Guest kingdoodlesquat Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 "Codebreaker" <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in message news:1181691662.994434.310130@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 11, 9:01 pm, "kingdoodlesquat" > <neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote: > > > Peer Review: > > > evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in > > > the SAME occupation, profession, or industry. > > > > > The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation > > > > so if you were tried in a court of law by a jury of your peers (& hence be > > peer reviewed), would they all have to be in the same occupation as you > > then? You are a clown sir. > > > You are blaming the dictionary not me. > Again according to the dictionary, peer review is an evaluation > of a person's work or performance by a group > of people in the SAME occupation, profession, or industry. > Prove that this definition is wrong > Am I missing your point? A peer review is a review by one's peers, yes? So if we require an evaluation for work done, professional standards, industrial standards, personal performance & so on & so forth, surely it makes some sense to get this checked by someone who had a modicum of intellect & the required knowledge of the said subject. Hence a peer review. I think you are trying to claim that the peer review is a joke because the people who are the reviewers (according to your eloquent dictionary definition) actually know something of the subject material under review. In other words, you think that this sort of review should be done by those who know nothing of the required subject area? Is your stupidity deliberate or do you have to work at it? Quote
Guest Cary Kittrell Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <1181694110.588502.124090@x35g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Codebreaker <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> writes: > On Jun 12, 8:04 pm, c...@afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote: > > In article <1181691662.994434.310...@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com> Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> writes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jun 11, 9:01 pm, "kingdoodlesquat" > > > <neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote: > > > > > Peer Review: > > > > > evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in > > > > > the SAME occupation, profession, or industry. > > > > > > > The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation > > > > > > so if you were tried in a court of law by a jury of your peers (& hence be > > > > peer reviewed), would they all have to be in the same occupation as you > > > > then? You are a clown sir. > > > > > You are blaming the dictionary not me. > > > Again according to the dictionary, peer review is an evaluation > > > of a person's work or performance by a group > > > of people in the SAME occupation, profession, or industry. > > > Prove that this definition is wrong > > > > Good point. Papers submitted to a journal of astrophysics > > should be reviewed by plumbers, just to make certain that > > there's no bias. > > The problem arises here when an astrophysians When who?... > want to review a work in plumbing just to make sure the standards > in astrophysics have been respected. Yep, that happens all the time. Consult any issue of "Plumbers and Pipefitters Weekly" to see the evil physicist cabal in action. > DON'T YOU THINK? I do. And I'd recommend it for you as well. -- cary Quote
Guest kingdoodlesquat Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 > Books are not peer-reviewed but publication of works are. > Books are publications, then book are peer-reviewed. That's a contradiction if ever I saw one, so it invalidates the rest of the point you were making which was relying on the above argument. D'oh!! Quote
Guest Codebreaker Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 12, 8:47 am, Nosterill <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 1:55 am, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > > > Peer Review: > > evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in > > the SAME occupation, profession, or industry. > > > The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation > > Oh the horror! The iniquity! Reviewers who understand what they are > reviewing!!!!! The only fair review must be with the perfect Reviewers who understand what they are reviewing??? So does the bishop who ordains a priest. Make sure that the Dogmas have been assimilated. > neutrality of ignorance. Quote
