This story is unavailable.

Pointing to other people and saying, “they were shitty first,” does not exonerate you from your bad behavior. Also, please stop pretending that “OH, I meant that disparaging insult to the SciBabe in the nicest possible way to the group I was comparing her to,” works. Your intent was to insult and I think you should own it. I doubt you really intended to be extremely rude to me, but trying to shift the blame is disingenuous and an obvious distraction. I believe the correct response, one that your PR manager would give you if you had one, is to apologize and edit the article to remove the problematic parts.

P.S. Copy-pasting in wide swaths of text that contain problematic language doesn’t make you look any better. It just makes me think you needed to spend a little bit more time in the editorial process and less in the “type my furious polemic” process.

As for your study, no, I am not impressed. One study is promising, but scientists aren’t satisfied that a subject has been explored with only one study, and neither should you be. It is, as you might put it, lazy writing. And, to slip right past your endless snark, if you don’t understand how the burden of proof works, or even what it is, you shouldn’t engage in debate.

The SciBabe vs Science Babe issue: I think maybe you doth protest too much. I’m SURE you don’t care in the least. If you don’t like fact checking, maybe don’t engage in it.

On that note, you’ve made a point by point refutation of the SciBabe’s article, except, of course, the main point, which would have been the more compelling argument, and, tacitly, what you are trying to defend. Honestly, who cares if Palmer has a 1% or 100% acceptance rate, other than as another fact to support an overall argument.

And for the rest of your gish gallop, frankly, I’m not interested. YMMV.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Mark Locy’s story.