In alt.support.girl-lovers Tate Gerard <tate23@bellsouth.com> wrote:
>Analyst wrote:
>> Analyst <post.yours@and.Iwillsendyoumine.org> wrote in
>> news:Xns95F093A89198Dbasketcasesoftwareea@207.217.125.201:
>>
>>
>>>Tate Gerard <tate23@bellsouth.com> wrote in
>>>news:ctomft$v4l$0@pita.alt.net:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>Well, troll, given that it is standard information in most textbooks in
>>>the fields of anthropology, psychology, and sociology, you wouldn't
>>>really have to look real hard would you? I'm debating the possibility of
>>>doing a web search for appropriate citations, but given that I'd just be
>>>still feeding yet another troll, I'm not quite sure if it's worth the
>>>time and effort. Especially since that information is available from so
>>>many other sources already.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Here's a start. This gentleman has made up an extensive list.
>> http://fsw.ucalgary.ca/ramsay/gay-lesbian-bisexual/6h-bisexual-
>> bibliography.htm
>
>
>Well that's strange (or is it?), I can't seem to find the peer-reviewed
>verifiable citation I asked for that proves over half the world is bisexual.
>
I ass-u-me that by "peer-reviewed" you mean read by you and agreed
that it's correct, right?
I see several Doctorate Theses in there, along with quite a few
published articles. Passing review in College, nor getting editorial
approval for science articles in science magazines doesn't count to
you as "peer review", so what DOES?
>Hmm...
>
>Perhaps you would be kind enough to point it out for me? lmao
Almost every article in that bibliography, as far as I can see, was
properly "peer reviewed" by experts in the field. Of course, since
you disagree with the whole premise, you cannot agree that anybody who
agrees with the idea is a "peer". Only people with your own
prejudices are acceptable.
Geesh.
No, you WON'T find people with your particular prejudices giving
acceptable reviews of any article that suggests such a thing.
Circular logic.
However, you forget the entire definition of "peer" and "peer review".
"Peer" does *NOT* mean people who agree with your or disagree. "Peer"
means simply, "a person of the same level". Thus a person tried by a
"jury of his peers" is *NOT* tried by either royalty nor
intelligentsia, nor paupers in the street, buy by *peers* people of
his own level. A peasant would be tried by peasants. A shopkeeper by
middle-class, and a knight by other knights or royalty.
In the USA, our "peers" are *usually* other working people like us ...
but all too often the poor people who cannot get out of such
jury-duty. Supposedly *all* people in the US are "peers" since we
have neither royalty nor peasants, only (theoretically) middle-class.
However, "peers" also applies to knowledge. There, the ranks differ
greatly; and somebody GREAT in one field might be abysmally ignorant
in another. To the unknowing, somebody knowledgable in a particular
field could snowball those outside, and tell the most horrendous
hogwash ... and those outside would have to accept that, because THEY
don't know the field.
For example: *I*, knowing electronics and old tube electronics in
particular could give you a tale of a resonant two-plated
electron-tube that synchronously decoded FM modulation with little
distortion; and that would be hard indeed to duplicate in solid-state
electronics. Being ignorant of the field, you would have no idea if
this tube I was describing was something real, or just made up in my
fertile imagination. Thus, if I wrote an article about such a tube
for today's audience, the editor of an electronics magazine would have
it "peer reviewed" before posting. By "peer" in this case, he means
*my* peer ... somebody at least *close* to my own expertise in the
field.
Same here. To get a doctorate, a thesis is "peer reviewed" by people
at *least* as expert in the field as the thesis-writer ... usually
other doctors in the field and often professors teaching that field.
If your doctoral-thesis is accepted, then it HAS been "peer reviewed"
by the harshest possible critics!
And, if you get your articles published in just about any
science-journal (as many of those seem to have been) then it ALSO had
to be peer-reviewed; because editors of such publications really HATE
it when somebody points out errors that only somebody not familiar
with the field would make.
But then: YOU don't accept those as "peer review" do you?
Only people agreeing with your personal prejudices need apply to
review anything for you to accept it.
So ... Why the FUCK should we listen to YOUR evaluations of
peer-reviewed doctoral theses or published articles?
Huh?
Speak up, don't be shy.
You've already shown your bigotry and intolerance and idiocy.
Don't hold back from showing even more of same!
Geesh.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
|