Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[Gravy]

You are forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who has criticized my work and the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, without any real substantiation. All I have done is to question who reviews his work.

It is neither rational nor mature to lie to people on this forum, Tony.

And anyone is welcome to review my work, which is not submitted to journals. How many times have you been told this already? Are you incapable of understanding such a simple thing?

 

[CHF]

You are forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who has criticized my work and the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, without any real substantiation.

Excuse me?

He provided specific examples of the garbage that somehow slipped though your "peer-review" process.

He's still waiting for you to defend it.

 

[chillzero]

2) That's a reasonable forum, but how many simultaneous threads do you expect will pop up attacking Tony on jref?

None. Starting threads to attack a member is against the rules, and would result in moderator action.

It is likely that a parallel thread for people to discuss their opinions on how the debate is going would come up, but it would have to remain strictly within the terms of the Membership Agreement.

 

[Architect]

It seems to me that you are both circling each other like bairns in the school playground, throwing half punches but still too busy trading witty remarks to get to the matter at hand.

Go for a debate on Doc's site, or both let the matter rest.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

That's why I'm offering to review both his and yours, as well as provide a contrast. If he feels so strongly about the veracity of his paper, then he should feel it actually would withstand third-party scrutiny. This offer I made should be no problem for him. If he truly wants "fair" then this is the way to do it.

You can review it if you are part of the review teams of either the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories or the Journal of 911 Studies.

 

[T.A.M.]

1) The issue is Gravy's work, not Jones's journal.

2) That's a reasonable forum, but how many simultaneous threads do you expect will pop up attacking Tony on jref?

3) Excellent idea. I'll keep it in mind.

4) I heartily disagree. If Gravy is going to post his work in this public forum, call people liars, anti semites, and every other name he can think of, his research, analysis, and claims better be impeccable, rock solid, 100% sourced. For some reason, and this thread proves it once again, this guy is given a very long leash to what usually amounts to character assassination.

1. Your debate with Mark is concerning his paper.. I believe, IIRC, the ongoing attempt to debate here is over Tony's paper, is it not?

2. Please not that a few posts above, I suggested that if the debate were to go ahead here, that we not create any "side threads" to comment on the debate, until it is over, or at worst, limit such things to one "commentary" thread.

3. Separate his work from his personal opinion. You are mixing the two, and judging both as one...not fair. That would be the equivelent of me judging Greening's work on the topic based on his inflammatory, defaming posts here on JREF...not fair.

TAM

 

[Gravy]

Just to clarify in case anyone's confused, realcdeal is Tony Szamboti, the author of the "peer reviewed" paper I discussed in August and in post 134.

 

[Gravy]

Go for a debate on Doc's site, or both let the matter rest.

I've made my terms clear, and I ask that people not devote more energy to this issue. Unless that person is realcddeal, addressing my post 134.

 

[Architect]

Just to clarify in case anyone's confused, realcdeal is Tony Szamboti, the author of the "peer reviewed" paper I discussed in August and in post 134.

Aye, we got that mate.

Torquay? How are the herds of wilderbeast doing?

 

[Dr Adequate]

You can review it if you are part of the review teams of either the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories ...

To my previous remarks, I should add that even if the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories did publish your letter, they would not do so with a guarantee that the only person allowed to write back would be Mark Roberts, because no journal ever does anything like that.

If you insist on a one-on-one debate, then there is no journal in the world that will offer you that facility.

On the other hand, chillzero has just offered you facilities for exactly such a debate as you say you want. Go for it.

 

[T.A.M.]

yah I am done, my opinion has been formed through the posts on this thread...shame really.

TAM

 

[RedIbis]

1. Your debate with Mark is concerning his paper.. I believe, IIRC, the ongoing attempt to debate here is over Tony's paper, is it not?

2. Please not that a few posts above, I suggested that if the debate were to go ahead here, that we not create any "side threads" to comment on the debate, until it is over, or at worst, limit such things to one "commentary" thread.

3. Separate his work from his personal opinion. You are mixing the two, and judging both as one...not fair. That would be the equivelent of me judging Greening's work on the topic based on his inflammatory, defaming posts here on JREF...not fair.

TAM

1) I see that's what the thread has become, but I was sincerely responding to the thread title. I really did not know the backstory to Tony v Gravy.

It occurs to me that we might get Dana White to promote the debate and take this to the octagon!

2) Yes, I saw that after I posted.

3) We'll agree to disagree on that one. I appreciate you responding like this (I find the numbering system quite convenient).

I don't want to derail from the point of this thread. I would very much like to see a forum that the debators are comfortable with.

