Who peer reviews Mark Roberts work?

[Tony Szamboti]

I would really like to know.

[A W Smith]

And what scientific paper would that be?

[Mancman]

What journals has his work been submitted to? :confused:

[ConspiRaider]

Mark is not a scientist, nor is James Randi. Yet their work is solid, resilient - and completely open to criticism from all quarters. In fact - critique is welcomed.

So tell us what you REALLY mean: Exactly where do you find fault with Roberts's work? Something specific would be nice.

[Tony Szamboti]

And what scientific paper would that be?


Oh, I see we are claiming an exemption due to the lack of scientific nature in Mark Roberts' work.

Aside from the obvious effort to deflect my question there is a real interest in accuracy which peer review or editing of any published item is intended to do.

So who reviews his published work on the events of 911?

[~enigma~]

Oh, I see we are claiming an exemption due to the lack of scientific nature in Mark Roberts' work.

Aside from the obvious effort to deflect my question there is a real interest in accuracy which peer review or editing of any published item is intended to do.

So who reviews his published work on the events of 911?
What journal was he published in? Do tell, I might be interested in reading what he published.

[RedIbis]

So who reviews his published work on the events of 911?

His friends on jref.

[Arus808]

i dont understand. mark's work is open to critique. why hasn't anyone done so? he's asked for people to point out any mistakes he has made, and critique his work; yet silences from the trutherdom.

hm.


mark has never stated that he is a scientist or engineer; all he did was compile all the AVAILABLE information, taken statements from those sources and put them into his papers. If anything, the SOURCES are the ones that should be critiqued for their reporting

why hasn't anyone in trutherdom done so?


hmm

[twinstead]

Roberts isn't claiming to be peer reviewed.

Roberts' paper doesn't claim to be a scientific study of the WTC collapses.

Jones' paper, for example, DOES. I can ask the same question of Jones' paper and have it be much more important: why isn't IT peer reviewed?

SO, one must define 'peer'. Jones' paper, for example, has not been submitted to HIS peers to officially comment on it in an official capacity.

Exactly who are Roberts' peers?

[Tony Szamboti]

Mark is not a scientist, nor is James Randi. Yet their work is solid, resilient - and completely open to criticism from all quarters. In fact - critique is welcomed.

So tell us what you REALLY mean: Exactly where do you find fault with Roberts' work? Something specific would be nice.

I am only trying to show the hypocrytical nature of some on this forum and you are complying with my request. Apparently there is a glass house here.

I offered to debate Mark with written letters and he refused saying he would not do it on the Journal of 911 Studies. Although I said it could be in any written venue other than a quick moving forum, he still refused and actually had the audacity to say I backed down from him. His excuse was that the Journal of 911 Studies wasn't a Journal. Quite a comment from someone who isn't a science person. Those letters would have been open to criticism from all quarters.

I am sensing a double standard here.

[twinstead]

Do we demand that LC be 'peer reviewed'?

[ConspiRaider]

Oh, I see we are claiming an exemption due to the lack of scientific nature in Mark Roberts' work.

Aside from the obvious effort to deflect my question there is a real interest in accuracy which peer review or editing of any published item is intended to do.

So who reviews his published work on the events of 911?
Sheez. Fine, you dragged it out of me.

The New York Tour Guide Methodology and Analytical Assessment Committee Concerning the Usurpation of Gravitational Flux Factorization Regarding Manmade Structural Integrity and Geophysical Stability With Parametric Occurrences During Rush Hour.

Somewhere in there is an acronym, if you can fish one out.

[Checkmite]

Mark doesn't do "work". He finds the results of others' work and reports them. Unlike some folks who think spending a lot of time on the web looking at other peoples' stuff makes them "researchers", Mark knows all he's doing is repeating the facts as he finds them.

[~enigma~]

I am only trying to show the hypocrytical nature of some on this forum and you are complying with my request. Apparently there is a glass house here.

I offered to debate Mark with written letters and he refused saying he would not do it on the Journal of 911 Studies. Although I said it could be in any written venue other than a quick moving forum, he still refused and actually had the audacity to say I backed down from him. His excuse was that the Journal of 911 Studies wasn't a Journal. Quite a comment from someone who isn't a science person. Those letters would have been open to criticism from all quarters.

I am sensing a double standard here.
You going to answer my question or are you going to run from it?
What journal was he published in? Do tell, I might be interested in reading what he published.

[twinstead]

I am sensing a double standard here.

I am sensing a gross misunderstanding of when a peer review is required, and when it is not.

[A W Smith]

I am only trying to show the hypocrytical nature of some on this forum and you are complying with my request. Apparently there is a glass house here.

I offered to debate Mark with written letters and he refused saying he would not do it on the Journal of 911 Studies. Although I said it could be in any written venue other than a quick moving forum, he still refused and actually had the audacity to say I backed down from him. His excuse was that the Journal of 911 Studies wasn't a Journal. Quite a comment from someone who isn't a science person. Those letters would have been open to criticism from all quarters.

I am sensing a double standard here.

When will you submit your paper for an independent review?

Pot? meet kettle.

[Tony Szamboti]

You going to answer my question or are you going to run from it?


Who made the rule that review only needs to take place if something is published in a Journal?

One would assume that one who consistently takes jabs at others for what they claim is a lack of peer review would have their published work reviewed.

Mark Roberts has several articles published on the Internet.

[Tony Szamboti]

When will you submit your paper for an independent review?

Pot? meet kettle.

I did.

[Hyperviolet]

So when Gravy compiles a list of firefighter quotes, or examines the changes Mr Rodriguez's account of 9/11, what?
You want scientists to review his paper?

Whatever the reason for?

[e^n]

Who made the rule that review only needs to take place if something is published in a Journal?

One would assume that one who consistently takes jabs at others for what they claim is a lack of peer review would have their published work reviewed.

Mark Roberts has several articles published on the Internet.

How would you propose a formal peer review takes place? As the majority of Gravy's work is sourcing and organising statements it doesn't seem that we can quickly identify any experts in this particular field.

I did.
Perhaps our opinions of independent differ. Pray tell, where did you submit your paper?

[Arus808]

Who made the rule that review only needs to take place if something is published in a Journal?

omg....


One would assume that one who consistently takes jabs at others for what they claim is a lack of peer review would have their published work reviewed.

marks peers are joe schmoes
DRG and others, are writing papers that are beyond their expertise and fields of study. That's like me trying to write a fix it manual for a 1965 Ford Shelby Mustang.


Mark Roberts has several articles published on the Internet.

and again, open for review and critique.


I think you are totally not understand what peer review is.

[Arus808]

I did.

OH? Care to link to us which journals (reputable) that you submitted your work to? Let see, in your line of work, I would say Implosionworld.com would be a good start. Did you give your paper to Controlled Demolitions Inc?

[Tony Szamboti]

[QUOTE=Hyperviolet;3053503]So when Gravy compiles a list of firefighter quotes, or examines the changes Mr Rodriguez's account of 9/11, what?
You want scientists to review his paper?

No, fact checking journalists would do just fine.

Whatever the reason for?

It is called an independent review for accuracy.

[Sabrina]

Not the brightest crayon in the bunch, eh?

Tell you what; if Mark ever writes a paper dealing with the SCIENTIFIC and MEASURABLE parts of 9/11, I'll demand a peer review. For now, I'll just enjoy reading his EDITORIALS and CRITIQUES of the 9/11 Twoof Movement.

[A W Smith]

When will you submit your paper for an independent review?

Pot? meet kettle.

I did.

You do not know what indepedent means,

[twinstead]

It is called an independent review for accuracy.

So you AREN'T talking about peer review, you're talking about independent review for accuracy, whatever that means.

Who performs these 'reviews', and do you think that truther papers should submit to the same thing?

[Hyperviolet]

Hmm, but Mark sources everything he writes.
It's not like a scientific hypothesis than needs reviewed by experts.

The layman like you or I can simply check if his sources say what he claims they do.

[Hyperviolet]

Not the brightest crayon in the bunch, eh?

Tell you what; if Mark ever writes a paper dealing with the SCIENTIFIC and MEASURABLE parts of 9/11, I'll demand a peer review. For now, I'll just enjoy reading his EDITORIALS and CRITIQUES of the 9/11 Twoof Movement.

Happy Birthday, Sabrina!

Hope you are having a good'un!

[Sabrina]

This is ridiculous, honestly.

It's like asking a movie reviewer to have his critique of a movie peer reviewed; what's the POINT? Mark sources all his quotes; the rest of his papers, as I understand it, are sheer opinion pieces. How can you peer review an opinion?

[Arus808]

No, fact checking journalists would do just fine.

well seeing that he is pulling quotes, statements and testimony from the sources he lists in his footnotes, what fact checking needs to be done? all you have to do is look where where sourced the information from

again, you seriously do not have an understanding of what peer review is.

In any of hte Gravy's papers, has he posited his own calculations, provided scientific data of his own, or expressed his opinion on topics that he is not educated in, or has experience in? Care to point out where he has done this?

Now, what knowledge or expertise does DRG have in:
Avionics? Voice Morphing technology? Cell Phones? Aeronautical engineering? Controlled Demolitions?

Yet, he is free to voice his opinions on the matters above without anyone checking his "facts".

It is called an independent review for accuracy.

um thats what a peer review is.

[Sabrina]

Happy Birthday, Sabrina!

Hope you are having a good'un!

Gracias! :D

[Tony Szamboti]

So you AREN'T talking about peer review, you're talking about independent review for accuracy, whatever that means.

Who performs these 'reviews', and do you think that truther papers should submit to the same thing?
Yes, I believe they should all be reviewed by at least two others knowledgeable in the area concerned, before publishing.

Apparently that hasn't been done with Mark Roberts' work or has it?

[Redtail]

[quote]

No, fact checking journalists would do just fine.

Well Mark isn't a journalist so that still wouldn't be a peer review. However you know where the papers are. All you need to do is get a few "fact checking journalists" to check them out and show what is wrong.



It is called an independent review for accuracy.

What parts of his work are not accurate?

[Arus808]

Yes, I believe they should all be reviewed by at least two others knowledgeable in the area concerned, before publishing.

Again, so why doesn't your "truther" bretheren do not do so?
Why is DRG commenting on issues that he has no clue about and passing them off as fact?

Apparently that hasn't been done with Mark Roberts' work or has it?

Again, its open to critique. and he sources his information. he is ismply compiling them together . YOU can always check his sources.

[twinstead]

Yes, I believe they should all be reviewed by at least two others knowledgeable in the area concerned, before publishing.

Apparently that hasn't been done with Mark Roberts' work or has it?

Exactly how do YOU define 'two others knowledgeable in the area concerned'?

[Redtail]

Yes, I believe they should all be reviewed by at least two others knowledgeable in the area concerned, before publishing.

Why?

[Tony Szamboti]

well seeing that he is pulling quotes, statements and testimony from the sources he lists in his footnotes, what fact checking needs to be done? all you have to do is look where where sourced the information from

again, you seriously do not have an understanding of what peer review is.

In any of hte Gravy's papers, has he posited his own calculations, provided scientific data of his own, or expressed his opinion on topics that he is not educated in, or has experience in? Care to point out where he has done this?

Now, what knowledge or expertise does DRG have in:
Avionics? Voice Morphing technology? Cell Phones? Aeronautical engineering? Controlled Demolitions?

Yet, he is free to voice his opinions on the matters above without anyone checking his "facts".



um thats what a peer review is.


Didn't Mark Roberts write an open letter to NYC fireman John Shroeder telling him that he was confused about what he said he experienced in the towers on 911? I believe he did this without having talked to John Shroeder beforehand and simply went off of the Loose Change interview with Shroeder. Is that true?

[Sabrina]

Plus, where have Mark's papers been "published" anyway? As I understand it, he pays for the webspace they're hosted on, they've not been picked up by any journal, newspaper, or magazine to my knowledge; how does this translate to "published"?

[CHF]

Wow realcddeal, you're not taking Mark's criticism of your "peer-review" process well are you?

Mark has never claimed that his work is peer-reviewed. You and your fellow twoofer clowns have!

Mark has never claimed to have written a scientific paper. You and your fellow twoofer clowns have!

Therefor, peer-review is your problem, not his.

Quit acting like a friggin' child just because Mark pointed out what a complete fraud the "peer-review" process is at the "journal of 9/11 studies."

It's not his fault that you twoofers are following the lead of Holocaust Deniers in trying to pass off your bullcrap "research" as having made it through some kind of accuracy test in a real journal.

[Gravy]

Satan.

[AZCat]

This seems to be a pointless question. Mark isn't submitting technical or scientific articles for publication, so why would peer review be necessary?

If peer review was required of all articles "published" on the internet, there would be considerably less content than there is now. The bureaucracy alone would bog down attempts to publish anything, much less the filtering of content not fit for publication.

[twinstead]

Didn't Mark Roberts write an open letter to NYC fireman John Shroeder telling him that he was confused about what he said he experienced in the towers on 911? I believe he did this without having talked to John Shroeder beforehand and simply went off of the Loose Change interview with Shroeder. Is that true?

I could counter with any number of false or inaccurate statements presented by 'truther' papers but that would mean that I equate them with the letter to Shroeder by Roberts, and that wouldn't be true.

There is a quite lengthy thread about this on this forum, in fact. Have you read it?

[AZCat]

Satan.

I hear his fees are really high (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faust).

[CHF]

Didn't Mark Roberts write an open letter to NYC fireman John Shroeder telling him that he was confused about what he said he experienced in the towers on 911? I believe he did this without having talked to John Shroeder beforehand and simply went off of the Loose Change interview with Shroeder. Is that true?

He decided to correct a witness who didn't accurately recall which tower fell first, among other things.

Yeah I know - he should have just let all those errors stand, like a real "truthseeker."

[~enigma~]

Who made the rule that review only needs to take place if something is published in a Journal?

One would assume that one who consistently takes jabs at others for what they claim is a lack of peer review would have their published work reviewed.

Mark Roberts has several articles published on the Internet.
That is the common usage of peer reviewed. If you don't like it, file an RFC like Judy Woo-woo did and see how far that gets you but I'm not sure what agency is responsible for the definition of terms....Now where is he published. Either name the journal or simply say he isn't.

[Tony Szamboti]

Again, so why doesn't your "truther" bretheren do not do so?
Why is DRG commenting on issues that he has no clue about and passing them off as fact?



Again, its open to critique. and he sources his information. he is ismply compiling them together . YOU can always check his sources.

David Griffin isn't sitting there claiming, with no real basis, that papers of an opposing viewpoint to his, are not being properly peer reviewed while not having their own work reviewed. This is what Mark Roberts appears to be doing.

Since Roberts has recently attempted to smear me I wanted to set the record straight.

In an earlier post I explained the debate he refused to take part in with me using written papers.

[Gravy]

No, fact checking journalists would do just fine.

It is called an independent review for accuracy.Tee-hee. Let's take 10 pages of your 9/11 work and 500 pages of mine and compare them for accuracy.

Agreed, Tony? Or do you need to sleep one off and then think about it?


Boo!

[twinstead]

Since Roberts has recently attempted to smear me I wanted to set the record straight.

Frankly, sir, and with all due respect, your work smears itself; Roberts' input isn't required.

[Tony Szamboti]

Frankly, sir, and with all due respect, your work smears itself; Roberts' input isn't required.

How so?

[Foolmewunz]

I would really like to know.

No you wouldn't. You'd just like to get back at him for his criticism of your own shoddy review practices.

That's what this is all about, isn't it?

ETA: Ignore the above. I hadn't seen Page 2 where you actually confirmed that this is a wee vendetta.

[twinstead]

How so?

Perhaps you could simply submit the findings of the Independent Review for Accuracy concerning your work?

ETA: this thread isn't about 'YOUR' work, it's about Roberts' work.

