peer review
All-seeing-I
"The peer review system is supposedly the foundation of organized
scientific progress. It has become a dismal failure and will soon be
replaced by its proper incarnation ... that is, web based review. "
"scientists pay big money for the Physical Review and get 90%
gibberish in return. Web = free and as good as you can make through
furious competition. Why on Earth would anyone wish to confine
themselves to print? To hide. To hide the fact that they have no new
ideas and are living off the glow of past successes centuries old."
Web also equals speaking the truth without fear.
That's a wrap for evolution ---babe
To the burn pile of history with the fish=man idea,
Are you listening Chris?
http://www.ebtx.com/oats/peerevw.htm
Mitchell Coffey
Another of the pro-Nazi, antisemitic and Holocaust denial websites you
love to cite, you vile, ignorant bigot.
raven1
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>"The peer review system is supposedly the foundation of organized
>scientific progress. It has become a dismal failure and will soon be
>replaced by its proper incarnation ... that is, web based review. "
Peer review is based on the novel idea that people who actually know
something about the subject in question are more qualified to review
it than people who don't. Of course, you take the opposite approach,
but it hasn't proved very useful.
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
evidence?
Besided...
that has -->WHAT? to do with the information?
Mitchell Coffey
Read the website, bigot: http://www.ebtx.com/wtc/911solve.htm#list .
> Besided...
>
> �that has -->WHAT? to do with the information?
It's not "information," it's a pure statement of opinion, unsupported
by facts, written by a raving lunatic, who believes in conspiracies
about a New World Order, 9/11, Jews, ad nauseum. He calls the
Holocaust the "Holocaust myth" and the "Holocaust lie" (see URL,
above). At that same URL he favorably reviews a video tilted "Truth
in History - The Holocaust Lie Exposed" by the pro-Hitler psuedo-
historian David Irving. He writes "David Irving, historian, talks
about his persecution for examining the holocaust and coming to the
conclusion that it didn't happen (not the gassings). It's doubtful
that 6,000,000 Jews died ... more like 600,000 of which 400,000 died
from typhus, general mistreatment and starvation ... and 200,000 got
shot or hanged with piano wire (my estimates based on the videos and
writings I've encountered)." (Note: the ellipses and other
punctuation are his.)
This is the sort of source that you routinely uncritically rely upon.
You constantly return to citing such sources as if there is some
reason to take them seriously. When called on it you hide or lie, as
you do above. There is no information beyond opinion in your quote,
and even a man as stupid as you can tell that.
You are a traditional Christian antisemite who claims Jews killed
Christ; you routinely point to antisemites and Holocaust deniers as
authorities whose opinions are to be respected; you are a pro-Nazi who
attacks science as a concept because scientists chose to resist
Hitler, a perennial liar, a serial plagiarist, a hypocrite, a
phenomenally stupid, uneducated and willfully ignorant man. You have
no morals. I don't give a damn about your drolling idiocies about
evolution, I do care when hate mongers like you glorify the views of
Neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers.
John Stockwell
Of course, if you delve further into the author of this, you will
find that he is in the conspiracy selling business. The reason
that professional societies and their peer reviewed journals
were established was to guard against charlatans, provide
quality control for papers, but more importantly to provide a
forum for authors and to aid those authors in producing
quality publications.
Internet publication certainly allows anybody to publish anything
these days. The question is one of separating out the quality
from the mere quantity.
Interestingly, we aren't seeing a tremendous dam bursting of
"great ideas suppressed by the establishment" as a result of
internet publishing. What we really see is an increase in the noise
level.
Peer review is needed more today than ever.
-John
Dan Listermann
"Mitchell Coffey" <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote in message
news:9f46266c-014c-4742...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
ASI is a Holocaust denier along with evolution. A pattern is emerging!
What is his opinion of the JFK assignation, UFOs and global warming?
.
Kermit
There is nothing to stop anybody who can write from offering their
ideas on the internet on any subject at all, including research
papers. Those which are not freely available online are often
accessible from the nearest college library. Any ideas of merit will
eventually be noticed and passed around the interested community.
Peers for a research paper would be people who are knowledgeable in
that field. Since you do not believe in the possibility of expertise,
what does it matter what you think about peer review?
For those of us who have observed that experts are the most likely
source of interesting ideas in a field, we are not generally
interested in wading through oceans of ill-informed, illiterate
ramblings of bipolar, hate-filled, or superstitious dreck.
