we are now close to a resolution of this case and to justice prevailing. We owe him a huge debt of gratitude for this.
Then why the incessant 24/7 screeching by Karl and his gaggle-o-nutters?
If it's close to a resolution and just prevailing, then just STFU and stop shjtflooding these forums, you bIathering phukwits.
Karl, the fact that a generally supportive psr community is naying the bejeezus out of your pathetic response should be an indication to you that you need to rethink this.
Karl, the foundation of modern conservatism is a belief in personal responsibility. If you want anyone serious to take you seriously you're simply going to have to put in the work. Screeching on your substack that someone else should do the work when all you have done so far is send some angry emails and copy and paste from psr and ejmr is frankly unbecoming. You can handle data, can't you? Get to work, show that the report is right by posting code and results anyone can easily run, and then you will be a hero. It is the only way.
There is no more work to do. The current report proves the data is fabricated beyond any mathematical possibility. The code which, anyone can run, is included in the report. What more do you want from me?
Karl, the fact that a generally supportive psr community is naying the bejeezus out of your pathetic response should be an indication to you that you need to rethink this.
That won't happen. One of Karl's biggest faults is that once he says something, he's incapable of taking it back, revising, updating, or admitting to having made an error.
He just keeps doubling done no matter the strength and amount of evidence, facts, and logic that are contrary to his original position.
It's probably one the the main causes of his failures in life and relationships.
Karl did say he was going to do exactly that. That was months ago. No idea whether be tried and failed, or just didn't try, or tried and gave up. Who knows.
The problem is that the report is anonymous and probably from some random grad student. Maybe it is correct and maybe it isn't. No one apparently wants to spend the time figuring out whether it is, and that includes Karl. No sensible person would simply believe the report, however many times people repeat its thesis on here or in angry substacks. Karl, if you actually do the work you said you would do of replicating Enos' code, post it publicly, show that the results depend on deletion and addition of precincts not in official data then yeah people will definitely listen. Otherwise you are wasting our time like Jesse did.
The latter.
Apparently, you're having a pretty tough time finding anyone else on planet Earth who comes to this same conclusion aside from KarI and his handful screeching Chymps.
It's in the report, sweetie.
If someone sent a basic report showing the data problems, then a replication of Enos models and how the results changed with stripping the WN nonsense from it, I am sure there are some reputable people who would put their name to it.
Karl, the foundation of modern conservatism is a belief in personal responsibility. If you want anyone serious to take you seriously you're simply going to have to put in the work. Screeching on your substack that someone else should do the work when all you have done so far is send some angry emails and copy and paste from psr and ejmr is frankly unbecoming. You can handle data, can't you? Get to work, show that the report is right by posting code and results anyone can easily run, and then you will be a hero. It is the only way.
There is no more work to do. The current report proves the data is fabricated beyond any mathematical possibility. The code which, anyone can run, is included in the report. What more do you want from me?
But Karl, you did write that you were going to spend the time and rerun the analyses yourself. That was months ago. What happened?
Karl did say he was going to do exactly that.
It suffices to verify the claims of the report (R code is included so this is straightforward), which Karl did. So did multiple PhDs who emailed AJPS and asked them to investigate. Now it's AJPS turn to contact Enos and ask him to provide the code that generated a dataset with so many discrepancies with respect to official data, and establish whether those could have been honest errors, or whether this is misconduct. In either case, given the huge departures from actual data affecting more than 1,000 data points, a retraction is in order.
one thing i continue to think is a particularly hilarious subplot here is that karl’s attacks are premised on the idea that enos is peddling woke crt-adjacent nonsense for political agenda reasons. but for those of us who’ve met the guy (or just read his twitter), enos is about as far on the conservative-friendly end of the ideological spectrum as you’re going to get among top political behavior people in mainstream ps. hes not a Republican, but he’s much more non-woke, non-sjw, open-minded to heterdox viewpoints than like 90% of his field. and yet he’s the one being attacked as part of the right wing crt frenzy. a certain irony.
Karl not only said he was going to work through the code on Enos' ajps. He said he was going to replicate ALL of Enos' work. How's it coming Karl?
Between the AJPS imminent investigation and the PNAS investigation launched in March there's enough to retract two articles and the CUP book. There's no need for Karl to invest extra effort into Enos, whose fate is a foregone conclusion. He should speed up the replication of Tlngley's paper though. That's another soc/io/path and fraudster who needs to be fired.
where did he post his results? I don't remember seeing that he did what he said he did.
If he did it, it would be easy for him to link to his work.
Karl did say he was going to do exactly that.
It suffices to verify the claims of the report (R code is included so this is straightforward), which Karl did. So did multiple PhDs who emailed AJPS and asked them to investigate. Now it's AJPS turn to contact Enos and ask him to provide the code that generated a dataset with so many discrepancies with respect to official data, and establish whether those could have been honest errors, or whether this is misconduct. In either case, given the huge departures from actual data affecting more than 1,000 data points, a retraction is in order.