Congratulations to each and every one of you for the concert last night in New York and vice versa.
I think there's a huge difference between describing norms in a vivid way and singling out individual people.
If you have an effect that nobody can replicate, then your phenomenon fades away. So if you want to to have a legacy, then you jolly well better have an effect that replicates.
If people are going to do post-publication peer review, they need to abide by the same rules as they abide by for pre-publication peer review: not being ad hominem, being respectful, giving the author a chance to respond in a reasonable way.
It is typical for implicit status hierarchies of influence and esteem to emerge in interpersonal encounters, especially those that are goal oriented.
In these unfiltered, un-moderated social media posts people are speculating about others' motivations. And you could no more put that in a peer review for a journal than you could fly.
I publish things that in my judgment are good science.
I am no theologian. I am a layman. I am among those who are preached to, and who listen. It is not for me to preach. I should not willingly forego being a listener, a man who reads the Gospels and then listens to what others say that our Lord meant. But sometimes a listener speaks out, and listens to his own voice.
I dont want to tell my dreams, I want to show them!
I describe my look as a blend of mother goose, cinderella, and the local hooker!
Desire is creation, is the magical element in that process. If there were an instrument by which to measure desire, one could foretell achievement.