Kermit
el cid
About 15 years ago, innovations in the biotech arena provided
for some very rapid sequencing technology that gave us things
called ESTs (expressed sequence tags). For a brief period, a
number of labs started amplifying and sequencing lots and lots
of cellular mRNAs. The rule seemed to be quantity over quality
as various managers were interested in reporting megabytes of
bases sequenced. Web/internet technology and culture allowed
such things to be registered with nice little accession numbers
into a growing collection of EST databases. That was the way
people recorded their work because A.) they were generating
sequences to fast to write actual papers about the 'genes'
that were being sequenced and B.) the work was often too
sloppy to pass any reasonable peer review.
The consensus rapidly grew that the early efforts were wasted
because the error rates in single pass sequencing of high-throughput
amplifications were so high as to make the data generally
useless for any application, certainly for reliable translation
to protein space. In fact, it was peer feedback that led to
quality requirements and a review process being established for
some of the EST sequence submissions. Then one at least has
documented sequencing error rates to guide ones use of ESTs.
So removing peer review lead to a rapid explosion of worthless
junk but reinstalling a variant of it salvaged the technology to
have at least some viability. Yes, this is generalizable.
Loose concepts of the utility of ESTs get pressed into service
by marginally qualified scientists who lose the context of
utility --- especially when they get caught up into the business/
administration angle of high-throughput accountancy.
Peer review isn't perfect but it does provide some mechanism
to check quality and it does so with people who at least have
some form of pedigree that lifts their opinion out of a sea
of voices of unchecked provenance.
Dan Listermann
"el cid" <elcid...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fce04db3-8a13-4e3a...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> administration angle of high-throughput accountancy.
>
> Peer review isn't perfect but it does provide some mechanism
> to check quality and it does so with people who at least have
> some form of pedigree that lifts their opinion out of a sea
> of voices of unchecked provenance.
From a creationists point of view, if it is not perfect, it is worthless.
If you want perfection, you need to read up about goatherds.
.
Mitchell Coffey
> "Mitchell Coffey" <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote in message
He's cast himself with the global warming deniers - unless I'm
confusing him with Nashton, as is easy to do. He's also a man-on-the-
moon denier, and has bought into also sorts of lunacies and hoaxes.
But, as I've indicated, his like wouldn't be worth the time of day but
for his hatefulness about Jews and the Holocaust.
Mitchell Coffey
Dan Listermann
attention getting device.
.
RAM
Chris understands science and its limitations.
It is you who doesn't understand science and its limitations!
You are a loon citing another loon. It doesn't get any better than
that!
>
> http://www.ebtx.com/oats/peerevw.htm
Your judgement about other people's intellectual skills and knowledge
is so severely lacking you might just think about taking a college
level class in science that focuses heavily on research.
You might even learn to discern what is science and what is not.
Burkhard
> "The peer review system is supposedly the foundation of organized
> scientific progress. It has become a dismal failure and will soon be
> replaced by its proper incarnation ... that is, web based review. "
>
> "scientists pay big money for the Physical Review and get 90%
> gibberish in return. Web = free and as good as you can make through
> furious competition. Why on Earth would anyone wish to confine
> themselves to print?
Why indeed. There are of course high quality peer reviewed online
only journals. That your link thinks peer review is restricted to
print shows that he is pretty clueless.
> To hide. To hide the fact that they have no new
> ideas and are living off the glow of past successes centuries old."
>
> Web also equals speaking the truth without fear.
>
And the ability to post april fool jokes that are taken serious by the
gullible. Peer review of course would have spotted this and saved you
embarrassment.
Mitchell Coffey
That's what I call my Masters Degree.
Mitchell Coffey
Boikat
> "Mitchell Coffey" <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote in message
He believes his "created genes" were ceated by aliens, so believing
that UFOs are alien spacecrafts is a given.
Boikat
Mitchell Coffey
> "el cid" <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
You're very hard on goatherds. Herding goats is honest work, and
laborious; in their limited time-off goat herders explain the universe
as best they can. Today they rely on schools, libraries and the
internet. Twenty-six hundred years ago information sources were
scarce and dicey in quality. As I said, they did their best. They'd
be open to criticism if, once availed of modern education and
communications technology, backed by 2600 years of accreted learning,
they persisted in believing long-discredited speculations from 2600
years ago. Yet you provide no evidence that goatherds as a class -
then or now - are willfully ignorant.
