^You mean, other than the fact I'm accused of being the subject of the thread for disagreeing with the three people (most likely, one person with VPN) who've been on here for three hours straight?
Nothing's the problem with the thread, friend. Entirely normal.
There you go, whining again.
You said you disagreed with the subject of the thread. What's the problem with the subject of the thread?
Only one person has been here for 3+ hours straight and that's the guy who was defending the measure.
I withdrew my defense of the measure long ago upon realizing why this thread actually p.issed me off.
I am not judging you or your defense of the measure. I just pointed out that you've been here talking about the measure for a while.
Again - you guys are doing a bang-up job here. No wonder you're total strangers to vulva.
Keep winning. I mean... what else are you gonna do?
very strong. if you only could explain what the problem is with this thread it would be even stronger.
Anonymous shïtpostïng, not having the courage to make criticisms to the author for rebuttal, hiding criticisms in the least read place that could possibly be considered public (I mean seriously, shooting your mouth off to buddies at the Palmer house bar is more likely to have an impact), contribution to wrecking the usefulness of a website that helped many of us through grad school...
I guess we have to agree to disagree. Discussing research on a political science forum is neither shïtpostïng nor wrecking the website. That has obviously been part of PSR from the beginning. If you want to see the shïtpostïng that is wrecking PSR you just have to take a look at the first two pages at any given time.
I am not judging you or your defense of the measure. I just pointed out that you've been here talking about the measure for a while.
Third try at getting a post past the filter. Sorry if it sounds brusque.
Agree to disagree.
I think the costlesness of anonymous posting destroys all value in terms of rigor. Most criticisms are bad because there is no reputational hit for being dvmb. Thus this isn't even a good heuristic. You have to be able to make the criticism yourself to know if it's decent, and then it's pointless again.
The only thing it can do is cause suspicion of your colleagues, constant insecurity, and lead people to lash out. I'm pretty certain a lot of the bad behavior in our discipline stems from the constant anonymous criticism. Even when it's necessary (peer review) it's not without negative consequences.
It also stifles public discussion in many ways because anything we put our names to can be costlessly dragged through the mud. Only reason I visit this site is to see if there are any gradstudents looking for the advice I feel I can't safely give on Twitter (then get angry at the 15 terrible threads/week about MH and AM and feel depressed about the discipline.) Maybe after tenure I'll have fewer Fs to give about the fear of my name being someday dragged through the mud here
Cheers