“ a coördinated political retreat”

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
See, this is why nobody believes you're a PhD scientist or an "editor of academic journals". If you were, you would know this is not what determines credibility.
Wait...are you seriously claiming that someone "who has taught Constitutional law at a topnotch law school" does not have more credibility than you as to what is and isn't Constitutional?

And are you seriously claiming that Vibise recognising that of course such a person does somehow proves that she does not have the qualifications and experience she has?

Oh, and by the way - it is false to say of her that "nobody believes you're a PhD scientist or an "editor of academic journals"". The only people who've shown that they don't believe it are some conservatives on this forum who, if Vibise said she had two arms and two legs, would deny it.
 

Backup

Well-known member
Wait...are you seriously claiming that someone "who has taught Constitutional law at a topnotch law school" does not have more credibility than you as to what is and isn't Constitutional?

And are you seriously claiming that Vibise recognising that of course such a person does somehow proves that she does not have the qualifications and experience she has?

Oh, and by the way - it is false to say of her that "nobody believes you're a PhD scientist or an "editor of academic journals"". The only people who've shown that they don't believe it are some conservatives on this forum who, if Vibise said she had two arms and two legs, would deny it.
Yeah, there is only one person that posts here who obviously lies about their credentials. It’s kind of weird and mental, despite your political position. The attacks on vibise are just desperate jabs by unimaginative trolls losing an argument.
 

Whateverman

Well-known member
Yeah, there is only one person that posts here who obviously lies about their credentials. It’s kind of weird and mental, despite your political position. The attacks on vibise are just desperate jabs by unimaginative trolls losing an argument.
The antipathy directed towards her is weird, to say the least. Then again, we've all seen quotes about the only good Muslim being a dead Muslim, so maybe the anger isn't that out of character.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Wait...are you seriously claiming that someone "who has taught Constitutional law at a topnotch law school" does not have more credibility than you as to what is and isn't Constitutional?
No. I literally said, "That's not what determines credibility". Learn to read.
And are you seriously claiming that Vibise recognising that of course such a person does somehow proves that she does not have the qualifications and experience she has?
Yes.
Oh, and by the way - it is false to say of her that "nobody believes you're a PhD scientist or an "editor of academic journals"". The only people who've shown that they don't believe it are some conservatives on this forum who, if Vibise said she had two arms and two legs, would deny it.
If you believe somebody who doesn't know basic facts about biology that the rest of us learned in middle school has a PhD in that subject, or that a person who doesn't know how to properly source a claim or evaluate a source is an editor, then you're as dumb as she is.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
The antipathy directed towards her is weird, to say the least. Then again, we've all seen quotes about the only good Muslim being a dead Muslim, so maybe the anger isn't that out of character.
If that's what she said, she should be ashamed of herself. But, given that Democrats are racists, it wouldn't surprise me.
 

vibise

Well-known member
See, this is why nobody believes you're a PhD scientist or an "editor of academic journals". If you were, you would know this is not what determines credibility.

No, it's a recognition of one's skills as an editor.

Then they shouldn't be editors.

But you claim to be the editor of a scientific journal and you don't do those things.

Good. I'm glad she was able to enlighten you. But the reason she had to explain it to you is that you certainly did not know it then.

Did you ever figure out who the fathers were?

But you expect the federal government to do it.



In your opinion, but not in the opinion of the Founders and Framers and not as stated in the Constitution.



Then you should be lobbying your little Commie politicians to amend the Constitution and abolish our federalist government.



...says the person who repeatedly lies about me and about my beliefs.
Yes, education, experience and demonstrated expertise do matter when it comes to credibility.

Editors of Law Reviews are selected on the basis of scholarship. Few if any of them have experience as copy editors at that point. Their position is NOT to proofread submissions for grammar.

You misunderstand what it means to be an editor of a scholarly journal. The editor is not a copy editor. The editor of a scientific journal is responsible for the scientific content. Once the paper has passed through rigorous scientific evaluation by a set of peer reviewers selected by the editor, it is then sent to copy editors in the editorial office who check for typos and grammatical issues before the paper is released.

There is no way that individual states can independently ensure clean air and water for the country, unless they work together in some way, like under a federal govt! For example, the Delaware River starts in NY and runs between PA and NJ and then hits Delaware. If one state wants to use it for drinking water and the other as a chemical dump, that won't work.

Your views on the Constitution represent a minority opinion that will not become widely accepted. As in the above example, people want and expect clean air and water and expect the federal govt to ensure they get it.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
Yes, education, experience and demonstrated expertise do matter when it comes to credibility.
Which is not what you said. As usual, when your claim is refuted, you just move the goalposts.
You misunderstand what it means to be an editor of a scholarly journal. The editor is not a copy editor.
Correct. The editor supervises the copy editor, thus, necessitating the skills and experience necessary to do so.
There is no way that individual states can independently ensure clean air and water for the country, unless they work together in some way, like under a federal govt!
States under the authority of the federal government are not "working together". The federal government is exercising authority over them.

If states can't do it, then the federal government can't do it.

What's more, such federal control over states is at odds with our federal republic form of government, and our laws, as stated in the Constitution.
For example, the Delaware River starts in NY and runs between PA and NJ and then hits Delaware. If one state wants to use it for drinking water and the other as a chemical dump, that won't work.
Correct. That's why we have courts.