ASI is another story.
Mitchell Coffey
All-seeing-I
> On Jan 6, 1:27 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 6, 11:18 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 5, 8:49 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
> > > > "The peer review system is supposedly the foundation of organized
> > > > scientific progress. It has become a dismal failure and will soon be
> > > > replaced by its proper incarnation ... that is, web based review. "
>
> > > > "scientists pay big money for the Physical Review and get 90%
> > > > gibberish in return. Web = free and as good as you can make through
> > > > furious competition. Why on Earth would anyone wish to confine
> > > > themselves to print? To hide. To hide the fact that they have no new
> > > > ideas and are living off the glow of past successes centuries old."
>
> > > > Web also equals speaking the truth without fear.
>
> > > > That's a wrap for evolution ---babe
>
> > > > To the burn pile of history with the fish=man idea,
>
> > > > Are you listening Chris?
>
> > > >http://www.ebtx.com/oats/peerevw.htm
>
> > > Another of the pro-Nazi, antisemitic and Holocaust denial websites you
> > > love to cite, you vile, ignorant bigot.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > evidence?
>
> Read the website, bigot:http://www.ebtx.com/wtc/911solve.htm#list.
That looks like even MORE evidence of just how corrupt science has
become in the last 2 decades. Thanks for the heads up.
Oh my. And HERE is a shocker:
"Bill Maher's excellent documentary from 2008 on the devastating
effects of religion"
>
> > Besides...
>
> > that has -->WHAT? to do with the information?
>
> It's not "information," it's a pure statement of opinion, >
Regardless. YOU cannot refute it. Why is that?
Peer review is corrupt. It is on it's way OUT. I suggest you grab a
box of kleenx and sulk. Of course emotional-suicide is always an
option.
You are a traditional Christian antisemite who claims Jews killed
> Christ;
Liar. It seems the only criteria to be an atheist these days is to be
skilled in the art of lying.
You are even too ignorant to know that I am NOT a Christian. Can't
keep up? Not surprising.
And I do not believe the Jews killed Christ, evo-freak. I believe the
Jewish leadership plotted and then premeditatedly murdered him. There
is a difference.
They even went as far as to release a well known insurgent,
troublemaker and murderer just so they could have Jesus, a man that
did no harm to anyone, murdered.
They would have done it themselves but the Roman's would not allow
them to execute anyone.
Learn some history freak,
[cut typical lies from a typical small mind]
Mitchell Coffey
There's no evidence on that page to that effect and you know it, liar.
> Oh my. And HERE is a shocker:
> "Bill Maher's excellent documentary from 2008 on the devastating
> effects of religion"
Your lack of morals prevented you from also noting the items on the
very same page where he positively cites Christians. Your love of
Holocaust deniers trumps your shallow religiosity. Beside, honest
people know you're a pious fraud.
> > > Besides...
>
> > > that has -->WHAT? to do with the information?
>
> > It's not "information," it's a pure statement of opinion, >
>
> Regardless. YOU cannot refute it. Why is that?
Refute what? The rantings of one of your fellow antisemites? Those
are assertions, not an argument. You have no evidence; you present no
evidence; you know nothing of science. You think others should just
accept the words of a Holocaust denier, unsupported by facts, because
you find him a kindred spirit.
> �Peer review is corrupt. It is on it's way OUT. I suggest you grab a
> box of kleenx and sulk. Of course emotional-suicide is always an
> option.
Again, assertions, not an argument.
> > You are a traditional Christian antisemite who claims Jews killed
> > Christ;
>
> Liar. It seems the only criteria to be an atheist these days is to be
> skilled in the art of lying.
You have said that Jews killed Christ and are, no surprize, now lying
about it.
> You are even too ignorant to know that I am NOT a Christian. Can't
> keep up? Not surprising.
Every with an honest sense of language considers your little cult
Christian, and it is by every honest senses of the word.
> And I do not believe the Jews killed Christ, evo-freak. I believe the
> Jewish leadership plotted and then premeditatedly murdered him. There
> is a difference.
But that's not what you've said in the past. As usual, you now choose
to lie.
> They even went as far as to release a well known insurgent,
> troublemaker and murderer just so they could have Jesus, a man that
> did no harm to anyone, murdered.
>
> They would have done it themselves but the Roman's would not allow
> them to execute anyone.
