SkipCaptcha
212
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 179:
Line 179: + +
Talk:PNAS Response to Letter (view source)
Revision as of 23:10, November 13, 2008
, 23:10, November 13, 2008→Point 5 Rejected
:: Moreover, as I already explained above, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading. Lenski's use of "whether or not" obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner. I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 2 November 2008 (EST)
:: Moreover, as I already explained above, I found Lenski's description of his application of the Whitlock paper to be particularly misleading. Lenski's use of "whether or not" obscures the basic error that he did not apply Whitlock's paper in the straightforward, correct manner. I think the wording in the Lenski paper deliberately obscures this falsehood from the reader.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:30, 2 November 2008 (EST)
::::Michael Whitlock does not agree with your interpretation. He states that "the appropriate weightings should be 4, 5, and 8, the sample sizes."<ref>Personal email communication with M. Whitlock, 9/22/08</ref>--[[User:Brossa|Brossa]] 18:10, 13 November 2008 (EST)
:::Aschlafly,
:::Aschlafly,