Loose Change - Part IV

Status
Not open for further replies.
so how would one go about finding out who PEER reviewed a particular paper, such as S. Jones. Would that be available via FOIA (doubtful), or would the editors have the right to reveal, or refuse that information?
 
Hunstman;

I would agree, but I would go further. It is about the rights of the employee to work in a productive, and safe environment. Here in Canada, in my province, you cannot smoke inside anywhere. It is banned from all government buildingas, all bars and pubs, everywhere essentially.
 
T.A.M. said:
so how would one go about finding out who PEER reviewed a particular paper, such as S. Jones. Would that be available via FOIA (doubtful), or would the editors have the right to reveal, or refuse that information?
Click to expand...

My understanding is, that unless the journals protocols are set up in such a manner that they disclose the reviewers identities to the submitting party, that you will not be able to do so. I believe most journals are set up on a system of anonymous review.
 
T.A.M. said:
so how would one go about finding out who PEER reviewed a particular paper, such as S. Jones. Would that be available via FOIA (doubtful), or would the editors have the right to reveal, or refuse that information?
Click to expand...

FOIA only applies to government entities. The actual reviewers are normally kept secret, you rely on the integrity of the editors and the history of the articles published for the reliability of the papers. In this case that is lacking.

I am curious as to who Jones considered a "peer" for my paper. He said he sent it off for review, before he decided I was ethically suspect. Who did they find that was an "expert" on what a bunch of frauds and nutjobs the "Scholars" are?
 
Arkan_Wolfshade said:
My understanding is, that unless the journals protocols are set up in such a manner that they disclose the reviewers identities to the submitting party, that you will not be able to do so. I believe most journals are set up on a system of anonymous review.
Click to expand...

If that and what Jamesb said is true, than I think the Journal is a sham, and I will make it my goal, every time an opportunity arises, to discredit that journal. They clearly have an agenda, both the editors, and the advisory panel, as has been exhibited by their public comments and opinions. As a result I feel their agenda would lead them to make poor choices for "PEER" review.

On another topic:

Have a look here:

Prisonplanet article claiming WTC 7 CD because WTC 5,6 suffered more damage and fires
 
JamesB said:
FOIA only applies to government entities. The actual reviewers are normally kept secret, you rely on the integrity of the editors and the history of the articles published for the reliability of the papers. In this case that is lacking.

I am curious as to who Jones considered a "peer" for my paper. He said he sent it off for review, before he decided I was ethically suspect. Who did they find that was an "expert" on what a bunch of frauds and nutjobs the "Scholars" are?
Click to expand...

Cough, cough!:blush:
 
gumboot said:
The UNSC mandate didn't extend to invading Iraq and forcing a regime change. IMHO this was the UN's fatal mistake.

-Andrew
Click to expand...

Or you could accept the opinion of your president at the time:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different - and perhaps barren - outcome. Chapter 19, "A World Transformed", 1998, George H. Bush, Senior

A wise son listens to his father.
 
The pool to choose to review Jamesb paper is extremely large, including all those who are....SANE!!!
:)
 
T.A.M. said:
If that and what Jamesb said is true, than I think the Journal is a sham, and I will make it my goal, every time an opportunity arises, to discredit that journal. They clearly have an agenda, both the editors, and the advisory panel, as has been exhibited by their public comments and opinions. As a result I feel their agenda would lead them to make poor choices for "PEER" review.

On another topic:

Have a look here:

Prisonplanet article claiming WTC 7 CD because WTC 5,6 suffered more damage and fires
Click to expand...

That is another example of them wanting to have it both ways. If buildings 5 and 6 had collapsed completely, they would be using that as evidence that it was controlled demolition too.

If the black boxes were found (the Pentagon and Pennsylvania) that proves they were faked, if they were not found (the WTC) then it was not a real plane.

If no evidence shows up that the hijackers existed (the list of victims) then they did not exist, if the evidence shows that they did exist, airport cameras, passports, then it was faked.

Heads I win, tails you lose.
 