>
> Learn some history freak,
>
> [cut typical lies from a typical small mind]
Your typical dishonesty; the issue isn't what the New Testament says,
but
And of course you're once again ducked the question of why, without
evidence, you've many time cited by antisemites and Holocaust deniers
as authoritative. It's irrelevant what the particular topic is -
those are the sort of people whose words you admire, whom you cite as
authoritative. Only a hateful Nazi apologist like you thinks decent
people should give weight to the unsuppored words of such people,
merely because such people say them and you like those words!
Note you also run away from your attack on scientists for wanting to
resist Hitler.
RAM
You have assert it. Your use of a web site by a loon who doesn't
understand science any better than you is not an argument.
Now be specific about what it is that makes peer review a failure.
I don't think you can provide your own critique of peer review and you
just hope that it is somehow bad.
> Oh my. And HERE is a shocker:
> "Bill Maher's excellent documentary from 2008 on the devastating
> effects of religion"
>
>
Not every think on that site had something to do with peer review.
The part where he takes on peer review is like much of your bull shit;
simple un-evidenced assertions.
>
> > > Besides...
>
> > > that has -->WHAT? to do with the information?
>
> > It's not "information," it's a pure statement of opinion, >
>
> Regardless. YOU cannot refute it. Why is that?
Why should we?
I agree that peer review is valuable.
It is your task to demonstrate it is bad or harmful to science.
The problem is of course it would require you to understand science.
This is the real reason you want a scientist to argue with an anti-
peer review loon.
Sorry I did make the stupid assertion; it is your claim that is
supposed to be the dog in this fight and you are saying prove it is
not a dog fight. I don't see no stinking dog fight. All is see is an
abundance of ASSinine assertions.
>
> �Peer review is corrupt.
Here is another example of what is meant by ASSinine assertions.
> It is on it's way OUT.
Here is yet another example of what is meant by ASSinine assertions.
> I suggest you grab a
> box of kleenx and sulk.
Here is also another example of what is meant by ASSinine assertions.
> Of course emotional-suicide is always an
> option.
Here is another irrational example of what is meant by ASSinine
assertions.
Snip of ASSinine's Assene religious assertions.
Ye Old One
Never as corrupt as religion has been for thousands of years.
>
>Oh my. And HERE is a shocker:
>"Bill Maher's excellent documentary from 2008 on the devastating
>effects of religion"
>
>
>>
>> > Besides...
>>
>> > that has -->WHAT? to do with the information?
>>
>> It's not "information," it's a pure statement of opinion, >
>
>Regardless. YOU cannot refute it. Why is that?
You can't refute something that refutes itself.
>
> Peer review is corrupt.
Prove it. Find an example.
> It is on it's way OUT.
Only in your dreams.
> I suggest you grab a
>box of kleenx and sulk. Of course emotional-suicide is always an
>option.
>
>
> You are a traditional Christian antisemite who claims Jews killed
>> Christ;
>
>Liar. It seems the only criteria to be an atheist these days is to be
>skilled in the art of lying.
That would make you one of the top atheists then.
>
>You are even too ignorant to know that I am NOT a Christian. Can't
>keep up? Not surprising.
Your posts make a liar out of you on that claim.
>
>And I do not believe the Jews killed Christ, evo-freak. I believe the
>Jewish leadership plotted and then premeditatedly murdered him. There
>is a difference.
You are daft enough to believe he even existed.
>
>They even went as far as to release a well known insurgent,
>troublemaker and murderer just so they could have Jesus, a man that
>did no harm to anyone, murdered.
You do know that story is total fiction?
>
>They would have done it themselves but the Roman's would not allow
>them to execute anyone.
Rubbish.
>
>Learn some history freak,
You should.
>
>[cut typical lies from a typical small mind]
What? You cut your own material?
Madman (aka Mudbrain) is on record as claiming:-
Science causes disease.
That 3.5% actually means 25%...
That the actor Paul Newman was a creationist...
That "Dr." Kent Hovind has made lots of *scientific* discoveries...
That wars have been fought because some scientific finding discredited
some facet of some religion...
To have a "higher education" than most posters to this news group...
To understand how geologists determine the age of any given sample of
rock...
That trilobites were Cambrian mammals... [that one still makes me
laugh]
And that he has "created genes" and not evolved ape genes...
That linguists have traced all the world's languages to the Middle
East region and back to around the same time as the bible claims Noah
and his sons rebuilt mankind.
Claimed that talk.origin's moderator was a troll.