You're as ignorant of civics as you are of elementary biology.
Your views on the Constitution
Stop right there.

I literally quoted the text of the Constitution to you.

For you to call it "my view" is a flat out lie.

If you're too stupid or dishonest to recognize the text of the Constitution when I quoted it verbatim and provided a link for you, that's not my problem.
represent a minority opinion that will not become widely accepted.
Then you'll find a way to amend the Constitution. Until then, it's the law of the land.
As in the above example, people want and expect clean air and water and expect the federal govt to ensure they get it.
Then they should lobby their representatives to amend the Constitution. Until then, the Constitution is still the law of the land.
 

vibise

Well-known member
Which is not what you said. As usual, when your claim is refuted, you just move the goalposts.

Correct. The editor supervises the copy editor, thus, necessitating the skills and experience necessary to do so.

States under the authority of the federal government are not "working together". The federal government is exercising authority over them.

If states can't do it, then the federal government can't do it.

What's more, such federal control over states is at odds with our federal republic form of government, and our laws, as stated in the Constitution.

Correct. That's why we have courts.

You're as ignorant of civics as you are of elementary biology.

Stop right there.

I literally quoted the text of the Constitution to you.

For you to call it "my view" is a flat out lie.

If you're too stupid or dishonest to recognize the text of the Constitution when I quoted it verbatim and provided a link for you, that's not my problem.

Then you'll find a way to amend the Constitution. Until then, it's the law of the land.

Then they should lobby their representatives to amend the Constitution. Until then, the Constitution is still the law of the land.
That is exactly what I said, using demonstrated knowledge of Constitutional law as an example - that someone who teaches that subject at a topnotch law school has more credibility than a random CARM poster.

No, the editor does not supervise the work of the copy editor in any real sense. Once the editor accepts the scientific content of the paper, he/she is done and the manuscript is passed on. Scientific editors tend to be unpaid volunteers, whereas the copy editors are employed by the journal.

If we want clean air and water, the best way to accomplish that is through federal regulations passed by our elected officials.

Your view of the Constitution as scripture is a minority view. The rest of us want clean air and water without protracted court fights. Nixon set up the EPA after the Cuyahoga River caught fire the twelfth time. The state could not seem to fix that on its own.

Why it is that virtually no one in power seems to be following your version of what the Constitution says? Maybe because your view is not accepted widely.

In my view, when a poster has to resort to name-calling and personal attacks, that person has clearly lost.
 

Mike McK

Well-known member
If we want clean air and water, the best way to accomplish that is through federal regulations passed by our elected officials.
Then amend the Constitution to give the federal government that authority and abolish our federal system of government.

In the meantime, the Constitution is still the law of the land.
Your view of the Constitution
You keep lying when you say "your view". I did not give you "my view". I quoted the Constitution verbatim to you and even gave you a link where you could learn more about it.
The rest of us want clean air and water without protracted court fights.
Then amend the Constitution. Until then, the Constitution is still the law of the land.
Why it is that virtually no one in power seems to be following your version of what the Constitution says?
You continue to lie when you say "your view". I haven't presented my view. I quoted the Constitution verbatim and provided a link for you.
Maybe because your view is not accepted widely.
Irrelevant. The Constitution is the law of the land, regardless of how many of you America hating Leftists don't like it.
In my view, when a poster has to resort to name-calling and personal attacks, that person has clearly lost.
...says the person who routinely lies and slanders other posters, and calls us names.
 

Backup

Well-known member
Correct. The editor supervises the copy editor, thus, necessitating the skills and experience necessary to do so.

You have no idea what you are talking about. I won’t get into my illustrious background, but I have edited countless books, magazines, and newspapers. I hire copywriters because my spelling and grammar are so lacking. Otherwise what would I need them for?

On one project I hired an editor from Bosnia, English was like his third or fourth language. The copy editor cleaned up his brilliant writing.
 

Electric Skeptic

Well-known member
No. I literally said, "That's not what determines credibility". Learn to read.
lol...right. A person's knowledge of a subject doesn't determine their credibility on that subject. Sure.
Yes.

If you believe somebody who doesn't know basic facts about biology that the rest of us learned in middle school has a PhD in that subject, or that a person who doesn't know how to properly source a claim or evaluate a source is an editor, then you're as dumb as she is.
Except that none of those things has been evidenced about her. Next?
 

vibise

Well-known member
Then amend the Constitution to give the federal government that authority and abolish our federal system of government.

In the meantime, the Constitution is still the law of the land.

You keep lying when you say "your view". I did not give you "my view". I quoted the Constitution verbatim to you and even gave you a link where you could learn more about it.

Then amend the Constitution. Until then, the Constitution is still the law of the land.

You continue to lie when you say "your view". I haven't presented my view. I quoted the Constitution verbatim and provided a link for you.

Irrelevant. The Constitution is the law of the land, regardless of how many of you America hating Leftists don't like it.

...says the person who routinely lies and slanders other posters, and calls us names.
When did I ever call you a name? You are the one calling me a liar.

If your view of the Constitution is correct, we would not have a federal EPA or Clean Air and Water Acts. And we do. The Clean Air Act was initially passed in 1963 and has been modified and extended ever since. So where are the so-called constitutional experts insisting on its repeal?
 
Top