Which has nothing to do with the concept of anonymous peer review. You cited a poster saying anonymous peer review was good in order to support Sternberg's supposed use of anonymous peer review, only there is no evidence Sternberg did an anonymous peer review. Most likely, they were Meyer cronies who knew the author, thus not an anonymous peer review.
You just quoted that without knowing what an anonymous peer review was, didn't you?
Oh, it was just coincidental that they found their dislike of Sternberg's belief only after NCSE stirred the pot.
No, it's not coincidental after Sternberg's actions became known.
They are as guilty as heck.
Guilty as heck of what, trying to keep his religion out of it?
And again I ask for one thing the SI did to him because of his beliefs. You have yet to answer. Without the SI persecution, this all a lot of bluster about nothing, a tempest in a teapot cooked up so the IDers could claim persecution.
What red herring are you trying to tout. You piss and moan that no one knows who the reviewers were including NCSE, even going so far as to accuse Sternberg of not having had it reviewed at all. Then when I demonstrate from your own citation mind you, that you are wrong, you try to say that it is meaningless. Well, go piss up a rope. Until you give evidence instead of your unsubstantiated opinions, you are wrong.
No, it's not coincidental after Sternberg's actions became known.
Precisely my point. NCSE stuck its nose into relationship between SI and Sternberg.
Guilty as heck of what, trying to keep his religion out of it?
You don't seem to understand English. NCSE HAD NO BUSINESS CONTACTING THE SMITHSONIAN CONCERNING STERNBERG FOR ANY REASON. There did you see that?