[OldTigerCub]

Tee-hee. Let's take 10 pages of your 9/11 work and 500 pages of mine and compare them for accuracy.

Agreed, Tony? Or do you need to sleep one off and then think about it?


Boo!

I want a front row seat for this one! :D

(even though I know it isn't going to last one round):p

[Hokulele]

Since Roberts has recently attempted to smear me I wanted to set the record straight.


And you are doing this by making things up?

[Tony Szamboti]

Tee-hee. Let's take 10 pages of your 9/11 work and 500 pages of mine and compare them for accuracy.

Agreed, Tony? Or do you need to sleep one off and then think about it?


Boo!


Mark, how about we do the written paper debate you slithered away from and had the audacity to say I was the one who backed down.

Why won't you critique my paper in writing and submit it, without a bunch of keyed up hacks taking pot shots from the sidelines during the debate, such as is what would happen if I debated you here? Writing letters is the accepted norm for good reason.

You are the one who makes bold assertions that my paper is ridiculously bad without backing up what you say. I haven't made a comment on whether or not your papers were accurate. I have merely brought up the fact that they aren't independently reviewed for accuracy.

You are the one who has made the assertions. Now put up or shut up, in writing, in a letter form, to which I will reply.

[Gravy]

David Griffin isn't sitting there claiming, with no real basis, that papers of an opposing viewpoint to his, are not being properly peer reviewed while not having their own work reviewed. This is what Mark Roberts appears to be doing.Please point out where I claim to have published my work in a peer-reviewed journal, as you have done. Oh, that's right, you can't.

Is it true that you're also a reviewer for the Journal of 9/11 Stundies? Or did you mistakenly tell anti-Semitic lunatic Kevin Barrett that when you appeared on his show?

Prepared to take my offer, Tony? 500 pages of mine against 10 of yours.

[MarkyX]

Don't you just love strawman arguments by the 9/11 deniers?

It's really hard to be taken seriously when you keep running into logical fallacies.

[Gravy]

Mark, how about we do the written paper debate you slithered away from and had the audacity to say I was the one who backed down.That's a lie. I agreed to it, then you insisted that it take place in the form of "letters to a journal."

How cowardly of you. Not thinking clearly tonight, are you, Tony?

[A W Smith]

Since Roberts has recently attempted to smear me I wanted to set the record straight.




You smeared yourself. Still smarting from this thread Tony?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=2842789#post2842789

[Tony Szamboti]

Perhaps you could simply submit the findings of the Independent Review for Accuracy concerning your work?

ETA: this thread isn't about 'YOUR' work, it's about Roberts' work.

You are the one who brought my work into it. I guess you don't you realize that. Go reread your post.

Maybe you can sit down with Roberts and write a letter critiquing my paper, instead of just hurling insults with no basis.

[Good Lt]

For the definitionally challenged realcddeal, here's a backgrounder on peer reviewing. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review)

I noticed that the Journal of 9-11 Studies is listed nowhere in the entry.

[twinstead]

You are the one who brought my work into it. I guess you don't you realize that. Go reread your post.

Maybe you can sit down with Roberts and write a letter critiquing my paper, instead of just hurling insults with no basis.

So no critique of your paper has ever been done?

[AZCat]

Maybe you can sit down with Roberts and write a letter critiquing my paper, instead of just hurling insults with no basis.

Hurling insults with no basis is within the rules. It's only illegal when first and second basis are loaded with less than two outs.

[Tony Szamboti]

That's a lie. I agreed to it, then you insisted that it take place in the form of "letters to a journal."

How cowardly of you. Not thinking clearly tonight, are you, Tony?

It sounds like you are the one clucking Mark. It appears that you just don't have anything other than invective to hurl about and can't really critique my paper in any meaningful way.

I said what I had to say to you "put up or shut up".

I'll be waiting for that letter if you ever get the nerve to try to back up your unsupported statements.

[Tony Szamboti]

So no critique of your paper has ever been done?


Not by anyone here. Why don't you try?

[Gravy]

I don't want to pick on someone who is having such trouble with rational thought. Mr. Szamboti is welcome to take my challenge. I'll check in tomorrow to see if he's accepted.

If you must behave this way, Tony, call an old girlfriend. Then you'll only embarrass yourself before one person.

[Tony Szamboti]

Hurling insults with no basis is within the rules. It's only illegal when first and second basis are loaded with less than two outs.

Along the same lines it appears that Roberts is out there running and hurling before the ground crew (reviewers) set up the field.

[Gravy]

I said what I had to say to you "put up or shut up".

I'll be waiting for that letter if you ever get the nerve to try to back up your unsupported statements.Still unable to defend your paper here Tony? Then why are you posting here? Let me know tomorrow if you've changed your mind.

[Slayhamlet]

It sounds like you are the one clucking Mark. It appears that you just don't have anything other than invective to hurl about and can't really critique my paper in any meaningful way.

I said what I had to say to you "put up or shut up".

I'll be waiting for that letter if you ever get the nerve to try to back up your unsupported statements.

Is the idea that this "letter" would then be published in JONES, along with your response? Is that the deal?

[Good Lt]

I'll be waiting for that letter if you ever get the nerve to try to back up your unsupported statements.

Pay very close attention. MARK'S COMMENTS AND REPORTS ARE SOURCED. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Click around and read.

[Tony Szamboti]

I don't want to pick on someone who is having such trouble with rational thought. Mr. Szamboti is welcome to take my challenge. I'll check in tomorrow to see if he's accepted.

If you must behave this way, Tony, call an old girlfriend. Then you'll only embarrass yourself before one person.

What challenge? I am the one who challenged you to write a letter critiquing my paper, so that you can explain your basis for your so far unsupported criticism of it.

Adios for now. I will be waiting for that letter though Mark and we can use this thread to show it was discussed in case you are tempted to continue your smear attempts without backup data.

[AZCat]

Along the same lines it appears that Roberts is out there running and hurling before the ground crew (reviewers) set up the field.

We are playing Calvinball (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvinball#Calvinball), right? Roberts is merely taking advantage of the pre-game multi-combo scoring method first introduced in the 1997 season. In your defense, it isn't used in all leagues - the Western Bitterroot Association outlawed inverted pyramid schemes like this a couple of years ago - but Roberts is known to play in the Northeast Shingle Catalog League which does allow such maneouvers. I'd copy the page from the rOOlbook but that is forbidden - see rOOl 33(a).

[Tony Szamboti]

Is the idea that this "letter" would then be published in JONES, along with your response? Is that the deal?

That would be one way. That is what Dr. Greening and Gordon Ross did. Dr. Greening didn't go around hurling nasty accusations and insults on a forum against Gordon Ross. He had a difference of opinion with what Ross wrote and he critiqued Ross' paper like a man, that is in writing, and Ross responded, like a man.

In other words it was a fair fight.

[RedIbis]

Not the brightest crayon in the bunch, eh?

Tell you what; if Mark ever writes a paper dealing with the SCIENTIFIC and MEASURABLE parts of 9/11, I'll demand a peer review. For now, I'll just enjoy reading his EDITORIALS and CRITIQUES of the 9/11 Twoof Movement.

How about taking a shot at his super slow magic fireball theory? Good luck trying to back that one up with evidence.

[WildCat]

I am sensing a gross misunderstanding of when a peer review is required, and when it is not.
Mystery solved!
:daphne::fred::velma::shaggy::scooby-do:mysteryma

[Hyperviolet]

That would be one way. That is what Dr. Greening and Gordon Ross did. Dr. Greening didn't go around hurling nasty accusations and insults on a forum against Gordon Ross. He had a difference of opinion with what Ross wrote and he critiqued Ross' paper like a man, that is in writing, and Ross responded, like a man.

In other words it was a fair fight.

What is wrong with Gravy's request to not have it in Jones' journal?
It that a *must* for you?

[Tony Szamboti]

What is wrong with Gravy's request to not have it in Jones' journal?
It that a *must* for you?


Not at all. I am simply saying that it must be a letter in writing, to which I will reply. That is the appropriate way to settle differences of opinion on matters concerning a written paper. It can be put on Debunking911.com or a similar site, which will publish the letters, for that matter.

[Tony Szamboti]

Pay very close attention. MARK'S COMMENTS AND REPORTS ARE SOURCED. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Click around and read.

You must realize that sourcing alone does not constitute accuracy. One can easily use selected sources to support a biased view.

[A W Smith]

You must realize that sourcing alone does not constitute accuracy. One can easily use selected sources to support a biased view.

Point out inaccuracies in Mark Roberts work then. Go on.. Do it.

[WildCat]

You must realize that sourcing alone does not constitute accuracy. One can easily use selected sources to support a biased view.
And it is up to the reader to check out these sources. It's easy to do! He probably doesn't link to rense.com as a source though...

I'm astounded you don't understand what footnotes and sources are for, and why it's important to link to primary sources instead of someon's carefully framed interpretation of the primary source.

[T.A.M.]

How could I have missed a thread like this, 2 pages long, built on such an asinine premise (That a collector of 9/11 information, a compiler of all things 9/11, should have his work peer reviewed...by who, another encyclopedist)?

Really realcddeal, Red, who would you have critique Mark's work? Encyclopedia Britannica? The Farmer's Almanac?

Mark is not a scientist. He is not an engineer. He is a highly intelligent man with a very critical mind, and an enormous capacity to remember all things 9/11. He is a keen analyst, and superb Bolony Detector.

Your suggestion that his work, a collection facts, statements, and other forms of information, be "peer reviewed" is, well, there is no other way to say this...STUPID!

TAM:)

[WildCat]

Not at all. I am simply saying that it must be a letter in writing, to which I will reply. That is the appropriate way to settle differences of opinion on matters concerning a written paper. It can be put on Debunking911.com or a similar site, which will publish the letters, for that matter.
I do hope you bring some new material to the table, because everything you've ever claimed here has been laughable. So have you been holding out on us realcddeal? What is your latest smoking gun?

[NYCEMT86]

This thread is a joke right?


Because it has me in stitches.


Aside from that, seriously RealCDDeal...are you unaware of the definition of "Peer Review" or you going by the Truth Movement standards?

Just in case you need a real world definition, here you go:

"The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general." - Wikipedia (Source) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review)

As far as I am aware, Mark's work is made up of a collection of sources which is provided on his site. As the challenge has been issued before, why don't you point out the inaccuracies in any of Mark's work.

[Arus808]

when is tony going to submit his work to a reputable journal? you know since he wants to talk about controlled demoltions, shouldn't he sumbit his work to structural engineers, controlled demolitionists and explosive experts?

[CHF]

when is tony going to submit his work to a reputable journal? you know since he wants to talk about controlled demoltions, shouldn't he sumbit his work to structural engineers, controlled demolitionists and explosive experts?

He certainly should, and Tony knows it.

This might explain why he gets so pissy when someone points out the fact that his "peer-review" is a complete sham.

[T.A.M.]

I tell you what, lets find someone who is an expert on "data and information collection and synthesis", and ask them to review Mark's Work, and in the bargain, Tony can submit his work to a REAL, ON PAPER, LEGITIMATE ENGINEERING JOURNAL, for their consideration of his scientific analysis of the collapses.

sounds fair...and both would be true "Peer Review" would they not??

TAM:)

[Good Lt]

You must realize that sourcing alone does not constitute accuracy. One can easily use selected sources to support a biased view.

We know - many of us have seen Loose Change v.1,2,3. We are also well aware of prisonplanet.com, thank you.

BTW, thanks for arguing this point - now you can share it with your Troofer buddies.

And the question still remains...

What did Gravy get wrong? What is inaccurate?

[BenBurch]

Satan.

I did NOT!

[T.A.M.]

Satan.

http://inspirationinc.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/church_lady.jpg

and please, if you do not know who this is (I know Mark knows who he/she is) please go back and watch all of the NWO copies of SNL.

TAM:)

[GreNME]

You must realize that sourcing alone does not constitute accuracy. One can easily use selected sources to support a biased view.

Sure. I see it happen all the time.

Okay, realdcdeal, I want to make you an offer.

If Gravy agrees, I will be one of the people who will review his writing for accuracy. If I do it, I would like to put in the effort to do a comparison and contrast between one of his papers and one of yours, each of your own choosing. I will perform a complete critical evaluation of not only accuracy, but of logical fallacy usage, misdirection or misrepresentation, contextual placement, open examination of facts and overall integrity of premise. I can, if you wish, even offer possible alternatives for areas where I detect errors or omissions, if I have such a suggestion to offer. So, you not only get a critical review but an honest and frank RFC in order to suggest places where there could be refinement of content in order to better make your point.

Go ahread and read my post history. I'm no fan of conspiracy theories, but I am also equally critical of knee-jerk reactions and poor rhetorical form, of which I have posted about in this forum to some people. If you want impartiality, I can promise you that I will use as objective an approach at critical review as possible, with no set predetermined opinion. This can be done in sections or as a full document for each.

Think about it. To be honest, I'm not sure you are going to get as much of a good-will gesture from those you look at as opposition, and if you think simply having a review of your work by people who agree with you is going to deflect hypocrisy accusations against you, then you'll be inviting worse criticism than many people here are already lobbing at your work (which I haven't seen, I have no clue who you are).

If you are honest about actually wanting to call Gravy on his papers, then you'll do well to take this seriously. I'm willing to do a critical review, but only if you agree to an equal critical review as well. You and Gravy can work out terms that you agree on and I can follow them, provided each are reasonable (for instance, I'm not flying across the country a bunch of times just to make you both happy).

Does this sound reasonable to you?

[OldTigerCub]

How could I have missed a thread like this, 2 pages long, built on such an asinine premise (That a collector of 9/11 information, a compiler of all things 9/11, should have his work peer reviewed...by who, another encyclopedist)?

Really realcddeal, Red, who would you have critique Mark's work? Encyclopedia Britannica? The Farmer's Almanac?

Mark is not a scientist. He is not an engineer. He is a highly intelligent man with a very critical mind, and an enormous capacity to remember all things 9/11. He is a keen analyst, and superb Bolony Detector.

Your suggestion that his work, a collection facts, statements, and other forms of information, be "peer reviewed" is, well, there is no other way to say this...STUPID!

TAM:)


Having read Gravy's online works, I have to agree. He is not a scientist, but he is a sceptical and thorough researcher and reporter of what most sane people would regard as verifiable facts. Until proven otherwise (by imperical evidence) the facts, as Gravy has reported them remain unchanged.

[Gravy]

Not at all. I am simply saying that it must be a letter in writing, to which I will reply.If you're going to lie, Tony Szamboti, don't do it in writing.

Not so fast there Mark. You are the one who is supposed to write a critique of the paper you were chastising and have it published on a Journal. Otherwise there is no basis for the debate. I told you I would then reply with a letter to that Journal. I have no problem with you providing links to or reprinting your critiquing letter and my reply on this forum so long as you get your critique published in a Journal first.

In fact, I might as well tell everyone here I am Tony Szamboti so you have no holds on you. As far as I know, you did keep your word that you would not reveal my identity if I told you who I was, when you asked me to send you an e-mail due to your questioning whether or not I was an engineer.

You need to write your letter Mr. Roberts. What Journal will you submit your letter to?

I'll be submitting my letter to you by email, Tony, and will post it here.

You mean you aren't going to submit it to a journal?
I told Mark that I would not debate him on this forum. Just writing a paper and reprinting it here is the same thing.

A Journal? How about the American Journal of Enology?

You mean that something is about to happen that will render you incapable of dealing with me directly, as you are now?

Cut the crap, Tony, and leave out the cowardly and incompetent middlemen. This is a debate challenge. Either you agree to defend your paper in direct correspondence with me or you don't. Which is it?

I told you I would not debate the scientific issues with you here any longer, and you are trying to do an end around. I told you to write a letter to a journal critiquing my paper. It can be any journal. However, I believe the only chance your paper, on this subject, has of being published is in the Journal of 911 Studies. Are you afraid you will get cooties if you submit a letter to them?


