peer review.

Mark, whenever I hear a twoofer calling for a debate opponent I automatically ask myself "what excuse will this one use when the well-read NYC tour guide comes calling?"

And to think the US government is supposedly shaking in fear at the impending "truth" revolution.
 
Revolutionary91 said:
So if they have a real scientist like Greening to tangle with, why would they bother to debate a tour guide? Greening is also a true skeptic.
Click to expand...

Wonderful!

Get one of your "scientists" to debate Greening on, say, pulverization during collapse.

Or maybe they should start with the tour guide and work their way up. :D
 
CHF said:
Wonderful!

Get one of your "scientists" to debate Greening on, say, pulverization during collapse.

Or maybe they should start with the tour guide and work their way up. :D
Click to expand...

Gordon Ross agreed to the disputation that pomeroo set up. Greening and RMackey and Newtons Bit all said no.

Whos running from who again?
 
Revolutionary91 said:
Gordon Ross agreed to the disputation that pomeroo set up. Greening and RMackey and Newtons Bit all said no.
Click to expand...

And their stated reason was....?

Whos running from who again?
Click to expand...

Kevin Ryan, GR Griffin and Tony are running from Mark Roberts. That much I know for sure.
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
Because the questions "how do you evaluate the worth of a journal" and "is the journal of 9-11 studies meritorious" are both questions worth answering, regardless of the person who answers. If you're under the impression that CHF's statement that J911 is worthless cat-box liner can somehow be dismissed because he, personally, doesn't have the expertise to make that statement, I thought I would "head you off at the pass."

I do have the expertise, and I agree with that statement.



No, they weren't. Granted, every journal has to start somewhere, and there's always a first volume/issue, at which point, the journal doesn't have a track record.

Oddly enough, we are aware of this. A lot of researchers, myself included, are nervous about submitting to a newly launched journal for precisely this reason; the fear that the journal will be total drek. This is where the other criteria come in. "A real journal is one where the brightest minds submit their work." One of the duties of the editorial board is to solicit articles and write them themselves, so you can get an idea of who will be writing in a brand-new journal by looking at the board. Ask yourself this question : "would I be proud to have an article in the same issue as these people?" "Would I be embarassed?" In the case of J9/11S, I'd be embarassed....

Furthermore, most journals are started, not to avoid peer review in "real" journals, but because there is an existing reseach community that has grown to the point where the then-existing journals can't really handle the publication load. When half of the Journal of XYZ is about W, then it's probably time to spin off the Journal of WXYZ. Again, J9/11S doesn't score well; I haven't seen an overabundance of high quality papers in the mainstream engineering press about 9/11 -- in fact, I don't think I've seen any high quality papers supporting 9/11 conspiracies in the mainstream engineering press.

But that's still largely irrelevant, because J9/11S is not a new publication and we can see it's publication history. And the most damning evidence that it's a lousy journal is that it publishes lousy, badly-written, badly-edited, badly-reviewed papers.
Click to expand...

I usually judge an individual paper on its individual merits. You sound like you give a huge amount of credit up front based on where it has been published. I do agree with some of that but it should not be taken to an extreme. There have been numerous frauds in highly reputable journals over the years.
 
R.Mackey said:
Here's a hint.

Somebody PM me if the kid ever gets anything right, will you? I can't bear to watch.
Click to expand...

Yeah I didn't recall it being a matter of you fearing the great Ross.

So...Rev...in the meantime I guess your experts will have to be content with crushing Mark Roberts in a debate, huh?

I mean that would really put the JREFers and our NWO masters in our place!

So...who's stepping up from your side?
 
realcddeal said:
I usually judge an individual paper on its individual merits. You sound like you give a huge amount of credit up front based on where it has been published. I do agree with some of that but it should not be taken to an extreme. There have been numerous frauds in highly reputable journals over the years.
Click to expand...
realcddeal, if you think there's a difference between "publishing" at JONES and posting here, and if you think your paper was actually peer reviewed, then you'll be able to list the changes you had to make to get the paper passed by the reviewers.

Or was your paper accepted as is?
 
realcddeal said:
I usually judge an individual paper on its individual merits.
Click to expand...

And if those individual merits make for a positive judgment then I'm sure a prestigious non-truther publication will see things the same way.

Right?
 
Last edited:
CHF said:
Yeah I didn't recall it being a matter of you fearing the great Ross.

