Far from attempting to redeem herself, Elizabeth Liddle has actually doubled down on her censorship/fascism apologetics (see comment 113 to my post).
Liddle admits that the book Biological Information—New Perspectives had already been peer reviewed. She admits that it was on the verge of publication. But, she notes, after Matzke’s publication on Panda’s Thumb all of a sudden Springer “decided that additional peer review would be necessary” before pulling and ultimately dumping the book.
Liddle writes: “This is not surprising: if a lot of scientists write to a publisher and say: we have reason to think that this may not have been properly reviewed, then it’s only responsible to send out for further review.”
Oh really? A lot of scientists write to a publisher to say they have reason to think a paper THEY HAVE NEVER READ has not been properly reviewed? Liar.
Springer put out its fig leaf about further review to give cover for people just like you, and it is nothing short of pathetic that you take that fig leaf up and try to hide your malice behind it. You should be ashamed, but it is clear to me that you have no shame.
[Comments on this should be placed in the combox of the original post]