Guest ZenIsWhen Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 "Godolphin&fellow" <g4th1@netscape.net> wrote in message news:1181683450.865201.294630@i13g2000prf.googlegroups.com... > On Jun 11, 8:55 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: >> On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: >> >> Peer Review: >> evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in >> the SAME occupation, profession, or industry. >> >> The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation >> >> Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been >> successful. And who would not ask? >> This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke > > I think I'm understanding your point. ...Pilt down man was for about > 40 years, IIRC, taken seriously by the scientific community, yet it > rested on evidence that was entirely cooked up. Your simplistic description of what happened is way out of line! http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/piltdown.html " The reaction to the finds was mixed. On the whole the British paleontologists were enthusiastic; the French and American paleontologists tended to be skeptical, some objected quite vociferously. The objectors held that the jawbone and the skull were obviously from two different animals and that their discovery together was simply an accident of placement. In the period 1912-1917 there was a great deal of skepticism. The report in 1917 of the discovery of Piltdown II converted many of the skeptics; one accident of placement was plausible -- two were not." "In the period 1930-1950 Piltdown man was increasingly marginalized and by 1950 was, by and large, simply ignored. It was carried in the books as a fossil hominid. From time to time it was puzzled over and then dismissed again. The American Museum of Natural History quietly classified it as a mixture of ape and man fossils. Over the years it had become an anomaly; some prominent authors did not even bother to list it. In Bones of Contention Roger Lewin quotes Sherwood Washburn as saying "I remember writing a paper on human evolution in 1944, and I simply left Piltdown out. You could make sense of human evolution if you didn't try to put Piltdown into it." ' I think it is true > that if evidence, or a new supposition, leans in the direction that > the science of the time favors than that evidence or concept will much > more readily rise to the level of a credible theory than if the > evidence or suppostion leads away from the favored line of thought. Possibly - but BOTH directions will ALWAYS lead to either verification or dismissal of the "find". > The peers in a given become community of experts, if they aren't > careful, become but part of an echo chamber where the same views and > information are reinforced as 'reasonable' or 'correct'... while the > evidence in itself may be weaker than they imagine. and it will be tested and retested over and over again. > > Of course this may not directly speak to a review of procedures used, > or the particular evidence (if conclusive) a given experiment elicits. Yes, egos and biases are involved - as are human errors and follies. Still, "science" corrects it's mistakes over time. Making mistakes does NOT make "science" itself, wrong. Those who focus ONLY on the Piltdown man blatantly ignore the MANY VALID fossils discovered before and after Piltdown. It's like the clowns who focus and whine about the "gaps in evolution", while completely ignoring the fact that in order to have "gaps", you MUST have something of substance on either side OF the gap! Quote
Guest Douglas Berry Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:33:07 -0700 there was an Ancient Codebreaker <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism > Books are not peer-reviewed but publication of works are. > Books are publications, then book are peer-reviewed. Wrong. Peer-rteview is limited to professional journals. Some books grow out of these articles, but those are subject to editorial review. > Think about it this way. > Have you ever seen a candidat to priesthood > who would disagree with the tenets > and teaching of the Church? Sure. I know one. A Catholic priest who disagrees with the Church on several matters. He is patient, and is working for change from within. > Whoever disagrees would not be ordained and If you > are ordained, then you have been approved by the Church. > Peer review works exactly the same way. Nope. To use your anaology, if your candidate priest stated "Judas Iscariot was actually a Saint, and should be treated as such." He would have to, in a peer-review situation, defend that view by showing his research that shows why Judas should be a saint, along with his methids of research and the controls he applied. He'd have to cite all his references. The reviewers would most assuredly examine every detail of his work with a highly critical eye and his oral board would be long and painful. In the end, if his thesis held up to peer-review, it would be published. Is that the end? Hell no! Once our young priest's work hits the professional journals, it will start more debate, more review, and more research. Expect many articles on the debate, probably culminating in a conference that just happens to be held in Aspen during ski season (reasearchers aren't dumb) where all sides will debate the topic. > Just because your work has been peer-reviewed does not > means it is not flawed. It means that you are just spreading > around the same errors and dogmatic indoctrination as > your predecessors who peer-reviewd you no less. If there are errors, they are eventually found out. Take plate tectonics. Plate tectonic theory arose out of the hypothesis of continental drift first proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1912 and expanded in his 1915 book The Origin of Continents and Oceans that said in part that all the continents once been together in a single land mass that had drifted apart. But it was not until the mechanic of seafloor spreading (first articulated by Robert S. Dietz, but Harry Hess is usually given credit in the early 1960s that the theory actually became accepted by the scientific community. Following the recognition of magnetic anomalies defined by symmetric, parallel stripes of similar magnetization on the seafloor on either side of a mid-ocean ridge, plate tectonics quickly became broadly accepted. Simultaneous advances in early seismic imaging techniques in and around Wadati-Benioff zones collectively with numerous other geologic observations soon solidified plate tectonics as a theory with extraordinary explanatory and predictive power. Study of the deep ocean floor was critical to development of the theory; the field of deep sea marine geology accelerated in the 1960s. Correspondingly, plate tectonic theory was developed during the late 1960s and has since been essentially universally accepted by scientists throughout all geoscientific disciplines. The theory has revolutionized the Earth sciences because of its unifying and explanatory power for diverse geological phenomena. It took forty years of research, debate, and peer review before plate tectonics was understood, and we're still learning. > So why all the fuss about peer-review as If it works > miracles It doesn't. What it does is catch sloppy work before it gets published. If there is a statisitcal error in your work, you can bet that someone will catch it and point it out. Simple mistkes like that can change the results of a study dramatically. Just think, if the Bible had been subject to peer review we wouldn't have two mutally exclusive creation stories in Genesis. -- Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5 Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011 "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein Quote
Guest Douglas Berry Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:43:01 -0700 there was an Ancient Codebreaker <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism > The whole system of peer reviewing is inefficient regardless > who reviews or NOT Because you say so? -- Douglas Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5 Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2011 "The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed." - Albert Einstein Quote
Deathbringer Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 12, 8:47 am, Nosterill <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 1:55 am, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > > > Peer Review: > > evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in > > the SAME occupation, profession, or industry. > > > The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation > > Oh the horror! The iniquity! Reviewers who understand what they are > reviewing!!!!! The only fair review must be with the perfect Reviewers who understand what they are reviewing??? So does the bishop who ordains a priest. Make sure that the Dogmas have been assimilated. > neutrality of ignorance. And how exactly would you change things if you had a magic wand with which to rearrange the scientific community? Quote
Guest Roger Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 "Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message news:86ju631fi4490n7q3gurl1eattb5cbsj9q@4ax.com... > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:43:01 -0700 there was an Ancient Codebreaker > <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism > >> The whole system of peer reviewing is inefficient regardless >> who reviews or NOT > > Because you say so? Because he has a vested interest in it being so. But it still isn't. Science is the MOST successful field of endeavor humans have every practiced. Science isn't science without peer review. Quote
Guest Nosterill Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 2:07 am, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 8:47 am, Nosterill <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 12, 1:55 am, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > > > > Peer Review: > > > evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in > > > the SAME occupation, profession, or industry. > > > > The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation > > > Oh the horror! The iniquity! Reviewers who understand what they are > > reviewing!!!!! The only fair review must be with the perfect > > Reviewers who understand what they are reviewing??? > So does the bishop who ordains a priest. Make sure that the > Dogmas have been assimilated. Exactly so. Only atheists should be allowed to ordain priests for that very reason. Quote
Guest Christopher A.Lee Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:59:36 -0700, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> wrote: >"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message >news:86ju631fi4490n7q3gurl1eattb5cbsj9q@4ax.com... >> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:43:01 -0700 there was an Ancient Codebreaker >> <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism >> >>> The whole system of peer reviewing is inefficient regardless >>> who reviews or NOT >> >> Because you say so? > >Because he has a vested interest in it being so. > >But it still isn't. > >Science is the MOST successful field of endeavor humans have every >practiced. > >Science isn't science without peer review. But that's only part of the process. Peer review isn't what determines scientific fact - it's just a stage the process goes through. Even publication doesn't make it scientific fact - it just unleashes it on the scientific community for them to try and repeat the work for themselves, to confirm, refute or refine it. If it works, it works. That's all. > Quote
Guest Roger Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 "Christopher A.Lee" <calee@optonline.net> wrote in message news:cv9v63lp69pc5snhpips99oouegfbo3vom@4ax.com... > On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:59:36 -0700, "Roger" <rogerfx@hotmail.com> > wrote: > >>"Douglas Berry" <penguin_boy@mindOBVIOUSspring.com> wrote in message >>news:86ju631fi4490n7q3gurl1eattb5cbsj9q@4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:43:01 -0700 there was an Ancient Codebreaker >>> <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> who stoppeth one in alt.atheism >>> >>>> The whole system of peer reviewing is inefficient regardless >>>> who reviews or NOT >>> >>> Because you say so? >> >>Because he has a vested interest in it being so. >> >>But it still isn't. >> >>Science is the MOST successful field of endeavor humans have every >>practiced. >> >>Science isn't science without peer review. > > But that's only part of the process. > > Peer review isn't what determines scientific fact - it's just a stage > the process goes through. Even publication doesn't make it scientific > fact - it just unleashes it on the scientific community for them to > try and repeat the work for themselves, to confirm, refute or refine > it. > > If it works, it works. > > That's all. Which is exactly what I said. Quote
Guest Matt Silberstein Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:33:07 -0700, in alt.atheism , Codebreaker <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> in <1181691187.254905.227160@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com> wrote: >On Jun 11, 8:56 pm, Matt Silberstein ><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 17:34:02 -0700, in alt.atheism , Codebreaker >> <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> in >> >> <1181608442.824744.115...@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com> wrote: >> >> >Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been >> >successful. And who would not ask? >> >This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke >> >> Books are not peer reviewed. There are other problems with your ideas, >> but getting the basics right would help. > > > Books are not peer-reviewed but publication of works are. Some publications are. Not all, just some. In particular scientific finding are sent to organizations that then submit the work to the review of people in the field who have domain knowledge. They examine the work and report on the quality and value. > Books are publications, then book are peer-reviewed. No, books are not peer reviewed though some people do submit their books to the review of current experts in the field. Darwin happen to have done this with _On the Origin of Species_ and those experts thought he had groundbreaking material. > Think about it this way. > Have you ever seen a candidat to priesthood > who would disagree with the tenets > and teaching of the Church? > Whoever disagrees would not be ordained and If you > are ordained, then you have been approved by the Church. So that is how "the Church" works. > Peer review works exactly the same way. No, it does not. Well, it does in that scientists are expected to agree with the basic ideas of science: that work should be open, that experiments should be repeatable, that things have a nature. If they have evidence that conflicts with some current ideas then they are expected to present the evidence. > Just because your work has been peer-reviewed does not > means it is not flawed. Correct. Peer review is not perfection, but that does not make it a joke. It is a rigorous but not perfect sieve. >It means that you are just spreading > around the same errors and dogmatic indoctrination as > your predecessors who peer-reviewd you no less. Not at all. Look up the example of Harlen Bretz and the Channeled Scablands. Or Einstein's work. Or thousands of others. Scientists can make their reputation by disagreeing with established thought as long as they can back up their disagreement with evidence. > So why all the fuss about peer-review as If it works > miracles You claimed it was a joke, it is not. It is a very good sieve: it eliminates most of the bad work and very little of the good work. That is really all we can expect from a human process. -- Matt Silberstein Do something today about the Darfur Genocide http://www.beawitness.org http://www.darfurgenocide.org http://www.savedarfur.org "Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop" Quote
Guest Hatter Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 11, 8:59 pm, Tohu.B...@hotmail.com wrote: > On Jun 11, 8:52 pm, "kingdoodlesquat" > > <neggerschegg...@negatseacatspam.com> wrote: > > > Peer Review is a joke > > > if a peer review is such a joke, there would be no need to prove anything at > > all. Ergo, you could publish any old bullshit & claim it's true, like the > > bible, the qur'an, & so on. Buffoon. > > Pove that the indoctrination works? Hmmmmmm > This is easy to prove Yes the worlds religions to prove that indocrination works. THey like to get them early, before they can figure out its all bullshit Hatter Quote
Guest Hatter Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 12, 8:47 am, Nosterill <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 1:55 am, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > > > Peer Review: > > evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in > > the SAME occupation, profession, or industry. > > > The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation > > Oh the horror! The iniquity! Reviewers who understand what they are > reviewing!!!!! The only fair review must be with the perfect > neutrality of ignorance. No you forget...fact check AT ALL is inefficient! Because it is OH HORRORS a type of peer review...OH DEAR Someone might have to slow down to double check if something is pure bullshitonium. Hatter Quote
Guest Codebreaker Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 On Jun 13, 3:24 pm, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 12, 8:47 am, Nosterill <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > On Jun 12, 1:55 am, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > > > > Peer Review: > > > evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in > > > the SAME occupation, profession, or industry. > > > > The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation > > > Oh the horror! The iniquity! Reviewers who understand what they are > > reviewing!!!!! The only fair review must be with the perfect > > neutrality of ignorance. > > No you forget...fact check AT ALL is inefficient! Because it is OH Fact check??? my butts. The facts are always stubbornelly biased. C'est l Quote
Guest Brian E. Clark Posted June 13, 2007 Posted June 13, 2007 In article <1181608442.824744.115560 @p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>, Codebreaker said... > Write a book so that we can verify If the indoctrination has been > successful. And who would not ask? > This is how demanding peer review is. Peer Review is a joke Is this creationist transference at work? In the world of evangelical Christian publishing, a book or article passes muster if it conforms to doctrine. There are literally no other standards -- not of scholarship, not of factuality, not of originality, not of insightfulness, not of authorial skill. By contrast, a chemist friend of mine once described peer review as being like "trying to defend five doctoral theses at once, while onlookers throw water balloons at you." -- ----------- Brian E. Clark Quote
Guest Nosterill Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Jun 13, 9:30 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > On Jun 13, 3:24 pm, Hatter <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Jun 12, 8:47 am, Nosterill <fladg...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jun 12, 1:55 am, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > > > > > On Jun 11, 8:34 pm, Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote: > > > > > Peer Review: > > > > evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in > > > > the SAME occupation, profession, or industry. > > > > > The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation > > > > Oh the horror! The iniquity! Reviewers who understand what they are > > > reviewing!!!!! The only fair review must be with the perfect > > > neutrality of ignorance. > > > No you forget...fact check AT ALL is inefficient! Because it is OH > > Fact check??? my butts. The facts are always > stubbornelly biased. C'est l Quote
Guest Kelsey Bjarnason Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 02:01:07 +0100, kingdoodlesquat wrote: >> >> Peer Review: >> evaluation of a person's work or performance by a group of people in >> the SAME occupation, profession, or industry. >> >> The key word is here is SAME, lke in the same occupation >> > > so if you were tried in a court of law by a jury of your peers (& hence be > peer reviewed), would they all have to be in the same occupation as you > then? If you touch a woman who is "hot", do you risk getting blisters? No; the term "hot" has different meanings in different contexts - as does "peer" and many other words. A jury of your peers is made of people from your community. Your peers in a peer review are people in the same field. Different contexts, different meanings. Of course, you knew that, you're just being a git. -- I wonder if the 7 Krishnas were just having a bad day at the airport Quote
Guest kingdoodlesquat Posted June 14, 2007 Posted June 14, 2007 > > Of course, you knew that, you're just being a git. I know, but I just couldn't help myself. Quote
Guest Doc Smartass Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in news:5d7vcmF33cklaU1@mid.individual.net: > > "Doc Smartass" <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message > news:Xns994CE79FA39Faskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18... >> Codebreaker <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in >> news:1181608442.824744.115560@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: >> >>> Subject: Peer Review Is A Joke >> >> All you religious assholes have is a whacked-out opinion, no facts to >> back you up, and the arrogant self-satisfaction that comes only from >> abject stupidity. >> >> Science has been kicking your asses and proving you wrong for >> millennia, not just centuries, even when you assholes tried to muffle >> it or tie its hands. It breaks the chains, your god gets smaller. >> >> SCIENCE: planes, computers, cars, electronics, plastics, medicine >> (including fixing shit in your head that you assholes fuck up), air >> conditioning, spacecraft, radio, ball-point pens, the Internet, >> better education, better understanding of life and ourselves. Fucking >> calculators that whip 30-year-old computers. I've got a graphing >> calculator that's 10 years old and smarter than you, boy. >> >> What have you got? >> >> RELIGION: dumbasses, institutionalized child molestation, >> demonization of anything that goes against their dumbass opinions, a >> desperate need to get involved in shit that doesn't concern them (oh, >> you're white, you can'e marry that black person! Oh, you're gay, I'm >> going to have to kill you!). Oh, there's one thing you fucks excel >> at--finding new ways to be dumbasses despite having all the fucking >> information you need to educate yourselves. >> >> You're pathetic--you wear your chains willingly, you have the fucking >> keys in your pocket, and you have the nerve to whine about the >> fucking burden. >> >> You're not qualified to discuss science--you shouldn't even be >> allowed to partake of its sweet fruit. >> >> You got nothing. > > Oh my. Were you channeling a kinder, gentler Stix? Just felt like it -- Doc Smartass, BAAWA Knight of Heckling aa # 1939 Help Prevent Projectile Stupidity Duct-Tape a Fundie's Mouth Shut Today! Quote
Guest Paul Duca Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 in article 1181691284.401307.112730@q19g2000prn.googlegroups.com, Codebreaker at Codebreaker@bigsecret.com wrote on 6/12/07 7:34 PM: > On Jun 12, 12:20 pm, "Robibnikoff" <witchy...@broomstick.com> wrote: >> "Doc Smartass" <gek...@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message >> >> news:Xns994CE79FA39Faskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18... >> >> >> >> >> >>> Codebreaker <Codebrea...@bigsecret.com> wrote in >>> news:1181608442.824744.115560@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: >> >>>> Subject: Peer Review Is A Joke >> >>> All you religious assholes have is a whacked-out opinion, no facts to >>> back you up, and the arrogant self-satisfaction that comes only from >>> abject stupidity. >> >>> Science has been kicking your asses and proving you wrong for millennia, >>> not just centuries, even when you assholes tried to muffle it or tie its >>> hands. It breaks the chains, your god gets smaller. >> >>> SCIENCE: planes, computers, cars, electronics, plastics, medicine >>> (including fixing shit in your head that you assholes fuck up), air >>> conditioning, spacecraft, radio, ball-point pens, the Internet, better >>> education, better understanding of life and ourselves. Fucking >>> calculators that whip 30-year-old computers. I've got a graphing >>> calculator that's 10 years old and smarter than you, boy. >> >>> What have you got? >> >>> RELIGION: dumbasses, institutionalized child molestation, demonization of >>> anything that goes against their dumbass opinions, a desperate need to >>> get involved in shit that doesn't concern them (oh, you're white, you >>> can'e marry that black person! Oh, you're gay, I'm going to have to kill >>> you!). Oh, there's one thing you fucks excel at--finding new ways to be >>> dumbasses despite having all the fucking information you need to educate >>> yourselves. >> >>> You're pathetic--you wear your chains willingly, you have the fucking >>> keys in your pocket, and you have the nerve to whine about the fucking >>> burden. >> >>> You're not qualified to discuss science--you shouldn't even be allowed to >>> partake of its sweet fruit. >> >>> You got nothing. >> >> Oh my. Were you channeling a kinder, gentler Stix? > > "Push it babe, push it. Oh, babe, Oh babe. Oooooooooh" > Words that Mrs. Codebreaker will never utter... Paul Quote