So...Rev...in the meantime I guess your experts will have to be content with crushing Mark Roberts in a debate, huh?

I mean that would really put the JREFers and our NWO masters in our place!

So...who's stepping up from your side?
Click to expand...

Ross is up for debating scientists. All your scientists have fled. Why should they accept the scraps (tour guide) that you throw them?
 
Revolutionary91 said:
Ross is up for debating scientists. All your scientists have fled. Why should they accept the scraps (tour guide) that you throw them?
Click to expand...

I already told you.

Ross has a chance to crush the great Gravy. What more incentive could a truther possibly ask for?

A successful debate by Ross would make him front page news at prisonplanet for the next year at least. He'd be a hero in Truther Land! And all he has to do is debate a tour guide....
 
Last edited:
Hey, speaking of Gordon Ross...where have his papers been published or peer-reviewed?
 
Gravy said:
Any longer? You haven't even started. You have repeatedly refused to read the information I've cited, and your entire criticism of NIST here has been to claim the the investigators are frauds and the witnesses liars.

Tony, do you even read what you write? Why in the world would I write to "any" journal about your paper? Please try to make sense.

Here's the only journal I'd actually consider writing to about your paper.


Your paper is not published in a journal that has any credibilty. JONES is a dumpster filled by frauds and cowards and I won't have my work on their website. Remember, its supervisor of peer review just ran away from the chance to debate me, after proclaiming that no one was willing to defend the official version of the tower collapses. He had to hide behind the skirts of the 9/11blogger mods and have them ban me. He never responded to my emails. Yep, the people at JONES are fearless seekers and defenders of truth. These are the leaders of your movement, Tony. Think about it.

Your refusal to defend your paper is noted by all. You couldn't even refute the points I raised against it before people knew you were the author.

Man, I hate intellectual cowards.
Click to expand...

I know what I said about any journal. You are one of those who take pot shots at others for not submitting their work on 911 to other, in your words, "legitimate journals" whatever you imagine that to be. You should take your own advice. There are no other journals that would touch most of what is being said about 911 because it is too controversial at the moment. The mere fact that a paper discusses problems with government reports concerning the largest mass murder ever on American soil make it controversial.

However, that should not stop debate and Dr. Steven Jones created the Journal of 911 Studies to fill that void.

I am not refusing to defend my paper. It is you who is refusing to take the first step now. The onus is on you. Stop hiding behind your "its not a legitimate journal" nonsense. The journal has nothing to do with the debate between you and I except to ensure civility, which won't happen here. I wouldn't debate someone like you on 911 Blogger either. Forums like this are bloated with ridiculers who either don't or can't debate. The problem then becomes personal and strays from the issues. All you need to do is write your letter and e-mail it to the Journal of 911 Studies and I will certainly respond. It sounds like you are the one who is afraid.
 
Last edited:
realcddeal said:
I know what I said about any journal. You are one of those who take pot shots at others for not submitting their work on 911 to other, in your words, "legitimate journals" whatever you imagine that to be.
Click to expand...

I think it's been made quite clear to you what a legitimate journal is, Tony.

Stop playing dumb.

All you need to do is write your letter and e-mail it to the Journal of 911 Studies and I will certainly respond. It sounds like you are the one who is afraid.
Click to expand...

In other words you want Mark to play along and pretend that the Jo911S is serious.
 
Last edited:
CHF said:
Mark, whenever I hear a twoofer calling for a debate opponent I automatically ask myself "what excuse will this one use when the well-read NYC tour guide comes calling?"

And to think the US government is supposedly shaking in fear at the impending "truth" revolution.
Click to expand...

I am wondering if your use of a raccoon as a logo means you only come out at night?
 
CHF said:
I think it's been made quite clear to you what a legitimate journal is, Tony.
Click to expand...

Not by you.

Stop playing dumb.
Click to expand...

I don't think I am the one doing that.

In other words you want Mark to play along and pretend that the Jo911S is serious.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with Mark Roberts writing a rebuttal to my paper at the Journal of 911 Studies. Dr. Greening did it. Is Mark somehow better than Dr. Greening?
Click to expand...
 
realcddeal said:
I am wondering if your use of a raccoon as a logo means you only come out at night?
Click to expand...

No it means I think it's a cute picture that I took while camping last year.

Must truthers always read too much into things?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom