<nettime> \\ demo.igrassie

[integer@www.god-emil.dk]

story: [details in 01 v.proper context

1 year prior selekt kriiiketz wearing++ 
ample ties to selekt konglomerates which we shall
hear more of in 01 v.proper context peer reviewed an
article by netochka nezvanova and in 01 extravagant display
of idiocy [eg. living 1 dekade in the past]
blocked its publication ___... in the process indikating
they maintain ample interest$ in selekt konglomerates which
we shall hear more about in 01 v.proper context.

o +                





> Re: Dr. Terry Sejnowski
>
> Dr. Wolfram has theorized alone, published under his own imprint and
> never submitted his text to  peer review.
>
> Peer review science has created for the New York Times science reviewers'
> experts like Dr. Terry Sejnowski and his cohorts to give provide their
> opinions. The opinions expressed by the Sejnowski crew with deep links to
> government agencies and corporations -- which George Orwell with his
> accustomed insight called oligarchic collectivists.
>
> It is experts Sejnowski through his indentured fairy tale writers (aka
> Salk publicists) who, according to Orwell, invent stories about the
> leading edge of science.
>
> As an independent scientist with presumed abilities to investigate alone
> without
> grants, agency oversight, colleagues and corporate funds for pocket
> money, a few years ago I offered Salk $350,000 is Dr. Sejnowski would
> have lunch with me. After all, as an independent scientist, what good is
> my research into a brain-mind algorithm if experts like Dr. Sejnowski
> have not passed on the research accuracy?
>
> Dr. Sejnowski, after just two months contemplation with his higher powers
> decided to pass on lunch. Thus will persist the myth that independent
> scientists like me preferto live outside of peer review.
>
> When are you chaos psychologsists going to grow up and realize that peer
> review is meditoracy raised to its highest exponent. Peer review is  lack
> of courage. Peer review is an invitation to theft. Peer review is
> arrogance of such as Dr. Sejnowski with his agency conections and
> corporate funders judging research outside of his purview as taking years
> to sift through and evaluate properly.
>
> No, it is he, Sejnowski who everytime he sups with the rich and powerful
> perverts findependent science, the greatest discovery of the human race.
> Bar none.
>
> Simply stated: Which decent and courageous scientist would during early
> stages of breakthrough science permit his ideas to be stolen by peer
> reviewers, then if he or she complains be sent into academic exile?
>
> My hat goes off to Dr. Wolfram.
>
> Sincerely,
>
> David A. Goodman, Ph.D.
> Biological scientist





good morning cycling74


good morning ircam

#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net