• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

Undesired Walrus said:
Who peer reviews Mark Roberts 'work'?

His many lovers.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
ZENSMACK89 said:
Alex Jones should review Mark Roberts?

ok?
Click to expand...
Well, you asked about a group that hangs down at ground zero yelling at people.
Sure Alex Jones and his groupies fit that description.

Now, as far as reviewing Mark Roberts' papers, Alex Jones is welcome to show where Roberts is wrong.
Or you could do it, for that matter.

Please do it, maybe we can actually learn something.
I'm sure that if you find mistakes in Mark Roberts' papers, he will do the honorable thing and correct them.
Unlike DR Griffin, for example ...
 
Last edited:
I have an idea...

Let's start our own journal. It would be called "Journal of 9/11 Conspiracy Debunking".

We can review each others work and publish it! Then it's legit! :D
 
Originally Posted by ZENSMACK89
Alex Jones should review Mark Roberts?
Click to expand...
Yes! I think all 9/11 deniers should review my work. They often promise to, but never seem to get around to it.
 
Gravy said:
Yes! I think all 9/11 deniers should review my work. They often promise to, but never seem to get around to it.
Click to expand...

Well, they often seem to review your day work, in rather unflattering terms. Is that the same thing? I mean, maybe it isn't an example of their inability to critique you in any other capacity.

Maybe.
 
qarnos said:
I have an idea...

Let's start our own journal. It would be called "Journal of 9/11 Conspiracy Debunking".

We can review each others work and publish it! Then it's legit! :D
Click to expand...
(Ahem) Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Actually, I didn't know that they had my WTC 7 piece there listed as "peer reviewed." Perhaps it was, but I posted that paper for hosting by anyone (first by 9/11myths.com). It wasn't intended as a journal submission.
 
Undesired Walrus said:
Well, they often seem to review your day work, in rather unflattering terms. Is that the same thing? I mean, maybe it isn't an example of their inability to critique you in any other capacity.

Maybe.
Click to expand...

I thought Mark was a NYC tour guide. If debunking is what he does during the day then when does he give his tours? At night?
 
readcddeal said:
There aren't any lies here Mark. I am simply reducing the standards for you now. I did ask that you publish your critiquing letter in a Journal of some sort in the past, which you refused to do.
Click to expand...

And when i asked you if this was absolutely neccessary, you said: I am simply saying that it must be a letter in writing, to which I will reply.

If you stick by that statement, then there is no further negotiation needed. Both men are happy on the format: Simply, a letter in writing.
 
Gravy said:
(Ahem) Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Actually, I didn't know that they had my WTC 7 piece there listed as "peer reviewed." Perhaps it was, but I posted that paper for hosting by anyone (first by 9/11myths.com). It wasn't intended as a journal submission.
Click to expand...

So if you published a paper on 911myths.com then that should be a good enough place to publish your critique of my paper and they should agree to publish my reply.
 
Gravy said:
(Ahem) Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Actually, I didn't know that they had my WTC 7 piece there listed as "peer reviewed." Perhaps it was, but I posted that paper for hosting by anyone (first by 9/11myths.com). It wasn't intended as a journal submission.
Click to expand...

Well, I'll be a flatworm's anus.

But, I guess now that we know you have been "peer reviewed", that settles realcddeals's question. :)
 
realcddeal said:
So if you published a paper on 911myths.com then that should be a good enough place to publish your critique of my paper and they should agree to publish my reply.
Click to expand...

Ahhh... so this is what this is all about...

YOU.
 
realcddeal said:
So if you published a paper on 911myths.com then that should be a good enough place to publish your critique of my paper and they should agree to publish my reply.
Click to expand...
9/11myths.com isn't a journal, Tony.

Explain why you won't defend your work right here, dealing with me directly. Come on, lots of people are reading this. Explain it.
 
Hyperviolet said:
And when i asked you if this was absolutely neccessary, you said: I am simply saying that it must be a letter in writing, to which I will reply.

If you stick by that statement, then there is no further negotiation needed. Both men are happy on the format: Simply, a letter in writing.
Click to expand...

Hyper, that is right, but don't forget to add that I also asked that Mark's letter and my reply to it are published together in the same place. That is only fair.
 
realcddeal said:
I thought Mark was a NYC tour guide. If debunking is what he does during the day then when does he give his tours? At night?
Click to expand...

Seeing how you have never reviewed his other work, i.e, clearing up the mess a handful of conspiracy theorists feel the need to tip all over the streets of rationality, I find CTers often resort to finding something comical of a man who knows the history of his city and passes on his knowledge to others.
 
realcddeal said:
Hyper, that is right, but don't forget to add that I also asked that Mark's letter and my reply to it are published together in the same place. That is only fair.
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I agreed to, and you refused.

What a sad person you are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom