Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[AZCat]

This seems to be a pointless question. Mark isn't submitting technical or scientific articles for publication, so why would peer review be necessary?

If peer review was required of all articles "published" on the internet, there would be considerably less content than there is now. The bureaucracy alone would bog down attempts to publish anything, much less the filtering of content not fit for publication.

 

[twinstead]

Didn't Mark Roberts write an open letter to NYC fireman John Shroeder telling him that he was confused about what he said he experienced in the towers on 911? I believe he did this without having talked to John Shroeder beforehand and simply went off of the Loose Change interview with Shroeder. Is that true?

I could counter with any number of false or inaccurate statements presented by 'truther' papers but that would mean that I equate them with the letter to Shroeder by Roberts, and that wouldn't be true.

There is a quite lengthy thread about this on this forum, in fact. Have you read it?

 

[AZCat]

Satan.

I hear his fees are really high.

 

[CHF]

Didn't Mark Roberts write an open letter to NYC fireman John Shroeder telling him that he was confused about what he said he experienced in the towers on 911? I believe he did this without having talked to John Shroeder beforehand and simply went off of the Loose Change interview with Shroeder. Is that true?

He decided to correct a witness who didn't accurately recall which tower fell first, among other things.

Yeah I know - he should have just let all those errors stand, like a real "truthseeker."

 

[~enigma~]

Who made the rule that review only needs to take place if something is published in a Journal?

One would assume that one who consistently takes jabs at others for what they claim is a lack of peer review would have their published work reviewed.

Mark Roberts has several articles published on the Internet.

That is the common usage of peer reviewed. If you don't like it, file an RFC like Judy Woo-woo did and see how far that gets you but I'm not sure what agency is responsible for the definition of terms....Now where is he published. Either name the journal or simply say he isn't.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Again, so why doesn't your "truther" bretheren do not do so?
Why is DRG commenting on issues that he has no clue about and passing them off as fact?



Again, its open to critique. and he sources his information. he is ismply compiling them together . YOU can always check his sources.

David Griffin isn't sitting there claiming, with no real basis, that papers of an opposing viewpoint to his, are not being properly peer reviewed while not having their own work reviewed. This is what Mark Roberts appears to be doing.

Since Roberts has recently attempted to smear me I wanted to set the record straight.

In an earlier post I explained the debate he refused to take part in with me using written papers.

 

[Gravy]

No, fact checking journalists would do just fine.

It is called an independent review for accuracy.

Tee-hee. Let's take 10 pages of your 9/11 work and 500 pages of mine and compare them for accuracy.

Agreed, Tony? Or do you need to sleep one off and then think about it?

Boo!

 

[twinstead]

Since Roberts has recently attempted to smear me I wanted to set the record straight.

Frankly, sir, and with all due respect, your work smears itself; Roberts' input isn't required.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Frankly, sir, and with all due respect, your work smears itself; Roberts' input isn't required.

How so?

 

[Foolmewunz]

I would really like to know.

No you wouldn't. You'd just like to get back at him for his criticism of your own shoddy review practices.

That's what this is all about, isn't it?

ETA: Ignore the above. I hadn't seen Page 2 where you actually confirmed that this is a wee vendetta.

 

[twinstead]

How so?

Perhaps you could simply submit the findings of the Independent Review for Accuracy concerning your work?

ETA: this thread isn't about 'YOUR' work, it's about Roberts' work.

 

[OldTigerCub]

Tee-hee. Let's take 10 pages of your 9/11 work and 500 pages of mine and compare them for accuracy.

Agreed, Tony? Or do you need to sleep one off and then think about it?

Boo!

I want a front row seat for this one!

(even though I know it isn't going to last one round)

 

[Hokulele]

Since Roberts has recently attempted to smear me I wanted to set the record straight.

And you are doing this by making things up?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Tee-hee. Let's take 10 pages of your 9/11 work and 500 pages of mine and compare them for accuracy.

Agreed, Tony? Or do you need to sleep one off and then think about it?

Boo!

Mark, how about we do the written paper debate you slithered away from and had the audacity to say I was the one who backed down.

Why won't you critique my paper in writing and submit it, without a bunch of keyed up hacks taking pot shots from the sidelines during the debate, such as is what would happen if I debated you here? Writing letters is the accepted norm for good reason.

You are the one who makes bold assertions that my paper is ridiculously bad without backing up what you say. I haven't made a comment on whether or not your papers were accurate. I have merely brought up the fact that they aren't independently reviewed for accuracy.

You are the one who has made the assertions. Now put up or shut up, in writing, in a letter form, to which I will reply.

 

[Gravy]

David Griffin isn't sitting there claiming, with no real basis, that papers of an opposing viewpoint to his, are not being properly peer reviewed while not having their own work reviewed. This is what Mark Roberts appears to be doing.

Please point out where I claim to have published my work in a peer-reviewed journal, as you have done. Oh, that's right, you can't.

Is it true that you're also a reviewer for the Journal of 9/11 Stundies? Or did you mistakenly tell anti-Semitic lunatic Kevin Barrett that when you appeared on his show?

Prepared to take my offer, Tony? 500 pages of mine against 10 of yours.

 

[MarkyX]

Don't you just love strawman arguments by the 9/11 deniers?

It's really hard to be taken seriously when you keep running into logical fallacies.

 

[Gravy]

Mark, how about we do the written paper debate you slithered away from and had the audacity to say I was the one who backed down.

That's a lie. I agreed to it, then you insisted that it take place in the form of "letters to a journal."

How cowardly of you. Not thinking clearly tonight, are you, Tony?

 

[A W Smith]

Since Roberts has recently attempted to smear me I wanted to set the record straight.

You smeared yourself. Still smarting from this thread Tony?
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2842789#post2842789

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Perhaps you could simply submit the findings of the Independent Review for Accuracy concerning your work?

ETA: this thread isn't about 'YOUR' work, it's about Roberts' work.

You are the one who brought my work into it. I guess you don't you realize that. Go reread your post.

Maybe you can sit down with Roberts and write a letter critiquing my paper, instead of just hurling insults with no basis.

 

[Good Lt]

For the definitionally challenged realcddeal, here's a backgrounder on peer reviewing.

I noticed that the Journal of 9-11 Studies is listed nowhere in the entry.