Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 88:
Line 88: − − ::Andy this is the hollywood breast cancer argument over again. You have made a series of vague statements without any actual numbers to back this up. [[User:DanB|DanB]] 21:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT) − − :PNAS have directly addressed his concerns. They made it quite clear that there is no obvious ("subtle or obscure") statistical errors. If Andy's letter had raised any serious concerns then they would have asked the authors to respond. The only reason this is continuing is Andy "twice as many statistic courses as you" won't accept that he is wrong. [[User:DanB|DanB]] 21:11, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 01:30, September 16, 2008
, 01:30, September 16, 2008Reverted edits by DanB (Talk); changed back to last version by DRamon
: I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
: I did. Which point don't you understand?--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:13, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)
I think regardless of what the details behind the statistical analysis are, the shame here is that PNAS refused to address anything specific in their response. They simply glossed over everything that was said in the letter sent to them and gave a generic, unsubstantive response. All the people here that are trying to argue with ASchlafly about his position should instead focus on why is it that PNAS refuses to directly address our concerns. --[[User:DRamon|DRamon]] 21:01, 15 September 2008 (EDT)