SLP
Posts: 136
Joined: Dec. 2002
|
I must say that this does not surprise me in the least.
ARN regular "Mike Gene" once wrote that he felt that discussion boards like ARN were in fact better than normal peer review because, according to him anyway, more people would read it.
As is mentioned, one of the purposes of review is to weed out inconsistencies, errors, etc. Yet each and every time "Mike Gene" posted one of his over-lengthy 'essays' on ARN and readers critiques it, he doggedly refused to accept any sort of criticism, as was recently the case with Langan.
Basically, it seems that these folks think they "know it all," and post their thoughts in the 'knowldge' that all will bow to their irreproachable logic and heap accolades upon them. When this inevitably fails to happen, they, instead of recognizing the shortcomings of their essays/articles, launch into attacks upon their critics.
I've seen it happen so many times, it cannot be coincidence...
|
