It is backed up by more than your opinions. And there are actually two reports. One by the OSC and the other the in depth Congressional report that I referenced.
Are you going to believe the Obama speech today?
Red Herring.
It is not a bipartisan report, it isn't even a full commission report that's been approved. It's just a staff report to a Congressman who is on Sternberg's side. And I just established the false conclusion in it.
Another red herring. There were two investigations, OSC and Congressional. What is really telling is your concern that the report be bipartisan. We all know what that means. Only Democrats insist bi-partisanship.
So, was he removed? Did he lose his keys? Did he lose his office? Did he lose access to the collections? You can't actually show repercussions against Sternberg, can you? Hell, you can't even show repercussions for his actual violations of SI procedures regardless of his beliefs.
Irrelevant, the conspiracy existed. What SI procedures did he violate?
Contrary to you establishing persecution, I've proven Sternberg got special consideration because of his beliefs.
Brother are you screwed up. Only you can consider a conspiracy against a person as something beneficial. You've proved nothing but you've spouted a lot of opinion which has been debunked by the facts. The article was peer-reviewed. And NCSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS CONTACTING THE SMITHSONIAN FOR ANY REASON CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STERNBERG AND THE INSTITUTION.
Bipartisan means it would be more than just telling a politician what he wants to hear, as is the case here. And do you notice nothing was ever done to the SI or its staff for the supposed wrongs? Kind of hard to push a full congressional investigation based on BS.
the conspiracy existed.
No, a bunch of his coworkers loudly complaining about him existed. That's not a conspiracy, it's your coworkers not liking you and being quite vocal about it for a good reason -- malfeasance in publishing the article. Poor baby, not well liked by his peers for what he did. Boo hoo.
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? Are you admitting that the movie lied?
Only you can consider a conspiracy against a person as something beneficial.
The emails clearly show that management was being very careful where Sternberg was concerned for fear of exactly the kind of unfounded outrage that was perpetrated by the DI. Remember, one email showed an SI employee offering to sponsor Sternberg just so he wouldn't be made a martyr. Such an offer wouldn't have been made had it not been for Sternberg's beliefs. Thus he got special consideration because of his beliefs.
NCSE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO BUSINESS CONTACTING THE SMITHSONIAN FOR ANY REASON CONCERNING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STERNBERG AND THE INSTITUTION.
Talk about your red herrings. And even in the biased report it looks like the NCSE was on the level. They distributed materials to their members and the members of the Society that runs the journal refuting the Meyer article and Sternberg's claims. Many of those members are also SI employees and associates, which is probably why I originally thought the Society was directly related to the SI. The institutions of science are pretty intertwined. Then the SI went back to the NCSE for input.
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. As a scientist, anything he says, anything he does, anything he publishes in relation to science is part of his standing as a scientist. The SI definitely has an interest in such things and would of course go to the source of the problem for information. Had Dr. Hwang Woo Suk been an SI Associate, do you think it would have been wrong for the SI to contact Seoul National University concerning the problems over his stem cell research?