I suppose its a question of peer review.

You need to understand that I myself have no power to have anyone removed from their position, or to seek their resignation from a position. Their peers do.

I try to report fairly. That said, if the deficiencies in someone's recent performance reach a critical point, then their peers will act, regardless of that individual's earlier achievements. This is particularly true where there is a situtaion too deadly for them to do otherwise.

You need to understand that when the next medium class (300m) impactor hits the Earth, and this has recently been occuring about 1 time per 1,000 years, then regardless of whether that impactor is of asteroidal or COMETARY origin, it is quite likely that deaths will total 2 to 3 times those of the Second World War.

We can prevent these deaths, but we need to spend much more money on dealing with this hazard, and we need to spend it now. If that money has to come from the accounts for Mars or exo-biology, then so be it.

I'm going to close this note with a couple of guesses. My first guess is that this discussion of flows caused by impacts on Mars is indicative in general of the way in which you work. So far your contribution to this discussion has been nothing but invective, and this type of behaviour is really typical of a second rate individual who is able to do little more than quite cleverly manipulate a scientific bureaucracy.

My second guess is that your peers are really fed up.

ep