Reply #153: I don't know about all that

[alcibiades_mystery]

Here's the way I saw it. There are only two reasons for repeatedly demanding information your interlocutors could not possibly produce: either you A) don't know that such information is generally unavailable, or B) you know that it is, and you're demanding it for that reason. I'm not really sure how to represent those choices as anything other than ignorance or cleverness, though I suspect that if I worked harder at it, I'd find a way to say it that you didn't consider insulting.

Now, apparently there's a third choice: you know that your interlocutors know at least one potential peer reviewer, and you want them to say that person's name, presumably Gourley. They seem willing to take Gourley's statements at face value in terms of his involvement with the peer review, but that still wouldn't allow them to provide you with the names of the reviewers.

Like I said, I'm not really that interested in being involved in all that. I can address possibility A) (i.e., that you perhaps didn't know how peer review works). I'll let you and the other sort out the other stuff.