Re: Correct info re Wolter's academic merits! Re: Wolter on peer review.

"Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
news:43e1eb94$0$52056$dbd4d001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Inger E.Johansson wrote:  NWkEf.43708$d5.199763@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
>
> > "Peter Alaca" <P.Alaca@xxxxxx> skrev i meddelandet
> > news:43e1d80f$0$58490$dbd49001@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> Tom McDonald wrote:  s2gEf.126$234.115@xxxxxxxx,
> >>  > Tedd Jacobs wrote:
> >>>> "Tom McDonald" wrote...
> >>
> >>>>> Scott Wolter has asked that this email be posted here to help us
> >>>>> understand what sort of peer review his geological study of the
> >>>>> KRS received. It is from an email relating to his current work on
> >>>>> the Spirit Pond stones. Except for removing identifying
> >>>>> information about the original email's recipient and other
> >>>>> personal information, I haven't altered Wolter's email in any way.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----------------------------------------------------
> >>>>> Begin Wolter's email:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> From: Wolter, Scott Sent: Monday, January 23, 2006 9:37 AM
> >>>>>> Subject: Spirit Pond Investigation &
> >>>>>> Peer Review
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Dear -- -- ,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I thought I would drop you both a note with a couple of points
> >>>>>> to consider during your discussions about our proposal to
> >>>>>> perform a forensic investigation of the Spirit Pond rune
> >>>>>> stones.  The first point is relative to --'s comment
> >>>>>> about an apparent lack of peer review of the geologic work we
> >>>>>> performed and reported in our book.  The fact of the matter of
> >>>>>> is that my report has been peer reviewed, in writing, by eight
> >>>>>> senior geologists and geological engineers.
> >>
> >>>> in what journal was this geologic work published.
> >>
> >>> I don't know whether it was so published or not. That does not
> >>> mean that Wolter's geological work on the KRS didn't receive
> >>> adequate review prior to his making it public.
> >>>
> >>> Wolter isn't an academic, and he is apparently used to having
> >>> his work critiqued in the way he outlined--getting feedback from
> >>> other professionals in the relevant field(s). He gave the names
> >>> of eight folks who he says read and replied to his work on the
> >>> KRS in writing; and the looking-in-to by the Swedes.
> >>>
> >>> It is useful to use peer reviewed journal articles. However,
> >>> that process is not the only way to knock the rough edges off of
> >>> a professional study, or to point out problems with the work.
>
> >> There is such a thing as project management,
> >> with a lot of interim reports and feedback.
> >> I am also used to work with advisory commissions.
> >> If the commission is competent, the result is a
> >> reliable, peer-reviewd, report.
>
> >>> It is possible that the folks who reviewed his stuff were not
> >>> competent, or were not paying attention, or owed him a favor. It
> >>> is possible that Wolter got criticism that he should have taken
> >>> to heart and changed his reports accordingly, and didn't.
> >>>
> >>> However, one cannot assume that, and I don't think there is
> >>> evidence of any of that in this case. If one were concerned, one
> >>> could contact the named individuals and ask them (except for Dr.
> >>> Mather, of course).
>
> >> But, looking at what is presented and discussed here
> >> in the group, the peers were not influential enough.
>
> >> [...]
>
> > Peter,
> > how long will you and Tom tell lies about Scott Wolter?
> > He has an academic background, and you can't have missed that have
> > you done the minor search needed to have it confirmed!
> >
> [More irrelevance snipped]>
>
> So what? Can't you read? I was not talking about
> Wolter's credentials and I certainly told no lies.
> I said that there are more ways to get your work
> (peer) reviewed than by publishing it in a pr journal.
> And Tom wrote clearly in favour of Wolter's position.
>
> But I forgive you because you have no positive
> experience with publishing your work.
>
> --
> º°º°º°º < Peter Alaca > º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º°º
Peter,
since when do you deny having written UNDER Tom's text "Wolter isn't an
academic,.." without protesting to it?
When you write within or under text without writing a correction or
protesting this juridical means that you don't object. Since you don't
object to the lines where this false information is feed, then you yourself
have written under same false information!
Thus you continue to present false information in your own 'answer' to my
posting!

Inger E


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Correct info re Wolters academic merits! Re: Wolter on peer review.
    ... Contrary to Doug and Tom Wolter are a scholar in the subject geology. ... LIAR - this is another such instance - I have NOT libelled the puppy ... the real point here is that we see Douggie DEFEND the defamation ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Tom Waits: Orphans
    ... David Hajicek wrote: ... A review in the paper said that the reviewer started losing the will to ... Oh, no, Larry, not uncool, just instep with all those folks who don't ... Tom Waits must be an acquired taste. ...
    (rec.music.makers.guitar.acoustic)
  • Re: Correct information re. "Academic" definition
    ... Tom and Peter deliberatly misinterpret and misunderstand what I wrote. ... Tom deliberatly tried to make believe that Wolter wasn't academic. ... where the analyse of the stone itself were at hand. ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Correct information re. "Academic" definition
    ... Tom and Peter deliberatly misinterpret and misunderstand what I ... Doug and Tom deliberatly tried to make believe that Wolter wasn't ... She still blames others for the mistake, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: New Canon EF 50mm f1.2L lens coming??
    ... Like a review of a new, hot Sony CD changer I read a few ... > some time back, but it fell with my old D30, and I never replaced it. ... Larry and Tom are the guys to talk to, Larry is a working pro and Tom used ...
    (rec.photo.equipment.35mm)