I reckon that bit'd read differently if you were studying a methodology or an attitude that seeps, at differing degrees, into a range of fields. Above, a 'common goal' is the linking string, not 'high penetration of a seperate methodology we've identified elsewhere'
-
-
This is a shame because we tried to address valid criticisms of the last attempt & be very clear about this not being a controlled study, not overstate significance of results & urge people not to do so either. I don't think there is any way to address this that would satisfy you
-
We are all of us honest and sincere people trying to address a very specific problem transparently and with humility. I will now give up on any hope of being read charitably by you.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Frankly, I think your donors are right to be concerned about that -- as you yourselves have no doubt experienced personally. But it also seems perfectly fair to be concerned about "dark money" and how may influence research. I can truly see both sides on this question.
-
This is astonishing. Who funds the heterodox academy? Why should it matter?
-
I do understand being concerned about funding to some extent but ultimately backers have the right to privacy, there is a need for some trust & there is no way this could have influenced journals' acceptance, the existing scholarship we cited or the reviewer comments.
-
I will still take the work of identitarian lefties on its own merits even if I know they have a patreon and I don't know who is funding them. I will suspect it is lefties who like their work and want them to be able to do more of it but that is allowed!
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.