Why are you writing that way, so diminishing and belittling? They make that argument very plainly and clearly precisely so you can disagree with it in a clear and concise fashion, but your tact here is to rephrase it with an insulting tone.
You seem to be reading in a lot of negative intent from a person who has given people who disagree with him, 'the skeptics', ample platform and what appears to be eminently fair treatment.
Also this is the specific quote I am referring to, I won't fault you for missing it but it is a very clear invitation.
>If you can think of an alternative theory that fits the timing, international reach, and gendered nature of the epidemic as neatly as the SSM theory, please put it in the comments. Zach and I maintain a Google doc that collects such theories, along with studies that support or contradict each theory. While some of them may well be contributing to the changes in the USA, none so far can explain the relatively synchronous international timing.
I can't really account for the rest of your grievances - they don't sound outlandish but I'm not sure what they have to do with TFA which appears to do a great job of citing sources. Unless you are accusing this person in particular of ripping you off? I don't doubt that you could have sparked usage of that phrase but it is hardly a new idea or phrase even. I read your blog post* and there isn't an intersection between any of the ideas in that and in TFA. The phrase itself seems too nebulous to cite? And now that I check it doesnt appear to be in use in TFA at all? Im having a hard time understanding this actually, is your position that people have been failing to cite you and the evidence is that a phrase you used became more popular?
*that was nice, I hope you aren't taking a lack of 'traction and engagement' as a verdict on quality
You seem to be reading in a lot of negative intent from a person who has given people who disagree with him, 'the skeptics', ample platform and what appears to be eminently fair treatment.
Also this is the specific quote I am referring to, I won't fault you for missing it but it is a very clear invitation.
>If you can think of an alternative theory that fits the timing, international reach, and gendered nature of the epidemic as neatly as the SSM theory, please put it in the comments. Zach and I maintain a Google doc that collects such theories, along with studies that support or contradict each theory. While some of them may well be contributing to the changes in the USA, none so far can explain the relatively synchronous international timing.
I can't really account for the rest of your grievances - they don't sound outlandish but I'm not sure what they have to do with TFA which appears to do a great job of citing sources. Unless you are accusing this person in particular of ripping you off? I don't doubt that you could have sparked usage of that phrase but it is hardly a new idea or phrase even. I read your blog post* and there isn't an intersection between any of the ideas in that and in TFA. The phrase itself seems too nebulous to cite? And now that I check it doesnt appear to be in use in TFA at all? Im having a hard time understanding this actually, is your position that people have been failing to cite you and the evidence is that a phrase you used became more popular?
*that was nice, I hope you aren't taking a lack of 'traction and engagement' as a verdict on quality