Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[leftysergeant]

This is one absurd dispute. Jones, Fester and whacky old Judy are expecting the average citizen to just accept their BS because they are "authorities," yet have not subjected themselves to the full accrediting process for their delusions.

We are here to discuss, as citizens, whether the twoofer "scientists" have presented evidence that satisfies the basic requirements of legal proof, as in a legal proceding connected with a crime.

There is a reason we have trials by jury. If you cannot present evidence of a crime which the average citizen can grasp, you have no case. This prevents government or powerful citizens from just cobbling something together and expecting the public to be cowed into lynching someone who has stepped on the toes of the mighty.

The twoofers expect us to turn against the government, re-oprder it, clean it out and replace it with WHAT?

First, you need to provide us with proof that your authorities actually are authorities.

With dusty old Judy leaving tracks on the cartpet, you have a lot more housekeeping to do on your side of the ledger to convince us that anything more than getting rid of dishonest elections officials is needed to restore America to greatness.

But, raising jerks like Dylan, Fetzer, A Jones or S Jones to prominence, without their bothering to propoerly establish their credentials or credibility, is not going to make this a better place to live. Nor is shouting down those who question the reliability of lettered nitwits what this country is about.

 

[Dr Adequate]

No. In the case of GreNMe he would be the sole moderator and the format would be letters.

Whereas under chillzero's proposal, she'd be the sole moderator, and the format would be "letters" if you start each post with "Dear Mark" and end it with "Yours Sincerely". I don't see how one use of vBulletin is more like letters than another.

And it would appear on a forum where people are actually interested in the question.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

OK, so you will now waive the condition that no-one else can chip in.

Fine. Then just start a thread here about whatever your beef is.

But there is no journal in the world that will turn themselves into a debating forum just 'cos you want them to.

Others can chip in letters not quick posts.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Whereas under chillzero's proposal, she'd be the sole moderator, and the format would be "letters" if you start each post with "Dear Mark" and end it with "Yours Sincerely". I don't see how one use of VBulletin is more like letters than another.

And it would appear on a forum where people are actually interested in the question.

She did not say she would be the sole moderator. Where did you get that from? I have nothing against Chillzero and thanked her for her offer but I have said too many times already that I will not debate Mark Roberts here for very obvious reasons. Can you hear that?

GreNME has offered a neutral situation, away from Roberts home turf, and I have accepted that. Mark Roberts has not accepted yet.

 

[Dr Adequate]

She did not say she would be the sole moderator. Where did you get that from?

Well, 'cos she made the offer. She's not volunteering anyone else's time, is she?

I have nothing against Chillzero and thanked her for her offer but I have said too many times already that I will not debate Mark Roberts here for very obvious reasons. Can you hear that?

I can hear that, I know that, and in a sense I think that your reasons are very obvious. But not good.

GreNME has offered a neutral situation, away from Roberts home turf, and I have accepted that. He has not accepted yet.

I don't see why he should. Why waste his time on taking on one CT, in a venue where no-one interested in the question will see him do so?

---

You know the creationist [swiki]Kent Hovind[/swiki]? He has asked schoolchildren to send him the names of any high-school teachers who, when asked by creationist schoolchildren to debate him one-on-one, decline to do so, so that he can make his own list of "cowards".

Why the heck should they?

 

[Dr Adequate]

Others can chip in letters not quick posts.

So you would be happy for me to join in, so long as my posts were lengthy and began with the words "Dear Tony"?

 

[Myriad]

Real, you apparently felt that this forum was a good place to accuse Gravy of attempting to smear you:

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.

...but it's not an appropriate place (no matter what measures are taken to ensure an even debate) to provide evidence of that claim. Why is that?

As I see it, the ball's in your court. Gravy has asked you questions here. You can answer them here, answer them elsewhere, or not answer them.

You have accused Gravy, of attempting to smear you, here. You can provide evidence for that claim here, provide evidence for it elsewhere, or not provide evidence for it.

If you choose not to answer the questions or provide evidence for your accusation, that's fine, but trying to use Gravy's disinclination to jump through hoops for your amusement as an excuse for not doing so won't fool anyone.

Repsectfully,
Myriad

 

[ConspiRaider]

That's my country lammy. This is my city lammy. I'm a lucky man.

IT'S VIOLETA MCWHIFFERKUGEL!!!

I just KNEW my old gal would reappear one day!!!11

And now you ALL know why I was so attracted to her: She has a shiny coat!

 

[ConspiRaider]

Others can chip in letters not quick posts.

I'd like to buy a vowel, please?

 

[T.A.M.]

GreNME's option does sound fair.

Myriad, wrt your post on Peer Review and Mark's work, I absolutely 100% agree.

TAM

 

[volatile]

I tell you what, lets find someone who is an expert on "data and information collection and synthesis", and ask them to review Mark's Work, and in the bargain, Tony can submit his work to a REAL, ON PAPER, LEGITIMATE ENGINEERING JOURNAL, for their consideration of his scientific analysis of the collapses.

sounds fair...and both would be true "Peer Review" would they not??

TAM

To be fair, Mark's work could in theory be reviewed by historians or people working in media analysis, social studies or some other branch of the humanities... if it were compiled into an academic paper, which, of course, it isn't.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, 'cos she made the offer. She's not volunteering anyone else's time, is she?

I can hear that, I know that, and in a sense I think that your reasons are very obvious. But not good.

