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.
You're going way off base there. The report basically lied, ignored evidence and reached conclusions opposite the evidence. The entire thing is bogus.
So now you are stating that DI was not involved in a conspiracy
It's kind of hard for there to be a conspiracy when everybody (well, apparently everybody but you) knows their method of operation.
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.
Wow, 2001 to 2004 is, OMG, 3 years. 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.
Lemaitre was a big player in the conspiracy,
Wasn't Lemaitre the curator who was complaining about Sternberg's gross mishandling of museum artifacts? I think I see a reason for the hostility.
They had no authority but they exercised authority.
Did they fire him? Did they take away his lollipop? Exactly how did they exercise this non-existent authority?
That does not connect the two institutions in the way you wish to imply the connection.
Bad example for you. 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. You have this strange firewalled view of science that doesn't exist.
So? It was not their call.
It shows that Sternberg made the wrong call. He discredited the publication he worked for and then bailed before it hit. Pretty slimy by any standards.
Yes, I am a member of ISCID. So I can say that being a fellow does not make you an ID'er.
Sternberg is a fellow, one of the top dogs, not just somebody who sent them a check. Let's see, pushed an ID paper in collusion with one of the founders of the ID movement, joined an organization formed by the founders of ID, signed an anti-evolution statement* by the founders of ID, and joined a creation science group. When he screws up, his main defender is the founders of ID. He's looking and quacking like a duck.
BTW, is the ISCID still doing anything? They haven't published in four years. Exactly what are your membership dues going towards?
* Although that statement was a bit misleading, so I will allow that maybe Sternberg got suckered, but the general pattern doesn't support that conclusion. BTW, that statement has 800-something names on it after all these years. Meanwhile, in a shorter time the NCSE has compiled a counter-petition with over 1,100 names of only scientists named Steve, or a variation thereof.