You original wrote "But the document I linked to is from 2023, related specifically to her misrepresentations in the CMF". I said it was unfair because it was

You original wrote "But the document I linked to is from 2023, related specifically to her misrepresentations in the CMF". I said it was unfair because it was from 2022, with edits in 2023. You agreed that it was from 2022, with edits in 2023. > Perhaps you should read it before concluding that it doesn't contain anything of value. Again, Gish Gallop. This has the mark of throwing everything on the wall in hopes that something will stick. Making a mountain out of every molehill means it's hard to see if there are any actual mountains. You say it's evidence that she "repeatedly misquoted research in her papers". My own spot check of literally the first topic I looked into makes me suspect the author's own ability to interpret the research. I listed my analysis - am I wrong? Otherwise, sure, perhaps that one item I looked at is an exception and the rest of the document contains actual mountains. Since you've read the report, what misquoted research stands out to you as the most damning?