Enjoying your time with the Intellectual Cowards Movement, Tony?

[Quad4_72]

Just out of curiosity realcddeal, can you direct me to ONE factual error in ANY of Mark's papers?

[qarnos]

If peer review was required of all articles "published" on the internet, there would be considerably less content than there is now.

I'm not sure if peer reviewed porn would be a good thing or bad...

[qarnos]

Just out of curiosity realcddeal, can you direct me to ONE factual error in ANY of Mark's papers?

That would required reading them and cross-checking the sources. It's just not the truther way.

Much easier just to make blanket accusations based on inadequate understanding.

[jhunter1163]

Frankly, sir, and with all due respect, your work smears itself; Roberts' input isn't required.

Nominated for Pithiness.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

The OP is an argumentum ad hominem circumstantial. realcddeal, you clearly do not understand what peer review is or when it is to occur; please review this before commenting further. This thread is dead on the starting line.

[Undesired Walrus]

Who peer reviews Mark Roberts 'work'?

His many lovers.

[ZENSMACK89]

Is there a peer group that hangs down at ground zero yelling at people? I mean there are others who do this...?

[Firestone]

Is there a peer group that hangs down at ground zero yelling at people? I mean there are others who do this...?Sure is ... (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/4/44/Aj-projectrebirth.jpg)

[ZENSMACK89]

Sure is ... (http://www.debunk911myths.org/topics/images/4/44/Aj-projectrebirth.jpg)
Alex Jones should review Mark Roberts?

ok?

[BenBurch]

Who peer reviews Mark Roberts 'work'?

His many lovers.

Imageremoved

[Firestone]

Alex Jones should review Mark Roberts?

ok?Well, you asked about a group that hangs down at ground zero yelling at people.
Sure Alex Jones and his groupies fit that description.

Now, as far as reviewing Mark Roberts' papers, Alex Jones is welcome to show where Roberts is wrong.
Or you could do it, for that matter.

Please do it, maybe we can actually learn something.
I'm sure that if you find mistakes in Mark Roberts' papers, he will do the honorable thing and correct them.
Unlike DR Griffin, for example ...

[qarnos]

I have an idea...

Let's start our own journal. It would be called "Journal of 9/11 Conspiracy Debunking".

We can review each others work and publish it! Then it's legit! :D

[Gravy]

http://www.discreet-romance.com/images/products/PD860719.jpg

That's my country lammy. This is my city lammy. I'm a lucky man.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046e74e75749e9.jpg

[Gravy]

Originally Posted by ZENSMACK89 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2green/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=3054222#post3054222)
Alex Jones should review Mark Roberts?
Yes! I think all 9/11 deniers should review my work. They often promise to, but never seem to get around to it.

[Hyperviolet]

I have an idea...

Let's start our own journal. It would be called "Journal of 9/11 Conspiracy Debunking".

We can review each others work and publish it! Then it's legit! :D

*Evil cackle*

[Hyperviolet]

Yes! I think all 9/11 deniers should review my work. They often promise to, but never seem to get around to it.

Alex Jones has reviewed your work.


I've read it. Total propaganda. It's all strawmen

Why, don't you remember?

[Tony Szamboti]

[QUOTE=Gravy;3054014]If you're going to lie, Tony Szamboti, don't do it in writing.
There aren't any lies here Mark. I am simply reducing the standards for you now. I did ask that you publish your critiquing letter in a Journal of some sort in the past, which you refused to do.

[Undesired Walrus]

Yes! I think all 9/11 deniers should review my work. They often promise to, but never seem to get around to it.

Well, they often seem to review your day work, in rather unflattering terms. Is that the same thing? I mean, maybe it isn't an example of their inability to critique you in any other capacity.

Maybe.

[Gravy]

I have an idea...

Let's start our own journal. It would be called "Journal of 9/11 Conspiracy Debunking".

We can review each others work and publish it! Then it's legit! :D(Ahem) Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.jod911.com/)

Actually, I didn't know that they had my WTC 7 piece there listed as "peer reviewed." Perhaps it was, but I posted that paper for hosting by anyone (first by 9/11myths.com). It wasn't intended as a journal submission.

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, they often seem to review your day work, in rather unflattering terms. Is that the same thing? I mean, maybe it isn't an example of their inability to critique you in any other capacity.

Maybe.

I thought Mark was a NYC tour guide. If debunking is what he does during the day then when does he give his tours? At night?

[Hyperviolet]

There aren't any lies here Mark. I am simply reducing the standards for you now. I did ask that you publish your critiquing letter in a Journal of some sort in the past, which you refused to do.

And when i asked you if this was absolutely neccessary, you said: I am simply saying that it must be a letter in writing, to which I will reply.

If you stick by that statement, then there is no further negotiation needed. Both men are happy on the format: Simply, a letter in writing.

[Tony Szamboti]

(Ahem) Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.jod911.com/)

Actually, I didn't know that they had my WTC 7 piece there listed as "peer reviewed." Perhaps it was, but I posted that paper for hosting by anyone (first by 9/11myths.com). It wasn't intended as a journal submission.

So if you published a paper on 911myths.com then that should be a good enough place to publish your critique of my paper and they should agree to publish my reply.

[qarnos]

(Ahem) Journal Of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://www.jod911.com/)

Actually, I didn't know that they had my WTC 7 piece there listed as "peer reviewed." Perhaps it was, but I posted that paper for hosting by anyone (first by 9/11myths.com). It wasn't intended as a journal submission.

Well, I'll be a flatworm's anus.

But, I guess now that we know you have been "peer reviewed", that settles realcddeals's question. :)

[qarnos]

So if you published a paper on 911myths.com then that should be a good enough place to publish your critique of my paper and they should agree to publish my reply.

Ahhh... so this is what this is all about...

YOU.

[Gravy]

So if you published a paper on 911myths.com then that should be a good enough place to publish your critique of my paper and they should agree to publish my reply.9/11myths.com isn't a journal, Tony.

Explain why you won't defend your work right here, dealing with me directly. Come on, lots of people are reading this. Explain it.

[Tony Szamboti]

And when i asked you if this was absolutely neccessary, you said: I am simply saying that it must be a letter in writing, to which I will reply.

If you stick by that statement, then there is no further negotiation needed. Both men are happy on the format: Simply, a letter in writing.

Hyper, that is right, but don't forget to add that I also asked that Mark's letter and my reply to it are published together in the same place. That is only fair.

[Undesired Walrus]

I thought Mark was a NYC tour guide. If debunking is what he does during the day then when does he give his tours? At night?

Seeing how you have never reviewed his other work, i.e, clearing up the mess a handful of conspiracy theorists feel the need to tip all over the streets of rationality, I find CTers often resort to finding something comical of a man who knows the history of his city and passes on his knowledge to others.

[qarnos]

I thought Mark was a NYC tour guide. If debunking is what he does during the day then when does he give his tours? At night?

Was that an attempt at wit?

[Gravy]

Hyper, that is right, but don't forget to add that I also asked that Mark's letter and my reply to it are published together in the same place. That is only fair.That's exactly what I agreed to, and you refused.

What a sad person you are.

[Gravy]

Was that an attempt at wit?Actually, a very big part of my job, and one I enjoy a lot, is debunking myths about New York City. The myths are almost always more fun than reality, though.

[Tony Szamboti]

9/11myths.com isn't a journal, Tony.

Explain why you won't defend your work right here, dealing with me directly. Come on, lots of people are reading this. Explain it.

I have told you before that a fast moving forum is no place to publish a letter. 911myths.com would have been a compromise and it was a drop in standards. It sounds like that isn't enough for you.

Instead of continuing to post here why don't you put that energy into your critique of my paper. I am waiting.

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, I'll be a flatworm's anus.

But, I guess now that we know you have been "peer reviewed", that settles realcddeals's question. :)

That was one paper and he didn't sound too sure about the peer review part. Was your WTC7 paper peer reviewed Mark and by what organization?

[Tony Szamboti]

That's exactly what I agreed to, and you refused.

What a sad person you are.

No, you want it put on a forum. That isn't publishing.

I am tempted to use common insults against you also but I have refrained. What is sad is that you insist on doing so.

[Undesired Walrus]

I am tempted to use common insults against you also but I have refrained. What is sad is that you insist on doing so.

If that is the case, why do you resort to insulting yourself with every post? Displayed mostly in your opening post of this thread, which looks incredibly, if I may be so bold, as a classic trolling of a forum.

Frustrating few days has it been Tony?

[Hyperviolet]

No, you want it put on a forum. That isn't publishing.

I am tempted to use common insults against you also but I have refrained. What is sad is that you insist on doing so.

RealCdDeal, i am mystified.
You wanted this confrontation to take place simply in writing.
Why, specifically, do you require it to be published on a website/journal?

There can be a thread allocated for your dispute, one in which only you and Mark shall post. It will be in writing, it will be recorded. You can link it on other forums, or screenshot it, should you require it.

[Tony Szamboti]

Seeing how you have never reviewed his other work, i.e, clearing up the mess a handful of conspiracy theorists feel the need to tip all over the streets of rationality, I find CTers often resort to finding something comical of a man who knows the history of his city and passes on his knowledge to others.


Mark Roberts is the one who cast aspersions on my work, with no basis, not the other way around. I am simply asking him to do it formally in a published letter which will allow me to reply formally.

This thread is actually the only thing I have said about Roberts' work to date and as you can see that is only to ask who reviews his work, as he often attempts to belittle, with no basis of course, the Journal of 911 Studies peer review system.

[Tony Szamboti]

RealCdDeal, i am mystified.
You wanted this confrontation to take place simply in writing.
Why, specifically, do you require it to be published on a website/journal?

There can be a thread allocated for your dispute, one in which only you and Mark shall post. It will be in writing, it will be recorded. You can link it on other forums, or screenshot it, should you require it.

If it can be guaranteed that only Mark Roberts and I are allowed to post in letter form then that could work.

Somehow I don't believe that the forum allows for that. If the forum moderators would guarantee it I would consider it.

You must realize that it would more than likely be a free for all and nobody has the energy to answer any and all comers. C'mon get fair about it.

Publishing letters at a site like 911myths.com can work and one has to wonder about Mark's refusal to do that.

[Tony Szamboti]

That's exactly what I agreed to, and you refused.



Mark, since you have published in the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and I have published in the Journal of 911 Studies then I believe the only fair way to debate the issue formally is to publish your critique of my paper and my reply in both Journals.

I did not know that you had a paper in the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories until now.

If you refuse to do this then, in light of your so far unsubstantiated attacks on me, one would have to review your credibility.

[Hyperviolet]

If it can be guaranteed that only Mark Roberts and I are allowed to post in letter form then that could work.

Somehow I don't believe that the forum allows for that. If the forum moderators would guarantee it I would consider it.

You must realize that it would more than likely be a free for all and nobody has the energy to answer any and all comers. C'mon get fair about it.

Publishing letters at a site like 911myths.com can work and one has to wonder about Mark's refusal to do that.

Gravy is a well-respected member here at JREF.
Should he request that the thread be left vacated from other members to avoid clutter, then i'm positive people here would do just that.

Moreover, the moderators here at JREF are quite obliging and i don't think they would object to keeping a little eye on the thread so that it stays on topic (that is, a dispute specifcally between you and Mark).

Should that be arranged (and Gravy agrees, of course), would you be willing to participate in such a format?

[Myriad]

Publishing letters at a site like 911myths.com can work and one has to wonder about Mark's refusal to do that.


Where did he say publishing letters at 911myths.com wouldn't be acceptable to him? I read his posts as expressing surprise that you consider that an acceptable option, having earlier insisted that the publisher must be a "journal."

The relevant question there is whether publishing such letters would be acceptable for 911myths.com. That is not a debate site. It has no obligation, and may or may not have any inclination, to publish debates or "opposing points of view."

If it can be guaranteed that only Mark Roberts and I are allowed to post in letter form then that could work.

Somehow I don't believe that the forum allows for that. If the forum moderators would guarantee it I would consider it.

You must realize that it would more than likely be a free for all and nobody has the energy to answer any and all comers. C'mon get fair about it.


The forum does allow for that. Request a moderated thread.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Tony Szamboti]

Gravy, is a well-respected member here at JREF.
Should he request that the thread be left vacated from other members to avoid clutter, then i'm positive people here would do just that.

Moreover, the moderators here at JREF are quite obliging and i don't think they would object to keeping a little eye on the thread so that it stays on topic (that is, a dispute specifcally between you and Mark).

Should that be arranged (and Gravy agrees, of course), would you be willing to particpate in such a format?

After discovering, just today, that Mark Roberts has a published paper at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories it is only right that he publish any critique of my work there with my response being published there also. To be fair to both sides of the argument, his critique and my response should be published in the Journal of 911 Studies also. Those two places are where a scientific debate should take place. Not on a forum.

This is now my final offer and it seems fair to both sides. Everyone here can go to either of those sites and comment here after his critique and my reply are published.

[Hyperviolet]

After discovering that Mark Roberts has a published paper at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories it is only right that he publish any critique of my work there with my response being published there also. To be fair to both sides of the argument, his critique and my response should be published in the Journal of 911 Studies also. Those two places are where a scientific debate should take place. Not on a forum.

This is now my final offer and it seems fair to both sides. Everyone here can go to either of those sites and comment here after his critique and my reply are published.

RealCdDeal,
Again, i am baffled.

When you said:

I am simply saying that it must be a letter in writing, to which I will reply.
Did you mean it? That is, all you require is the dispute in writing, and something you can respond to?
The JREF can accomodate your requests.

What is the problem?

[Gravy]

That was one paper and he didn't sound too sure about the peer review part. Was your WTC7 paper peer reviewed Mark and by what organization?I have never submitted any paper to any journal. If someone says they've peer reviewed something I've written, that's their claim, not mine.

On the other hand, you staunchly defend the Journal of 9/11 Stundies peer review process, and you claim to be a peer reviewer for them. Yet when I raised these simple issues about your paper and their review, you were completely unable to defend them. Remember? It was in the thread titled "Peer Review."
Originally Posted by realcddeal
He [Tony Szamboti, in his JONES paper]approximates the perimeter column factor of safety as 5.00 for gravity loads only. He shows backup for that in his references.No, Szamboti shows how he makes up that safety factor: by assuming that the columns at the impact floors would have the same factor of safety for gravity loads that he calculated for columns at the base of the building. Perhaps they do, but Szamboti makes no attempt to justify this assumption or to calculate the actual gravity load safety factor of the perimeter columns in the impact floors (not that that has much to do with why the towers collapsed anyway). I wonder how that passed peer review.

Strangely, Szamboti interchanges the words column and beam throughout his paper. I wonder how that passed peer review.
Standard design practice dictates that the beams in the upper part of the building would have had the same factor of safety as the beams at the base of the towers. So knowing the design of the columns at their base, the total gravity load of the buildings, and the percentage of damaged beams, we have deduced what the remaining factor of safety was for the beams at the aircraft impact and fire sites.And what does this hilariously wrong "gas and oil pipeline" nonsense have to do with an engineering analysis of the twin towers?One may wonder who would want people in Afghanistan and Iraq to be blamed if they didn’t do it. A good hard look at the soon to be built U.S. oil company controlled gas and oil pipeline in Afghanistan, and the privatization of Iraq’s oilfields to U.S. oil companies, might be a start at solving that puzzle for oneself. Neither of these situations would have been possible, without the support of the American people, for the use of the U.S. military, to overthrow the previous governments of these countries.I wonder how that passed peer review.

Oh, and here's Szamboti's entire analysis of WTC 7:The obvious controlled demolition of WTC7, at 5:20 PM on Sept. 11, 2001, proves that charges were pre-positioned in it, as there would not have been time to rig the building that day, especially with fires in it. With this in mind, the demolition of WTC7 lends considerable weight to the notion that charges could also have been pre-positioned in the twin towers.See? WTC 7 was obviously blown up, so the towers must have been also!

