THE NEWS IS BIGGER THAN DATELINE, BBC, CBC, ETC. (page 106)

AuldSoul

"If he likes it" = submit it for peer review. Which is also something that happens with Scientific papers. The first person/persons who get the paper determine if there is even enough merit to put it through peer-review. I think you are intentionally creating a distorted view of what skeeter1 wrote. I hope no harm results from your reckless disregard for consequences.

In the case of this paper, it would have been put through more rigors than a paper written by...how did Eduardo put it?...an "old master." Just as a paper written by a young pup scientist would be reviewed more stringently, and put through more rigors, than a paper by a Nobel laureate.

Perhaps you were under the impression that every scientific paper advanced is put through peer-review? I doubt seriously whether you believed that.

AuldSoul

Gill

Are religious leaders, or those who put themselves in the position of being a minister of religion, or head of an organization, obliged to provide fiduciary care, then?

If the answer is yes, the GB are stuffed.

seesthesky

someone wrote: "Seethesky. Science is also theory too. Mr. Davis is more of an expert on religious theory and its trends than either you, I, or Mr. Esq. He saw the trend that Ms. L-W's article could take. So did the other two peer reviewers who had to give their 'thumbs up.' "

uhh - okee dokee! - btw, do you sit as an editor on the journal? If not, how is it that you know what Mr. Davis or the other editors saw? Just asking a sincere question so don't get yer panties in a twist.

seesthesky

AuldSoul wrote: "I think you are intentionally creating a distorted view of what skeeter1 wrote. I hope no harm results from your reckless disregard for consequences."

ME: Why would you infer anyting about my intentions - I've given no basis for the inference except a sloppy recapitualtion of what "skeeter1" wrote - that slopiness could have resulted from drunkeness, laziness or simple misunderstanding - i vote for laziness

ME: I am under that impression that every scientific paper which is published must first undergo peer review - I did not mean to convey that I believe papers ADVANCED for publication first get peer reviewed - the misunderstanding resulted from my sloppy summary of what "skeeter1" wrote - nonetheless, I still think it funny that "skeeter1" views the process for publishing law review journals as the equivalent of the process for publishing scientific papers - that's just funny to me - not because of the mistaken belief but because of the way the mistaken belief was propounded - like "and, by the way - this stuff is legit and beyond debate because it was peer reviewed just like science papers are - and science is true" - lol

AuldSoul

ME: Why would you infer anyting about my intentions

As a joke, thus the "" I thought you saw it...

AuldSoul

seesthesky

AuldSoul wrote: "As a joke, thus the [smiley face icon] I thought you saw it..."

ME: NO HUMOR ALLOWED!

heh ;-{)

skeeter1

Seethesky.

I called the Journal of Church & State on Thursday/Friday about my order of the issues. I'm getting 100 copies, just so you know. While I was on the phone, I talked with Pat Cornett (I don't know if that's how you spell her name)...but, we spoke for a while about the issue. I must have sparked some interest, and I actually got to speak with Derek Davis.