Wrong. There are two reports. One before the Congressman got involved. The fully documented one was the last one done by the staff. And your opinion remains your opinion. The fact that two indepentdent agencies came to the same conclusion indicates you are blowing smoke.
No, a bunch of his coworkers loudly complaining about him existed.
BULL! NCSE is not a co-worker.
Shall I take this consistent refusal to show a wrong done to Sternberg as admitting that the SI never actually did anything to him for his beliefs?
Well, I'm taking your refusal to see the facts presented in the two investigations as an asinine denial. What you consider as just a little hostility, is against the law when conducted against a government employee. The email traffic indicates the religious discrimination. What saved the Smithsonian is that Sternberg was not an employee. But a similar treatment to an employee would have resulted in head rolling. He was reduced to an RC from an RA after the controversy.
The emails clearly show that management...
NCSE is in no way connected with management. Their intrusion into the relationship is a de facto indication of a conspiracy.
Talk about your red herrings. And even in the biased report it looks like the NCSE was on the level
Blithely attempting to brush off the fact that NCSE has no reason to be involved. Repeat all you want. The fact still remains that NCSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS CONTACTING THE SMITHSONIAN FOR ANY REASON CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STERNBERG AND THE INSTITUTION.
And all this talk about limiting his freedom of speech is complete BS. A scientist gets a position at the SI by virtue of his standing as a scientist.
Sternberg got a "position" at SI. He retained a "position" at SI, even though the "position" was a "demotion" caused by the conspiracy. That is plain fact. And if NCSE was concerned about science they should have pursued Axelrod with the same rigor as they did for Sternberg whose only "sin" was to allow the publication of an article counter to the dogma promoted by NCSE.
Independent, driven by partisanship.
NCSE is not a co-worker.
The hateful emails came from his coworkers, people at the SI. The NCSE was the calm voice of reason in this after they got involved. Poor baby's got a thin skin, especially for the cutthroat world of science.
What you consider as just a little hostility, is against the law when conducted against a government employee.
That might have something to do with this case if Sternberg had been a government employee.
He was reduced to an RC from an RA after the controversy.
Bringing up that discredited claim again? His term as an RA was coming to its scheduled end and he didn't get a new sponsor (that guy who offered apparently didn't follow through) to renew his status as an RA. They were gracious and offered him an RC position after his term expired despite his mishandling of SI artifacts, despite his disgrace as a scientist, and despite all the supposed discrimination.
Blithely attempting to brush off the fact that NCSE has no reason to be involved.
Why not? The SI would want to get more information about the scientific misconduct of one of its RCs. Are you saying the SI was supposed to turn a blind eye to conduct that threatened the good standing of a scientist associated with the SI? The NCSE is a clearinghouse for information on the IDers, why not go there?
He retained a "position" at SI, even though the "position" was a "demotion" caused by the conspiracy. That is plain fact.
See above. It's a plain fact that his term ended as is normal SI procedure for all SAs.
whose only "sin" was to allow the publication of an article counter to the dogma promoted by NCSE.
Whose only sin was to bypass normal editorial policy in order to railroad an inferior publication authored by a freind of his, subjecting the Journal and the Society, and by extension the SI, to ridicule. Interesting how Sternberg stepped down right after putting that into the Journal. He probably knew he'd be fired for such gross malfeasance.