Claimed cigarettes do not cause cancer.
The [Dropa] stone is real, the troglodytes exist, the graves are
there, many books have been written on the subject...
Now, I ask you, is this the sort of guy you would give an credence to?
Certainly I don't.
--
Bob.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>
>"The peer review system is supposedly the foundation of organized
>scientific progress. It has become a dismal failure and will soon be
>replaced by its proper incarnation ... that is, web based review. "
>
>"scientists pay big money for the Physical Review and get 90%
>gibberish in return. Web = free and as good as you can make through
>furious competition. Why on Earth would anyone wish to confine
>themselves to print? To hide. To hide the fact that they have no new
>ideas and are living off the glow of past successes centuries old."
>
>
>Web also equals speaking the truth without fear.
>
>That's a wrap for evolution ---babe
now, if he's right, why would the web make a difference? he has this
image of scientists, cowering in basements, afraid of the evolutionist
death squads.
he's never spent a day in a lab....he has NO idea about how science is
done
bpuharic
let us not forget that the creationist hates science SO much he got
hoodwinked by a website with an april fool's joke the other day.
bpuharic
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > >http://www.ebtx.com/oats/peerevw.htm
>>
>> > > Another of the pro-Nazi, antisemitic and Holocaust denial websites you
>> > > love to cite, you vile, ignorant bigot.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> > > - Show quoted text -
>>
>> > evidence?
>>
>> Read the website, bigot:http://www.ebtx.com/wtc/911solve.htm#list.
>
>That looks like even MORE evidence of just how corrupt science has
>become in the last 2 decades. Thanks for the heads up.
>
>Oh my. And HERE is a shocker:
>"Bill Maher's excellent documentary from 2008 on the devastating
>effects of religion"
given the fact religious folks are flying planes into builidings, i
think we know that it's religion, not science that's corrupt
>
>
>
> You are a traditional Christian antisemite who claims Jews killed
>> Christ;
>
>Liar. It seems the only criteria to be an atheist these days is to be
>skilled in the art of lying.
>
>You are even too ignorant to know that I am NOT a Christian. Can't
>keep up? Not surprising.
you're a christian hating christian.
>
>And I do not believe the Jews killed Christ, evo-freak. I believe the
>Jewish leadership plotted and then premeditatedly murdered him. There
>is a difference.
no proof of that at all. none.
>
>They even went as far as to release a well known insurgent,
>troublemaker and murderer just so they could have Jesus, a man that
>did no harm to anyone, murdered.
no proof of that at all.
>
>They would have done it themselves but the Roman's would not allow
>them to execute anyone.
so it was the romans who kiilled christ
thanks. we already knew that
Dan Listermann
"Boikat" <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:a30aa78b-f78d-494b...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
.
Dan Listermann
"All-seeing-I" <ap...@email.com> wrote in message
news:ce85badd-1b09-47d7...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 6, 1:44 pm, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower> Regardless. YOU
>
> Peer review is corrupt. It is on it's way OUT. I suggest you grab a
> box of kleenx and sulk. Of course emotional-suicide is always an
> option.
>
What you really need is old goatherd review.
.
Dan Listermann
You bring up some excellent points. Thanks!
.
Dave Oldridge
a300d6...@j4g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
>"The peer review system is supposedly the foundation of organized
>scientific progress. It has become a dismal failure and will soon be
>replaced by its proper incarnation ... that is, web based review. "
>
>"scientists pay big money for the Physical Review and get 90%
>gibberish in return. Web = free and as good as you can make through
>furious competition. Why on Earth would anyone wish to confine
>themselves to print? To hide. To hide the fact that they have no new
>ideas and are living off the glow of past successes centuries old."
>
>
>Web also equals speaking the truth without fear.
>
>That's a wrap for evolution ---babe
>
>To the burn pile of history with the fish=man idea,
There is no such idea except in your straw man LIE.
The actual idea is fish=>smphinians=>reptiles=>mammals=>primates=>humans
The fossil evidence does support this, since this is the order in which
we find the first members of these groups.
>Are you listening Chris?
>
>http://www.ebtx.com/oats/peerevw.htm
We all know that pseudoscientific scam artists like you creationists are
dissatisfied with peer review and would rather turn the task over to an
uneducated rabble that you believe you can fool all of the time. I
should warn you, however, that fooling a rabble can be dengerous to your
physical health. They could wake up just enough to lynch you!
