More colloquy from the WikiClique on Intelligent Design...
QUOTE(From Moulton's Talk Page)
Peer review is a two way street. And you have been reviewed. And guess what the verdict was?--Filll (talk | wpc) 18:51, 23 May 2008 (UTC)I believe the jury is still out on your curious and fascinating model of the character whose name is Moulton. Would this be a good opportunity to call for a peer review of Filll's proposed scientific model of Moulton's character? —Moulton (talk) 19:02, 23 May 2008 (UTC)Well you probably should not be part of the jury. Let's let others decide, shall we?--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:52, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
And this is supposed to make people think you should be unblocked? All of your recent rants here are ample evidence that you are unsuited to participating constructively at Wikipedia. Odd nature (talk) 19:16, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You should know that we have had an outside peer-review of our
evolution article and it was quite positive. We also get informal peer-reviews of our
intelligent design article. Both of these, as well as
introduction to evolution were extensively reviewed as part of the inhouse FAC process. And you, as a systems scientist who works on online communities and journalism and affective computing, are qualified to review articles in this area? How many times has Nature Cell Biology or Cell contacted you recently for a review of an article? I guess you did a lot of reviewing for Creation/Evolution journal?
Oxford University Press has had you review works like
Creationism's Trojan Horse have they? You are a renowned expert in this area are you?--Filll (talk | wpc) 19:49, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Applied science is not real science. That's why they support ID, because they don't understand scientific method. Engineers, computer engineers, etc. aren't scientists. But what do I know, my IQ probably doesn't break 2 digits. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:41, 23 May 2008 (UTC)