Posted August 29, 2005
A couple of weeks ago, after I posted on Panda's Thumb (see http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2005/08/what_else_could.html) and Talk Reason (see http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Reply_toDemb_reply.cfm) a brief response to Dembski's amusing dismissal of my essay published in Skeptic, v. 11, No 4, 2005 (without his saying a word about the substance of my critique), on the website maintained by Dembski appeared a comment whose author accused me of false claims regarding my publication record.
As I had mentioned before, the last time I updated my list of publication was in 1985 when I applied for a position at CSUF. At that time the list already contained over 200 items, even though it did not include many of my published papers which were outside my professional work (many such papers were published in several languages in magazines such as Partisan Review, Midstream, Present Tense, Kontinent, Possev, Ukrainian Quorterly, Samtiden, Vremya Iskat [Et Levakesh], Vremia I My, and others).
Confronted with the libelous post on Dembski's site which Dembski chose to keep without rebuttals, thus joining the author of the calumny) I searched my old files and found my List of publication which I submitted to CSUF in 1985. It contained 211 items, even omitting many publications outside my professional research.
Dr. Wesley R. Elsberry kindly offered to scan and OCR the text of that list of publications (many thanks, Wesley). Thanks to Wesley's generous assistance, this list, which is over 20 years old, can now be seen at http://members.cox.net/mkarep/List.htm.
I don't think I need to prove that I did not abruptly stop publishing in 1984. After the list in question was compiled, were it updated, its size would increase by more publications, and more so if it included also papers dealing with pseudo-science in its various disguises. If my papers and the book which are not about my research in physics were added, the total would be now over 300 items, in tune with what I claimed in my response to Dembski's post. I apologize for taking space on this site with these remarks, but I feel it is proper to post them after the libelous post appeared on Dembski's site where, as it is known, no comments are allowed which are short of either praising Dembski or attacking his critics.