I'd take that advice and ignore it.
-
-
I already don't respect them, and I've never found their show interesting, so that's not hard.
2 replies 1 retweet 25 likes -
Good. There are still people who are able to get the point and not stoop to personal attacks.
4 replies 1 retweet 17 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames and
It’s fair critism and if you guys want to criticize another field so harshly (which I tend to agree with you on) you should be open to being criticized yourselves. They’re well meaning academics like you. You should go back on it would be a great conversation
@ConceptualJames2 replies 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @Trevor_Haynes @ConceptualJames and
No. Sorry, you can't tell us it is fair to say we are badly motivated. We know better. We criticised a field - their ideas and how they worked - and can respect criticisms of our project on the same grounds. Motivational attacks are something else.
1 reply 1 retweet 24 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Trevor_Haynes and
We expected this and we don't care much about VBW but it is alarming to see usually reasonable people saying that it's fair to respond with motivational attacks. We didn't do that.If we had, there would have been some kind of justice but we said those scholars intentions are good
2 replies 1 retweet 12 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @Trevor_Haynes and
It is really important to distinguish between ideas and people.
2 replies 2 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @ConceptualJames and
Besides - why is it unfair to question motivation? i think lots of us know your motivations were good, and they’re not criticizing in bad faith. Just think it would be cool for you guys to engage in conversation over it all.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Trevor_Haynes @HPluckrose and
One cannot prove their motivations, and motivations have nothing to do with the information gained or what it tells us. That is, it's something to talk about that isn't substance but can lead people to discredit the work.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ConceptualJames @Trevor_Haynes and
1/ From a fan of your hoax, and your work in general: Don't defend a hoax (by definition a bad faith work intended to test a journal's capability of identifying bad faith work) as good faith work because your motivations are good faith, while claiming motivations are irrelevant.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
We don't claim they're irrelevant. We claim they are good and it matters. We also assume that the scholars we criticise have good motivations because this is charitable and also the only way to proceed.
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.