D
Deleted member 577981
Guest
Embedded in what you posted to me was accusations of pseudoscience. You didn't personally say he's a pseudoscientist, but that word was used in some of the material you posted.Show me where I claimed he's a pseudoscientist or admit you're a liar. You're currently arguing against an assertion I didn't make--but you said I did--and you go on about other people?
Also, the last paragraph is clearly a lie as well--according to your "kind of" standards of lying.
Yeah, that's a great argument for taking you seriously.
Also,
"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."
"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."
"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."
"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."
"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."
"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."
"The paper was repeatedly rejected because it had clear methodological and other issues."
So I'm glad to have it. You don't think he's a pseudoscientist and wouldn't say that.




