In a previous post we have visited the "Researchers" of the kingdomofyhwh.com, it turns out that these nuts have a "discussion" board, the reason for the inverted commas there shall become clear.
It turns out that our heroes of independent research Norval and Gale have a less than standard approach for dealing with enquiries regarding the basis for their theory. Check out the conversation here (Click through Open Public, Scientific Discussions, Crater Chain Discussion, DeBunkers Opinion). It all begins to go pear-shaped about half way down, and eventually degenerates into a childish "you smell", "no I don't", "yes you do" type of argument.
Makes you wonder if polite questions from anonymous paper reviewers should be dealt with by questioning their sanity, or repeated counter questions about waterfowl doesn't it?
It turns out that our heroes of independent research Norval and Gale have a less than standard approach for dealing with enquiries regarding the basis for their theory. Check out the conversation here (Click through Open Public, Scientific Discussions, Crater Chain Discussion, DeBunkers Opinion). It all begins to go pear-shaped about half way down, and eventually degenerates into a childish "you smell", "no I don't", "yes you do" type of argument.
Makes you wonder if polite questions from anonymous paper reviewers should be dealt with by questioning their sanity, or repeated counter questions about waterfowl doesn't it?
2 comments:
Anonymous paper reviewer: "In section 3.1 you need to clarify the difference between X and Y. Since you observed Y the following systematic errors need to be taken into account."
Craig: "duh, ?
Why do you think that? are you a lotto player believing you will winn ALL LOTTO'S.
so dumb"
I'm not sure... there's only one way to find out if Norval's approach will pass muster with a typical peer reviewer.
, , if it ever gets demilitarized. FOCLMFAO
Post a Comment