Another Bentham Editor Resigns

[dtugg]

You did not say anything different than Dave did, and your response fits my response to him every bit the same.

"debunkers" demand that we need to be published in a peer reviewed journal, then claim we are appealing to authority when we do and also then move the goalpost and claim we need a better peer reviewed journal.

It's all old hat disinfo tactics

Oh and welcome back from having me on your ignore list TAM

Hey Steveo, what do you think about a "journal" that will publish nonsensical garbage generated by a computer? Do you think they have any sort of peer review process? Do you think that it's fair to call the credibility of said "journal" into question? I do not expect you to answer these questions.

 

[SteveAustin]

Yes. You left out the inescapable implication, based on this latest revelation, that the Bentham open access journals do not in fact carry out a competent peer review process. Bentham's claim to be a peer reviewed journal is therefore in question here, and the evidence indicates that it has no grounds for this claim.

Let me just point out that if a paper arguing for a conspiracist interpretation of 9/11 were published in a well-respected journal, with a competent peer review process, then citing this paper would be a legitimate appeal to authority, and the claim by truthers that this paper warranted more detailed refutation would be well-founded. Appeal to authority is only an informal logical fallacy when the authority is illegitimate, and the argument of this thread is that this qualifier applies to the Bentham journals.

Dave

Mmmm to save myself some typing...

So all the "debunkers" here have always demanded that if the "truthers" have any credibility with our theories that we should be able to get published in a peer reviewed journal.

And when we do, as you demanded we do, you label it an appeal to authority, then you move the goalpost and claim that Bentham is not good enough and we need to get published in a better peer reviewed journal, at which point you will just again scream appeal to authority.

Did I leave anything out?

Because nothing you have said here changes anything I said.

 

[oldhat]

Hence the "move the goalpost". That is all this is. Keep moving that goalpost guys. Some people might even buy it

It's not "moving the goalposts" for skeptics to demand that 9/11 truthers publish their research in a reputable, peer reviewed journal and then complain when they 9/11 truthers publish their research in a journal with is neither reputable nor peer reviewed.

 

[dtugg]

Hence the "move the goalpost". That is all this is. Keep moving that goalpost guys. Some people might even buy it

Hey genius, how is pointing out that the "journal" has no peer review process and will publish literally anything moving the goal post? You are really, really bad at this.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Mmmm to save myself some typing...



Because nothing you have said here changes anything I said.

Nor does it make any of it correct. This is not the first attempt by the truth movement to obtain a spurious credibility by claiming to have posted in a peer-reviewed journal when in fact the journal in question was not peer-reviewed. The peer-review process claimed by the Journal of 9/11 Studies was even less rigorous than that claimed by Bentham. And no goalpost-moving has taken place; a paper published in a journal that claims to be, but is not, peer-reviewed does not constitute a paper published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Dave

 

[Wolrab]

@ the six million dollar man: Are you stupid? Bentham IS NOT A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL.

 

[beachnut]

So all the "debunkers" here have always demanded that if the "truthers" have any credibility with our theories that we should be able to get published in a peer reviewed journal.

And when we do, as you demanded we do, you label it an appeal to authority, then you move the goalpost and claim that Bentham is not good enough and we need to get published in a better peer reviewed journal, at which point you will just again scream appeal to authority.

Did I leave anything out?

They had to pay to publish. They cheated to fool you. You have been fooled so it worked.

 

[Drudgewire]

"You wanted peer review, we gave you peer review. What? You want it to be LEGITIMATE peer review? THATS NOT FAIR!!"

 

[dudalb]

@ the six million dollar man: Are you stupid? Bentham IS NOT A PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL.

In a way it is...one of the peers reviews the day's accounts to see if the 800 bucks has been deposited before they publish.

 

[Wolrab]

In a way it is...one of the peers reviews the day's accounts to see if the 800 bucks has been deposited before they publish.

I stand corrected.
I am thinking of starting the Wolrab Open Journal for 9/11 Truth. All articles submitted will be rigorously reviewed by twits with two brain cells. I will offer a one time only deal of half twice the price of Bentham. Submit one article and get a second article (of equal or less length) reviewed for regular price. What a deal! Act before midnight and get a free sample of pai... spray on thermite.

 

[A W Smith]

You did not say anything different than Dave did, and your response fits my response to him every bit the same.

"debunkers" demand that we need to be published in a peer reviewed journal, then claim we are appealing to authority when we do and also then move the goalpost and claim we need a better peer reviewed journal.

