Replies

It's in the article. That's what the whole issue is about.

Do you actually read your own citations. The author of "your" article, Ed Brayton, posts a reply on that page.....

Michael-

Nowhere in my posts on this subject have I said or implied that the paper was not sent out for review; that's simply not the issue. The issue is whether those reviewers were cherry picked to make sure that the paper wouldn't send up red flags prior to publication. We know that Roy McDiarmid from the Smithsonian saw the actual reviews. His comment was that the paper was reviewed but that whether the reviews or reviewers were "appropriate" is another matter. And that is all we know. Their names have never been released.

Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 26, 2006 4:21 PM

So you are wrong again.

How convenient.

So? It was reviewed as the comment above indicates.

Not at all. The whole picture shows they were very careful about not addressing his personal beliefs.

Then there would have been no reason to even mention them, since they should have been irrelevant. No NCSE was involved only because they wished to suppress any inkling of thoughts counter to the paradigm. You have been proven wrong, wrong, wrong.

So you are wrong again.

I guess I am. So, revision, not reviewed according to the policy of the journal. My guess was probably right, it was reviewed by DI fellows.

I see you've dropped the whole "anonymous peer-review" thing, seeing that it wasn't anonymous. It was cherry-picked yes men.

Then there would have been no reason to even mention them, since they should have been irrelevant.

If you had read things, you'd know some of his fellow scientists were calling for his head because of his beliefs. Calmer heads prevailed.

No NCSE was involved only because they wished to suppress any inkling of thoughts counter to the paradigm.

Yet somehow their main involvement with the SI seems to have been calling for removing his beliefs from any decision. Right, right again.

And you have yet to show me what action was taken against him by the SI for his beliefs. You can't have a persecution if no wrong is actually done. Well, you can, but only in liberal-think.