I don't see why he should. Why waste his time on taking on one CT, in a venue where no-one interested in the question will see him do so?

You know the creationist [swiki]Kent Hovind[/swiki]? He has asked schoolchildren to send him the names of any high-school teachers who, when asked by creationist schoolchildren to debate him one-on-one, decline to do so, so that he can make his own list of "cowards".

What are you really trying to do?

I am sure GreNME will post the results of the debate so interested people can view it.

The reason Roberts should debate me on a neutral site is that he initiated disparaging comments towards me and also falsely claimed that I refused to debate him. He made this false claim both here and on other sites, through his friend Ronald Wieck. I have now called him on it and offered to debate him on two separate and philosophically different journals, which he has refused so far. It appears that Roberts insists on being able to disparage people and then only fight it out on his home turf. Being that you brought up schoolyards, there is a schoolyard name for people who insult and make false claims about others and then only want to deal with the other person on their home turf, with only their friends around. A man would have no problem backing up his assertions on a neutral site.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So you would be happy for me to join in, so long as my posts were lengthy and began with the words "Dear Tony"?

I have no problem with that if GreNME agrees. I do not want a cast of characters making quick comments and jetting off. That is not a debate.

The letter does not have to start with 'dear Tony". It merely needs to address the points I have made.

 

[T.A.M.]

To be fair, Mark's work could in theory be reviewed by historians or people working in media analysis, social studies or some other branch of the humanities... if it were compiled into an academic paper, which, of course, it isn't.

Agreed, but historical data collection and analysis is not as amenable to the format and standards of academic papers as a scientific analysis or experiment would be.

What are you really trying to do?

I am sure GreNME will post the results of the debate so interested people can view it.

The reason Roberts should debate me on a neutral site is that he initiated disparaging comments towards me and also falsely claimed that I refused to debate him. He made this false claim both here and on other sites, through his friend Ronald Wieck. I have now called him on it and offered to debate him on two separate and philosophically different journals, which he has refused so far. It appears that Roberts insists on being able to disparage people and then only fight it out on his home turf. Being that you brought up schoolyards, there is a schoolyard name for people who insult and make false claims about others and then only want to deal with the other person on their home turf, with only their friends around. A man would have no problem backing up his assertions on a neutral site.

No, I think Roberts is just fed up with your refusal to answer him in the past, and the pattern you have established for doing so, and does not wish to waste his time on another effort that may well turn out to be fruitless...IMHO.

TAM

 

[ConspiRaider]

What are you really trying to do?

I am sure GreNME will post the results of the debate so interested people can view it.

The reason Roberts should debate me on a neutral site is that he initiated disparaging comments towards me and also falsely claimed that I refused to debate him. He made this false claim both here and on other sites, through his friend Ronald Wieck. I have now called him on it and offered to debate him on two separate and philosophically different journals, which he has refused so far. It appears that Roberts insists on being able to disparage people and then only fight it out on his home turf. Being that you brought up schoolyards, there is a schoolyard name for people who insult and make false claims about others and then only want to deal with the other person on their home turf, with only their friends around. A man would have no problem backing up his assertions on a neutral site.

Maybe you guys should debate in Switzerland? Aren't they still neutral? Do you ski? Do you have a numbered Swiss bank account? Could you give me power of attorney for said account? How do they get the holes in the Swiss cheese?

 

[Tony Szamboti]

So you would be happy for me to join in, so long as my posts were lengthy and began with the words "Dear Tony"?

I have no problem with that if GreNME agrees. I do not want a cast of characters making quick comments and jetting off. GreNME appears to understand that and I am sure he would not allow that to occur.

 

[Hyperviolet]

GreNME's option does sound fair.

Myriad, wrt your post on Peer Review and Mark's work, I absolutely 100% agree.

TAM

GreNME's option does sound fair, i agree.

Although i must say, Architect's suggestion of The Doc's website seems like the perfect place for such a debate.

 

[Tony Szamboti]

Agreed, but historical data collection and analysis is not as amenable to the format and standards of academic papers as a scientific analysis or experiment would be.




No, I think Roberts is just fed up with your refusal to answer him in the past, and the pattern you have established for doing so, and does not wish to waste his time on another effort that may well turn out to be fruitless...IMHO.

TAM

I answerd him. He appears to just want to smear. There are several questions I asked of him which he has never answered. These were in e-mail correspondence and on some posts here.

Why doesn't he try one simple letter to a neutral site? I told him that he could even cut and paste his comments and submit them to GreNME. How much time could that take him?

It sounds like he doesn't want me to have time to respond in a thoughtful way. You shouldn't presume what he is thinking. Let him answer for himself. He started the fight so don't jump in on his side and prove my point about his friends helping out.

 

[ConspiRaider]

I have no problem with that if GreNME agrees. I do not want a cast of characters making quick comments and jetting off.

I resent that. I'm afraid of flying after all. I might be "cabbing" off, though.

 

[beachnut]

I have no problem with that if GreNME agrees. I do not want a cast of characters making quick comments and jetting off. GreNME appears to understand that and I am sure he would not allow that to occur.

Do you mean a politically biased web site will host your debate on science? That is not a good place.

I can see how, with all the BS political content of your failed paper, you would love a political site to host the debate.

Your scientific paper posted at wooville fits much better in a political bs venue.

Cool.