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.
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.