peer review.

TerryUK said:
So now, I have to go look for examples and make a list, and if I don't, I'm a liar...?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. You made an accusation against my character: that I often call people liars without justification. I say your claim is false and should be retracted. If you cannot provide evidence to prove your claim, and will not retract it, then you are a liar. Rational adults avoid this problem by:

1) Not making statements about people that they can't back up.

2) Apologizing when they've wrongly impugned someone's character.
 
Apollo20 said:
Yes, thanks to the off-topic boys...

Brazil... La la la la la la... Brazil...

I think all those posters who have never submitted a paper for peer review, or have never been a peer reviewer should drop out of this debate right now!
Click to expand...

Fortunately for the forum, you, Apollo, do not get to dictate which members are permitted to post on any given thread. You have offered little of substance on this thread and you have done more than your share of "off topic" posting on numerous threads here, so kwitcherbelliakin already.

It is obvious to all and sundry that you regularly post nonsense for the sole purpose of garnering attention and reaction. How utterly juvenile.

If you seriously think that anyone who has never submitted a paper for peer review or been a peer reviewer (I have been both) should be barred from commenting on a thread about the peer review process, just think about how that would limit your own posts on the vast majority of threads here.

You are a (forced) retired chemist. Many others here have far more knowledge and expertise on a vast range of subjects than you do. If you want to limit posters to contributing to threads that are specific to their professional experience and areas of expertise, you are going to find that you are not qualified to comment on 95% of the threads here. You have no more knowledge, experience or expertise than many other posters here, and it's about time you stopped acting as though you do.

This is not to take anything away from your actual knowledge and expertise in your specific field. However, you really should cut the superiority crap. You are not, repeat not, superior to other posters here. While your chemistry knowledge is superior to the chemistry knowledge of most others here, you are not superior to others here. Do you see the distinction?

It would behoove you to get rid of that gargantuan chip on your shoulder and contribute meaningfully to the forum rather than merely using it to stroke your ego and to amuse yourself. It would behoove you to start acting like the professional that you once were and stop acting like a little boy throwing a tempter tantrum.
 
Last edited:
TerryUK said:
He wasn't presenting a mathematically accurate account for anyone to rely on - he was merely conveying the idea that Brazil had performed well in reducing their oil import reliance from very high in the 1970s to very low in 2007.
YES, for the nitpickers like you he should have avoided any inaccuracies or exagerations, even though HONEST people understand that in normal communication an exageration like that is not at all trying to mislead - especialy when he gave links to thescource of the info...

You also said:

You see? You've done it again.
You characterize this as trying to convince people that "1=0"

Why don't you stick to honestmethods of argument?
Click to expand...

We'll if people are posting supposed evidence on this forum that says people are murderers I would expect some level of accuracy in claims and evidence given in any post or thread or can we just throw in any old claims?

Brazil have done well but no more than any other country who has started reaping the benefits of oil finds, but tell me who are the companies who are helping get this oil out of the ground for Petrobras? Is it ok to make money in Brazil but not Iraq for these companies?

You cannot produce your own energy if you do not have oil and even if you do find some you cannot drill for it without brining in the leaders in the field with oil technology, Brazil discovered oil in the 60's and only really started producing it in decent amounts in the early 70's and now they are drilling and producing it in larger quantities with help from KBR amongst others

This guy made an exact claim and it was false, get over it

If the oil industry in Iraq is left to flourish with the help of american oil company technologies then they will be in a better position than Brazil

An exaggeration is not trying to mislead?
 
Apollo20 said:
I think all those posters who have never submitted a paper for peer review, or have never been a peer reviewer should drop out of this debate right now!
Click to expand...

OK, I'm in (co-author on over 30 published papers in peer-reviewed journals and have served as a peer reviewer). I'd add some helpful comments to this debate if I could remember what on earth it was about in the first place.

Oh, yeah, politics and peer review.

Yes, there are abuses of the peer review process, and I've heard of them in action - no names, no packdrill, but it happens. There are said to be cliques of people in power who pass each other's papers and block ones from persona non grata, and on rare occasions I've heard rumours of peer reviewers blocking publication of other people's work so they could get prior publication themselves. Nothing specific I could reference, but one hears stories. It's a system run by human beings, so despite all the safeguards it falls foul of abuses on occasion. The problem is, nobody's yet come up with a better system. The phoney peer review process carried out by JONES is effectively a distillation of all the worst abuses of peer review crafted into a system that eliminates the possibility of honest operation, and is therefore far worse than the system it claims to imitate.

Discuss.

Dave
 
Gravy said:
Absolutely. You made an accusation against my character: that I often call people liars without justification. I say your claim is false and should be retracted. If you cannot provide evidence to prove your claim, and will not retract it, then you are a liar. Rational adults avoid this problem by:

1) Not making statements about people that they can't back up.

2) Apologizing when they've wrongly impugned someone's character.
Click to expand...

A search of your posts in this forum with the keyword "lying" turns up 147 results. Among them is this gem
Another lie. jessicarabbit, why do you constantly lie? Is it that you cannot, or will not stop?

Since you haven't posted your important refutation of the calculations in the papers we discussed, I can only assume that you are also lying about that.

Please stop lying if you can. This is 9/11 we're talking about, not some sick game for trolls.

If you cannot stop lying, you need mental health care that we cannot provide for you.
Click to expand...

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2055574&postcount=244
 
Revolutionary91 said:
A search of your posts in this forum with the keyword "lying" turns up 147 results. Among them is this gem

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2055574&postcount=244
Click to expand...
Two things, my ever-wrong rebel without a cause:

1) The post I responded to was a lie, as were numerous other posts by jessicarabbit.
2) "jessicarabbit" was a sock of Paul Doherty, perhaps the most consistent and persistent liar in all of 9/11 denierhood.

