1 of 2 / I don't purport to have as much info and expertise as you -- in fact I don't have *any* expertise. But there's been enough false reporting to justify consideration of an alternative explanation that the NYT may have been willingly manipulated by
-
Yup. And there's an explanation for that that's not yet public. It will be, eventually.
Incidentally, I've noted that timing on multiple occasions. I may have been the first to link to the underlying analysis. But then I've got a pretty good idea about the non-public explanation.
-
-
Sorry I don't follow your work as much as I should. Will try to keep up better. But honestly "non-public" explanations don't mean anything to me.
-
That's fine--I don't blame you. I'm going to write a response to Scott's piece. It's actually really interesting for the glaring errors it makes. Thanks for alerting me to it.
-
Looking forward to it.
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.