|
|
Up |
  |
Author: Jim AustinJim Austin
Date: Dec 26, 2008 10:44
On Dec 23, 9:29 am, Codebreaker bigsecret.com> wrote:
> Peer review is no review at all. It is just that,
> peer review.
> Now let us check the dictionary for the meaning
> of the word peer.
> Peer according to Dictionary.com is
> "a person who is equal to another in abilities,
> qualifications, age, background, and social status."
> Now If someone qualifies another one to review
> a work by him done, what does this tell me?
> It is like one reviewing his own work.
> A gang of people who went to the same school
> of brainwashing, whose worldview was shaped
> by the same idea... and you are asking me
> to believe you because some of them have reviewed
> your work?
> Peer review is NO review. We want a review by
> a third and independant party.
Actually, it depends.
|
| Show full article (1.06Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: dmitri mosier/iowa city, iowadmitri mosier/iowa city, iowa
Date: Dec 26, 2008 10:31
Does anyone find it the slightest bit strange that Al seems to be the
only victim of the Imposter of late?
I mean the last time the I-man was doing his thing, there were
numerous targets............and now it's just Al.
hmmmm..........................
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: nickknickk
Date: Dec 26, 2008 10:16
By Paul Steinhauser
CNN Deputy Political Director
(CNN) -- A new national poll suggests that three out of four Americans
feel President Bush's departure from office is coming not a moment too soon.
Twenty-eight percent of those polled say President Bush is the worst
president in U.S. history.
Twenty-eight percent of those polled say President Bush is the worst
president in U.S. history.
Seventy-five percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp.
survey released Friday said they're glad Bush is going; 23 percent
indicated they'll miss him.
"Earlier this year, Bush scored some of the lowest presidential approval
ratings we've seen in half a century, so it's understandable that the
public is eager for a new president to step in," said Keating Holland,
CNN polling director.
CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider added, "As President Bush
prepares to leave office, the American public has a parting thought:
Good riddance. At least that's the way three-quarters feel."
|
| Show full article (3.37Kb) |
|
1 Comment |
|
  |
Author: JohnNJohnN
Date: Dec 26, 2008 09:52
On Dec 23, 12:29 pm, Codebreaker bigsecret.com> wrote:
> Peer review is no review at all. It is just that,
> peer review.
All that medicine stuff that regulates your blood pressure, or lowers
your cholesterol, or helps you recover from your stroke was peer
reviewed. Even the fantasy literature in religion and theology is
peered reviewed.
|
| |
|
1 Comment |
|
  |
Author: nickknickk
Date: Dec 26, 2008 09:15
Published on Friday, December 26, 2008 by Associated Press
Environmentalists Fear Risks From Tennessee Ash Spill
HARRIMAN, Tenn - Environmentalists worry the ash-laden sludge that
coated a Tennessee neighborhood when a power plant dike burst could pose
a health risk, although initial tests by a public utility company have
shown no threat to drinking water.
Crews were expected to work through the holiday weekend to contain the
aftermath of Monday's breach at the coal-fired Kingston power plant, run
by the nation's largest public utility, about 50 miles west of Knoxville.
Officials at the Tennessee Valley Authority have said preliminary tests
suggest that there is no danger to millions of people who get their
drinking water from the 652-mile Tennessee River.
And TVA spokesman Gil Francis said crews were cleaning up the sludge.
"The cleanup is making progress," Francis said Thursday, adding that the
group was moving from the road to other areas. TVA brought in 30 pieces
of equipment and more than 100 workers for the effort, which will take
four to six weeks to complete, he said.
|
| Show full article (2.97Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: TartarusTartarus
Date: Dec 26, 2008 09:00
On Dec 23, 11:51 am, MarkA nowhere.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2008 09:29:06 -0800, Codebreaker wrote:
>> Peer review is no review at all. It is just that,
>> peer review.
>> Now let us check the dictionary for the meaning
>> of the word peer.
>> Peer according to Dictionary.com is
>> "a person who is equal to another in abilities,
>> qualifications, age, background, and social status."
>> Now If someone qualifies another one to review
>> a work by him done, what does this tell me?
>> It is like one reviewing his own work.
>> A gang of people who went to the same school
>> of brainwashing, whose worldview was shaped
>> by the same idea... and you are asking me
>> to believe you because some of them have reviewed
>> your work?
>> Peer review is NO review. We want a review by
>> a third and independant party.
> ...
|
| Show full article (1.24Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: TartarusTartarus
Date: Dec 26, 2008 08:55
>>>> Laughing Stock.
>
>>> WHO CARES, NOT ME....
>
>> Of course you wouldn't, you're an idiot.
>
> This is how peer review works.
> YOU MUST AGREE WITH THEM or you are an idiot
> that you would not get published.
> You call this freedom?
> Man this is scary
You have no idea what you are talking about. Give a description of the
peer review process
-- try to prove me wrong.
Tartarus
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: TartarusTartarus
Date: Dec 26, 2008 08:52
On Dec 23, 10:47 am, Jerry Kraus yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 11:29 am, Codebreaker bigsecret.com> wrote:
>> Peer review is NO review. We want a review by
>> a third and independant party.
>
> Dead on this time, Codebreaker. Mutual admiration society. Peer
> review is one of the reasons professional science sucks big time.
> These guys do absolutely nothing, and congratulate themselves
> continuously for doing absolutely nothing.
Your ignorance should be an embarrassment to you. If you know how
truly wrong you are in this area, you would be beet red.
Tartarus
|
| |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: TartarusTartarus
Date: Dec 26, 2008 08:50
On Dec 23, 4:54 pm, Codebreaker bigsecret.com> wrote:
> On Dec 23, 12:36 pm, "Phisher.King." Brazil.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>> Peer review is no review at all. It is just that,
>>> peer review.
>>> Now let us check the dictionary for the meaning
>>> of the word peer.
>>> Peer according to Dictionary.com is
>>> "a person who is equal to another in abilities,
>>> qualifications, age, background, and social status."
>>> Now If someone qualifies another one to review
>>> a work by him done, what does this tell me?
>>> It is like one reviewing his own work.
>>> A gang of people who went to the same school
>>> of brainwashing, whose worldview was shaped ...
|
| Show full article (1.34Kb) |
|
no comments
|
|
  |
Author: TartarusTartarus
Date: Dec 26, 2008 08:49
On Dec 23, 10:29 am, Codebreaker bigsecret.com> wrote:
> Peer review is NO review. We want a review by
> a third and independant party.
You are incredibly ignorant about how science works. There is no
conspiracy among scientists; quite the opposite, in fact. Physics,
chemistry and mathematics attracts the brightest people in the world,
and they are highly competitive. Nothing makes a scientist's career
like proving some older, more well respected scientist wrong, or
proving that a well loved theory is BS.
Peer review *is* independent review -- the reviewers are people from
different universities all over the world. Of course, in highly
specialized areas, the only people who can catch mistakes are those
who have an intimate knowledge of the science. No one from Bob Jones
University would be qualified.
I have done review for mathematics and physics journals, and that job
is taken very seriously because it is an extremely important part of
the scientific process. The last thing a journal editor wants is to
publish something that is wrong.
Tartarus
|
| |
|
1 Comment |
|
|
|
|