What a moron.

Anyway, realcddeal, if you're up for defending Szamboti's paper, let me know. I'll start the thread.


I have demonstrated that you cannot explain how these statements of yours could have passed peer review in a reputable journal. If you can do so here, I'll go right ahead and write my letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

[chillzero]

If it can be guaranteed that only Mark Roberts and I are allowed to post in letter form then that could work.

Somehow I don't believe that the forum allows for that. If the forum moderators would guarantee it I would consider it.

You must realize that it would more than likely be a free for all and nobody has the energy to answer any and all comers. C'mon get fair about it.

Publishing letters at a site like 911myths.com can work and one has to wonder about Mark's refusal to do that.

Absolutely we can accommodate that. In fact, I would have stepped in to suggest this earlier had I noticed the thread.

I can set up a moderated thread, and ensure that the mod team know that only you and Gravy are allowed to post in it. We can also consider some rules if you wish. For example, how one of you is unable to respond until the other one has made their response. There would be one post by you, then one by Gravy, then one by you... and so on.

You will need to bear in mind that there may be batches of time when no moderator is available, causing a slight delay in approving posts.

[Hyperviolet]

Absolutely we can accommodate that. In fact, I would have stepped in to suggest this earlier had I noticed the thread.

I can set up a moderated thread, and ensure that the mod team know that only you and Gravy are allowed to post in it. We can also consider some rules if you wish. For example, how one of you is unable to respond until the other one has made their response. There would be one post by you, then one by Gravy, then one by you... and so on.

You will need to bear in mind that there may be batches of time when no moderator is available, causing a slight delay in approving posts.

There you have it, RealCdDeal.
Chillzero, as i expected, has given you her word that this can be set-up exactly as specified.

In writing. Moderated. And you can reply.
The criteria you required has been fulfilled.

[Gravy]

There you have it, RealCdDeal.
Chillzero, as i expected, has given you her word that this can be set-up exactly as specified.

In writing. Moderated. And you can reply.
The criteria you required has been fulfilled.He's going to have to answer the old questions in my post 134 if I'm going to spend any more time on him. If he can't explain these simple things, he's just an irrational waste of time.

By the way, it's my understanding (from Darat?) that one-on-one moderated threads are not encouraged here, since it's a discussion forum for all.

[Tony Szamboti]

I have never submitted any paper to any journal. If someone says they've peer reviewed something I've written, that's their claim, not mine.

On the other hand, you staunchly defend the Journal of 9/11 Stundies peer review process, and you claim to be a peer reviewer for them. Yet when I raised these simple issues about your paper and their review, you were completely unable to defend them. Remember? It was in the thread titled "Peer Review."



I have demonstrated that you cannot explain how these statements of yours could have passed peer review in a reputable journal. If you can do so here, I'll go right ahead and write my letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

Based on what you are saying it is obvious that you are not in any position whatsoever to determine what is and isn't a reputable journal and you are refusing to write a letter of critique. You appear to choose a fast moving forum for debating as it fits your style. Sorry forums aren't the place for genuine critiques.

The entire reason for scientific debate taking place in letter form is so the authors can generate thoughtful responses. This is not possible on a fast moving forum with anyone being able to chime in.

You are apparently refusing to debate me in the accepted scientific way! This is why you should have no credibility when making comments about those who have written papers with which you don't agree. So long Mark.

[chillzero]

The entire reason for scientific debate taking place in letter form is so the authors can generate thoughtful responses. This is not possible on a fast moving forum with anyone being able to chime in.

This point is redundant, as I have already agreed to accommodate a one-on-one debate for you both.

[Myriad]

There you have it, RealCdDeal.
Chillzero, as i expected, has given you her word that this can be set-up exactly as specified.

In writing. Moderated. And you can reply.
The criteria you required has been fulfilled.


Except that moments after I posted informing him that was a viable option, RealCdDeal changed his requirements:

After discovering, just today, that Mark Roberts has a published paper at the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories it is only right that he publish any critique of my work there with my response being published there also. To be fair to both sides of the argument, his critique and my response should be published in the Journal of 911 Studies also. Those two places are where a scientific debate should take place. Not on a forum.

This is now my final offer and it seems fair to both sides. Everyone here can go to either of those sites and comment here after his critique and my reply are published.
(emphasis added)

Altered terms noted.

Evasion noted.

Desperate ploy to legitimize J911S by establishing the future claim "Mark Roberts agreed to debate in its pages" noted.

Waste of time by all those including Mark who honestly attempted to meet the requirements for an open honest debate, when RealCdDeal's only apparent motivation is to use Mark Roberts' name and reputation to legitimize J911S as mentioned above, noted.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Hyperviolet]

Except that moments after I posted informing him that was a viable option, RealCdDeal changed his requirements:


(emphasis added)

Altered terms noted.

Evasion noted.

Desperate ploy to legitimize J911S by establishing the future claim "Mark Roberts agreed to debate in its pages" noted.

Waste of time by all those including Mark who honestly attempted to meet the requirements for an open honest debate, when RealCdDeal's only apparent motivation is to use Mark Roberts' name and reputation to legitimize J991S as mentioned above, noted.

Respectfully,
Myriad


Exactly, Myriad.

It's clear that when accomodated with his required specifications, RealCdDeal changed his opinion on what he wanted rather quickly.

[Tony Szamboti]

This point is redundant, as I have already agreed to accommodate a one-on-one debate for you both.

Chillzero, thanks for the offer, but after discovering that Mark has a paper published on a Journal it would seem that would be the logical place for any rational written debate to occur. It would be the exception here and I don't believe that is the right thing for any reasoned debate. Having to depend on when moderators are available would strain the debate and that is not desirable.

Journals are set up for this type of discourse and that is where the debate should take place.

I believe it is entirely fair to both sides for Mark to submit a crtitique to both the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and to the Journal of 911 Studies with my reply also going to both.

If he refuses this then any disinterested person has to wonder about his motives, especially in light of his egregious attacks on me.

[CHF]

Chillzero, thanks for the offer, but after discovering that Mark has a paper published on a Journal it would seem that would be the logical place for any rational written debate to occur. It would be the exception here and I don't believe that is the right thing for any reasoned debate.

Tony, you wrote:

If it can be guaranteed that only Mark Roberts and I are allowed to post in letter form then that could work.

It was guaranteed. Now stop moving the goal posts.

[CHF]

I believe it is entirely fair to both sides for Mark to submit a crtitique to both the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and to the Journal of 911 Studies with my reply also going to both.

Why would he agree to publish in your mickey mouse "journal" when the credibility of said journal is at the center of this very debate?

[Myriad]

Chillzero, thanks for the offer, but after discovering that Mark has a paper published on a Journal it would seem that would be the logical place for any rational written debate to occur. It would be the exception here and I don't believe that is the right thing for any reasoned debate. Having to depend on when moderators are available would strain the debate and that is not desirable.

Journals are set up for this type of discourse and that is where the debate should take place.

I believe it is entirely fair to both sides for Mark to submit a crtitique to both the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and to the Journal of 911 Studies with my reply also going to both.

If he refuses this then any disinterested person has to wonder about his motives, especially in light of his egregious attacks on me.


Realcddeal, you appear to be weaseling out of debate on a flimsy pretext that makes no logical sense.

I once had a poem published in my high school magazine, so if you wish to dispute this assertion I request that you submit your rebuttal there.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Gravy]

So long Mark.Buh-bye! Don't let reality hit you on the way out.

[Tony Szamboti]

Buh-bye! Don't let reality hit you on the way out.

Don't worry I do live in the real world where government officials can be criminally corrupt and cover-ups can and do exist. The real fantasists are those who insist on that never happening.

You appear to be taking the cowards way out, as it is obvious that you are afraid to enter into a legitimate one on one scientific debate with me without the help of your friends on the forum here. This is surreal and childish considering your attacks on me.

[Architect]

Reading back through this thread, it seems to me that the issue at hand is not whether Mark's work has been reviewed but rather Tony's concerns regarding the accuracy of the various documents and hence whether Mark is evading debate or same.

Let's stick at Peer Review for a second. What do we really mean?

Generally speaking, "peer review" refers to the process used by publishers and editors of learned and academic journals to provide a chance for scholars in the same field to examine and critique a paper or book before it is published, to help ensure its integrity and veracity. It is, if you will, a more formal (and some would say adversarial) version of asking a colleague "what do you think of this?".

Now, as a number of others have pointed out, Mark's work is not a theory or scientific hypothesis. Rather he collates various strands of research and (depending on your viewpoint) seeks to either hold up the innacuracies to the light of day or alternatively misrepresents the sources in an attempt to ridicule them.

The parallel is not the scientific process of peer review, but rather a more journalistic model. One might draw a parallel to the work of investigative journalists (for example Pilger) or even, I suppose, Michael Moore.

I doubt if there is a single person here at JREF who whould object to more responsible, accurate and unbiased standards of journalism and debate concerning the events of 911 or indeed generally. If you have concerns, then you have a right to air them.

However these concerns have to be based on issues of accuracy. If you feel that Mark has misinterpreted or misrepresented evidence, then the solution is not "peer review" but rather for you to collate and present these errors in the same manner as Mark did. Let's have trackable sources. Let's have the accuracy and reliability of such sources assessed by the author. Mark cites his sources, and they can be readily checked by someone with the time (and patience).

The issue of the format for such a process is, I think secondary. It is certainly not a process which lends itself to the rapid fire we sometimes see here. Each party will want to go away and review the evidence before responding to individual points. We will also need a way of ensuring that the discussion remains on-topic and does not seek to avoid difficult issues.

A moderated thread seems an excellent idea to me, with all other authors - myself included - excluded and a gentleman's agreement that no-one will start huffing and puffing if a reply doesn't arrive by return. Whether the goalposts have really been moving recently or whether you have both simply mis-read the posts is incidental. Lets start a fresh sheet of paper, and let's start it now.

Are the two of you ready, willing, and able to do so?

[DavidJames]

...without the help of your friends on the forum here. This is surreal and childish considering your attacks on me.What is surreal is you making the statement I bolded above despite acknowledging in the past hour that an offer was made to ensure this would not happen. Dishonest, disengenious or not enough coffee yet this morning?

[DGM]

Don't worry I do live in the real world where government officials can be criminally corrupt and cover-ups can and do exist. The real fantasists are those who insist on that never happening.

You appear to be taking the cowards way out, as it is obvious that you are afraid to enter into a legitimate one on one scientific debate with me without the help of your friends on the forum here. This is surreal and childish considering your attacks on me.
Why are you ignoring Chillzero's offer? It's the debate you want. Simply answer post #134 (no trouble,right) and move on.

[CHF]

You appear to be taking the cowards way out, as it is obvious that you are afraid to enter into a legitimate one on one scientific debate with me without the help of your friends on the forum here. This is surreal and childish considering your attacks on me.

Grow up, Tony!

You set criteria for a debate and it was fulfilled.

Public posts on a moderated JREF forum are no less legitimate than publishing in a kook journal that Steven Jones started in order to avoid peer-review.

[Architect]

Lads, can I respectfully suggest that we stand to one side for a second and let Mark/Tony respond to my post? Let's not muddy the waters any more.

[Dr Adequate]

Don't worry I do live in the real world where government officials can be criminally corrupt and cover-ups can and do exist. The real fantasists are those who insist on that never happening. Of course, you cannot quote any of these imaginary people who "insist on that never happening", because they exist only in the crazy fantasy world in your head.

You appear to be taking the cowards way out, as it is obvious that you are afraid to enter into a legitimate one on one scientific debate with me without the help of your friends on the forum here. You mean, like the debate chillzero offered to arrange, and you are running away from?

[RedIbis]

Reading back through this thread, it seems to me that the issue at hand is not whether Mark's work has been reviewed but rather Tony's concerns regarding the accuracy of the various documents and hence whether Mark is evading debate or same.

Let's stick at Peer Review for a second. What do we really mean?

Generally speaking, "peer review" refers to the process used by publishers and editors of learned and academic journals to provide a chance for scholars in the same field to examine and critique a paper or book before it is published, to help ensure its integrity and veracity. It is, if you will, a more formal (and some would say adversarial) version of asking a colleague "what do you think of this?".

Now, as a number of others have pointed out, Mark's work is not a theory or scientific hypothesis. Rather he collates various strands of research and (depending on your viewpoint) seeks to either hold up the innacuracies to the light of day or alternatively misrepresents the sources in an attempt to ridicule them.

The parallel is not the scientific process of peer review, but rather a more journalistic model. One might draw a parallel to the work of investigative journalists (for example Pilger) or even, I suppose, Michael Moore.

I doubt if there is a single person here at JREF who whould object to more responsible, accurate and unbiased standards of journalism and debate concerning the events of 911 or indeed generally. If you have concerns, then you have a right to air them.

However these concerns have to be based on issues of accuracy. If you feel that Mark has misinterpreted or misrepresented evidence, then the solution is not "peer review" but rather for you to collate and present these errors in the same manner as Mark did. Let's have trackable sources. Let's have the accuracy and reliability of such sources assessed by the author. Mark cites his sources, and they can be readily checked by someone with the time (and patience).

The issue of the format for such a process is, I think secondary. It is certainly not a process which lends itself to the rapid fire we sometimes see here. Each party will want to go away and review the evidence before responding to individual points. We will also need a way of ensuring that the discussion remains on-topic and does not seek to avoid difficult issues.

A moderated thread seems an excellent idea to me, with all other authors - myself included - excluded and a gentleman's agreement that no-one will start huffing and puffing if a reply doesn't arrive by return. Whether the goalposts have really been moving recently or whether you have both simply mis-read the posts is incidental. Lets start a fresh sheet of paper, and let's start it now.

Are the two of you ready, willing, and able to do so?


A voice of reason. Thanks for the post Architect.

If I may make a few quick points because I would love to see formal debate ensue.

1) Peer review is not limited to scientific papers. As has been pointed out by Architect and others, it can be in nearly any academic discipline.

2) Unless I'm mistaken realmcdeal simply doesn't want to try and debate on Gravy's home field. Some may disagree, but it is absolutely unnecessary for any real time debate to take place against Gravy on jref. This is his realm, he's been annointed researcher extraordinaire and he has many loyal fans here. Which leads to my next point.

3) I've criticized Gravy's Rodriguez paper, and found many unsourced claims, exaggerations, ad hominem attacks, and misrepresentations. Instead of the author addressing these claims, Gravy put me on ignore. So anyone who thinks that Gravy is reasomable enough to calmly listen and respond to criticims of his work hasn't read these exchanges.

4) Gravy makes scientific claims in his papers and they should be open to peer review. He is a proponent of the slow moving, deep penetrating, time lapse exploding, magic jet fuel theory and he uses it to correct Rodriguez's account.

Excuse the long post, but I honestly think we'd all be better researchers if we could establish the parameters for calm, respectful, formal debate.

[WildCat]

Mark Roberts is the one who cast aspersions on my work,
Don't be shy Tony! I'm sure many others have also cast aspersions on your lies propaganda nonsense work.

Have you submitted any of your papers to a real journal yet? :rolleyes:

[T.A.M.]

and then it was gone....

For a moment I though one of the CTists would step out from the cozy confines of the sham rag of a journal put out by the scholars...but just as quick as he offered, he retracted when someone called his bluff and said it could be done here...the way he wanted it.

That was very cowardice realcddeal. You offered to debate via written mail posting with Mark on this forum if it was moderated so noone else could post. This was accepted and the mods here agreed. You then promptly retracted your offer. Am I surprised, not really, although I had hoped that a PROFESSIONAL, of all the truthers, might have a spine and stand by their word.

