peer review.

I'll wait to see if it gets published. I think I'll be waiting a LONG TIME. I have no intention of talking to him...if his resume is any indication of his honesty, I suspect he wouldn't tell me the truth anyway.

TAM:)
 
~enigma~ said:
Not an idea. You made it clear you are pissed off ansd jealous because of you "failed" scientist status. You should be proud though because thanks to you we have a new phrase in failed scientist instead of mad scientist (but I know you really are both).
Click to expand...

can we not start the same old name calling again...please. It really doesnt get anyone anywhere. Apollo20, as Dr. Greening, has added GOOD SCIENCE to the collection of 9/11 information pool, and for this alone I find calling him a "Failed" scientist kind of harsh.

Thanks

TAM:)
 
realcddeal said:
However, I do believe the public at large should be exposed to these ideas and the arguments for and against them.
Click to expand...
Good thing you are just an internet desk jockey so your opinion really means nothing in the grand scheme of things.
 
T.A.M. said:
can we not start the same old name calling again...please. It really doesnt get anyone anywhere. Apollo20, as Dr. Greening, has added GOOD SCIENCE to the collection of 9/11 information pool, and for this alone I find calling him a "Failed" scientist kind of harsh.

Thanks

TAM:)
Click to expand...
Harsh but true. Would you do as much checking into his carrer as you can. I am not going to say it so I suggest reading it and you will see exactly what i am referring to. But if "Frank" has the decency to stop posting his stupidity that is based on nothing more than his being piossed off at "the man" then I won't bring up his being a failuire.
 
~enigma~ said:
Harsh but true. Would you do as much checking into his carrer as you can. I am not going to say it so I suggest reading it and you will see exactly what i am referring to. But if "Frank" has the decency to stop posting his stupidity that is based on nothing more than his being piossed off at "the man" then I won't bring up his being a failuire.
Click to expand...

Whether it is true or not, is likely an opinion, which of course you are entitled to. However, bring it forward, and publicizing your opinion here, in essence, what might be seen as an attempt to humiliate him or make him angry, is not going to accomplish anything but a flame war, and likely get warnings thrown around, along with a "moderation" status assigned to the thread.

But, as with any and everyone, tis your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

TAM:)
 
realcddeal said:
John Kennedy said the same thing. Do you believe his opinion meant nothing in the grand scheme of things?
Click to expand...

About Torin's hypothetical Paper and Hypothetical peer review, I would say this...

If any paper, is deemed to be scientifically sound, then regardless of what contraversial conclusions are made within it, it should be published.

That is the key...I do not think his paper, should he create one, would meet those standards, and as a result, they will have to come to cyberspace and google search him, to read any such paper he creates.

TAM:)
 
realcddeal said:
John Kennedy said the same thing. Do you believe his opinion meant nothing in the grand scheme of things?
Click to expand...
JFK said you were an internet desk jockey? If he said that you are perfectly correct that I don't think his opinion mattered. Only thing is, when did he say that you were an internet desk jockey?
 
T.A.M. said:
Whether it is true or not, is likely an opinion, which of course you are entitled to. However, bring it forward, and publicizing your opinion here, in essence, what might be seen as an attempt to humiliate him or make him angry, is not going to accomplish anything but a flame war, and likely get warnings thrown around, along with a "moderation" status assigned to the thread.

But, as with any and everyone, tis your opinion, and you are entitled to it.

TAM:)
Click to expand...
His "pissed off at the man" opinion that is based on how his career panned out gives me every right to be mad at the grumpy guy for posting his crap here and thinking name dropping is supposed to garner him respect.
 
~enigma~ said:
JFK said you were an internet desk jockey? If he said that you are perfectly correct that I don't think his opinion mattered. Only thing is, when did he say that you were an internet desk jockey?
Click to expand...

The quote you previously made of my post was about my opinion that the information should be available to the public at large. That is what I meant when I said John Kennedy said the same thing. For your edification I have reposted the JFK quote below.

As John Kennedy so aptly said "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people".

It is represents my feelings exactly and probably a large part of the public at large.

If you prefer to call me an internet desk jockey I think you need to label yourself the same.
 
T.A.M. said:
About Torin's hypothetical Paper and Hypothetical peer review, I would say this...

If any paper, is deemed to be scientifically sound, then regardless of what contraversial conclusions are made within it, it should be published.

