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.
I've done no such thing. They remain anonymous to the general public. And you can claim what you like, it doesn't mean a thing. The evidence is the evidence. You have been proven wrong multiple times.
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.
Oh, it was just coincidental that they found their dislike of Sternberg's belief only after NCSE stirred the pot. He had worked at SI for about six years.
Yet somehow their main involvement with the SI seems to have been calling for removing his beliefs from any decision.
That is pure B.S. They are as guilty as heck. NCSE has no business at SI period.
And I point to the witch hunt evidenced in the emails which you openly admit was based upon his beliefs or at least what those there at SI thought about what he believed.