in a little spat between scratch and his arch nemesis DCP, we find out how utterly dishonest and disrespectful doctor scratch actually is...............when he is in a losing battle his true nature shows
the subject begins about the watson letters, then becomes about the peer review process of farms.....DCP, working for farms, knows the peer review process, and i;ll bet y'all can guess what scratchs position on it is.
here is the link to the actual thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2430&st=0&sk=t&sd=a
here are some highlights of this hillarious thread, where throughly explains the peer review process and scratch squirms to keep his composure...........
DCP wrote:We follow standard peer review procedures. If you think that indicates some sort of conspiracy, feel free to don a tin-foil helmet.
scratch wrote:So far as I know, apply the rubber-stamp of Church orthodoxy to the articles that see publication does not constitute "standard peer review procedures."
DCP wrote:But, of course, that's merely your claim about what we do. I've denied your claim, and you've refused to credit my denial. (Your default position and deep personal conviction is that I'm "a mean-spirited liar" -- one who might even be willing to forge a letter {the watson letter} from the First Presidency in order to use it publicly to further my ends.)
scratch wrote:Rather, your tactic is to repeat, over and over and over, like a kind of mantra, "We fellow standard peer review procedures."
DCP wrote:Because, in fact, we do.
And here is the part where scratch goes down....down....down
scratch wrote:DCP wrote:But, of course, that's merely your claim about what we do. (from above)
No "claim" is necessary. The evidence for the "stacked deck" is right there in the pages of each and every issue.
scratch wrote: I have relied upon the evidence at hand. If you'd like to supply additional evidence---the 2nd Watson letter, for example, or the names of your usual peer reviewers---I'd be happy to re-evaluate my views. I'm sorry that I cannot simply take you at your word, but you have shown yourself to be deceptive in too many other instances (such as the "FreeThinker" charade).
...
I can really only comment on the evidence at hand. Sorry about that.
...
why wouldn't I object to the content (of the farms review)? It has been tainted, after all.
...........and the final blow............
DCP wrote:It's been tainted by the defective peer-review process for the existence of which your evidence is the tainted content which is known to be tainted because it was produced through a peer-review process that is defective and which is known to be defective because the content is tainted by the defective peer-review process whose existence is demonstrated by the content that has been tainted by the deficient peer-review process whose deficiency is demonstrated by the fact that it produced tainted content whose taint is demonstrable by virtue of the defective peer-review process that produced it . . . and so on, forever and ever, in an eternal loop of sheer malevolent loopiness.
ROFL
scratchy is not the hero you all worship.........he is a bumbling fool!