You can come up with all the reasons you wish, but this thread is proof not only to all of us at JREF, but all those in the TM who read (a good number) that when we called your bluff and met your terms (as offered just above) you chickened out.

You opinion, and your reputation as any sort of authority or professional in my eyes, and probably in most here, has been destroyed, and would only be recoverable if you reconsidered and took up the challenge, AS YOU AGREED TO, and debated Mark here in the form of a moderated thread with "letter posting" style/format.

TAM

[WildCat]

3) I've criticized Gravy's Rodriguez paper, and found many unsourced claims, exaggerations, ad hominem attacks, and misrepresentations.
No, you haven't. Wait, does this refer to the Rodriquez ststements that are completely irrelevant to anything of substance in the paper? Pathetic if it is.

[Bell]

You appear to be taking the cowards way out, as it is obvious that you are afraid to enter into a legitimate one on one scientific debate with me without the help of your friends on the forum here. This is surreal and childish considering your attacks on me.

Do you not read what is posted in this thread by others than Gravy?

If it can be guaranteed that only Mark Roberts and I are allowed to post in letter form then that could work.

Somehow I don't believe that the forum allows for that. If the forum moderators would guarantee it I would consider it.

I can set up a moderated thread, and ensure that the mod team know that only you and Gravy are allowed to post in it.

:confused:

ETA: WTF? Formatting is screwed up, but whatever I change, it keeps changing back. ???

[Tony Szamboti]

Grow up, Tony!

You set criteria for a debate and it was fulfilled.

Public posts on a moderated JREF forum are no less legitimate than publishing in a kook journal that Steven Jones started in order to avoid peer-review.

I only said I would consider something on the forum here. When I saw that Mark had a paper published on a Journal site that was obviously the better route to take, as Journals are intentionally set up for this type of debate. If Mark doesn't approve of his paper being on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories then why doesn't he take it down. He is obviously alright with that but not debating me there as it seems he doesn't feel he has an advantage there like he may have here.

The fact that responses here would have to be more rapid and therefore less thoughtful is what we don't want in a real scientific debate.

I am not moving goalposts as I never agreed to debate Mark here. I said I would consider it remember. The two Journals on the subject of 911 are where reasoned debate should take place. If you don't agree with that then you are acting like a provocateur.

This response is to Architect also, less the provocateur comment.

[Hyperviolet]

Reading back through this thread, it seems to me that the issue at hand is not whether Mark's work has been reviewed but rather Tony's concerns regarding the accuracy of the various documents and hence whether Mark is evading debate or same.

Let's stick at Peer Review for a second. What do we really mean?

Generally speaking, "peer review" refers to the process used by publishers and editors of learned and academic journals to provide a chance for scholars in the same field to examine and critique a paper or book before it is published, to help ensure its integrity and veracity. It is, if you will, a more formal (and some would say adversarial) version of asking a colleague "what do you think of this?".

Now, as a number of others have pointed out, Mark's work is not a theory or scientific hypothesis. Rather he collates various strands of research and (depending on your viewpoint) seeks to either hold up the innacuracies to the light of day or alternatively misrepresents the sources in an attempt to ridicule them.

The parallel is not the scientific process of peer review, but rather a more journalistic model. One might draw a parallel to the work of investigative journalists (for example Pilger) or even, I suppose, Michael Moore.

I doubt if there is a single person here at JREF who whould object to more responsible, accurate and unbiased standards of journalism and debate concerning the events of 911 or indeed generally. If you have concerns, then you have a right to air them.

However these concerns have to be based on issues of accuracy. If you feel that Mark has misinterpreted or misrepresented evidence, then the solution is not "peer review" but rather for you to collate and present these errors in the same manner as Mark did. Let's have trackable sources. Let's have the accuracy and reliability of such sources assessed by the author. Mark cites his sources, and they can be readily checked by someone with the time (and patience).

The issue of the format for such a process is, I think secondary. It is certainly not a process which lends itself to the rapid fire we sometimes see here. Each party will want to go away and review the evidence before responding to individual points. We will also need a way of ensuring that the discussion remains on-topic and does not seek to avoid difficult issues.

A moderated thread seems an excellent idea to me, with all other authors - myself included - excluded and a gentleman's agreement that no-one will start huffing and puffing if a reply doesn't arrive by return. Whether the goalposts have really been moving recently or whether you have both simply mis-read the posts is incidental. Lets start a fresh sheet of paper, and let's start it now.

Are the two of you ready, willing, and able to do so?

Guid point, ya big teuchter!

[WildCat]

Absolutely we can accommodate that. In fact, I would have stepped in to suggest this earlier had I noticed the thread.

I can set up a moderated thread, and ensure that the mod team know that only you and Gravy are allowed to post in it. We can also consider some rules if you wish. For example, how one of you is unable to respond until the other one has made their response. There would be one post by you, then one by Gravy, then one by you... and so on.

You will need to bear in mind that there may be batches of time when no moderator is available, causing a slight delay in approving posts.

Chillzero, thanks for the offer, but after discovering that Mark has a paper published on a Journal it would seem that would be the logical place for any rational written debate to occur. It would be the exception here and I don't believe that is the right thing for any reasoned debate. Having to depend on when moderators are available would strain the debate and that is not desirable.

Journals are set up for this type of discourse and that is where the debate should take place.

I believe it is entirely fair to both sides for Mark to submit a crtitique to both the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and to the Journal of 911 Studies with my reply also going to both.

If he refuses this then any disinterested person has to wonder about his motives, especially in light of his egregious attacks on me.
Run away Tony! Run fast, run far! Run like an antelope, out of control!:scarper:

[T.A.M.]

A voice of reason. Thanks for the post Architect.

If I may make a few quick points because I would love to see formal debate ensue.

1) Peer review is not limited to scientific papers. As has been pointed out by Architect and others, it can be in nearly any academic discipline.

2) Unless I'm mistaken realmcdeal simply doesn't want to try and debate on Gravy's home field. Some may disagree, but it is absolutely unnecessary for any real time debate to take place against Gravy on jref. This is his realm, he's been annointed researcher extraordinaire and he has many loyal fans here. Which leads to my next point.

3) I've criticized Gravy's Rodriguez paper, and found many unsourced claims, exaggerations, ad hominem attacks, and misrepresentations. Instead of the author addressing these claims, Gravy put me on ignore. So anyone who thinks that Gravy is reasomable enough to calmly listen and respond to criticims of his work hasn't read these exchanges.

4) Gravy makes scientific claims in his papers and they should be open to peer review. He is a proponent of the slow moving, deep penetrating, time lapse exploding, magic jet fuel theory and he uses it to correct Rodriguez's account.

Excuse the long post, but I honestly think we'd all be better researchers if we could establish the parameters for calm, respectful, formal debate.

couple of counter points Red:

1. You are right, and academic discipline can peer review. However, there is no doubt that anyone who reads the titles and paper contents of many of the submissions to the sham rag for truth, that they are trying to pass it off, at least in part, as a scientific journal. As far as I am concerned, they should place a disclaimer in the journal stating what TYPE of journal it is, and that their "Peer Review" is in keeping with a general academic journal, not a scientific one.

2. The place of debate would be the JREF, but the offer, which the mods have agreed to, was that noone else besides Mark and Tony would post, and that if this was not followed, any posts by others, would be removed. Hence, the JREF Forum would simply serve as a holding place for the posts and replies, so others could read it here...calling it "home tuf" for the purposes of their debate is quite an exaggeration, or misleading.

3. If you wish to critique a paper by Gravy in a similar fashion to what has been offered and refused (now) by Tony, so that all can see your critique in the open, then ask the mods...even if Gravy has you on ignore, you can at least post your OPEN and FULL Critique with references to the pages in his paper, and references to your sources.

4. Believing in something or being a proponent of something does not make said things "his" or "his theories". He is adding his agreement to someone elses theory. It is the original theory that should be open to peer review, not gravy's stamp of approval on it.

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

and then it was gone....

For a moment I though one of the CTists would step out from the cozy confines of the sham rag of a journal put out by the scholars...but just as quick as he offered, he retracted when someone called his bluff and said it could be done here...the way he wanted it.

That was very cowardice realcddeal. You offered to debate via written mail posting with Mark on this forum if it was moderated so noone else could post. This was accepted and the mods here agreed. You then promptly retracted your offer. Am I surprised, not really, although I had hoped that a PROFESSIONAL, of all the truthers, might have a spine and stand by their word.

You can come up with all the reasons you wish, but this thread is proof not only to all of us at JREF, but all those in the TM who read (a good number) that when we called your bluff and met your terms (as offered just above) you chickened out.

You opinion, and your reputation as any sort of authority or professional in my eyes, and probably in most here, has been destroyed, and would only be recoverable if you reconsidered and took up the challenge, AS YOU AGREED TO, and debated Mark here in the form of a moderated thread with "letter posting" style/format.

TAM

I am offering to debate on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. How is that trying to stay in cozy confines? I never agreed to debate Roberts here. Get real there TAM. You know darn right well that I only said I would consider it and I did. The fact that Roberts has a paper on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories was not known to me before today. It appears that Roberts feels that he needs the help of his friends and he is a coward when it comes to specifically debating someone who may actually know something and will have the benefit of being able to formulate a response over time.

[T.A.M.]

Roberts doesn't need any of us. You have a convenient way of posting your replies and posts here, where we know NOONE will edit them besides yourselves (provided no rules of the forum are broken within), for the whole world to see. A journal is limited by edition release dates and editorial confines.

Here the replies and posting is limited only by the speed of the authors.

All other gripes (others posting in the debate, etc) have been taken care of.

I would also state, that to be fair, that until the debate is ended, that no threads be started here for the purpose of commenting on the debate.

You can label it any way you want Tony, but for anyone, truther or debunker alike, reading this thread, it is clear what has just occured.

TAM:)

[Architect]

Right, all of you guys at the back just wheesht for a second.

Real:

I seem to recall that Doc runs a wholly independent site which is specifically set up to provide an opportunity for debate. This should be neutral ground acceptable to both of you. If you undertake to debate at same then (and assuming that Mark also agrees) then I am willing to ask Doc to look favourably upon it. What say you?



And for the rest of you, a "teuchter" is a mildy derrogative terms used by the Sassenachs south of the Highland boundary fault to describe those of us who enjoy the Language of the Garden of Eden as our first tongue. Ach tha beaurla agamsa ceudeachd, ya soap-dodgin' Weegie!

[Gravy]

Are the two of you ready, willing, and able to do so?Well said, but the issue we've been discussing for the past few pages isn't my work, but whether realcddeal can defend his "peer reviewed" paper. He is unable to answer the simple questions I have put to him or defend the JONES "peer review" process. Period.

[Calcas]

The fact that responses here would have to be more rapid and therefore less thoughtful is what we don't want in a real scientific debate.

They would NOT have to be "more rapid" as you call it. Why do you consider this some kind of "fact?"

You two can take a week between responding to each other, or more, for all we care.

NO ONE ELSE will be allowed to post in the thread.

How in the world do you get to the conclusion that it need be some kind of rapid response debate.

One starts. The other replies when they want. Then the first replies when they want.

What, again, is wrong with this format?

[GreNME]

If it can be guaranteed that only Mark Roberts and I are allowed to post in letter form then that could work.

Somehow I don't believe that the forum allows for that. If the forum moderators would guarantee it I would consider it.

You must realize that it would more than likely be a free for all and nobody has the energy to answer any and all comers. C'mon get fair about it.

Publishing letters at a site like 911myths.com can work and one has to wonder about Mark's refusal to do that.

I can do you one better than this as well. I have my own space on the web that is completely separated by both of your familiar "sides" on this matter. It also happens to run on a software that should be familiar (the same as this forum). I can segregate a nice little separate section for you and him to run your textual debate, allowing only you two the ability to post in the section.

I only said I would consider something on the forum here. When I saw that Mark had a paper published on a Journal site that was obviously the better route to take, as Journals are intentionally set up for this type of debate. If Mark doesn't approve of his paper being on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories then why doesn't he take it down. He is obviously alright with that but not debating me there as it seems he doesn't feel he has an advantage there like he may have here.

The fact that responses here would have to be more rapid and therefore less thoughtful is what we don't want in a real scientific debate.

I am not moving goalposts as I never agreed to debate Mark here. I said I would consider it remember. The two Journals on the subject of 911 are where reasoned debate should take place. If you don't agree with that then you are acting like a provocateur.

This response is to Architect also, less the provocateur comment.

Not to put you any more on the defensive, but you are demanding a set of criteria with what seems to be the intention of biased moderation. This is why I'm specifically offering you a third-party option. If you feel your own words can stand on their own, and Gravy believes the same about his words, then this should be no problem.

I will, however, like to point out that your constant "coward" attack is no better than any of the insults you have accrued from others in this thread. You're not positioned on any high ground in your offer at this point, as you have been intentionally provoking despite claims otherwise by you. You know you are provoking. I am offering you a third-party option that can give you both a level playing field.

[Dr Adequate]

I am offering to debate on the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. You are free to write a letter to the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories criticizing Mark Roberts.

Mark can't compel them to publish your letter, since he doesn't run it.

If they do publish it, I'm fairly sure they would allow him the right of reply.

I'm not at all sure that they would allow an unlimited, open-ended exchange of letters, because people running journals never, ever do so.

Still, why not write your letter and see what happens?

Otherwise, I suggest that you take up chillzero's offer of a one-on-one debate.

[Hyperviolet]

And for the rest of you, a "teuchter" is a mildy derrogative terms used by the Sassenachs south of the Highland boundary fault to describe those of us who enjoy the Language of the Garden of Eden as our first tongue. Ach tha beaurla agamsa ceudeachd, ya soap-dodgin' Weegie!

:p

[T.A.M.]

They would NOT have to be "more rapid" as you call it. Why do you consider this some kind of "fact?"

You two can take a week between responding to each other, or more, for all we care.

NO ONE ELSE will be allowed to post in the thread.

How in the world do you get to the conclusion that it need be some kind of rapid response debate.

One starts. The other replies when they want. Then the first replies when they want.

What, again, is wrong with this format?

That said, the debate should have some general rules...both participants should decide on a time limit, like 10 days, or something like that, or else the debate could take months or years...just saying.

TAM:)

[Tony Szamboti]

Roberts doesn't need any of us. You have a convenient way of posting your replies and posts here, where we know NOONE will edit them besides yourselves (provided no rules of the forum are broken within), for the whole world to see. A journal is limited by edition release dates and editorial confines.

Here the replies and posting is limited only by the speed of the authors.

All other gripes (others posting in the debate, etc) have been taken care of.

I would also state, that to be fair, that until the debate is ended, that no threads be started here for the purpose of commenting on the debate.

You can label it any way you want Tony, but for anyone, truther or debunker alike, reading this thread, it is clear what has just occured.

TAM:)


Speed is exactly what we don't want. We want REASONED debate and that takes time and is why Journals are where scientific debate should take place. You can say that the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and the Journal of 911 Studies aren't real journals if you want but the fact remains that they have the format of journals and that is where a debate of this sort should take place.

Thanks for proving my point.

[Architect]

Mark

It seems to me that there are a number of issues and, with the deepest of respect, we need to avoid simply standing about in circles pointing/shouting at each other.

Real has sought to question the accuracy of your papers (and we would, of course, have to sort of which and where). I therefore don't think that we should muddy the water with whether others might (or might not) have done so. This is an issue about whether the facts (and only the facts, gentlemen) are wrong as you presented them.

However you raise an important point. Real, if we are dealing with facts rather than scientific hypothesis then you cannot cite the latter in support of the former. Citing (for example) a Jones paper which has not been subject to scientific scrutiny in order to debunk interpretation of fact is a very difficult area. Would you intend to rely upon such sources in any debate?



Which reminds me, I must dig out my France rugby top and get ready for the game this evening.