It's all old hat disinfo tactics

Oh and welcome back from having me on your ignore list TAM

But the truth movement has not yet published anything in a peer reviewed journal, that's the whole point. It was never peer reviewed. Bentham does not peer review. They just cash checks for $800.00 and publish. Is this so difficult for you to understand Steve-0?

 

[leftysergeant]

And when we do, as you demanded we do, you label it an appeal to authority, then you move the goalpost and claim that Bentham is not good enough and we need to get published in a better peer reviewed journal, at which point you will just again scream appeal to authority.

Did I leave anything out?

No, you covered all the usual snivelling arguments. What you do not get is that Bentham is such a load of crap that key staff members are leaving because they realize that they have been participating in trhe production of crap and wish to have no more to do with it.

 

[FineWine]

So all the "debunkers" here have always demanded that if the "truthers" have any credibility with our theories that we should be able to get published in a peer reviewed journal.

And when we do, as you demanded we do, you label it an appeal to authority, then you move the goalpost and claim that Bentham is not good enough and we need to get published in a better peer reviewed journal, at which point you will just again scream appeal to authority.

Did I leave anything out?

Yes, you always leave things out: you're a "truther"; you're dishonest.

Debunkers claim that the vehicle used by Jones and his accomplices to promote their fraud is a meretricious pay-for-play vanity journal. The claim is strongly supported by events following the publication of Jones's bogus paper concerning superdoopernanothermite. We established on another thread that you are incapable of understanding what an appeal to authority is. My purpose is not to teach you the fundamentals of rhetoric. Suffice it to say that debunkers will continue to regard Jones, Harrit, and the other charlatans with well-merited contempt until they submit their "work" to a serious peer-review. They have yet to do so, and it is the safest bet in the world that they never will.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

So the peer review is basically "did the check clear"?

Priceless

Nope. $800.






(Sorry. Someone had to, and the tension was killing me)

 

[Galileo]

'Bambang Parmanto, a University of Pittsburgh information scientist, resigned from his editorship at The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ) after reading a story on The Scientist's website yesterday (June 10) that described a hoax paper submission to the journal. Editors at journal claimed to have peer reviewed the article and slated it for publication pending the submission of $800 in "open access fees."

"I didn't like what happened," Parmanto told The Scientist. "If this is true, I don't have full control of the content that is accepted to this journal." Parmanto said that he had never seen the phony manuscript that was accepted by TOISCIJ. "I want to lessen my exposure to the risk of being taken advantage of." ...'

http://tinyurl.com/mat8yc


http://tinyurl.com/mbtosx

Watch the truthers scramble to defend Bentham's lousy peer review policy. Just imagine what they'd be doing if the shoe was on the other foot. Remember David Chandler accused NIST of fraud, and Kevin Ryan (one of the authors of the active thermitic paper) is implying that some of the companies who participated in the NIST investigation may have perpetrated the murders of 9/11 themselves!


Also see my comments on Niels Harrit and nanothermite and the resignation of Marie-Paule Pileni in April 2009.
watch?v=jL7xYx8M7GA

Just another disgruntled former employee. Sour grapes.

 

[FineWine]

Just another disgruntled former employee. Sour grapes.

Yes, he is disgruntled about the dishonesty of the bogus journal. Your use of the expression "sour grapes" is typically incoherent.

 

[Galileo]

Yes, he is disgruntled about the dishonesty of the bogus journal. Your use of the expression "sour grapes" is typically incoherent.

No, he got let go, and is now suffering emotional disorders. Just keep him away from the post office.

 

[Arus808]

nice pot shot galileo, can you sink even lower?

 

[Slayhamlet]

No, he got let go, and is now suffering emotional disorders. Just keep him away from the post office.

Claiming that Mr. Parmanto "got let go" is yet another lie. We understand you can't help it when your emotional disorder compels you to lie; we only hope that you seek the professional help you sorely need.

Most "Truthers", in fact, suffer from emotional disorders. The trick is to keep them away from Holocaust museums.

 

[T.A.M.]

Claiming that Mr. Parmanto "got let go" is yet another lie. We understand you can't help it when your emotional disorder compels you to lie; we only hope that you seek the professional help you sorely need.

Most "Truthers", in fact, suffer from emotional disorders. The trick is to keep them away from Holocaust museums.

He is baiting...thats all.

Galileo knows very well what a sham Bentham Open Access is, but it is all they have. As a result, he will do what is needed to prop it up as best he can.

Kind of like using sea foam as stilts if you ask me.

TAM