Pub.ed should create a new domain/site. called legal-paid-commentors-of-possible blogs

There is a stupid paper on Pub.ed, the owner of this weird paper is a stupid lying person who abusing marriage law got married changed surname to steal my valuble name credits, and stole my surname to deceit the world (even if not completely). During my fight against this kurdish idendity-thief, inevitably i saw how stupidly this kurdish identity-thief deceits world by its stupid papers.
I hate that my valuable time spend on this identity thief stupidly fabricated papers while trying to get rid of this kurdish identity-thief. This identity thief paper is too stupidly written, the paper draws some conclusions from hallucinated work which is not found on the paper, paper has big logic failures, there are conclusions concluded from result/method things never found/done on the claimed paper results section, then another paper from the same weird group uses their hallucinated discussions, they do the stupid logic openly catched in minute to anyone, a commenter duty is not to say look at the logical defect in the paper. I never forgive logical defects, it means a crazy group done something to screw minds, i also drop the journals, universities publishing defected logics. If I see someone illegitimate/uneducated not qualified to prepare solutions/chemicals of project I immeditely skip the journal.
Formerly it was not possible for anyone to write how kurdish idendity-thief paper has logic failures, now it is possible to give my opinion as a complaining comment under this kurdish stupid paper, but, a few sentences squeezed in a comment box will not enough to tell how stupid, how identity-thief the stupid kurdish person.

Meanwhile, besides stupid papers, there are papers that i like more than others, that i am thankful to their contribution to science, That I would give my good opinion on them whenever someone asks me, i also praised, referenced most of them in front of law in my valuable published documents.

Now, it is possible that anyone can write bad or good comments on such papers.
Would best scientist read the comments on a paper? Answer is 'No'
Would best scientist trust a commenter good or bad words on an article. Answer is 'No'. Does the commenter knows how the chemical/solutions are calculated etc. Answer is 'No'. A street dog might bark better as a comment.

On pubmed, a commenting person, who only has a few lines to say, for me is nothing to trust, because the commenting person is not allowed there to talk on about methods, results, references, because no space is available. A dog hav-hav hav-hav-hav allowance is what a commenting person allowance.
No legal contract is present. Dogs are always allowed to bark, but human are legally responsible from their doings. I mean i prefer long legal scientific formatted explanations. A dog has the talent to comment on PubMed, but never really do anything regarding high valued science.
If the comments make downloading a paper from PubMed-internet slower, the one which my team precisely praised to me regarding a specific need, if the comments disrupts to reach more from the abstract, they are there as shit to block me from reaching to a paper already selected by my team, then i would say what the shit these comments there, i need the knowledge of the paper, i do not need barks of the dogs bad or good.
If there is 2 Pubed, one with comments, one without comments but with fast availability of the content, i again select the fast reached comment-free PubMed.
Commenting, accusations on a paper, as I sad on kurdish identity person is serious, requires to criticise entire thing with long explanations, many times even longer than a stupid paper, can not be done by just dog barking. In general, including myself, none enjoys to waste time on stupid papers even to accuse them, it feels as if you are in the middle of shits. But, if one needs to get rid of some kurdish identity-thieves and needs to prove that such such kurdish identity thief deceited world by stupid papers, complaints needs to be reported. It is not that I am paid to find out stupid people papers in scientific world, stupid journals publishing stupid logic-fcked papers; but inevitably I needed to get rid of the attacks of some kurdish identity-thieves harming my legal rights.

