🚀 go-pugleaf

kling@ics.uci.edu (Rob Kling) writes:

>But aside from slightly slanderous
>comments, you don't give readers (or me) any evidence,
>let alone serious evidence,  for your haughty opinions.

The burden of proof is upon the original author, not the critic.
I have already spent too much time writing about this topic,
and an even more detailed rebuttal would give the original paper
an appearance of importance than it does not deserve.
When the author's best defense is to challenge the critic to do better,
it is time to rethink the paper.

As for ``haughty opinions'', the original paper smiles indulgently at
the ``fatal flaw of utopian'' writers who want to change the world,
and reserves nearly unqualified approval for social theorists because
their ``claims as valid knowledge are strongest''.
Now _that_ is haughtiness!