Thank you for supporting my point. Go out and play today, or just take a good long walk. It'll help clear your head. Really.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Two things, my ever-wrong rebel without a cause:

1) The post I responded to was a lie, as were numerous other posts by jessicarabbit.
2) "jessicarabbit" was a sock of Paul Doherty, perhaps the most consistent and persistent liar in all of 9/11 denierhood.

Thank you for supporting my point. Go out and play today, or just take a good long walk. It'll help clear your head. Really.
Click to expand...

No, the post you were responding to was jessicarabbit saying that she had debunked something. That was her a opinion and not necessarily a knowing lie. There are dozens of other examples. In one post you claim that everything Hopsicker writes is a lie. You provide no evidence for this and you do not allow for the possibility of him being mistaken.


You need to refine your definition of lie. It doesn't include opinions and mistakes. Heres a little lesson for you:

If I say "the sky is green" thats a lie. If I write a rebuttal of your post and say its a debunking thats an opinion. Got it?
 
Revolutionary91 said:
No, the post you were responding to was jessicarabbit saying that she had debunked something. That was her a opinion and not necessarily a knowing lie.
Click to expand...
Read the thread, lazybones.

There are dozens of other examples. In one post you claim that everything Hopsicker writes is a lie. You provide no evidence for this and you do not allow for the possibility of him being mistaken.
Click to expand...
Are you mistaken, or lying?

A good stretch of the legs, my teen angst-filled friend. Seriously. It'll help.
 
Gravy said:
Read the thread, lazybones.

Are you mistaken, or lying?

A good stretch of the legs, my teen angst-filled friend. Seriously. It'll help.
Click to expand...

How do you think it looks when you resort to some ad hom attack regarding my age in every post but I just stick to the facts?
 
Revolutionary91 said:
How do you think it looks when you resort to some ad hom attack regarding my age in every post but I just stick to the facts?
Click to expand...
It is you who avoids the facts. Want to be treated like an adult? Then act like one. Second time: are you mistaken or lying?
 
Revolutionary91 said:
Neither. Anyone can do the search and confirm it.
Click to expand...
The burden of proof is on you. I'll give you a last chance to provide your evidence or admit that you're mistaken. Fail to take it and you become a liar. You weren't raised to say things about people that aren't true, were you? Time to man up.
 
Gravy said:
The burden of proof is on you. I'll give you a last chance to provide your evidence or admit that you're mistaken. Fail to take it and you become a liar. You weren't raised to say things about people that aren't true, were you? Time to man up.
Click to expand...

No, when you casually say that Hopsicker is a liar (and tarpley, rense and Jones) in this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2445242&postcount=231

the burden of proof is on you to show that they are liars. You called hopsicker a liar in that thread, out of the blue, then suggested that everything that he and the other three said was a lie. Please back that up or retract your claim. Isn't that what an adult would do?

I also present the above as the evidence you asked of Terry. I have proven how you will call people liars without backing it up.
 
Revolutionary91 said:
No, when you casually say that Hopsicker is a liar (and tarpley, rense and Jones) in this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2445242&postcount=231

the burden of proof is on you to show that they are liars. You called hopsicker a liar in that thread, out of the blue, then suggested that everything that he and the other three said was a lie. Please back that up or retract your claim. Isn't that what an adult would do?

I also present the above as the evidence you asked of Terry. I have proven how you will call people liars without backing it up.
Click to expand...

Uh Oh. Now you've done it Rev. I have a feeling that Gravy may indeed be able to show that those named are liars. Call it a hunch...
 
Revolutionary91 said:
If I say "the sky is green" thats a lie. If I write a rebuttal of your post and say its a debunking thats an opinion. Got it?
Click to expand...


No sorry, you're wrong. If you're aware that the sky is blue, and say the sky is green, you're lying. If you're blind or lived in a cave all your life, and just assume the sky is green, or have been told the sky is green, and repeat this claim, it's not a lie. Its just incorrect.

If someone claims something, that they patently know is false, they are lying. If they weren't aware it was untrue they are incorrect. Pointing out that someone who has repeating information that has been shown to be false is not lying.
 
I agree 8den. Perhaps you can teach this to Gravy. He calls everyone that utters something false a liar without proving their intention.
 
Revolutionary91 said:
No, when you casually say that Hopsicker is a liar (and tarpley, rense and Jones) in this thread

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2445242&postcount=231

the burden of proof is on you to show that they are liars. You called hopsicker a liar in that thread, out of the blue, then suggested that everything that he and the other three said was a lie. Please back that up or retract your claim. Isn't that what an adult would do?

I also present the above as the evidence you asked of Terry. I have proven how you will call people liars without backing it up.
Click to expand...
Skepticalcriticalguy was championing four independent "journalists": Alex Jones, Tarpley, Hopsicker, and Rense. Four of the most disreputable people you'll find anywhere. His claim was that we should be reading these people.

I challenged him to produce a single 9/11 claim that they got right. I pursued that challenge in two threads. He could not. Remember, it was his claim that these people produced worthwhile work.

Meanwhile, he challenged me to produce a lie that Hopsicker told. On the same page, I did.

Even just a stroll around the block, Rev. Seriously.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
And did you notice that through two threads, skepticalcriticalguy was unable to produce a single significant correct claim made by any of the independent journalists that he was championing? His claim was that we should be reading these people.

I challenged him to produce a single 9/11 claim that they got right. I pursued that challenge in two threads. He could not.

Meanwhile, he challenged me to produce a lie that Hopsicker told. On the same page, I did.

Even just a stroll around the block, Rev. Seriously.
Click to expand...

No you produced a false statement without proving an intention to mislead. Are all journalists lying when they issue a false report? Are the BBC lying when they said wtc7 had collapsed early?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom