Hahaha, you actually started from making an artificial difference between 'doctored' and 'purely fabricated' data. Looks from the change in your question that there is not that much difference anymore? I guess the excessive letters did their job. That's a progress, we may eventually agree on something at some point.
And I did not say 'I can not'. I said 'I would not'. На "понял" берёте? ;) When I publish in official capacity, for Cato, for something else, or for myself in Nature, I will back my claims. And as a matter of fact I do have many of such more important claims to work on and to prove with real data. Takes time and effort. So I do not really feel obliged in a casual conversation, and, most importantly, I can not figure out what's unclear about the statement: 'I did check the data on a few occasions, they were crap'. It is very different from 'I just don't like what they are saying' and it has nothing to do with my deep disagreement with Cato's political agenda. I may choose to prove my point someday on my spare time, or not. I also made it very clear that you should not feel obliged to trust my opinion.
Did you seriously just pull a "I gots mo' important scientifical thangs to do than answer a clear and direct question" with me? Guess what! I know some science too. I read it, write it, plot it, discuss it all day long ... long enough such that I can imagine what kind of scientist you are. Yay for science and politics FAIL!
Answer me later then, dearest Dr. rather than writing a book about why you refuse to answer me now. I am genuinely curious to know which of [the] data are bad based on your analysis, but you can take your time, please!
Guess what, I just did! Dearest colleague, I never doubted your ability to write, and plot, and understand. That's exactly why I am confident you could figure this out by yourself, all the politics aside. When I find it amusing enough to write an essay about "Cato science", which I indeed consider to be of lowest priority, I promise I'll let you know and we will compare our notes.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-09-08 01:22 am (UTC)And I did not say 'I can not'. I said 'I would not'. На "понял" берёте? ;) When I publish in official capacity, for Cato, for something else, or for myself in Nature, I will back my claims. And as a matter of fact I do have many of such more important claims to work on and to prove with real data. Takes time and effort. So I do not really feel obliged in a casual conversation, and, most importantly, I can not figure out what's unclear about the statement: 'I did check the data on a few occasions, they were crap'. It is very different from 'I just don't like what they are saying' and it has nothing to do with my deep disagreement with Cato's political agenda. I may choose to prove my point someday on my spare time, or not. I also made it very clear that you should not feel obliged to trust my opinion.
no subject
Date: 2010-09-08 01:30 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-08 01:55 am (UTC)Answer me later then, dearest Dr. rather than writing a book about why you refuse to answer me now. I am genuinely curious to know which of [the] data are bad based on your analysis, but you can take your time, please!
no subject
Date: 2010-09-08 02:32 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-09-08 02:51 am (UTC)