 

[jhunter1163]

4) I heartily disagree. If Gravy is going to post his work in this public forum, call people liars, anti semites, and every other name he can think of, his research, analysis, and claims better be impeccable, rock solid, 100% sourced. For some reason, and this thread proves it once again, this guy is given a very long leash to what usually amounts to character assassination.

Do you deny that William Rodriguez, among others, has embellished his story regarding his role in the events of 9/11?

Do you deny that the Truth movement contains several notorious Holocaust deniers?

Gravy's work is solidly researched, impeccably analyzed and fully sourced. This is why no Truther, in five pages in this thread and many, many other threads previously, has been able to dispute its accuracy.

Character assassination can only be done to people who have character to begin with. There seems to be a deficiency of character in the Truth movement.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

It is neither rational nor mature to lie to people on this forum, Tony.

And anyone is welcome to review my work, which is not submitted to journals. How many times have you been told this already? Are you incapable of understanding such a simple thing?

There you go again. You just can't help calling people liars, without substantiation. I have told you before why your comments are not valid. Write a letter about it, however short, and you will get a clear response which everyone can then sift through. You seem to just want to get me in a fast moving situation which tends to lead to unthoughtful replies. My offer to use both the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and the Journal of 911 Studies is fair and rational. If you don't accept you run the risk of appearing disingenuous and of taking the cowards way out.

 

[Dr Adequate]

You are forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who has criticized my work and the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, without any real substantiation. I am simply asking him to do it the right way with a way for me to respond in a fair manner and that would be on a journal not a fast moving forum.

I notice that you've changed your post after I replied to it. Don't.

---

Now, let me spell it out again. People who edit scientific journals do not, ever, ever, allow their letters pages (if they have letters pages) to be a venue for open-ended one-on-one debate.

Challenging Mark Roberts to debate you in such a venue is like me challenging you to arm-wrestle me in the Oval Office. It's not a challenge you can take up.

 

[Architect]

There you go again. You just can't help calling people liars, without substantiation. I have told you before why your comments are not valid. Write a letter about it, however short, and you will get a clear response which everyone can then sift through. You seem to just want to get me in a fast moving situation which tends to lead to unthoughtful replies. My offer to use both the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and the Journal of 911 Studies is fair and rational. If you don't accept you run the risk of appearing disingenuous and of taking the cowards way out.

Tony

Mark has said that he's not going to debate. This is a win-win option for you. Put together a full, accurate, informed, and above all properly sourced critique of his work and put it somewhere easily accessible and preferably non-woo. Be judged on the quality of your critique, not on glibly traded insults.

 

[Dr Adequate]

My offer to use both the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and the Journal of 911 Studies is fair and rational.

It's as "fair and rational" as my offer to use the Oval Office as the venue for our arm-wrestling match.

Should I call you a "coward" until you agree to do so?

 

[Dr Adequate]

P.S: As for your offer that this debate should also, in parallel, appear in the Journal of 911 Studies, two questions spring to mind:

(1) Do you speak for the editorial board of this journal?

(2) Can you guarantee that they will, in fact, make an open-ended commitment to publish any letter that Mark Roberts sends them and to let no-one reply to his letters except you?

This is the debate that you claim to want. Can you honestly tell us that they would allow it?

You seem to have quite a strange idea of what a scientific journal is. This is simply not what they do.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I've made my terms clear, and I ask that people not devote more energy to this issue. Unless that person is realcddeal, addressing my post 134.

No, I think that realcddeal's idea is a good one. If realcddeal answers "yes" to both of my questions (above) then debunkers (with you as our mouthpiece and signatory to the letters) would be able to write whatever we want to write, in their journal, at any length we choose, in every subsequent issue.

It sounds like a really sweet deal to me.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

I can do you one better than this as well. I have my own space on the web that is completely separated by both of your familiar "sides" on this matter. It also happens to run on a software that should be familiar (the same as this forum). I can segregate a nice little separate section for you and him to run your textual debate, allowing only you two the ability to post in the section.



Not to put you any more on the defensive, but you are demanding a set of criteria with what seems to be the intention of biased moderation. This is why I'm specifically offering you a third-party option. If you feel your own words can stand on their own, and Gravy believes the same about his words, then this should be no problem.

I will, however, like to point out that your constant "coward" attack is no better than any of the insults you have accrued from others in this thread. You're not positioned on any high ground in your offer at this point, as you have been intentionally provoking despite claims otherwise by you. You know you are provoking. I am offering you a third-party option that can give you both a level playing field.

GreNME, I would agree to this format. Since Mark Roberts is the one who needs to substantiate his criticisms of my paper then he should write his letter which you can post and I will reply. Please private message me when he does so.