...
Post A Reply
my profile
|
directory
login
|
register
|
search
|
faq
|
forum home
»
EgyptSearch Forums
»
Egyptology
»
Because some fools don't know how to make their own thread about the race of kemet
» Post A Reply
Post A Reply
Login Name:
Password:
Message Icon:
Message:
HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/: [QB] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Cass/: [qb] @ Clyde I have been described as evil and deceptive, but even I wouldn't fabricate/lie like you do about my credentials or academic affiliations. So what does that make you? If I go to your ResearchGate/Academia.edu right now, I still see you list your dubious "Uthman dan Fodio Institute" (a defunct private school for kids), including a false "professor" title and non-existent faculty positon of a genetics department. Furthermore, you proved you aren't worth more than dog excrement when you started attacking Bernard Ortiz de Montellano, when he recently had died. There was a RIP thread here, and you used it to vilify him. Btw, unlike Montellano you have no academic legacy. No one will remember your "research" (can we even call it that?) when you die because its so low-quality and nonsense. There are like 3 or 4 black posters in this thread even criticizing you, so you're even an embarrassment to black people. And I would rather write 1 peer-review article each year than pump out dozens like you do in pseudo-journals. You think its about quantity, when its about quality. [/qb][/QUOTE][IMG]https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/3a/32/37/3a323701ac758e638aeb7c72dcd029ed.jpg[/IMG] Montellano was an enemy--not a friend. Just because a person dies does not take away with them the legacy of good or evil they left behind. Here you proved exactly why a piece of dog do do like your self is envious of me. Like Bernardo your envy/jealousy is eating you up. You are sad because you have not had one peer reviewed article published in an Establishment journal while I have had many including these three: 1. A comparison of Fulani and Nadar HLA Clyde Winters Indian J Hum Genet. 2012 Jan-Apr; 18(1): 137–138. doi: 10.4103/0971-6866.96686 PMCID: PMC3385173 ArticlePubReaderCitation Select item 2930572 2. The Fulani are not from the Middle East Clyde Winters Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2010 Aug 24; 107(34): E132. Published online 2010 Aug 3. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1008007107 PMCID: PMC2930572 ArticlePubReaderPDF–485KCitation Select item 3168144 3. Can parallel mutation and neutral genome selection explain Eastern African M1 consensus HVS-I motifs in Indian M haplogroups Clyde Winters Indian J Hum Genet. 2007 Sep-Dec; 13(3): 93–96. doi: 10.4103/0971-6866.38982 PMCID: PMC3168144 ArticlePubReaderCitation that are listed in the National Library of Medicine National Institutes of Health database, which records Establishment peer reviewed articles. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=clyde+winters You envy my success in publishing my research in Establishment journals, while you rant hate and slander. Not even Bernard Ortiz de Montellano has a peer reviewed article cited in the ncbi database. [/qb][/QUOTE]Clyde you've already been exposed as lying about these. Of those 4 cited on PubMed-NCBI, 2 are not peer-reviewed. They're letters/responses you've made. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=clyde+winters "Fulani are not from the Middle East" is a letter, not peer-reviewed: http://www.pnas.org/content/107/34/E132.full Note "LETTER" here: http://www.academia.edu/1898556/The_Fulani_are_not_from_the_Middle_East Quetzalcoatl even sent emails to confirm this. Letters/responses are [b]not[/b] peer-reviewed, they're simply vetted by an editor (for example to check letter is on topic and avoid spelling errors, but there are no peers/referees as experts in their field who actually review the content you submit as a letter reply). [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [qb] [QUOTE]We have established that your comments on PLoS Genetics and BioEssays were not peer reviewed and have the letters from the editors to prove it. The next one to fall is you "letter" to the Proceedings of the Royal Society-- BTW Busby never replied to it. Original paper; (submitted May 17 2011; accepted August 17, 2011 i.e peer reviewed) Busby, B. J. et al. 2012 “The Peopling of Europe and the Cautionary Tale of Y Chromosome Lineage R-M 269,” [b]Proceedings of the Royal Society B[/b] 279: 884-892. Winters’ comment: http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/279/1730/884.e-letters Winters, C. “The First Europeans were Sub-Saharan Africans,” Published only electronically March 23, 2012 (no date of submission, PLoS Genetics posted one day after submission) Letter from Editorial Staff at Royal Society: peer review Inbox x Bernard Ortiz de Montellano <bodemontellano@gmail.com> Dec 6 (2 days ago) to publishing Dear Sirs: Are e-letters commenting on published articles subjected to peer review before publishing, or are they just routinely vetted by an editor? Thank You, Bernard Ortiz de Montellano Emeritus, Professor of Anthropology Wayne State University Vaughan, Debbie <Debbie.Vaughan@royalsociety.org> 9:47 AM (13 hours ago) to me Hi Bernard The latter: routinely vetted by an editor. Kind regards, Debbie As I pointed out in the beginning anything that Winters submits to quality peer reviewed journals is in the nature of comments which are routinely posted and rate [b]NOT[/b] peer reviewed. The letter from PNAS is coming and predictably will say the same. [/qb][/QUOTE]============================================================================= [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Clyde Winters: [qb] [QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzalcoatl: [ . [/qb][/QUOTE]Clyde, you are taking advantage of some naiveté about peer reviewed journals and Pub Med. What thou claim is not accurate. Most of the "articles" you claim in journals like PNAS are your letters commenting on a legitimate article. These letters are NOT reviewed and just published-- i.e. like the vanity press [b]Current research Journal of Social Sciences[/b] which has no review and published your article full of typos so it was not even proofread. Similarly, the talk that is mentioned at the start of this thread, is NOT peer reviewed. Talks at regional meetings, particularly those that not part of organized sessions on a particular topic are NOT reviewed or given academic approval. [/qb][/QUOTE] [/QB][/QUOTE]
Instant Graemlins
Instant UBB Code™
What is UBB Code™?
Options
Disable Graemlins in this post.
*** Click here to review this topic. ***
Contact Us
|
EgyptSearch!
(c) 2015 EgyptSearch.com
Powered by UBB.classic™ 6.7.3