Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
From: Philip Deitiker (Nopdeitik_at_att.net.Spam)
Date: 11/03/04
- Next message: Philip Deitiker: "Re: Spirit Pond, Maine-Or{sigh}the KRS diversion"
- Previous message: I.E. Johansson: "Question"
- In reply to: Eric Stevens: "Re: Spirit Pond, Maine"
- Next in thread: Eric Stevens: "Re: Spirit Pond, Maine"
- Reply: Eric Stevens: "Re: Spirit Pond, Maine"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 3 Nov 2004 00:21:07 GMT
In sci.archaeology, Eric Stevens created a message ID
news:63ofo0pk0nugv8a3305dctb65pgvccuavc@4ax.com:
> Editorial review is not the same as peer review and I am
sure you know
> that. Otherwise you might as well claim your daily news
paper is peer
> reviewed.
Type editors do not change content but on the recommendation
of the editor, rounding of edges for public consumption likely
took place as a result of discussion between the editor and
the publishers (or consultant for the publishers). To say that
the editor of the book, ____in any context____, read the
article in order to 'smooth' the content but at the same time
was not providing a peer review is contradictory, he is a peer
and he was reviewing. End of discussion.
>>"
>>Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2000 10:54:05 -0230
>>"
>>
>>This article is not a week old, it is over 4 years old.
>
> I never claimed the article was a week old. I said I had
posted the
> link to it only a few days previously.
This exactly what you said:
"
You haven't been following this have you? Here is an extract
from an article less than a week old:
"
It was in fact 4 years old. The information you quoted,
without prompt reference to the author and the exact link you
provided was 4 years and 2 months old, Period.
>>feild of study making here-say comments about what other
people
>>said. The other a layman making casual comment. I would
however
>>agree with the second comment, it is generally better to go
to
>>the primary literature relative to a book for popular
literature
>>because 'edges are rounded' [This basically means the
>>complicated stuff is removed or dumbed down]. To you first
>>comment, you said it was not peer-reveiwed, not only was it
peer
>>reviewed but it was reviewed by editors who trimmed down the
>>text.
>
> This is the usual practice in news papers too.
It is the usual practice in any forum designed for mass
consumption. Editors don't want to confuse readers or bore
them to death with confusing details. This is why the peer-
reveiwed primary literature is so important to in depth
discussion. Note that this literature is avoided like the
plaque by hyperdiffusionist, Michael may be the exception
however he is focused simply on explaining the KRS, on
revising the history of the entire world. Even so some of his
more recent references have been squink of your caliper.
>> I recently had a paper submitted for publication in which
I
>>had created a number of figures which were simplifications
of
>>material that another contributer had laid out in intricate
>>fashion. The referees had the intricate figures removed from
the
>>paper and accepted the simplified lay-out. This is a good
>>journal, in a journal like Nature (Which likes papers 2 or 3
>>pages in length and has many one pagers), 80% of a
presentation
>>might be scraped.
>> Where is the primary critique of the book. Who has
actually
>>read the book and as an expert can come forth and claim it
is
>>full of hideous inaccuracies.
>
> Why?
Because everything you have presented as evidence in support
of your position turns out to be heresay. No feild specific
experts trashing the book. Why?
Do you need someone to do that?
I can trash just about any book you give me, from day one in
this book I said to T.K. I don't do books (unless he would
gratuitously send me a copy). I make exception for archaeology
because of the specific nature of the types of information are
best handled as a collection, even the best of these books I
can trash, but that has nothing to do at your level of its
worthiness.
>>And the first 'quote' as you can see from his CV is a
Language
>>expert, not a historian or an archaeologist.
>
> ... and the relevance of all this is?
The relevance is he is giving you heresay and worse second
hand heresay in which the context, which Erik then gave, was
not specified. In addition even if he is right what does this
have to do with a specific authors chapter?
>>was not reviewed prior to publication. Henceforth any more
>>critiques on that chapter will be sent directly by email to
the
>>author so he can respond.
>
> Strawman argument.
>
> My point was that the book was not peer-reviewed. As an
example of
> gross errors which slipped through I cited (and criticised)
Birgitta
> Wallace's contribution dealing with the KRS.
But then you quoted directly an article claiming that the
editor (who is a peer) reviewed and edited a chapter not
written by himself. By definition that is peer review.
I said nothing about the
> chapter that Steve Marcus relies upon. All I said is that
the book was
> not peer reviewed.
Apparently you provided proof to the opposite, what we don't
have proof of is outside peer review. I can deal with that.
> 1. Indicate where you have deleted text.
I will delete as I see fit, Inger.
> 2. When you introduce text from another article, indicate
the
> beginning and end of the quote.
Are you scolding me about information I presented that prove
you eluded to falsehoods. If you create a falsehood I feel
liberty to correct you IN ANY WAY I SEE FIT, as it is I am the
only one here who is not using profanities against you,
consider yourself lucky.
> 3. When you are citing or quoting from an article which is
new to the
> the thread, you should give a link to the article.
You gave the link and simultaneously mis-referenced it, what a
freaken hypocrit. The article was not a week old both were 4
years old and one was by a meer group participant.
> As it is, what I have attempted to respond to above is a
dog's
> breakfast
dog's breakfast = Response to Eric's fabrications with Eric is
trying to squiggle out of.
> and is representative only of the fact that you are getting
> wound up.
Eric you are a propogandic lackey trying to push snake oil to
a biochemist, give up this charade. You are wrong, even your
pretense and diversive responses cannot create and escape
route for you. You have repeatedly overstated your case in
these matters and when called as to your sources they have
been found to be weak and irrelevant.
Not only that but you are Mocking people in this newsgroups
with your insincere pretensive responses, you know damn well
that the extracts you posted were mearly as a diversion to
critiques which you do not have, and you keep pretending that
you have more. The absense of a defense is not a defense nor
is it a cornerstone of a logical argument, it is infact a
smoke screen.
-- Philip - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mol. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DNAanthro/ Mol. Evol. Hominids http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/ Evol. of Xchrom. http://home.att.net/~DNAPaleoAnth/xlinked.htm Pal. Anth. Group http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Paleoanthro/ Sci. Arch. Aux http://groups.yahoo.com/group/sciarchauxilliary/ DNApaleoAnth at Att dot net
- Next message: Philip Deitiker: "Re: Spirit Pond, Maine-Or{sigh}the KRS diversion"
- Previous message: I.E. Johansson: "Question"
- In reply to: Eric Stevens: "Re: Spirit Pond, Maine"
- Next in thread: Eric Stevens: "Re: Spirit Pond, Maine"
- Reply: Eric Stevens: "Re: Spirit Pond, Maine"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