--
Dave Oldridge+
All-seeing-I
>
> - Show quoted text -
YOU ARE BOIKAT!!! The style, the structure, the words and same
insults!
Stop it or they will boot you out -- FOOL!
Ye Old One
<ap...@email.com> enriched this group when s/he wrote:
The only fool is you Mudbrain.
--
Bob.
Your IQ score is 2 (it takes 3 to grunt).
Boikat
File a complaint, asshole. By all means, make yourself look even more
moronic than you already are.
>
> Stop it or they will boot you out -- FOOL!
Only if it were true, 'tard-boy.
I wonder if DIG conciders bogus accusations of nym-shifting a banable
offense? Probably not.
Boikat
Mike Dworetsky
You will need more than a coincidence of two people describing you as
asinine (or ASSinine) to prove your point. I think your posts are ASSinine
too. Now, there's a conspiracy for you. Anyone else?
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
chris thompson
Yeah, I will buy a ticket to get on this band wagon.
Chris
All-seeing-I
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
That is because you have beome a "follower".
how come.
chris thompson
Because it makes more sense to follow someone who knows where he's
going than someone who falls for a 10-year old April Fool's joke.
Chris
heekster
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
Is someone paying you to post here, with the apparent intelligence of
a congenital imbecile, the pathos of a 19th century circus full of
European clowns, the knowledge base of an anencephalic, the social
skills of Richard Speck in prison, the charm of an ambulance-chasing
pettifogger, the wit of a 13-year old Mongoloid child, the subtlety
of a used car salesman, the humor of an open mass grave, and the
intellectual depth of a cocaine-addicted carnie?
Or do you do this just for fun?
Jim Lovejoy
news:807ab$4b44ec0e$4a53bf9f$15...@FUSE.NET:
>
> "Mitchell Coffey" <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:9f46266c-014c-4742...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com.
> ..
>> On Jan 6, 1:27 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 6, 11:18 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > On Jan 5, 8:49 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > > "The peer review system is supposedly the foundation of
>>> > > organized scientific progress. It has become a dismal failure
>>> > > and will soon be replaced by its proper incarnation ... that is,
>>> > > web based review. "
>>>
>>> > > "scientists pay big money for the Physical Review and get 90%
>>> > > gibberish in return. Web = free and as good as you can make
>>> > > through furious competition. Why on Earth would anyone wish to
>>> > > confine themselves to print? To hide. To hide the fact that they
>>> > > have no new ideas and are living off the glow of past successes
>>> > > centuries old."
>>>
>>> > > Web also equals speaking the truth without fear.
>>>
>>> > > That's a wrap for evolution ---babe
>>>
>>> > > To the burn pile of history with the fish=man idea,
>>>
>>> > > Are you listening Chris?
>>>
>>> > >http://www.ebtx.com/oats/peerevw.htm
>>>
>>> > Another of the pro-Nazi, antisemitic and Holocaust denial websites
>>> > you love to cite, you vile, ignorant bigot.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> > - Show quoted text -
>>>
>>> evidence?
>>
>> Read the website, bigot: http://www.ebtx.com/wtc/911solve.htm#list .
>>
>>> Besided...
>>>
>>> that has -->WHAT? to do with the information?
>>
The JFK assassination was an attempt to cover up that UFO's were
responsible for global warming?
Ye Old One
ones up my sleeve?" category.
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>YOU ARE BOIKAT!!! The style, the structure, the words and same
>>insults!
>>
>>Stop it or they will boot you out -- FOOL!
>>
>Is someone paying you to post here, with the apparent intelligence of
>a congenital imbecile, the pathos of a 19th century circus full of
>European clowns, the knowledge base of an anencephalic, the social
>skills of Richard Speck in prison, the charm of an ambulance-chasing
>pettifogger, the wit of a 13-year old Mongoloid child, the subtlety
>of a used car salesman, the humor of an open mass grave, and the
>intellectual depth of a cocaine-addicted carnie?
>
>Or do you do this just for fun?
--
Bob.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 11:18�am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> > On Jan 5, 8:49�pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > "The peer review system is supposedly the foundation of organized
> > > scientific progress. It has become a dismal failure and will soon be
> > > replaced by its proper incarnation ... that is, web based review. "
> >
> > > "scientists pay big money for the Physical Review and get 90%
> > > gibberish in return. Web = free and as good as you can make through
> > > furious competition. Why on Earth would anyone wish to confine
> > > themselves to print? To hide. To hide the fact that they have no new
> > > ideas and are living off the glow of past successes centuries old."
> >
> > > Web also equals speaking the truth without fear.
> >
> > > That's a wrap for evolution ---babe
> >
> > > To the burn pile of history with the fish=man idea,
> >
> > > Are you listening Chris?
> >
> > >http://www.ebtx.com/oats/peerevw.htm
> >
> > Another of the pro-Nazi, antisemitic and Holocaust denial websites you
> > love to cite, you vile, ignorant bigot.- Hide quoted text -
> evidence?
Yes: see the web site. And what the bloody fuck do you care about
evidence?!
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
Desertphile
<d...@listermann.com> wrote:
>
> "Mitchell Coffey" <m.co...@starpower.net> wrote in message
> news:9f46266c-014c-4742...@e37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > On Jan 6, 1:27 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >> On Jan 6, 11:18 am, Mitchell Coffey <m.cof...@starpower.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> > On Jan 5, 8:49 pm, All-seeing-I <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > > "The peer review system is supposedly the foundation of organized
> >> > > scientific progress. It has become a dismal failure and will soon be
> >> > > replaced by its proper incarnation ... that is, web based review. "
> >>
> >> > > "scientists pay big money for the Physical Review and get 90%
> >> > > gibberish in return. Web = free and as good as you can make through
> >> > > furious competition. Why on Earth would anyone wish to confine
> >> > > themselves to print? To hide. To hide the fact that they have no new
> >> > > ideas and are living off the glow of past successes centuries old."
> >>
> >> > > Web also equals speaking the truth without fear.
> >>
> >> > > That's a wrap for evolution ---babe
> >>
> >> > > To the burn pile of history with the fish=man idea,
> >>
> >> > > Are you listening Chris?
> >>
> >> > >http://www.ebtx.com/oats/peerevw.htm
> >>
> >> > Another of the pro-Nazi, antisemitic and Holocaust denial websites you
> >> > love to cite, you vile, ignorant bigot.- Hide quoted text -
> >>
> >> > - Show quoted text -
> >>
The Jew did it.
>, UFOs
The Jew did it.
> and global warming?
The Jew did it.
Desertphile
<ap...@email.com> wrote:
> "The peer review system is supposedly the foundation of organized
> scientific progress. It has become a dismal failure and will soon be
> replaced by its proper incarnation...."
Peer review created the computer you use; it created the internet;
it created the medical services you use, the medication you take,
the food you eat, the techgnologies that keep you warm,
comfortable, and healthy. Or in other words, you're a goddamned
nonfucking ingrate.
John Stockwell
> "el cid" <elcidbi...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fce04db3-8a13-4e3a...@j14g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> > administration angle of high-throughput accountancy.
>
> > Peer review isn't perfect but it does provide some mechanism
> > to check quality and it does so with people who at least have
> > some form of pedigree that lifts their opinion out of a sea
> > of voices of unchecked provenance.
>
> From a creationists point of view, if it is not perfect, it is worthless.
> If you want perfection, you need to read up about goatherds.
>
It's the ancestor worship, or the "perfection and fall" model of
reality
that creationists operate under. Rather than accept fallibility of
*all* human endeavors, including those that are allegedly inspired
by the creator, or are "sacred", the creationist views the need for
peer review as evidence of the fall, or at most evidence that there
are forces of evil standing in the way of truth, because mainstream
science never seems to go in their direction, in spite of all of the
one liners and ancdotes that they cherry pick to support their
position.
-John
el cid
wrote:
> On Tue, 5 Jan 2010 17:49:11 -0800 (PST), All-seeing-I
>
> <ap...@email.com> wrote:
> > "The peer review system is supposedly the foundation of organized
> > scientific progress. It has become a dismal failure and will soon be
> > replaced by its proper incarnation...."
>
> Peer review created the computer you use; it created the internet;
> it created the medical services you use, the medication you take,
> the food you eat, the techgnologies that keep you warm,
> comfortable, and healthy. Or in other words, you're a goddamned
> nonfucking ingrate.
Splain.
How did peer review create the computer.
The personal computer in particular is a strange beast.
Few people give much credit to the HP85 but it was rather
significant in the science arena. I'm unclear on how peer
review specifically contributed it to it or other personal
computers. Did peer review produce the transistor? No.
Pleas do more than just launch a vague assertion.