Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: voltaires_zit
"Steyn's paper was worked over in a number of places, as was the previous paper from which he cribbed most of the material. For a pretty thorough critique of why, in addition to being inappropriate in the Society's journal, it was not terribly good science, read on:"

How can people "read on" if censors such as yourself are preventing competing peer-reviewed documents from being published?!

...and why, if the paper in question not such "good science," is a peer-reviewed rebuttal paper unavailable? It should have been easy (if your side was "right"). It wasn't.

You've got to jump through hoops, kid. You've got to **pretend** that the peer-review process failed, that the editorial review failed, and that it would be somehow inappropriate to even **discuss** the paper in question (in order to explain why no peer-reviewed rebuttal is on file).

Face it, your side has lost the entire Evolutionary argument, and you are reduced to using your positions of power to stifle publication and scientific debate.

You've become censors. You've become dogmatic. You've become unscientific. You've even resorted to becoming oppressive.

244 posted on 02/16/2007 11:56:22 AM PST by Southack (Media Bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 241 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson