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.
A charge is not evidence of anything but the charge. Calling a person an idiot is proof of calling someone an idiot, not evidence that the person is an idiot, you idiot. /sarc <--- for your benefit.
I change it to "after his term started" and the fact remains that he lost his sponsor.
Who denied that? Nevertheless, you used the word "started". You are not getting away with it.
So you have a problem with their suggestion
No sh*t, Sherlock. Do the words, "NCSE HAS NO BUSINESS", finally mean something to you?
This specific bit is about the society, not the NCSE.
This has to do with conspiracy, so it does involve NCSE.
Every single non-ID (read: real) scientist who reviewed the paper said it was substandard.
You don't get to define your way out of a situation. It was peer reviewed.
That would be the ongoing public fascination created by the modern ID movement guided by the Wedge Document
Again that is your opinion. Which along with five bucks will get you a cup of coffee. On the other hand, the individual, Dr. James Shapiro, not an ID'er, who wrote that opinion which also along with five bucks will buy a cup of coffee, gets my respect. You don't.
Which brings the final point. If Shapiro is called an ID'er and Sternberg is called an ID'er and being an ID'er is not being a scientist, then you, the NCSE, Judge Jones and others of your ilk had better explain how papers such as the following could possibly be published in peer reviewed journals.
ABSTRACT
There are clear theoretical reasons and many well-documented examples which show that repetitive DNA is essential for genome function. Generic repeated signals in the DNA are necessary to format expression of unique coding sequence files and to organise additional functions essential for genome replication and accurate transmission to progeny cells. Repetitive DNA sequence elements are also fundamental to the cooperative molecular interactions forming nucleoprotein complexes. Here, we review the surprising abundance of repetitive DNA in many genomes, describe its structural diversity, and discuss dozens of cases where the functional importance of repetitive elements has been studied in molecular detail. In particular, the fact that repeat elements serve either as initiators or boundaries for heterochromatin domains and provide a significant fraction of scaffolding/matrix attachment regions (S/MARs) suggests that the repetitive component of the genome plays a major architectonic role in higher order physical structuring. Employing an information science model, the ‘functionalist ’ perspective on repetitive DNA leads to new ways of thinking about the systemic organisation of cellular genomes and provides several novel possibilities involving repeat elements in evolutionarily significant genome reorganisation. These ideas may facilitate the interpretation of comparisons between sequenced genomes, where the repetitive DNA component is often greater than the coding sequence component.