This one I came across while reading a reply to Susan Mazur's latest article on the "censorship conspiracy" behind the peer-review process. In a nutshell, Mazur claims that some authors had their idea censored because they failed to be published.
To the layperson, this may seem abhorrent. After all, refusing papers because you don't agree with what is being said in them, looks a lot like censorship. However, ask yourself this question: Do you expect a journal like The Astrophysical Journal to publish the work of someone who submitted a paper claiming that the Sun is powered by coal-burning rather than by fusion? I hope you answered that you wouldn't expect so, because that idea wouldn't be published in any self-respecting journals of any field of science, and the reason for this is well illustrated by today's quotable quote:
And it is for this reason, and this reason alone that the papers of Mazur's friends were rejected.Science is mean to people whose ideas suck. — Ty
In science when your papers gets rejected, you work on them and make them better. If you think the reviewers made a mistake (and they sometimes do, because no one is perfect), you can ask for a re-review, or submit your paper to another journal. There are several dozens of journals, if not hundreds, that publish papers on evolution. If you have to get morons like Mazur to champion your ideas, you've pretty much admitted that your idea is devoid of actual merit.
 J. Shallit (8 February 2010). "Suzan Mazur - Perpetually Clueless", Recursivity. Accessed 14 February 2010.
 S. Mazur (4 February 2010). "Secrecy and Bias in the Old Boys' Network: The Peer Review Prison", Counterpunch. Accessed 14 Febuary 2010.
 Ty (8 February 2010). "Comment by Ty", Recursivity. Accessed 14 February 2010.
• G. Landry (17 October 2009). "The Dirty Window", The Head Bomb. Accessed 14 February 2010.
• Science by Press Conference, Wikipedia. Accessed 14 February 2010, rev 340724961.
• Peer Review, Wikipedia. Accessed 14 February 2010, rev 343485010.