My opinion, based on facts. Even better is the fact that the reports are faulty, ignoring evidence and making unsupported claims, as I've shown.
You no doubt would be screaming to high heaven had DI approached the Smithsonian as intimately as NCSE did.
Why? I'd have no problem with it.
You have fits and conniptions over DI sending a DVD or two and book to a school board.
Why would I? It's the standard practice of the DI in their "teach the controversy" effort. You're the one who tried to deny it. I just said manufactured lawsuits are common.
Another lie or misstatement. Dr. Vari was his sponsor. All appointments evidently need sponsors.
His sponsor who got him the appointment died not long after he started. He needed a new sponsor, and nobody was willing to risk his reputation by sponsoring Sternberg. Even if he had obtained a new sponsor, there's the problem that applicants for RA must have a good reputation as a scientist, something he'd just previously blown with the Meyer paper.
First, Sternberg is neither a YEC nor likely an ID'er.
Not likely an IDer, huh? Care to explain the fact that he was a fellow of the "International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design" along with Dembski, Behe, Campbell and others? Note the great amount of cross-pollination between this place and the Discovery Institute. It was basically set up so that ID papers could be published by a scientific journal (well, at least one that called itself scientific). It had quite relaxed peer review rules, of course.
The BSW council could only state that they would not have published the paper.
No, they also said that what he did was against editorial policy. Sternberg abused his power as editor and didn't disclose his conflict of interest.
Third, NCSE, as you have admitted acted with authority that they didn't have.
How is that possible when they exercised no authority?
SI has no connection to the BSW.
You haven't been reading. The members often are also members and associates of the SI. Sternberg was, do you think he was the only one? They are scientists in the field, in D.C., what do you expect? The BSW isn't a place scientists go to work for, it's a group of scientists who work at other places and get together to discuss their interests and present their papers.
Railroad is your opinion as was your opinion that it had not been peer-reviewed.
Let's see, all the post-publication reviewers said they would have rejected it. Sternberg and Meyer were friends, both IDers, and after Meyer presented essentially the same thing at a conference that was in the BSW paper, Sternberg decided to publish it. But unless he's a complete idiot he knew it would not get approved through the normal peer review process, so he either did no peer review (or as claimed went outside for the supposed review), submitted it, and resigned before publication to avoid any repercussions.
That sounds like railroading to me.
There was only one conspiracy in this whole mess: Sternberg and Meyer conspiring to push through an ID paper in a scientific journal in order to fulfill that goal of the Wedge Document. Means, prior established motive, opportunity, plus evidence. Easy conviction.
Everything else was natural fallout from Sternberg's own actions. Conspiracy? Kind of difficult when you're emailing your displeasure to everybody. What, a conspiracy of the whole SI staff? It's not a conspiracy if everybody knows.
So is anthropogenic global warming. And it is just as valuable as your opinion.
Why would I? It's the standard practice of the DI in their "teach the controversy" effort. You're the one who tried to deny it. I just said manufactured lawsuits are common.
So now you are stating that DI was not involved in a conspiracy since you consider NCSE's action as nonconspiratorial(and I am not saying Discovery Institute was conspiratorial --- sending DVD's a darn sight less provocative than actively being a part of a campaign to harrass someone). Typical of you.
His sponsor who got him the appointment died not long after he started. He needed a new sponsor, and nobody was willing to risk his reputation by sponsoring Sternberg. Even if he had obtained a new sponsor, there's the problem that applicants for RA must have a good reputation as a scientist, something he'd just previously blown with the Meyer paper.
Admitting you are wrong. Read the Congressional report. It contains a letter from SI to Sternberg confirming multiple sponsors for him upon the death of his original sponsor.
Plus you are incredibly ignorant of Sternberg. He was a RA from 2001 to 2007. His sponsor died in 2004. Since the RA's are appointed for 3 years, Sternberg had already been reappointed at least once. Here is a link to the invertebrate divisions newsletter. In it you can see that Sternberg was second only to Lemaitre in publications listed and Lemaitre was a big player in the conspiracy, (peer rivalry as motivation -- see I can wildly through around charges just as you can). The point being is that SI had no problems with Sternberg until Meyer was published and NCSE stuck its nose in.
No, they also said that what he did was against editorial policy.
Read the Congressional Report. They couldn't say much due to this, "Because other editors have not always referred all articles to the Associate Editors, and because editors justifiably have discretion, the Council doesn't want to come down too hard on Dr. Sternberg for errors in the procedure followed in accepting this article." That was from the Congressional report. It was contained in a letter from NCSE to the BSW and that letter also shows that NCSE was even suggesting to the BSW what to print. NCSE has no business in doing that either.
How is that possible when they exercised no authority?
What are you talking about? They had no authority but they exercised authority. Just like Obama and the Czars.
The members often are also members and associates of the SI. Sternberg was, do you think he was the only one?
Well, Tiger Woods belongs to the "Tiger Woods Foundation" and belongs to the "PGA". That does not connect the two institutions in the way you wish to imply the connection.
Let's see, all the post-publication reviewers said they would have rejected it.
So? It was not their call.
Sternberg and Meyer were friends, both IDers
Friends? Associates sure, but friends? Prove it. And the ID question
Care to explain the fact that he was a fellow of the "International Society for Complexity, Information, and Design" along with Dembski, Behe, Campbell and others?
Yes, I am a member of ISCID. So I can say that being a fellow does not make you an ID'er. ISCID invites those whose talents impact on any or all of the fields mentioned in the name. Dr. James Shapiro, who is not an ID'er readily participated in an online discussion. That did not make him an ID'er.
That sounds like railroading to me.
No, that is the sound of the facts rolling over your opinions.
Kind of difficult when you're emailing your displeasure to everybody.
Everybody was not involved. Unless you care to prove it. NCSE was involved, ipso facto, a conspiracy.