Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

realcddeal said:
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.
Click to expand...

So no critique of your paper has ever been done?
 
realcddeal said:
Maybe you can sit down with Roberts and write a letter critiquing my paper, instead of just hurling insults with no basis.
Click to expand...

Hurling insults with no basis is within the rules. It's only illegal when first and second basis are loaded with less than two outs.
 
Gravy said:
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?
Click to expand...

It sounds like you are the one clucking Mark. It appears that you just don't have anything other than invective to hurl about and can't really critique my paper in any meaningful way.

I said what I had to say to you "put up or shut up".

I'll be waiting for that letter if you ever get the nerve to try to back up your unsupported statements.
 
I don't want to pick on someone who is having such trouble with rational thought. Mr. Szamboti is welcome to take my challenge. I'll check in tomorrow to see if he's accepted.

If you must behave this way, Tony, call an old girlfriend. Then you'll only embarrass yourself before one person.
 
AZCat said:
Hurling insults with no basis is within the rules. It's only illegal when first and second basis are loaded with less than two outs.
Click to expand...

Along the same lines it appears that Roberts is out there running and hurling before the ground crew (reviewers) set up the field.
 
realcddeal said:
I said what I had to say to you "put up or shut up".

I'll be waiting for that letter if you ever get the nerve to try to back up your unsupported statements.
Click to expand...
Still unable to defend your paper here Tony? Then why are you posting here? Let me know tomorrow if you've changed your mind.
 
realcddeal said:
It sounds like you are the one clucking Mark. It appears that you just don't have anything other than invective to hurl about and can't really critique my paper in any meaningful way.

I said what I had to say to you "put up or shut up".

I'll be waiting for that letter if you ever get the nerve to try to back up your unsupported statements.
Click to expand...

Is the idea that this "letter" would then be published in JONES, along with your response? Is that the deal?
 
Gravy said:
I don't want to pick on someone who is having such trouble with rational thought. Mr. Szamboti is welcome to take my challenge. I'll check in tomorrow to see if he's accepted.

If you must behave this way, Tony, call an old girlfriend. Then you'll only embarrass yourself before one person.
Click to expand...

What challenge? I am the one who challenged you to write a letter critiquing my paper, so that you can explain your basis for your so far unsupported criticism of it.

Adios for now. I will be waiting for that letter though Mark and we can use this thread to show it was discussed in case you are tempted to continue your smear attempts without backup data.
 
realcddeal said:
Along the same lines it appears that Roberts is out there running and hurling before the ground crew (reviewers) set up the field.
Click to expand...

We are playing Calvinball, right? Roberts is merely taking advantage of the pre-game multi-combo scoring method first introduced in the 1997 season. In your defense, it isn't used in all leagues - the Western Bitterroot Association outlawed inverted pyramid schemes like this a couple of years ago - but Roberts is known to play in the Northeast Shingle Catalog League which does allow such maneouvers. I'd copy the page from the rOOlbook but that is forbidden - see rOOl 33(a).
 
Slayhamlet said:
Is the idea that this "letter" would then be published in JONES, along with your response? Is that the deal?
Click to expand...

That would be one way. That is what Dr. Greening and Gordon Ross did. Dr. Greening didn't go around hurling nasty accusations and insults on a forum against Gordon Ross. He had a difference of opinion with what Ross wrote and he critiqued Ross' paper like a man, that is in writing, and Ross responded, like a man.

In other words it was a fair fight.
 
Last edited:
Sabrina said:
Not the brightest crayon in the bunch, eh?

Tell you what; if Mark ever writes a paper dealing with the SCIENTIFIC and MEASURABLE parts of 9/11, I'll demand a peer review. For now, I'll just enjoy reading his EDITORIALS and CRITIQUES of the 9/11 Twoof Movement.
Click to expand...

How about taking a shot at his super slow magic fireball theory? Good luck trying to back that one up with evidence.
 
realcddeal said:
That would be one way. That is what Dr. Greening and Gordon Ross did. Dr. Greening didn't go around hurling nasty accusations and insults on a forum against Gordon Ross. He had a difference of opinion with what Ross wrote and he critiqued Ross' paper like a man, that is in writing, and Ross responded, like a man.

In other words it was a fair fight.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with Gravy's request to not have it in Jones' journal?
It that a *must* for you?
 
Hyperviolet said:
What is wrong with Gravy's request to not have it in Jones' journal?
It that a *must* for you?
Click to expand...


Not at all. I am simply saying that it must be a letter in writing, to which I will reply. That is the appropriate way to settle differences of opinion on matters concerning a written paper. It can be put on Debunking911.com or a similar site, which will publish the letters, for that matter.
 
realcddeal said:
You must realize that sourcing alone does not constitute accuracy. One can easily use selected sources to support a biased view.
Click to expand...
And it is up to the reader to check out these sources. It's easy to do! He probably doesn't link to rense.com as a source though...

I'm astounded you don't understand what footnotes and sources are for, and why it's important to link to primary sources instead of someon's carefully framed interpretation of the primary source.
 
How could I have missed a thread like this, 2 pages long, built on such an asinine premise (That a collector of 9/11 information, a compiler of all things 9/11, should have his work peer reviewed...by who, another encyclopedist)?

Really realcddeal, Red, who would you have critique Mark's work? Encyclopedia Britannica? The Farmer's Almanac?

Mark is not a scientist. He is not an engineer. He is a highly intelligent man with a very critical mind, and an enormous capacity to remember all things 9/11. He is a keen analyst, and superb Bolony Detector.

Your suggestion that his work, a collection facts, statements, and other forms of information, be "peer reviewed" is, well, there is no other way to say this...STUPID!

TAM:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom