Jump to content

Peer Review Is A Joke


Recommended Posts

Guest kingdoodlesquat
Posted

"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?

  • Replies 66
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Cary Kittrell
Posted

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

Guest kingdoodlesquat
Posted

> 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!!

Guest Codebreaker
Posted

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.

Guest ZenIsWhen
Posted

"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!

Guest Douglas Berry
Posted

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

Guest Douglas Berry
Posted

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

Posted
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?

Guest Roger
Posted

"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.

Guest Nosterill
Posted

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.

Guest Christopher A.Lee
Posted

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.

>

Guest Roger
Posted

"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.

Guest Matt Silberstein
Posted

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"

Guest Hatter
Posted

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

Guest Hatter
Posted

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

Guest Codebreaker
Posted

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

Guest Brian E. Clark
Posted

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

Guest Nosterill
Posted

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

Guest Kelsey Bjarnason
Posted

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

Guest kingdoodlesquat
Posted

>

> Of course, you knew that, you're just being a git.

 

I know, but I just couldn't help myself.

Guest Doc Smartass
Posted

"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!

Guest Paul Duca
Posted

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

Guest Roger Pearse
Posted

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

Guest Robibnikoff
Posted

"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

Guest Peter Principle
Posted

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

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...