Guest Roger Pearse Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 On 12 Jun, 02:15, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> wrote: > Uh, you do know the Bible is a peer reviewed work, right, Deep Thinker? WTF > do you thinkNicaeawas, Deep Thinker? The idea that the bible was decided at Nicaea is a myth -- the Da Vinci Code is fiction, you see. http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html Not sure why you think that the bible is an academic publication passed through the peer review process of late 20th century American humanities, tho. No worthwhile literature would qualify. All the best, Roger Pearse Quote
Guest Robibnikoff Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 "Doc Smartass" <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message news:Xns994FD9FA57FDFaskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18... > "Robibnikoff" <witchypoo@broomstick.com> wrote in > news:5d7vcmF33cklaU1@mid.individual.net: > >> >> "Doc Smartass" <gekido@astroskivviesboymail.com> wrote in message >> news:Xns994CE79FA39Faskifyouwantit@216.77.188.18... >>> Codebreaker <Codebreaker@bigsecret.com> wrote in >>> news:1181608442.824744.115560@p47g2000hsd.googlegroups.com: >>> >>>> Subject: Peer Review Is A Joke >>> >>> All you religious assholes have is a whacked-out opinion, no facts to >>> back you up, and the arrogant self-satisfaction that comes only from >>> abject stupidity. >>> >>> Science has been kicking your asses and proving you wrong for >>> millennia, not just centuries, even when you assholes tried to muffle >>> it or tie its hands. It breaks the chains, your god gets smaller. >>> >>> SCIENCE: planes, computers, cars, electronics, plastics, medicine >>> (including fixing shit in your head that you assholes fuck up), air >>> conditioning, spacecraft, radio, ball-point pens, the Internet, >>> better education, better understanding of life and ourselves. Fucking >>> calculators that whip 30-year-old computers. I've got a graphing >>> calculator that's 10 years old and smarter than you, boy. >>> >>> What have you got? >>> >>> RELIGION: dumbasses, institutionalized child molestation, >>> demonization of anything that goes against their dumbass opinions, a >>> desperate need to get involved in shit that doesn't concern them (oh, >>> you're white, you can'e marry that black person! Oh, you're gay, I'm >>> going to have to kill you!). Oh, there's one thing you fucks excel >>> at--finding new ways to be dumbasses despite having all the fucking >>> information you need to educate yourselves. >>> >>> You're pathetic--you wear your chains willingly, you have the fucking >>> keys in your pocket, and you have the nerve to whine about the >>> fucking burden. >>> >>> You're not qualified to discuss science--you shouldn't even be >>> allowed to partake of its sweet fruit. >>> >>> You got nothing. >> >> Oh my. Were you channeling a kinder, gentler Stix? > > Just felt like it Well, good for you! Have a cookie -- Robyn Resident Witchypoo BAAWA Knight! #1557 Quote
Guest Peter Principle Posted June 15, 2007 Posted June 15, 2007 Roger Pearse wrote: > On 12 Jun, 02:15, "Peter Principle" <petesfe...@CUTITOUTgmail.com> > wrote: >> Uh, you do know the Bible is a peer reviewed work, right, Deep >> Thinker? WTF do you thinkNicaeawas, Deep Thinker? > > The idea that the bible was decided at Nicaea is a myth -- the Da > Vinci Code is fiction, you see. > > http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html Who said any such thing? It is, however, a fact that both the creed and the majority of canon were, for the first time, officially codified at Nicaea I, and in a process not unlike peer review. Besides, it was just a smart-ass bitch slap, not a scholarly assertion. BTW, I've never read 'The DaVinci Code' and never will. I'm not big on cheap swill, be it literary, zymurgic, etc. However, if one has a taste for Templar conspiracy theory stories, Eco's 'Foucault's Pendulum' is a far more interesting, far better researched story with far less bullshit plagiarized from admitted hoaxers. In fact, in the book Eco mentions "Holy Blood, Holy Grail' - the source Brown stole his story whole cloth from - as the bad hoax it was/is. ITRW, it has a cherished place in his vast library of "books that aren't true." > Not sure why you think that the bible is an academic publication > passed through the peer review process of late 20th century American > humanities, tho. No worthwhile literature would qualify. Not sure why you suffer such a severe irony deficiency, but cutting down on the pomposity and taking yourself a bit less seriously might help. It turns out, you use, that there are many of us who actually do know our ass from our elbows, and without your, er, guidance. -- Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right. ------ Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough? http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.