That is the key...I do not think his paper, should he create one, would meet those standards, and as a result, they will have to come to cyberspace and google search him, to read any such paper he creates.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

I do not think there are many established journals which are willing to get into this debate at the moment, so unfortunately it has been left to the Internet.
 
realcddeal said:
The quote you previously made of my post was about my opinion that the information should be available to the public at large. That is what I meant when I said John Kennedy said the same thing. For your edification I have reposted the JFK quote below.
Click to expand...
Not what you quote so how was I supposed to know. Should i have guessed? Now that you clarified what you meant, JFK thought peer review should be done on scientific papers after publishing?

As John Kennedy so aptly said "We are not afraid to entrust the American people with unpleasant facts, foreign ideas, alien philosophies, and competitive values. For a nation that is afraid to let its people judge the truth and falsehood in an open market is a nation that is afraid of its people".
Click to expand...
Ah...as I suspected, he never said such a thing about peer review of scientific papers. Why have you been dishonest? Is there a reason you want to see peer review after publication like maybe you have a bias of some kind? Tell you what, if you find a publisher that is willing to publish a paper that wasn't peer renewed (in a scientific journal) and when that paper and subsequently that journal is made a laughing stock and you are willing to repay printing costs and the cost of lost subscriptions etc that the journal encountered. OK then you can get published before review. Until then, too bad for you.
If you prefer to call me an internet desk jockey I think you need to label yourself the same.
Click to expand...
Never said I was anything else while I post. On the other hand, I have a life which seems to be something most woos (including yourself) lack.
 
realcddeal said:
I do not think there are many established journals which are willing to get into this debate at the moment, so unfortunately it has been left to the Internet.
Click to expand...

You have no evidence of that at all.

Scientific journals discourage bad scholarship. That is why no "Truth Movement" paper has ever been published. It has nothing to do with politics.

Prove me wrong.
 
R.Mackey said:
You have no evidence of that at all.

Scientific journals discourage bad scholarship. That is why no "Truth Movement" paper has ever been published. It has nothing to do with politics.

Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

I can't prove you wrong here anymore than you can prove me wrong. In fact, I didn't make a definitive statement about it as it is nearly impossible to prove. Although you are definitive with no evidence for it. If you recall I said "I think". There is a difference.
 
~enigma~ said:
Not what you quote so how was I supposed to know. Should i have guessed? Now that you clarified what you meant, JFK thought peer review should be done on scientific papers after publishing?

Ah...as I suspected, he never said such a thing about peer review of scientific papers. Why have you been dishonest? Is there a reason you want to see peer review after publication like maybe you have a bias of some kind? Tell you what, if you find a publisher that is willing to publish a paper that wasn't peer renewed (in a scientific journal) and when that paper and subsequently that journal is made a laughing stock and you are willing to repay printing costs and the cost of lost subscriptions etc that the journal encountered. OK then you can get published before review. Until then, too bad for you.Never said I was anything else while I post. On the other hand, I have a life which seems to be something most woos (including yourself) lack.
Click to expand...


Do you get dizzy from all of the spin you are throwing around? I obviously was talking about John Kennedy's and my own similar view that the material should be available to the public not the peer review side of the equation.

Any intelligent person reading this should wonder about someone who makes assumptions like you are concerning whether or not someone else has a life, outside of debating on an Internet forum. Ad Hominem won't win the argument for you.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
I can't prove you wrong here anymore than you can prove me wrong. In fact, I didn't make a definitive statement about it as it is nearly impossible to prove. Although you are definitive with no evidence for it. If you recall I said "I think". There is a difference.
Click to expand...

I don't have to prove you wrong, all I have to do is demonstrate that you are engaging in unfounded speculation. That has been accomplished.

Please refrain from such irresponsible claims in the future.
 
realcddeal said:
I do not think there are many established journals which are willing to get into this debate at the moment, so unfortunately it has been left to the Internet.
Click to expand...
The 9/11 truth papers are not published in real journal due to the lack of facts, logic, and rational thought. It is as simple as lies are not acceptable in real journals. You are in a group of people who make up stuff on 9/11. Fiction is not published in the journals we speak. Your post is in error.
 
R.Mackey said:
I don't have to prove you wrong, all I have to do is demonstrate that you are engaging in unfounded speculation. That has been accomplished.

Please refrain from such irresponsible claims in the future.
Click to expand...

You sir should take your own advice.
 
Show me where I have failed to do so, and I will concede your point.

You know, "burden of proof" and all that.
 
beachnut said:
The 9/11 truth papers are not published in real journal due to the lack of facts, logic, and rational thought. It is as simple as lies are not acceptable in real journals. You are in a group of people who make up stuff on 9/11. Fiction is not published in the journals we speak. Your post is in error.
Click to expand...

Would you say the same about the initial claims of Galileo, the Wright brothers, etc. take a look at the link here

http://amasci.com/supress1.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom