Too convoluted for me to parse. A red herring is an argument that, while it may well be true, does nothing to forward the case at-hand; it only distracts.
I don't think it's a herring (misleading clue in a mystery story). But it may be a mackerel. What does the sentence mean? My first guess is: Congress usually passes bills without reviewing them. My second guess: Congress can put a rider on a passed bill: no review will be considered - and it's standard practice to do so. But then, I'm not familiar with the inner functioning of US legislature; it might be clear to people who are.
The arrow beside my name in the quote is a link to the OP in the thread on peer review with scientific papers. I think it is a red herring in an aspect of distraction but not surreptitious.
I wrote a reply, but realized you were addressing Seattle. You can't delete a post once posted, so all I can do is label it as junk. Or 'duplicate', which is how this usually happens. I am 'overloading' the dupe() method. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, and can that be considered a red herring? Also, that 'dupe' came to me by an alert indicating you quoted me, yet from a different thread than this one, from what I could gather anyway, or, it was a suggestion of duping someone. Hence, Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes. It is truthful while not relevant. Really? You're a fe-type male? Huh. Your style is one of the most male I've seen.
And there are two points to it being a red herring that should be considered (but I'm lazy right now). 1. I posted the idea of it being a red herring as a separate thread topic and not in the originating thread. 2. I was definitely distracted by it.