JamesB said:
It looks like the "Scholars" (even Brumsen agrees with the scare quotes) have found their mythical civil engineer. They have to keep their total up with Wood leaving. No info on him though, a google search turns up nothing. Odd that they don't post the credentials of their members. Jage Knepp is still listed too.
Click to expand...

I found one mention of Doyle Winterton on a forum regarding JBL speakers:

Doyle Winterton was based in Provo, Utah where his flagship store was located. He only had a brief, minor presence in Ogden (and Salt Lake City somewhat longer), as did Darryl Krantz, owner of Broadway Music who's flagship store was in Salt Lake City. I liked going over to Wintertons occasionaly to listen to Magnaplaners and Bozak Concert Grands.
Click to expand...

Provo, Utah, eh? Is anybody else in the "Scholars" based there?;)
 
Johnny Pixels said:
But they're not doing it to their private property, it's my clothes, my hair, my glasses, my eyes, my lungs they're affecting. How would you feel if some kids brought stink bombs to all your favourite resteraunts? They'd be pursuing their happiness, but at the cost of a lot of other peoples.
Click to expand...

It's not the smokers' private property to which I refer. It's the restaurant owner's property. And he (or she, to be PC, which I hardly ever am) should get to decide what goes on on his property. And it's legal.
 
It's not the smokers' private property to which I refer. It's the restaurant owner's property. And he (or she, to be PC, which I hardly ever am) should get to decide what goes on on his property. And it's legal.
Click to expand...
In the US OSHA started the whole thing. Living in Cali, I am used to it. No one loses on the deal.Not here anyways. Just like when they outlawed it on planes. People freaked, got over it and moved on. I smoke and I have no prob not doing it indoors. I do think it to be rude in a place where food is served! If it's Vegas all bet's are off! Smoke em if ya got em!
Many places have voted it in!
 
Jennie C. said:
It's not the smokers' private property to which I refer. It's the restaurant owner's property. And he (or she, to be PC, which I hardly ever am) should get to decide what goes on on his property. And it's legal.
Click to expand...

Apart from you thinking there's no evidence to support passive smoking being harmful (ARE YOU HIGH?)...

In June 2006, US Surgeon General Richard H. Carmona called the evidence against passive smoke "indisputable" and said "The science is clear: secondhand smoke is not a mere annoyance, but a serious health hazard that causes premature death and disease in children and non-smoking adults."
Click to expand...

If the local law forbids smoking in restaurants or whatever then it ISN'T legal is it?

Here is my smoking-argument series of filter (no pun intended) questions... which of the following do you agree with?

1) You should be allowed to smoke in public
2) You should be able to pour hazardous waste into public drinking water
3) You should be able to dispense mustard gas in public
4) You should be able to punch people
5) You should be able to kill people

-Andrew

P.S. WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT SMOKING?:confused:

ETA. This might be of some interest:

Surgeon General Warns Of Secondhand Smoke
 
Last edited:
Jennie C. said:
If the LC-guys get to cherry nit-pick the so-called "Official Conspiracy Theory" evidence, than can't I do the same to their video? That's rhetorical.
Click to expand...

I'll answer anyway. The Official Story is an orange tree that, due to some biological freak of nature, has the odd cherry on it. Loose Change is a cherry factory.


Jennie C. said:
As I was watching the video, I noticed that virtually NONE (virtually meaning I didn't notice any) of the interviews show the video in sync with the audio.
Click to expand...

Since when did LC have interviews in it? :confused: That would involve DA and crew doing actual work.


Jennie C. said:
SOOO... Can I believe the words that have been Put Into These People's Mouths or not? I suspect a conspriacy in LC-world
Click to expand...

Cute.

It's very easy to take a person's comments out of context, or take only a segment of their comments, and totally change the meaning of what they are saying. This is documentary filmmaking 101. In addition a lot of LC involves their own "interpretation" of what people are saying - for example the "pull it" comment.

-Andrew

ETA. Welcome to the forums.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom