On DLtruth.com
>jackson Wrote:
>>Armando Ramos Wrote:
>>Don Dresden Wrote:
>>1. Was Harris's paper reviewed?
>>a) Yes
>>b) No
>>2. If the answer to the previous question is "Yes," identify the person
or persons who reviewed it.
>>3. If the answer to question 1 is "Yes," were any errors found in the
paper?
>>a) Yes
>>b) No
>>Can Canadians plead the Fifth?
>Was it reviewed? The journal's editor claimed it wasn't -- that it
somehow got in by mistake
This is a red herring by intellectually-dishonest Quinn.
There were supposedly two reviews - one by Quinn's "closed
list" (*guffaw*), and another by an online math journal.
Here, Quinn is ****fting attention away from his "closed list" (*cough
cough bull**** cough*) to the online math journal.
IGNORE THE ONLINE MATH JOURNAL ISSUE!
Quinn made representations to sci.math that James Harris' paper was
reviewed by a "closed list", but Quinn is also being weasel-like and
say he "heard" or "understood" that the "closed list" reviewed it.
My big fat bone ... of contention is that Quinn Tyler Jackson made
false representations pur****ting personal knowledge of events which he
refuses, even today, to corroborate with personally known facts, in
order to cover and lend credibility to his buddy James Harris.
If Quinn had NO knowledge of any review by a "closed list", then Quinn
LIED, wove factual statements from his ASS, and misrepresented a
serious issue - the review of a mathematical paper to be or which had
been submitted for professional publication.
Quinn throws in red herrings that the online journal should not have
yanked the Harris paper. But the issue is the activities of the
"closed list" (cough cough ****ing lies cough).
Meanwhile ...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"closed list" "closed list" "closed list"
"personal space" "personal space" "personal space"
Hey Quinn, I'm laughing at the "superior intellect"
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
|
