scale-noninvariance (the exact same title as Gollin's diss), published Aug 1, 1981:
http://www.osti.gov/energycitations/prod...id=6189297

The journal article is shown to have been authored by:
Gollin, G.D.
Shoemaker, F.C.
Surko, P.
Clark, A.R.
Johnson, K.J.
Kerth, L.T.
Loken, S.C.
Markiewicz, T.W.
Meyers, P.D.
Smith, W.H.
Strovink, M.
Wenzel, W.A.
Johnson, R.P.
Moore, C.
Mugge, M.
Shafer, R.E.

This is the abstract for that journal article authored by sixteen (16) people:

Interactions of 209-GeV muons in the multimuon spectrometer at Fermilab have yielded more than 8 x 10/sup 4/ events with two muons in the final state.

^After reconstruction and cuts, the data contain 20 072 events with (81 +- 10)% attributed to the diffractive production of charmed states decaying to muons.

^The cross section for diffractive charm muoproduction is 6.9/sup +1.9//sub -1.4/ nb where the error includes systematic uncertainties.

^Extrapolated to Q/sup 2/ = 0 with sigma(Q/sup 2/) = sigma(0)(1+Q/sup 2//..lambda../sup 2/)/sup -2/, the effective cross section for 178- (100-) GeV photons is 750/sup +180//sub -/130 (560/sup +//sub -//sup 2//sub 1//sup 0//sub 2//sup 0//sub 0/) nb and the parameter ..lambda.. is 3.3 +- 0.2 (2.9 +- 0.2) GeV/c.

^The ..nu.. dependence of the cross section is similar to that of the photon-gluon-fusion model.

^Okubo-Zweig-Iizuka selection rules and unitarity allow the muon data to set a 90%-confidence lower limit on the psiN total cross section of 0.9 mb.

^A first determination of the structure function F/sub 2/(cc-bar) for diffractive charm production indicates that charm accounts for approximately 1/3 of the scale noninvariance observed in inclusive muon-nucleon scattering at low Bjorken x.

Note that the only difference between the journal article abstract and the dissertation abstract is the juxtaposition of the last two sentences, and some minor differences in numbers (highlighted above) that appear to be two different ways of saying the same thing.

Now I haven't read either one of those documents, nor do I intend to, but it is not entirely clear why the apparent very minor differences (if any) between those two documents required the combined efforts of fifteen (15) extra researchers to accomplish.

Hmmmmmm. Well, perhaps those fifteen (15) extra guys are really just a bunch of slackers who rode the mighty coattails of one brilliant physics genius to snag a little publication credit.

Or perhaps...not? Surely George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) didn't "borrow" a little work from 15 of his dear pals and sign his name on it?

Let's connect the dots, shall we?

[ham]

Note that the only difference between the journal article abstract and the dissertation abstract is the juxtaposition of the last two sentences, and some minor differences in numbers (highlighted above) that appear to be two different ways of saying the same thing.

Now I haven't read either one of those documents, nor do I intend to, but it is not entirely clear why the apparent very minor differences (if any) between those two documents required the combined efforts of fifteen (15) extra researchers to accomplish.

self-plagiarism is common in academia; the same argument may be published in 20 different articles with minor word twists.
In the scientific field (so told me people who were into it ), articles that count most are 'first' or 'second' name ( one's name comes first or second in the otherwise very long list ) as first or second leader in the study.
A man I knew had THIRTY articles published, but never as first or second name, which barely amounts to 'being part of a team' or even 'an institute' and doing little -if anything- to contribute to the research the paper is about.
Much like acting, you get title role, supporting actors, down to stand-ins and people billed as 'drunkard in the alley' or 'lady crossing the street'.
Although both 'Marlon Brando' (I'm just making this up) and Sam Zero 'star' in the Hollywood big-budgeter of the year, Marlon Brando is first lead/title star, while Sam Zero is credited as 'old man crossing the street' or 'policeman n.3'.
So use scholar.google.com and see how many first/second names did George get.

[Herbert Spencer]

self-plagiarism is common in academia;

That is true. It is not uncommon for one guy to re-write his dissertation or portions thereof and milk several articles out of it. Bear got an entire book out of his.

But that doesn't look like the case here. It looks like one guy got 15 buddies to write an article, then submitted it as his work alone. If he had stopped there nobody likely would have been the wiser. But then he brought it around again 8 months later, this time giving proper credit, probably because he lusted after the star billing you mentioned. That's a huge difference. If this is what it appears to be, we are talking academic fraud, pure and simple.

At least Douglas wrote his 8-month wonder himself, and only had his pals on his committee. Looks like Gollin cut out the heavy lifting and just had his pals write the whole thing for him.

[Albert Hidel]

Or perhaps...not? Surely George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) didn't "borrow" a little work from 15 of his dear pals and sign his name on it?

Let's connect the dots, shall we?

That's some damn fine work, DB. As you say, let's connect the dots. We don't wanna be assholes like George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) and accuse the slimy scumbag of something dishonorable based only on speculation, wishful thinking, innuendo and mob action.

Meanwhile, I have a feeling the Board of Directors may be meeting soon to determine whether this gets George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) over the top for Hall of Shame admission!

[Armando Ramos]

Let's connect the dots, shall we?

There's only two answers here.

a) Gollin and/or his 15 pals wrote his dissertation, or
b) Gollin wrote both and then gratuitously put the names of 15 pals on the latter.

Somehow I'm just not seeing that bountiful streak of charitable munificence that would make that second one possible. Either way, the dots say loud and clear that George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) is a liar and a fraud.

Here's what Princeton University says (now) about dissertation submissions:

The dissertation must show that the candidate has technical mastery of the field and is capable of doing independent research.

http://gradschool.princeton.edu/academic...sertation/

Does "independent" mean "by yourself and 15 buddies"? Or only in New Jersey?

So did they give George Gollin (George D. Gollin, George Dana Gollin) a whole PhD diploma or only the 6.25% he actually earned? Talk about your degree mills.

That's why those Ivy League grads are so damn smart! You are getting the grey matter equivalent of 16 certified scholars every time one guy turns in a paper!