[Gravy]

People, I appreciate your comments, but please do not spend your energy on this. Realcddeal cannot answer my post 134, which is a reprint of my questions to him from early August.

That's my whole point: he is not worth spending time on, and writing letters to "journals" about, if he cannot explain even a few simple things here.

[GreNME]

Well said, but the issue we've been discussing for the past few pages isn't my work, but whether realcddeal can defend his "peer reviewed" paper. He is unable to answer the simple questions I have put to him or defend the JONES "peer review" process. Period.

That's why I'm offering to review both his and yours, as well as provide a contrast. If he feels so strongly about the veracity of his paper, then he should feel it actually would withstand third-party scrutiny. This offer I made should be no problem for him. If he truly wants "fair" then this is the way to do it.

[RedIbis]

couple of counter points Red:

1. You are right, and academic discipline can peer review. However, there is no doubt that anyone who reads the titles and paper contents of many of the submissions to the sham rag for truth, that they are trying to pass it off, at least in part, as a scientific journal. As far as I am concerned, they should place a disclaimer in the journal stating what TYPE of journal it is, and that their "Peer Review" is in keeping with a general academic journal, not a scientific one.

2. The place of debate would be the JREF, but the offer, which the mods have agreed to, was that noone else besides Mark and Tony would post, and that if this was not followed, any posts by others, would be removed. Hence, the JREF Forum would simply serve as a holding place for the posts and replies, so others could read it here...calling it "home tuf" for the purposes of their debate is quite an exaggeration, or misleading.

3. If you wish to critique a paper by Gravy in a similar fashion to what has been offered and refused (now) by Tony, so that all can see your critique in the open, then ask the mods...even if Gravy has you on ignore, you can at least post your OPEN and FULL Critique with references to the pages in his paper, and references to your sources.

4. Believing in something or being a proponent of something does not make said things "his" or "his theories". He is adding his agreement to someone elses theory. It is the original theory that should be open to peer review, not gravy's stamp of approval on it.

TAM:)

1) The issue is Gravy's work, not Jones's journal.

2) That's a reasonable forum, but how many simultaneous threads do you expect will pop up attacking Tony on jref?

3) Excellent idea. I'll keep it in mind.

4) I heartily disagree. If Gravy is going to post his work in this public forum, call people liars, anti semites, and every other name he can think of, his research, analysis, and claims better be impeccable, rock solid, 100% sourced. For some reason, and this thread proves it once again, this guy is given a very long leash to what usually amounts to character assassination.

[Tony Szamboti]

You are free to write a letter to the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories criticizing Mark Roberts.

Mark can't compel them to publish your letter, since he doesn't run it.

If they do publish it, I'm fairly sure they would allow him the right of reply.

I'm not at all sure that they would allow an unlimited, open-ended exchange of letters, because people running journals never, ever do so.

Still, why not write your letter and see what happens?

Otherwise, I suggest that you take up chillzero's offer of a one-on-one debate.


You are forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who has criticized my work and the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, without any real substantiation. I am simply asking him to do it the right way with a way for me to respond in a fair manner and that would be on a journal not a fast moving forum.

No rational person should disagree with that and those who do could be considered as bordering on provocateurism.

As far as Mark's actual work all I have done is question who reviews his work.

[Dr Adequate]

Speed is exactly what we don't want. We want REASONED debate and that takes time and is why Journals are where scientific debate should take place. You can say that the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and the Journal of 911 Studies aren't real journals if you want but the fact remains that they have the format of journals and that is where a debate of this sort should take place. In the real world, debates do not take place in journals. After a couple of back-and-forths, the editors invariably declare the correspondence closed.

Still, if you want to, write your letter to the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories. See if the editors publish it, and see if Mark replies.

No-one is stopping you from doing this.

[Architect]

You are forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who has criticized my work and the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, without any real substantiation. All I have done is to question who reviews his work.

With respect, that point has now been superseded by the discussion at hand.

Whether Mark's work is reviewed, or whether such review is appropriate, is neither here nor there. Your principal objection is on grounds of innacuracy of misrepresentation which would, inter alia, have been identified in the course of any such review. You have now been offered the change to undertaken a review and debate, on a suitable forums.

Do you accept?

[Dr Adequate]

You are forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who has criticized my work and the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, without any real substantiation. I am simply asking him to do it the right way with a way for me to respond in a fair manner and that would not be on this forum. Why not?

This forum allows you to reply all you like. Go for it.

[Gravy]

You are forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who has criticized my work and the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, without any real substantiation. All I have done is to question who reviews his work.It is neither rational nor mature to lie to people on this forum, Tony (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134).

And anyone is welcome to review my work, which is not submitted to journals. How many times have you been told this already? Are you incapable of understanding such a simple thing?

[CHF]

You are forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who has criticized my work and the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, without any real substantiation.

Excuse me?

He provided specific examples of the garbage that somehow slipped though your "peer-review" process.

He's still waiting for you to defend it.

[chillzero]

2) That's a reasonable forum, but how many simultaneous threads do you expect will pop up attacking Tony on jref?

None. Starting threads to attack a member is against the rules, and would result in moderator action.

It is likely that a parallel thread for people to discuss their opinions on how the debate is going would come up, but it would have to remain strictly within the terms of the Membership Agreement.

[Architect]

It seems to me that you are both circling each other like bairns in the school playground, throwing half punches but still too busy trading witty remarks to get to the matter at hand.

Go for a debate on Doc's site, or both let the matter rest.

[Tony Szamboti]

That's why I'm offering to review both his and yours, as well as provide a contrast. If he feels so strongly about the veracity of his paper, then he should feel it actually would withstand third-party scrutiny. This offer I made should be no problem for him. If he truly wants "fair" then this is the way to do it.

You can review it if you are part of the review teams of either the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories or the Journal of 911 Studies.

[T.A.M.]

1) The issue is Gravy's work, not Jones's journal.

2) That's a reasonable forum, but how many simultaneous threads do you expect will pop up attacking Tony on jref?

3) Excellent idea. I'll keep it in mind.

4) I heartily disagree. If Gravy is going to post his work in this public forum, call people liars, anti semites, and every other name he can think of, his research, analysis, and claims better be impeccable, rock solid, 100% sourced. For some reason, and this thread proves it once again, this guy is given a very long leash to what usually amounts to character assassination.

1. Your debate with Mark is concerning his paper.. I believe, IIRC, the ongoing attempt to debate here is over Tony's paper, is it not?

2. Please not that a few posts above, I suggested that if the debate were to go ahead here, that we not create any "side threads" to comment on the debate, until it is over, or at worst, limit such things to one "commentary" thread.

3. Separate his work from his personal opinion. You are mixing the two, and judging both as one...not fair. That would be the equivelent of me judging Greening's work on the topic based on his inflammatory, defaming posts here on JREF...not fair.

TAM:)

[Gravy]

Just to clarify in case anyone's confused, realcdeal is Tony Szamboti, the author of the "peer reviewed" paper I discussed in August and in post 134.

[Gravy]

Go for a debate on Doc's site, or both let the matter rest.I've made my terms clear, and I ask that people not devote more energy to this issue. Unless that person is realcddeal, addressing my post 134.

[Architect]

Just to clarify in case anyone's confused, realcdeal is Tony Szamboti, the author of the "peer reviewed" paper I discussed in August and in post 134.

Aye, we got that mate.

Torquay? How are the herds of wilderbeast doing?

[Dr Adequate]

You can review it if you are part of the review teams of either the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories ... To my previous remarks, I should add that even if the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories did publish your letter, they would not do so with a guarantee that the only person allowed to write back would be Mark Roberts, because no journal ever does anything like that.

If you insist on a one-on-one debate, then there is no journal in the world that will offer you that facility.

On the other hand, chillzero has just offered you facilities for exactly such a debate as you say you want. Go for it.

[T.A.M.]

yah I am done, my opinion has been formed through the posts on this thread...shame really.

TAM:)

[RedIbis]

1. Your debate with Mark is concerning his paper.. I believe, IIRC, the ongoing attempt to debate here is over Tony's paper, is it not?

2. Please not that a few posts above, I suggested that if the debate were to go ahead here, that we not create any "side threads" to comment on the debate, until it is over, or at worst, limit such things to one "commentary" thread.

3. Separate his work from his personal opinion. You are mixing the two, and judging both as one...not fair. That would be the equivelent of me judging Greening's work on the topic based on his inflammatory, defaming posts here on JREF...not fair.

TAM:)

1) I see that's what the thread has become, but I was sincerely responding to the thread title. I really did not know the backstory to Tony v Gravy.

It occurs to me that we might get Dana White to promote the debate and take this to the octagon!

2) Yes, I saw that after I posted.

3) We'll agree to disagree on that one. I appreciate you responding like this (I find the numbering system quite convenient).

I don't want to derail from the point of this thread. I would very much like to see a forum that the debators are comfortable with.

[jhunter1163]

4) I heartily disagree. If Gravy is going to post his work in this public forum, call people liars, anti semites, and every other name he can think of, his research, analysis, and claims better be impeccable, rock solid, 100% sourced. For some reason, and this thread proves it once again, this guy is given a very long leash to what usually amounts to character assassination.

Do you deny that William Rodriguez, among others, has embellished his story regarding his role in the events of 9/11?

Do you deny that the Truth movement contains several notorious Holocaust deniers?

Gravy's work is solidly researched, impeccably analyzed and fully sourced. This is why no Truther, in five pages in this thread and many, many other threads previously, has been able to dispute its accuracy.

Character assassination can only be done to people who have character to begin with. There seems to be a deficiency of character in the Truth movement.

[Tony Szamboti]

It is neither rational nor mature to lie to people on this forum, Tony (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134).

And anyone is welcome to review my work, which is not submitted to journals. How many times have you been told this already? Are you incapable of understanding such a simple thing?

There you go again. You just can't help calling people liars, without substantiation. I have told you before why your comments are not valid. Write a letter about it, however short, and you will get a clear response which everyone can then sift through. You seem to just want to get me in a fast moving situation which tends to lead to unthoughtful replies. My offer to use both the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and the Journal of 911 Studies is fair and rational. If you don't accept you run the risk of appearing disingenuous and of taking the cowards way out.

[Dr Adequate]

You are forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who has criticized my work and the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, without any real substantiation. I am simply asking him to do it the right way with a way for me to respond in a fair manner and that would be on a journal not a fast moving forum. I notice that you've changed your post after I replied to it. Don't.

---

Now, let me spell it out again. People who edit scientific journals do not, ever, ever, allow their letters pages (if they have letters pages) to be a venue for open-ended one-on-one debate.

Challenging Mark Roberts to debate you in such a venue is like me challenging you to arm-wrestle me in the Oval Office. It's not a challenge you can take up.

[Architect]

There you go again. You just can't help calling people liars, without substantiation. I have told you before why your comments are not valid. Write a letter about it, however short, and you will get a clear response which everyone can then sift through. You seem to just want to get me in a fast moving situation which tends to lead to unthoughtful replies. My offer to use both the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and the Journal of 911 Studies is fair and rational. If you don't accept you run the risk of appearing disingenuous and of taking the cowards way out.

Tony

Mark has said that he's not going to debate. This is a win-win option for you. Put together a full, accurate, informed, and above all properly sourced critique of his work and put it somewhere easily accessible and preferably non-woo. Be judged on the quality of your critique, not on glibly traded insults.

[Dr Adequate]

My offer to use both the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories and the Journal of 911 Studies is fair and rational. It's as "fair and rational" as my offer to use the Oval Office as the venue for our arm-wrestling match.

Should I call you a "coward" until you agree to do so?

[Dr Adequate]

P.S: As for your offer that this debate should also, in parallel, appear in the Journal of 911 Studies, two questions spring to mind:

(1) Do you speak for the editorial board of this journal?

(2) Can you guarantee that they will, in fact, make an open-ended commitment to publish any letter that Mark Roberts sends them and to let no-one reply to his letters except you?

This is the debate that you claim to want. Can you honestly tell us that they would allow it?

You seem to have quite a strange idea of what a scientific journal is. This is simply not what they do.

[Dr Adequate]

I've made my terms clear, and I ask that people not devote more energy to this issue. Unless that person is realcddeal, addressing my post 134. No, I think that realcddeal's idea is a good one. If realcddeal answers "yes" to both of my questions (above) then debunkers (with you as our mouthpiece and signatory to the letters) would be able to write whatever we want to write, in their journal, at any length we choose, in every subsequent issue.

It sounds like a really sweet deal to me.

[Tony Szamboti]

I can do you one better than this as well. I have my own space on the web that is completely separated by both of your familiar "sides" on this matter. It also happens to run on a software that should be familiar (the same as this forum). I can segregate a nice little separate section for you and him to run your textual debate, allowing only you two the ability to post in the section.



Not to put you any more on the defensive, but you are demanding a set of criteria with what seems to be the intention of biased moderation. This is why I'm specifically offering you a third-party option. If you feel your own words can stand on their own, and Gravy believes the same about his words, then this should be no problem.

I will, however, like to point out that your constant "coward" attack is no better than any of the insults you have accrued from others in this thread. You're not positioned on any high ground in your offer at this point, as you have been intentionally provoking despite claims otherwise by you. You know you are provoking. I am offering you a third-party option that can give you both a level playing field.

GreNME, I would agree to this format. Since Mark Roberts is the one who needs to substantiate his criticisms of my paper then he should write his letter which you can post and I will reply. Please private message me when he does so.

[Tony Szamboti]

P.S: As for your offer that this debate should also, in parallel, appear in the Journal of 911 Studies, two questions spring to mind:

(1) Do you speak for the editorial board of this journal?

(2) Can you guarantee that they will, in fact, make an open-ended commitment to publish any letter that Mark Roberts sends them and to let no-one reply to his letters except you?

This is the debate that you claim to want. Can you honestly tell us that they would allow it?

You seem to have quite a strange idea of what a scientific journal is. This is simply not what they do.


This is what was done with Judy Wood. Her letters were published without moderation on the Journal of 911 Studies. I did ask Dr. Jones to do the same for Mark Roberts and he agreed. I told Mark this a while ago.

[Tony Szamboti]

To my previous remarks, I should add that even if the Journal of Debunking 911 Conspiracy Theories did publish your letter, they would not do so with a guarantee that the only person allowed to write back would be Mark Roberts, because no journal ever does anything like that.

If you insist on a one-on-one debate, then there is no journal in the world that will offer you that facility.

On the other hand, chillzero has just offered you facilities for exactly such a debate as you say you want. Go for it.

It doesn't have to be one-on-one in the true sense but a fast moving forum is not where it should take place and Chillzero said there may be times where no moderation is available. It is the Journals or perhaps GreNME's proposal which are the only options I would consider fair.

[Tony Szamboti]

It's as "fair and rational" as my offer to use the Oval Office as the venue for our arm-wrestling match.

Should I call you a "coward" until you agree to do so?

You seem to be forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who is the one who attacked me in an egregious manner not the other way around. He seems to only like to fight when it is on his terms though.

[chillzero]

It doesn't have to be one-on-one in the true sense but a fast moving forum is not where it should take place and Chillzero said there may be times where no moderation is available. It is the Journals or perhaps GreNME's proposal which are the only options I would consider fair.

What I said was there may be times when no moderators are available to approve posts - we aren't all set up on shifts to provide 24 hour cover.

What this means is, you submit your response, and have to wait until a moderator approves it before anyone can view it. That's all. Anybody else posting on the thread would have their responses deleted, and so those would never be visible to interfere with the debate.

Therefore, the speed of the debate would mostly be dictated by you and Gravy, and would be slower - not faster - than you are concerned about. Posts would not appear until a moderator approved them, and as I said we can set up rules that neither of you post until the other has had their post approved for viewing, one at a time.

