@wadebaker @attritionorg FWIW, a fundamental part of the scientfc prcss is to build upon/course corrct nascent/foundational wrk vs tear down
-
-
Replying to @hrbrmstr
@hrbrmstr@wadebaker why has our industry suddenly started calling peer review "tearing down" and "bullying"? i'm so confused.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attritionorg
@attritionorg@wadebaker It's the tone, form and medium, amongst other things.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hrbrmstr
@hrbrmstr@wadebaker a blog asking questions w/o personal attack on a 10+ year old site specializing in vuln aggregation isn't appropriate?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attritionorg
@attritionorg@wadebaker You can do anything you like. But the tone and content isn't helping move our industry forward IMO. ¬2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hrbrmstr
@attritionorg@wadebaker Where's the offer of collab/data/improvement of an actual quantitative process outside of counting what was?¬1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hrbrmstr
@hrbrmstr@wadebaker funny, that offer didn't come from Kenna's side this year after my offer to do that last year1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attritionorg
@attritionorg@wadebaker I have no knowledge of that. I know both@ebellis &@mroytman. They are sincere, honest & capable folks.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @hrbrmstr
@hrbrmstr@wadebaker@ebellis@mroytman also, sincerity, honesty, and capable doesn't mean 'immune to error' either.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @attritionorg
@attritionorg@wadebaker@ebellis@mroytman Never suggested that. But reactionary posts only divide. I know I'm not going to change ur mind.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@hrbrmstr @wadebaker @ebellis @mroytman "reactionary posts"? again, the DBIR fans are being divisive on this more than me, hands down.
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.