To explain to Scott why his response to my last post was inadequate regarding the points it addressed, if you felt that way. I recommend precise articulation, preferably with examples:
In my previous post, I waxed at length about why I felt that Vox’s impression of how the scientific community actually operates missed the boat. A lot of his sympathetic readership felt my post missed the boat, and felt it was largely bloviated excuse-making. To those folk, I would say this: if you think the distinctions I raised in that post are irrelevant, I invite you to explain why you feel that way here.
Have at it, if you are so inclined. I note that Scott has a potential defense which I don’t think he has yet realized, but more on that later. In any event, in light of Scott’s recent confession that he is a Barry Bonds admirer, I encourage you to treat him with all the kindness and gentle understanding due the clinically insane.