[beachnut]

I would really like to know.
facts, rational thinking, evidence and logical thought; questions

since your work is flawed, due to lack of facts and junk science; is this why you attack Mark? (real, have you fixed all the errors in your paper?)

[Gravy]

You seem to be forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who is the one who attacked me in an egregious manner not the other way around.When I was an English major, they didn't teach me that egregious means "completely substantiated" and "irrefutable." Did I go to a bad school? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134)

He seems to only like to fight when it is on his terms though.A lie, or just a mistake? You well know that the supervisor of "peer review" of the Journal of 9/11 Stundies twice fled from debate opportunities with me. The first time I offered him the choice of time, place, debate topics, and moderators. The second time was to accept his challenge to debate on the Tom Hartmann show, and again I offered to limit the debate to topics with which he was comfortable. The fearless truth leader ran like a scared bunny.

Do they teach intellectual cowardice at JONES, or is it a prerequisite for being a reviewer? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134)

[Tony Szamboti]

What I said was there may be times when no moderators are available to approve posts - we aren't all set up on shifts to provide 24 hour cover.

What this means is, you submit your response, and have to wait until a moderator approves it before anyone can view it. That's all. Anybody else posting on the thread would have their responses deleted, and so those would never be visible to interfere with the debate.

Therefore, the speed of the debate would mostly be dictated by you and Gravy, and would be slower - not faster - than you are concerned about. Posts would not appear until a moderator approved them, and as I said we can set up rules that neither of you post until the other has had their post approved for viewing, one at a time.

I prefer GreNME's proposal, which would relieve any concern over moderation. It should simply be paper vs. paper not continuous posts. GreNME's proposal accomplishes that just as a journal would.

[chillzero]

That's fair enough, and I am not seeking to persuade you otherwise. I just wanted to clarify the options, and what a moderated thread is. It seemed to be a bit misunderstood.

[Tony Szamboti]

When I was an English major, they didn't teach me that egregious means "completely substantiated" and "irrefutable." Did I go to a bad school? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134)

A lie, or just a mistake? You well know that the supervisor of "peer review" of the Journal of 9/11 Stundies twice fled from debate opportunities with me. The first time I offered him the choice of time, place, debate topics, and moderators. The second time was to accept his challenge to debate on the Tom Hartmann show, and again I offered to limit the debate to topics with which he was comfortable. The fearless truth leader ran like a scared bunny.

Do they teach intellectual cowardice at JONES, or is it a prerequisite for being a reviewer? (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134)

Your quickness to call people liars is substantiated.

Do you accept GreNME's offer of the use of his site for a letter vs. letter written debate with me concerning your criticisms of my paper?

[Dr Adequate]

This is what was done with Judy Wood. Her letters were published without moderation on the Journal of 911 Studies. I did ask Dr. Jones to do the same for Mark Roberts and he agreed. I told Mark this a while ago. Let's be clear. Are you saying that the answers to both my questions are "yes"?

Do you speak for the Journal of 911 Studies? Will they really guarantee that we can publish our opinions in their journal, in every issue, at whatever length we choose, so long as Mark Roberts signs his name to it?

[DGM]

Your quickness to call people liars is substantiated.

Do you accept GreNME's offer of the use of his site for a letter vs. letter written debate with me concerning your criticisms of my paper?
Tony:
Why don't you start? Mark has already made some criticisms.

[Myriad]

Okay, given that the debate thing is going nowhere (Tony will not debate except in a manner that would require Mark Roberts to tacitly acknowledge J911S as a legitimate venue, when that legitimacy is the very issue being debated), I'm going to return to the OP issue of peer review of Gravy's work.

My own overall impression of Mark's work is a bit different from others' interpretations here. Some have compared him to an investigative journalist, but I propose a different interpretation that I think is better. Mark's work is, basically, the work of a historian.

Please don't misunderstand; to my knowledge Mark has never claimed to have the training or the credentials of an academic historian. But that's the best characterization of the work he's done: collecting all available evidence from primary and secondary sources, critically evaluating it, and from it producing the most objectively accurate possible historical narrative. That the historical events in question are recent is irrelevant (except insofar as it allows the possibly confusing juxtaposition of historical scholarship and journalism). That the narrative that Mark's work supports is not an original one is also IMHO irrelevant (but see below).

I have great respect for good historians, and for the difficulty of the endeavor they undertake. Unlike most scientists, they cannot resolve an uncertainty by repeating an experiment with better observing instruments in place. They are limited to the available documentary evidence, and finding and accessing even the evidence known to exist (let alone revealing evidence not previously known) can be a monumental task. Like scientists, their work, no matter how thorough, is always in jeopardy of being overturned by new evidence. And like scientists, they aspire to discover objective truth. Literary critics (who must also contend with a limited pool of information to work from) can endlessly debate either side of the question of whether Shakespeare's Hamlet was really insane or faking it, with no fear of ever being proved wrong -- because Shakespeare's Hamlet never existed. Historians don't have that luxury. Though they can never establish the truth of a historical narrative beyond all doubt (and the good ones acknowledge this), an objective truth does in fact exist. Either Roosevelt had actionable advance warning of Pearl Harbor or he did not. All the debate in the world will not alter past events into one possible course, if they actually took another. All that debate can accomplish is who has made the best case for their narrative being the correct one.

Of course, there are many bad historians. Historical scholarship sometimes seems to attract people with sociopolitical or religious ideologies and agendas to promote. These people take advantage of the fundamental difficulty of honest history to mask intellectually dishonest work -- and thereby increase the difficulty of the endeavor for everyone else. Many of those dishonest practices are familiar to this forum: cherry-picking evidence, taking evidence out of context, biased assessment of the relative validity of evidence, outright fabricated evidence, unsupported claims, and logical fallacies of all types. In the ghetto of "post-modern" historical scholarship, the claim of consensual reality prevails, a self-serving solipsistic view that plays into the hands of those who strive not to reveal the historical narrative but to alter it to their own ends -- and argue their right to do so. (From there, it's not a very great leap to the idea that if one can manipulate an online poll to show x% support for something, that that public support magically becomes reality.)

With all this in mind, I'd love to see Mark's work reviewed by honest scholarly historians well-versed in comprehensive collection and assessment of primary sources (David Hackett Fischer comes to mind). I think it's strong enough not only to withstand, but to merit, such review. I don't see anything wrong with calling it a "peer review" either. Though Mark hasn't claimed credentials as a historian, if he's educated himself sufficiently about the relevant history and practiced appropriate scholarship, then other historians are his peers.

Here's what the Council of the American Historical Association says about peer review: (http://www.historians.org/press/2005_08_15_PeerReviewStatement.htm)

Peer review means that a manuscript or research proposal will be read and evaluated by other scholars with expertise in the time period, subject matter, languages, and documents with which the author deals.


I would suggest that the relevant subject matter expertise include the methodologies of international criminal and intelligence investigation, construction codes and practices, terrorism, the aviation and insurance industries, post-Cold War U.S. military history (readiness, force disposition, etc.), and the psychology of witness reactions in traumatic circumstances.

The AHA statement continues:

As peers of the author in a specialized field, these reviewers provide analysis to the review boards of agencies on the scholarly significance of the article: Does the author display knowledge of existing work in the field? Does the research design, processes and methodologies, for example, conform with professional standards? Does the author advance an original argument and provide valid evidence to support the work? If particular areas are weak or absent in the presentation, the peer reviewers suggest revisions that will strengthen the project and call for resubmission before funding is awarded or a manuscript is accepted for publication.


The "original argument" provision is the only one here that might give historian reviewers pause about Mark's work. Indeed, I personally wonder why originality is important; if evidence suports an old argument instead of an original one is that not worthwhile? I can see not wishing to waste time repeating welll-known historical information (especially where journal papers or funded research is concerned), but I don't think that applies to Mark's work, given that it's addressing the arguments made by a vocal (if not very large or very respectable) historical-revisionist "movement."

Bad 9/11 history concerns me far more than bad 9/11 science. The cost of false history is bad decisions. The cost of bad decisions, in a technological age, cannot be overestimated.

With or without credentials, with or without peer review, honest historians, among whom I number Mark Roberts, are to be treasured.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Dr Adequate]

You seem to be forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who is the one who attacked me in an egregious manner not the other way around. He seems to only like to fight when it is on his terms though. But this is not an answer to my post. It has nothing to do with my post. I'm not talking about which of you is right or wrong --- I don't yet know what specific thing the two of you are having a spat about.

I'm just trying to explain to you that no scientific journal will allow you to use their pages as a venue for your argument in the manner that you've proposed. Insisting that you'll only argue with him in this format is like me insisting that I will arm-wrestle you, but only in the Oval Office.

[chillzero]

Well said, Myriad - that's similar to my view of Mark's research.

[Gravy]

Your quickness to call people liars is substantiated.

Do you accept GreNME's offer of the use of his site for a letter vs. letter written debate with me concerning your criticisms of my paper?

If your next post isn't a full, rational explanation of the points I raised in post 134, you go on ignore.
How in the world can you expect me to spend more time on your nonsense when you can't answer simple questions? Clear enough, Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer?

Here's the link for the fifth time: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134

[Dr Adequate]

It doesn't have to be one-on-one in the true sense ... OK, so you will now waive the condition that no-one else can chip in.

Fine. Then just start a thread here about whatever your beef is.

But there is no journal in the world that will turn themselves into a debating forum just 'cos you want them to.

[Bell]

If your next post isn't a full, rational explanation of the points I raised in post 134, you go on ignore.
How in the world can you expect me to spend more time on your nonsense when you can't answer simple questions? Clear enough, Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer?

Here's the link for the fifth time: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134

You know how the troofers will spin that, don't you?

[Dr Adequate]

GreNME, I would agree to this format. Isn't that exactly the same format that chillzero has offered you? It even runs on the same software. What's the problem?

[Tony Szamboti]

If your next post isn't a full, rational explanation of the points I raised in post 134, you go on ignore.
How in the world can you expect me to spend more time on your nonsense when you can't answer simple questions? Clear enough, Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer?

Here's the link for the fifth time: http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054359&postcount=134

You can simply copy and paste your criticisms and send them to GreNMe. That is where the debate is to take place. Unless you are refusing to accept that. I told you I will not debate you here and you just keep on trying to do just that.

Are you refusing to send a copy of your criticisms to GreNME?

[Tony Szamboti]

Isn't that exactly the same format that chillzero has offered you? It even runs on the same software. What's the problem?

No. In the case of GreNMe he would be the sole moderator and the format would be letters.

[leftysergeant]

This is one absurd dispute. Jones, Fester and whacky old Judy are expecting the average citizen to just accept their BS because they are "authorities," yet have not subjected themselves to the full accrediting process for their delusions.

We are here to discuss, as citizens, whether the twoofer "scientists" have presented evidence that satisfies the basic requirements of legal proof, as in a legal proceding connected with a crime.

There is a reason we have trials by jury. If you cannot present evidence of a crime which the average citizen can grasp, you have no case. This prevents government or powerful citizens from just cobbling something together and expecting the public to be cowed into lynching someone who has stepped on the toes of the mighty.

The twoofers expect us to turn against the government, re-oprder it, clean it out and replace it with WHAT?

First, you need to provide us with proof that your authorities actually are authorities.

With dusty old Judy leaving tracks on the cartpet, you have a lot more housekeeping to do on your side of the ledger to convince us that anything more than getting rid of dishonest elections officials is needed to restore America to greatness.

But, raising jerks like Dylan, Fetzer, A Jones or S Jones to prominence, without their bothering to propoerly establish their credentials or credibility, is not going to make this a better place to live. Nor is shouting down those who question the reliability of lettered nitwits what this country is about.

[Dr Adequate]

No. In the case of GreNMe he would be the sole moderator and the format would be letters. Whereas under chillzero's proposal, she'd be the sole moderator, and the format would be "letters" if you start each post with "Dear Mark" and end it with "Yours Sincerely". I don't see how one use of vBulletin is more like letters than another.

And it would appear on a forum where people are actually interested in the question.

[Tony Szamboti]

OK, so you will now waive the condition that no-one else can chip in.

Fine. Then just start a thread here about whatever your beef is.

But there is no journal in the world that will turn themselves into a debating forum just 'cos you want them to.

Others can chip in letters not quick posts.

[Tony Szamboti]

Whereas under chillzero's proposal, she'd be the sole moderator, and the format would be "letters" if you start each post with "Dear Mark" and end it with "Yours Sincerely". I don't see how one use of VBulletin is more like letters than another.

And it would appear on a forum where people are actually interested in the question.

She did not say she would be the sole moderator. Where did you get that from? I have nothing against Chillzero and thanked her for her offer but I have said too many times already that I will not debate Mark Roberts here for very obvious reasons. Can you hear that?

GreNME has offered a neutral situation, away from Roberts home turf, and I have accepted that. Mark Roberts has not accepted yet.

[Dr Adequate]

She did not say she would be the sole moderator. Where did you get that from? Well, 'cos she made the offer. She's not volunteering anyone else's time, is she?

I have nothing against Chillzero and thanked her for her offer but I have said too many times already that I will not debate Mark Roberts here for very obvious reasons. Can you hear that? I can hear that, I know that, and in a sense I think that your reasons are very obvious. But not good.

GreNME has offered a neutral situation, away from Roberts home turf, and I have accepted that. He has not accepted yet. I don't see why he should. Why waste his time on taking on one CT, in a venue where no-one interested in the question will see him do so?

---

You know the creationist Kent Hovind? He has asked schoolchildren to send him the names of any high-school teachers who, when asked by creationist schoolchildren to debate him one-on-one, decline to do so, so that he can make his own list of "cowards".

Why the heck should they?

[Dr Adequate]

Others can chip in letters not quick posts. So you would be happy for me to join in, so long as my posts were lengthy and began with the words "Dear Tony"?

[Myriad]

Real, you apparently felt that this forum was a good place to accuse Gravy of attempting to smear you:

David Griffin isn't sitting there claiming, with no real basis, that papers of an opposing viewpoint to his, are not being properly peer reviewed while not having their own work reviewed. This is what Mark Roberts appears to be doing.

Since Roberts has recently attempted to smear me I wanted to set the record straight.

In an earlier post I explained the debate he refused to take part in with me using written papers.


...but it's not an appropriate place (no matter what measures are taken to ensure an even debate) to provide evidence of that claim. Why is that?

As I see it, the ball's in your court. Gravy has asked you questions here. You can answer them here, answer them elsewhere, or not answer them.

You have accused Gravy, of attempting to smear you, here. You can provide evidence for that claim here, provide evidence for it elsewhere, or not provide evidence for it.

If you choose not to answer the questions or provide evidence for your accusation, that's fine, but trying to use Gravy's disinclination to jump through hoops for your amusement as an excuse for not doing so won't fool anyone.

Repsectfully,
Myriad

[ConspiRaider]

That's my country lammy. This is my city lammy. I'm a lucky man.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/879046e74e75749e9.jpg

IT'S VIOLETA MCWHIFFERKUGEL!!!

I just KNEW my old gal would reappear one day!!!11

And now you ALL know why I was so attracted to her: She has a shiny coat!

[ConspiRaider]

Others can chip in letters not quick posts.
I'd like to buy a vowel, please?

[T.A.M.]

GreNME's option does sound fair.

Myriad, wrt your post on Peer Review and Mark's work, I absolutely 100% agree.

TAM:)

[volatile]

I tell you what, lets find someone who is an expert on "data and information collection and synthesis", and ask them to review Mark's Work, and in the bargain, Tony can submit his work to a REAL, ON PAPER, LEGITIMATE ENGINEERING JOURNAL, for their consideration of his scientific analysis of the collapses.

sounds fair...and both would be true "Peer Review" would they not??

TAM:)

To be fair, Mark's work could in theory be reviewed by historians or people working in media analysis, social studies or some other branch of the humanities... if it were compiled into an academic paper, which, of course, it isn't.