we do not need a dog is translating a paper into barking language by like, or dislike sentences.
Should my dog be allowed as a commentor on PubMed?
Answer is No, because downloading the pages, reaching to the paper itself whether good or bad; unnecessarily will cost more time.
Think that you are walking in the street and someone is fighting/saying bad things or good things against a bad or good person, do we like it when we are in a hurry. No we do not. I am already certain that a product is good, my decision is already good, why my time further wasted by unnecessary barks.
But, there should be a different department to give comments/complaints  which is serious, detailed and legal.
Commenting people's screws are not serious even to punish, but the stupid paper owner is there openly to punish legally. A dog is not punished for barking and barking.
That a street dog could not understand the perfect numerical proofs in a valuable high level logical paper and need another dog barking shortly/nicely comment, does not help any science education.
Comment spaces are always too short, never allowing any legal accusations or detailed scientific  explanations, or use the paper as a scientific reference.
The scientific format using a paper as a reference under References section is the already established legal commenting best way. Some people even describe a whole life of a politician as a Comment. Sick stupid people are always arbitrarily lost/trapped in multiple meaning of words.UNFORTUNTELY EVEN AT HİGH LEVELS THERE are people who are lost in screwed language traps of 'comment' meaning. I know such a mongol brainless person who fails to evalute any activity. There is a brain disease, such people can not imagine 'comment' if the activity is done as REFERENCES in a different paper, this disease is not disease if an animal does it; it is called human sufficient brain activity, such thinking ability lacks in some human appearing people.

If we want to have blogs on PubmE.. this format suggestion  is a different issue, we may say that pubme.. should have blogs  such as http://humantranslator.blogspot.com/2013/12/pubed-should-create-new-domainsite.html since blogs are not commented, are not peer-reviewed/commented on any prepublishing level, there should be  comment box for them if the blogger/copyright owner wishes. At present I prefer PubMe.. as it is without any blog. That there is not anyone in USA to see how the USA copyright law, protecting peer-reviewed journal rights is harmed if Comment box misused made me extremely astonished that none even notices how gained rights are target to harm by misuse of Comment box. is The law education on EARTH is worse than old times, the judges are playing, courts are playground. While none sees how high taxes are taken from USA scientific studies. No big scientist want to waste time on legal issues, daily problem short-time problem solving does not help to protect law. If PubMed will store international things who never paid any tax to the workers,  then there is an illegality. My eldest brother as a valuable international person who wanted to put law, communications for permanent international science things, not make one side steal the rights of other.
I am astonished that how my taxes in a way stolen by the people who never pay anything is not mentioned anywhere. Pity that I worked hard, i from the birth had the most best exams, education, i stayed hungry to pay all, i did all scientific work but there is not any good law schoool education system to educate international law makers. In this eastern europe country there is a recent genocide via stupid parrot educational systems against valuable students, all they do is look at if someone is parrot or not. This already harmed many systems. Mongol stupids hate that they memorize but can not use what they memorized, i mentioned on other posts on this blog. They screw their own future makers by their screwed parrot-like educational systems, they lies, lies; instead of valuble exams fabricate stupid parrot exams, allparrots can be replaced ith a book on a shelf, they are nothing more than a bad copy of a book, they re never creator, they are thief. Then if someone does good, all together try to steal what they were against once.

wht the fck if  a dog liked-barked or not-liked barked in short space of pubme.. with few sentences, who is going to comment on a stupid comment then, this goes on and on. You fucking stupid brains there, you US tax thief people there, I am not going to leave the PuBmE..   to you FUCK Science World yet again abusing a technology-moiety somehow happened has 'comment box'.*
who is going to take a legal action against a stupid commentor. If a stupid commenting person does wrong, will not be punished easily; but a wrong paper owner will be punished by a commentor.
Barking shortly in a comment place is always easy, not serious, not legal, not scientific.
PubMed should leave out some unknown bad universities, some bad journals papers.  as a matter of fact when I read a paper i always check the university, country, or the journal name to prefer. Then i check the detailed backgrounds of the authors, though each paper stands on its own even if on the same journal, same county.
The duty of the post-graduate schools, advisor is to tell the students the most specific papers regarding her/his field.  paper maybe good for thousands students, but not for a different field. but a supervisor will give the most appropriate for most appropriate student. Commenting by  supervisor on a paper is student specific, project specific.

I wrote this post  http://humantranslator.blogspot.com/2013/12/pubed-should-create-new-domainsite.html ) because recently PubMed library made commenting possible on any paper to any PubMed author which I found unnecessary and harming on best library page design for first sight, or downloading time of the paper.
Any dog who is nothing on its own will find a valuable paper and bark, and bark and bark over on it without any legal responsibility.  Comment makers will be free-to bark, but not be commented/barked on wrong doing by others.


However, i want not a short comment line space, but serious some absolute legal levels, forms, places  to report legally that a kurdish identity-thief person paper is nothing but to break young brain logical thoughts.
Just barking shortly bad or good is nothing but only will harm internet paper first sight introduce design, or downloading. I need to know what university had journal, has the paper, not the barking commentors. PubMed should drop journals or universities which are not qualified to do high quality work which requires legal commenting/peerreview prior to the finish of the work, not after of the work. If a calculation of a chemical ,or tool adjustment is wrong done, what the fuck  a barking commentor bark on Pubed and do something. what the fuck a barking commentor bark and bark and steal a correct algebra, geometry skill intellectual work result. Barking simply will be good work, but using algebra high skills will be ignored/damned.

Maybe they will soon remove all the papers from pubmed and the commentors will hallucinate, talk and talk, bark on PubMed :).
who needs results, who need methods WHO NEEDS ANYTHİNG OTHER THAN SİMPLE BARKİNG? etc. Why not, this is happening for example in this eastern europe country after the recent government placed eDucAtional systems suiting to barking dogs. Omitted any complicted things only dog understandble things on educational systems.




why good quality universities, good quality journals are paying, hiring the most qualified people to review, to comment on papers over long communication periods just prior to the publication of a paper, we need to damp those journal paper reviewing comittees people, rather there should be a site papers published without any peer review activity. (some journal are not peer-reviewed)For example most blogs are this kind, anyone can blog anything without having  blog peer reviewed by another person comment.
Not mot recent, I am also a lover of good very very old scientific paper 100 years ago or more. Old papers have strong scientific logic examples. To y tht one doe not need to go under a comment line of an oldpaper of 1800.  Sometimes I read scientific paper and see how scientific tools, enstrumants are changing. A paper might be in some results with old machine old technology worked, but if a good reader knows that the study is done in 1890 at an early date, already know that in that they some machines were not developed. A good paper is always good if has a strong logic, if used its own century machines, knowledge well, i like old dead authors work still useful, though their DISCUSSIONS or references parts are not that much helper tht much. But, good science student knows that without my brief comment on it just looking at the date that the authors all are dead, it is too old. tudents cn read any paper to lern ho cience developed in humn history. But, to comment requires long long pagesnever a short sentence. Comment reading will waste more time than reading the paper.

yOU BARKİNG LOVER DOGS, PROMİSE YOU :)
I will make you a site, i will remove any such difficult things from there, put PubMed logo there, select the best Einstein studies, will remove any algebra, complicated units bearing thing from pubmed url, you will shortly comment there only with other barkers. you will bark in  few sentences, then google.com image search engine will show that you barking dog, you incredible barking commentor you indeed showing on PubMed even on the top of the study result image, or promise you :) who need results image , i will drop all study scientific results, take your facebook.com handsome photo and a couple of best friends and place on Pubmed, promise i will drop many parts of the papers, who needed the results section, references, figures section of a paper, while the title of the paper and the short barking commentors are there.
Or maybe PubMe could code each paper by a smell such as pee odor, shit odor, etc. then we would  make a dog recognize smell each paper odor then learn if the paper is good or bad. The google.com image search engine would quote a dog photo under a valuable paper, saying paper smells good, it is good paper by dog so so.
I also make you a screenshot that you barking dog you are indeed on Pubed next to the most valuble eintein study of the world, so that you pass your screeenshot to your friends, only the paper title you barking dog photo and the pubed logo. You put this on your Curriculum.




I am a lover of good scientific paper. Sometimes I read scientific paper and see how scientific tools, enstrumants are changing. A paper might be in some results with old machine worked, but if a good reader knows that the study is done in 1920 at an early date, already know that in that they some machines were not developed, or this paper dead author never mentiones a late work. A good paper is always good if has a strong logic, if used its own century machines, knowledge well, i like old dead authors work still useful, though their DISCUSSIONS or references parts are not that much helper that much. But, good science student knows that without my brief comment on it just looking at the date that the authors all are dead, it is too old. students can read any paper to learn how science developed in human history.
Meanwhile, that an internet technology develops by PubMed engineer to put a box under the PubMed papers to write for example University URL, or some other things, is totally different issue and not bad. But recent boxes on PubMe... are launched meaningless COMMENT boxes.
PubMed is in United States America taxpayers owned facility presented to world. United States of America tax-payers has the right to damp any study from outside of usa. I paid tax to pubmed library worker salary, but pubmed workers also working for thosse who are not USA tax payer. USA should not punish the taxpaying people by mistake. USA should drop any study which are not affiliated with US university author. I paid tax, others who freely using Pubmed librarians should be punished. I paid paid and paid others working outside of US did not paid aythink, they are thief stealing my tax money to use librariens.  I paid for any USA international worker to do ny interntionl job, i stayed hungry, poor,  but i paid their salary. I paid to USA valuable journal commenting reviewers in advance big money. not only a single journal but to many journals i paid to maintain their vluable peer-review job.
The recent PubMe commenting system is stupid thing, should be canceled. It  harms journal peer commenting people job, it harms precommenting system on peer-reviewed journal papers.
any paper stands on its own, but will we hire  a head to the commenting people, pay to the commentor head.
It is the most stupid thing to do dogs bark in short sentences on Pub ed.
Pube is saying that they are out of money . Sure they will be, I looked at papers, most of the papers are not papers which paid any tax to US governemnt to pay the salaries of peer rewieving journal workers, or librarians. I paid and paid for salaries of the us library workers, but those people who never paid any cent.  Was I stupid to pay taxes to pay the salary of the journal worker library worker. Some thief minded people never pay any tax to US but they put their journals on there. I made the most wonderful studies, but still spared money to pay to US librarien salary US journal commenting peer  reviewing people salary. It does not matter that one make most wonderful study, still need to pay tax to pay journal publication salary. Also health grants are recorded by US government some people lies to US that their paper is US government grant work.
The kurdish identity thief deceited USA government about its stupid study that it is a US government tax payed Grant. Such identity thieves deceit pubmed and makes pubmed work them for free.
Such important issues are seriously legal, a few comment line will not solve anything , but help barking dogs to screw around.
To explain a logic mistake of a paper takes at least two pages, a short comment box is not sufficient to explain anything but bark as if animal. I also hate to distract  PubMed reader attentiton to stupid comments. Commenting is a business job, and all peer reviewed journal already do that prior to the publishing by their paid commenting committee. Commenting also requires a head to summarize all comments.
recently some papers on PubMed are from bad journals from bad universities, PubMed should drop them. Also any paper should pay tax to US, should be from a US government tax-paid grant. All papers give already that they are so so US grant as obligatory by law, not a difficult thing to know if a paper is US tax-paid grant, this is on US government records. 
PubMed storage workers are not supposed to store papers which never paid US tax.
I am not  paid to  report how some identity thieves screws some journals, i simply drop them, label them as identity-thief helper journals, many times some problematic paper publishing journals are not in the countries i paid taxes. To make a legal report wastes my time, even this blog took my valauble time, none will pay me for explaining that prepublishing work, critics are most important,  a comment will not teach a graduate student how to catch a logic failure of a paper.
I still read very old papers, their authors are all dead, born a century ago, they are behind this century, but still if one imagine their machines etc can get the useful gist of their work, their results section, method section require different interpretation, i am very good also to recognize the technologies of any old century and evaluate any paper results. Date stamp of 1900 already is a comment on  paper. It will continue to comment 500 years later.
For a commenting person the target person is important, is the commentor commenting to a government fund raiser,
is the commentor commenting to a human-resource person,
is the commentor commenting to little children,
is the commentor commenting to historians, is the commentor commenting to educational systems, is the commentor the one prepared the chemicals to go measurements. the audience of a commentor is different from the audience of the PubMed. I dump a paper if i see the most important think, chemical solution preparations/measures can not be done by the stupids of the paper fabricating brainless people.


There are barking dogs, if you tell them do project, do study, they are brainless stupid, they will be even against to you; if you tell them be a reviewer prior to the paper published, they are just numb stupids, but when all the things finished, when it is time to steal the pride of  perfect study they are there barking dogs. They are thieves,  thieves think that by only putting a hand over a finished thing tells is the work owner, as expected from thief minds. None can argue against the thief mind. A thief is thief. Legal punishments, or legal responsibility of barking commentors on Pub ed should be arranged and should be heavy.
The pity is that many hard working perfect teams, make perfect studies and goes to new one, no time to fight against the barking commentor dogs of pubme.. .

What an animal farm We Would make from any valuable site.
Anyone commenting on PubMed is a barking thief-minded dog who could not manage to do good things on its own.






*comment box has many usage in newly emerged internet technologies. ıT can ALsO BE UsED FOR DİFFERENT purposes. COMMENT BOX is not there to screw a well peer-reviewed paper after all comments done prior to publishing. This is Why there is peer-reviewed definition. Mongols, jelaous brainless people, damned brains all are listened to screw valuable sites. Fck those who are nothing, lies and lies and screws good systems. I know such thief minded mongols, they talk with their animal brains, screws any good known system they are jelaous of systems since good systems  prove that they are brainless animals.
In US there are center grants lasting at least 20 years, only priviliged talented people are involved to them. They have at least 10 or so subprojects. The big project is multidisiplinary or involves many people so that only at least 6 papers from different workers finish the project work. The grant numbers already declared/included in US study papers legally telling that it is such a project, on internet, a IT Comment link could easily list 15 subgrants of a big US grant to give the gist of big project.
some thieves will pee, will shit anywhere and claim that they shit there so they did something. (In this country there is a  saying, 'does nothing, pees illegally other people fields, asks ownership from peeing'.
Thieves should be punished heavily if they abuse IT comment box with wrong meanings.
Sometimes IT Comment box can be used to report that nothing with the paper but some internet webmaster solvable problem is present,  link is broken webmaster should check it etc. If one reports an internet technology problem of PubMED it is also a comment though nothing to do with the paper.
Thieves steal all, then give you a piece, tell others unshamed hiding the all truth, criminality is a life process to evaluate, the stupid judges courts leaves out entire truth. Many judges are themselves stupid people who could not be anything but barely  a judge in current systems. there is intelligent people shortage on earth, valuable scientists do not have sufficient time to keep their own legal right protected. Schools of law are behind current technology high problems of humanity, law schools are easy schools, again parrot-learning which is easily replaced by a computer; i can replace many law schools graduate with a computer memory knowledge better. It was old days one would memorize establihedd knoledge then pass it if paid. now we pay to knowledge disks, electronic-books etc, creating is the thing, not copying  to brain as a cheap computer even do today. WhY waste money on such parrots while computer do their doings better, fast and efficiently documenting.
Self-defense moments are forgotten in law. I know Stupid judgeS Who gets Angry to you When you fight to hold your right, to take back your right. Fck them, do not tAlk bAck to them. Thief Will not stop to fAbricate lie to further steal. FCkc them, fck their criminality, A THİEF wİLL FABRİCATE ANY LİE TO STEAL. dO NOT WAsTE TİME TO Talk TO A THİEF.
 THİEF PEOPLE JUMPS ON aNYTHİNG TO sCREw OTHER PEOPLE COPYRİGHTED CONTENT SCREWİNG ANY LAW. You fcking stupids you jelaous people, you brainless mongols, go fck your brain further, i m not going to leave you fck good systems. The recent box is not there  toilet you pee in it, you shit in it and fck good systems.