Bull, your opinion again. The appendix has the emails and the various letters.
It's kind of hard for there to be a conspiracy when everybody (well, apparently everybody but you) knows their method of operation
Again, an opportunity for you to demonstrate that everybody knew and was involved in the conspiracy. And, it is apparent that you are unfamiliar with the definition of conspiracy, it does not have to be secret. Look it up.
That would put the sponsor's death at, hmm, let me see if I have this correct, right after his last appointment. Thanks for providing the numbers. I hope I got the math right.
Oh no, you're not getting away with that. You said this "His sponsor who got him the appointment died not long after he started."
Wasn't Lemaitre the curator who was complaining about Sternberg's gross mishandling of museum artifacts?
Only after NCSE included him on an email sent to Mcdiarmid.
Exactly how did they exercise this non-existent authority?
Exactly how you related, they acted with authority in directing how the SI personnel should act. That's pretty much exercising authority they had no right to have.
If there's a scientific issue raised in the Society, it will obviously filter to the SI given that many of the Society members work at the SI, and they are involved in the same scientific subjects.
Bad example for you, since NCSE would have no reason to be involved.
It shows that Sternberg made the wrong call.
No it doesn't. It shows they may have disagreed with the reviewers. Not every peer reviewer agrees that a particular article should be published. The Axelrod paper is a perfect example of that. You don't see NCSE involved in that fiasco.
BTW, is the ISCID still doing anything?
No. And properly I guess, I should have said that I was a former member since the newsletter stopped in 2005. But I nonetheless would class Sternberg with Shapiro. They are not ID'ers but neither do they condemn them. Shapiro was in an ISCID online discussion. He also wrote "A Third Way", which heavily criticised the Neo-Darwinists.
Although such purists as Dennett and Dawkins repeatedly assert that the scientific issues surrounding evolution are basically solved by conventional neo-Darwinism, the ongoing public fascination reveals a deeper wisdom. There are far more unresolved questions than answers about evolutionary processes, and contemporary science continues to provide us with new conceptual possibilities.
And the report reaches conclusions opposite the emails. My earlier example, supposedly no evidence for mishandling of artifacts, yet there's the evidence right in the emails.
Oh no, you're not getting away with that. You said this "His sponsor who got him the appointment died not long after he started."
Now you're nitpicking to distract from the point. I change it to "after his term started" and the fact remains that he lost his sponsor.
they acted with authority in directing how the SI personnel should act.
So you have a problem with their suggestion (yes, suggestion) that Sternberg's beliefs should be off-limits? Or you hoping for an actual dismissal so you could claim persecution? Oh, right, you don't need an actual dismissal to claim persecution. You apparently don't need any action by the SI against Sternberg for his beliefs to claim persecution.
So far you still haven't shown something the SI management did to him for his beliefs. Oh, I forgot, Expelled told me they took the poor baby's keys away from him.
since NCSE would have no reason to be involved
This specific bit is about the society, not the NCSE.
It shows they may have disagreed with the reviewers. Not every peer reviewer agrees that a particular article should be published.
Just disagreed? Every single non-ID (read: real) scientist who reviewed the paper said it was substandard. The only possible way Sternberg could get a positive review would be to go to cherry-picked IDers. And apparently that's what he did, if he did at all.
the ongoing public fascination reveals a deeper wisdom
That would be the ongoing public fascination created by the modern ID movement guided by the Wedge Document and currently executed through the Teach the Controversy program. It's all there in the wedge document: convince the public first, and the science will follow. Bass-ackwards.