[Tony Szamboti]

Well, 'cos she made the offer. She's not volunteering anyone else's time, is she?

I can hear that, I know that, and in a sense I think that your reasons are very obvious. But not good.

I don't see why he should. Why waste his time on taking on one CT, in a venue where no-one interested in the question will see him do so?

You know the creationist Kent Hovind? He has asked schoolchildren to send him the names of any high-school teachers who, when asked by creationist schoolchildren to debate him one-on-one, decline to do so, so that he can make his own list of "cowards".

What are you really trying to do?

I am sure GreNME will post the results of the debate so interested people can view it.

The reason Roberts should debate me on a neutral site is that he initiated disparaging comments towards me and also falsely claimed that I refused to debate him. He made this false claim both here and on other sites, through his friend Ronald Wieck. I have now called him on it and offered to debate him on two separate and philosophically different journals, which he has refused so far. It appears that Roberts insists on being able to disparage people and then only fight it out on his home turf. Being that you brought up schoolyards, there is a schoolyard name for people who insult and make false claims about others and then only want to deal with the other person on their home turf, with only their friends around. A man would have no problem backing up his assertions on a neutral site.

[Tony Szamboti]

So you would be happy for me to join in, so long as my posts were lengthy and began with the words "Dear Tony"?

I have no problem with that if GreNME agrees. I do not want a cast of characters making quick comments and jetting off. That is not a debate.

The letter does not have to start with 'dear Tony". It merely needs to address the points I have made.

[T.A.M.]

To be fair, Mark's work could in theory be reviewed by historians or people working in media analysis, social studies or some other branch of the humanities... if it were compiled into an academic paper, which, of course, it isn't.

Agreed, but historical data collection and analysis is not as amenable to the format and standards of academic papers as a scientific analysis or experiment would be.


What are you really trying to do?

I am sure GreNME will post the results of the debate so interested people can view it.

The reason Roberts should debate me on a neutral site is that he initiated disparaging comments towards me and also falsely claimed that I refused to debate him. He made this false claim both here and on other sites, through his friend Ronald Wieck. I have now called him on it and offered to debate him on two separate and philosophically different journals, which he has refused so far. It appears that Roberts insists on being able to disparage people and then only fight it out on his home turf. Being that you brought up schoolyards, there is a schoolyard name for people who insult and make false claims about others and then only want to deal with the other person on their home turf, with only their friends around. A man would have no problem backing up his assertions on a neutral site.

No, I think Roberts is just fed up with your refusal to answer him in the past, and the pattern you have established for doing so, and does not wish to waste his time on another effort that may well turn out to be fruitless...IMHO.

TAM:)

[ConspiRaider]

What are you really trying to do?

I am sure GreNME will post the results of the debate so interested people can view it.

The reason Roberts should debate me on a neutral site is that he initiated disparaging comments towards me and also falsely claimed that I refused to debate him. He made this false claim both here and on other sites, through his friend Ronald Wieck. I have now called him on it and offered to debate him on two separate and philosophically different journals, which he has refused so far. It appears that Roberts insists on being able to disparage people and then only fight it out on his home turf. Being that you brought up schoolyards, there is a schoolyard name for people who insult and make false claims about others and then only want to deal with the other person on their home turf, with only their friends around. A man would have no problem backing up his assertions on a neutral site.
Maybe you guys should debate in Switzerland? Aren't they still neutral? Do you ski? Do you have a numbered Swiss bank account? Could you give me power of attorney for said account? How do they get the holes in the Swiss cheese?

[Tony Szamboti]

So you would be happy for me to join in, so long as my posts were lengthy and began with the words "Dear Tony"?

I have no problem with that if GreNME agrees. I do not want a cast of characters making quick comments and jetting off. GreNME appears to understand that and I am sure he would not allow that to occur.

[Hyperviolet]

GreNME's option does sound fair.

Myriad, wrt your post on Peer Review and Mark's work, I absolutely 100% agree.

TAM:)

GreNME's option does sound fair, i agree.

Although i must say, Architect's suggestion of The Doc's website seems like the perfect place for such a debate.

[Tony Szamboti]

Agreed, but historical data collection and analysis is not as amenable to the format and standards of academic papers as a scientific analysis or experiment would be.




No, I think Roberts is just fed up with your refusal to answer him in the past, and the pattern you have established for doing so, and does not wish to waste his time on another effort that may well turn out to be fruitless...IMHO.

TAM:)

I answerd him. He appears to just want to smear. There are several questions I asked of him which he has never answered. These were in e-mail correspondence and on some posts here.

Why doesn't he try one simple letter to a neutral site? I told him that he could even cut and paste his comments and submit them to GreNME. How much time could that take him?

It sounds like he doesn't want me to have time to respond in a thoughtful way. You shouldn't presume what he is thinking. Let him answer for himself. He started the fight so don't jump in on his side and prove my point about his friends helping out.

[ConspiRaider]

I have no problem with that if GreNME agrees. I do not want a cast of characters making quick comments and jetting off.
I resent that. I'm afraid of flying after all. I might be "cabbing" off, though.

[beachnut]

I have no problem with that if GreNME agrees. I do not want a cast of characters making quick comments and jetting off. GreNME appears to understand that and I am sure he would not allow that to occur.
Do you mean a politically biased web site will host your debate on science? That is not a good place.

I can see how, with all the BS political content of your failed paper, you would love a political site to host the debate.

Your scientific paper posted at wooville fits much better in a political bs venue.

Cool.

[Gravy]

Bad 9/11 history concerns me far more than bad 9/11 science. The cost of false history is bad decisions. The cost of bad decisions, in a technological age, cannot be overestimated.

With or without credentials, with or without peer review, honest historians, among whom I number Mark Roberts, are to be treasured.Thanks for your kind words, Myriad. I'm perfectly comfortable with the label "amateur historian" when the subject is New York City history. But I don't accept that label as it relates to much of the 9/11 work I've done, for a few reasons:

1) There's a fair amount of invective in my papers, which isn't something you'd find in professional work. I could just demonstrate that someone is behaving like a creep without calling them that. The reader is perfectly capable of deciding, and no doubt many are turned off by my harsh language. I do that because I want the subjects of the invective to get angry. I want them to be so angry that they might – just might – go back and do their homework, intent on getting the evidence that will shut me up. It would be nice if they realized that the gravity of their claims necessitates such study, but that's rarely the case. One prominent exception I can think of is Russell Pickering's abandoning his no-plane Pentagon claim and taking down his website. I try to motivate the others by shaking facts in front of them and daring them to refute them. I want them to get pissed off and really try. And when they fail, I want them to understand why they've failed and to feel it. Normally I'm non-confrontational, but when someone like Tony Szamboti keeps spewing the same nasty, serious, unsupportable claims and keeps promoting indefensible work, I'm going to let them know it in no uncertain terms. When I screw up, I feel bad and try not to repeat the mistake. It's my hope that other adults try to do the same. The difficulty is getting them to admit that they've screwed up. The non-historian in me feels free to introduce humiliation to the process when facts alone aren't getting it done.

2) I deliberately make little use of the tremendous wealth of human experience and knowledge about 9/11 in NYC, Shanksville, and D.C. My position has always been that people who experienced those events firsthand should never be bothered about these conspiracy claims unless there's a compelling reason to do so. Although I've spoken to many witnesses, firefighters, cops, rescue workers, and family members informally, and that's been useful as background material, I have never found a compelling reason to seek them out in order to involve them in this. The conspiracists, on the other hand, have the opposite problem. They must contact these people to get the "real, untold story" but they almost never will, because they're not interested in anything that doesn't fit their agenda. Has William Rodriguez contacted Arturo Griffith, which he promised to do over a year ago? Of course, we often see how conspiracists handle the human element, e.g. John Schroeder, Val McClatchey, Wallace Miller, Lloyd England, Mike Walter, Charles Burlingame, Bernard Brown, Larry Silverstein, the FDNY.

3) I rarely make use of the enormous library resources at my disposal. I've read several books about 9/11 but have done almost no library research. Likewise, I haven't filed any FOIA requests, and I've seldom contacted experts in the field to solve a particular issue, as Ron Wieck, Scott Sleeper, and others sometimes do. While there are many 9/11-related issues that might be fascinating to study in depth, for me most of the conspiracist claims don't qualify, and I'm fine exercising my Google-fu.

So as far as 9/11 goes, I consider myself not a historian and barely a researcher. I'm an information organizer. To me, research takes work. Most of this stuff is quite easy. It's just time-consuming because of the number of claims to deal with.

[Tony Szamboti]

Thanks for your kind words, Myriad. I'm perfectly comfortable with the label "amateur historian" when the subject is New York City history. But I don't accept that label as it relates to much of the 9/11 work I've done, for a few reasons:

1) There's a fair amount of invective in my papers, which isn't something you'd find in professional work. I could just demonstrate that someone is behaving like a creep without calling them that. The reader is perfectly capable of deciding, and no doubt many are turned off by my harsh language. I do that because I want the subjects of the invective to get angry. I want them to be so angry that they might – just might – go back and do their homework, intent on getting the evidence that will shut me up. It would be nice if they realized that the gravity of their claims necessitates such study, but that's rarely the case. One prominent exception I can think of is Russell Pickering's abandoning his no-plane Pentagon claim and taking down his website. I try to motivate the others by shaking facts in front of them and daring them to refute them. I want them to get pissed off and really try. And when they fail, I want them to understand why they've failed and to feel it. Normally I'm non-confrontational, but when someone like Tony Szamboti keeps spewing the same nasty, serious, unsupportable claims and keeps promoting indefensible work, I'm going to let them know it in no uncertain terms. When I screw up, I feel bad and try not to repeat the mistake. It's my hope that other adults try to do the same. The difficulty is getting them to admit that they've screwed up. The non-historian in me feels free to introduce humiliation to the process when facts alone aren't getting it done.

2) I deliberately make little use of the tremendous wealth of human experience and knowledge about 9/11 in NYC, Shanksville, and D.C. My position has always been that people who experienced those events firsthand should never be bothered about these conspiracy claims unless there's a compelling reason to do so. Although I've spoken to many witnesses, firefighters, cops, rescue workers, and family members informally, and that's been useful as background material, I have never found a compelling reason to seek them out in order to involve them in this. The conspiracists, on the other hand, have the opposite problem. They must contact these people to get the "real, untold story" but they almost never will, because they're not interested in anything that doesn't fit their agenda. Has William Rodriguez contacted Arturo Griffith, which he promised to do over a year ago? Of course, we often see how conspiracists handle the human element, e.g. John Schroeder, Val McClatchey, Wallace Miller, Lloyd England, Mike Walter, Charles Burlingame, Bernard Brown, Larry Silverstein, the FDNY.

3) I rarely make use of the enormous library resources at my disposal. I've read several books about 9/11 but have done almost no library research. Likewise, I haven't filed any FOIA requests, and I've seldom contacted experts in the field to solve a particular issue, as Ron Wieck, Scott Sleeper, and others sometimes do. While there are many 9/11-related issues that might be fascinating to study in depth, for me most of the conspiracist claims don't qualify, and I'm fine exercising my Google-fu.

So as far as 9/11 goes, I consider myself not a historian and barely a researcher. I'm an information organizer. To me, research takes work. Most of this stuff is quite easy. It's just time-consuming because of the number of claims to deal with.


Mark, again you are simply saying things about me with no basis.

You spent more time with the above post than it would take you to cut and paste your questions into a letter to send GreNME.

Are you going to write a critique of my paper and send it to GreNME? Everybody is waiting for your answer.

[Gravy]

IT'S VIOLETA MCWHIFFERKUGEL!!!Hey, I've missed that name, although when my cat's begging for attention I sometimes say, "Who do you think you are, Violeta McWhifferkugel?" Good to see you back posting here, Conspi!

[SDC]

IT'S VIOLETA MCWHIFFERKUGEL!!!

I just KNEW my old gal would reappear one day!!!11

And now you ALL know why I was so attracted to her: She has a shiny coat!

If I recall correctly, you are a Cleveland fan, while I am a Detroit Taaaagers fan.

With respect to Baaaaaaaaaaaahs-ton vs Cleveland,

GO CLEVELAND! SMITE THE EVILDOERS!!

[SDC]

You are forgetting that it is Mark Roberts who has criticized my work and the peer review process at the Journal of 911 Studies, without any real substantiation. I am simply asking him to do it the right way with a way for me to respond in a fair manner and that would be on a journal not a fast moving forum.

No rational person should disagree with that and those who do could be considered as bordering on provocateurism.

As far as Mark's actual work all I have done is question who reviews his work.

Ah, the "right way." I'm sorry, I am not rational, I've only got 3 graduate degrees as an academic historian. "Provacteurism"?? What is this? This is like cheap, knock off Marxism.

Who reviews his work... He (if I understand correctly) does not claim to original work. Therefore this is a nonsensical question.

[SDC]

Agreed, but historical data collection and analysis is not as amenable to the format and standards of academic papers as a scientific analysis or experiment would be.


TAM:)

Snarl... but with respect. Speaking as an academically-trained historian, from a political jurisdiction (in the US) right next to a large piece of Canada... Can you say "Ann Arbor stomps Windsor into the muck..." no, no, calm down, that is wrong, I should be punished...

(Stay calm... stay calm) History is serious. Historians understand peer review (and some of my articles have failed the process, thank you very much).

OK, ok. Right. Deep breath. Historians are as capable as recognizing horse pucky as engineers are, even though generally we are short on math. With respect to Tony Szambouti, who seems to be under discussion, aka realcddeal, oh crikey, he is making it up. This is silly. He (TS) is waffling, wobbling, and wiggling. Don't fall for it! Step away! Don't bother with his madness.

1/ Gravy is right.

2/ TS/ realcddeal is, even when he is not wrong, he is silly.

3/ Silly is only good when it is fun. This is not.

[Tony Szamboti]

Ah, the "right way." I'm sorry, I am not rational, I've only got 3 graduate degrees as an academic historian. "Provacteurism"?? What is this? This is like cheap, knock off Marxism.

Who reviews his work... He (if I understand correctly) does not claim to original work. Therefore this is a nonsensical question.

Apparently, you don't understand correctly. Mark Roberts makes many of his own claims in both posts and writings. Who are you trying to kid? Go read his papers on the subject.

[Good Lt]

Run like an antelope, out of control!

From WildCat waaay back on page 5 (http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=3054483&postcount=161) - Set the gearshift for the high gear of your soul!

:) Love that.

[SDC]

He makes many of his own claims in both posts and writings. Who are you trying to kid?

What does this mean??

1/ Yes. He evidently makes claims in posts and writings.

2/ Don't try to kid a kidder. If you mean "Gravy has a point of view and uses available evidence to support that point of view," CONGRATULATIONS! you are correct. As far as I can see. He uses evidence to prove points which support his point of view.

Quelle fromage.

[Tony Szamboti]

Snarl... but with respect. Speaking as an academically-trained historian, from a political jurisdiction (in the US) right next to a large piece of Canada... Can you say "Ann Arbor stomps Windsor into the muck..." no, no, calm down, that is wrong, I should be punished...

(Stay calm... stay calm) History is serious. Historians understand peer review (and some of my articles have failed the process, thank you very much).

OK, ok. Right. Deep breath. Historians are as capable as recognizing horse pucky as engineers are, even though generally we are short on math. With respect to Tony Szambouti, who seems to be under discussion, aka realcddeal, oh crikey, he is making it up. This is silly. He (TS) is waffling, wobbling, and wiggling. Don't fall for it! Step away! Don't bother with his madness.

1/ Gravy is right.

2/ TS/ realcddeal is, even when he is not wrong, he is silly.

3/ Silly is only good when it is fun. This is not.


You do provide that publishing of historical work gets peer reviewed. So I ask you who reviews Mark Roberts work?

Concerning your other comments can you provide a basis for any of the assertions you make?