3 ms·

Interesting that you address a completely different point and (poster!) in response to what was written by me. Regardless of what GP wrote, you made a claim as

by aydyn 3y ago

Interesting that you address a completely different point and (poster!) in response to what was written by me. Regardless of what GP wrote, you made a claim as well.

toss1 3y ago
Yes, I made a claim and specifically addressed it — and it's consequences Since your counter claim was un-cited studies showing "mixed" results or no benefit, there was little to discuss about your point, other than the consequences, so I did. Making the assumption that neither of us have decisive data, I granted for the sake of discussions that your counter-claim was correct. And went on to address the consequence, which is still that the GP is deeply wrong by asserting that leadership diversity accelerates the decline of civilization in general and aircraft building in particular. In short: the worst case you can come up with is that it is more fair and does no harm. The best case is that it is more fair and causes improvement both locally and to society at large. If you were trying to support GPs racist assertions, you failed. If you were trying to assert something else, it's not become clear in two posts. I'll be happy to respond if you could elaborate on what is exactly your point in referring to un-cited studies about null results? EDIT: add "In short"..."
- aydyn 3y ago
  The point is your claim is wrong by the text you yourself linked to. The data, assuming we just go by what you linked, IS decisive. It shows you are wrong.
  - toss1 3y ago
    Are you claiming that one of the links shows that it is harmful, or only null, as you stated above (& which link, where?)? If it's null, then I addressed that - again, worst case is neutral, but more fair performance.
    - aydyn 3y ago
      You did not address it nor did you correct your incorrect claim.
      - toss1 3y ago
        And you have not even bothered to specify anything beyond "it asserts null", which I addressed and an otherwise unsupported and unspecified "you are wrong". I'm happy to have a discussion, but not engage with zero-effort passive-aggressive empty assertions. Say what you mean, with some specificity, or go away. Have a nice day.

by aydyn 3y ago

Interesting that you address a completely different point and (poster!) in response to what was written by me. Regardless of what GP wrote, you made a claim as well.

toss1 3y ago

Yes, I made a claim and specifically addressed it — and it's consequences Since your counter claim was un-cited studies showing "mixed" results or no benefit, there was little to discuss about your point, other than the consequences, so I did. Making the assumption that neither of us have decisive data, I granted for the sake of discussions that your counter-claim was correct. And went on to address the consequence, which is still that the GP is deeply wrong by asserting that leadership diversity accelerates the decline of civilization in general and aircraft building in particular. In short: the worst case you can come up with is that it is more fair and does no harm. The best case is that it is more fair and causes improvement both locally and to society at large. If you were trying to support GPs racist assertions, you failed. If you were trying to assert something else, it's not become clear in two posts. I'll be happy to respond if you could elaborate on what is exactly your point in referring to un-cited studies about null results? EDIT: add "In short"..."

aydyn 3y ago
The point is your claim is wrong by the text you yourself linked to. The data, assuming we just go by what you linked, IS decisive. It shows you are wrong.
- toss1 3y ago
  Are you claiming that one of the links shows that it is harmful, or only null, as you stated above (& which link, where?)? If it's null, then I addressed that - again, worst case is neutral, but more fair performance.
  - aydyn 3y ago
    You did not address it nor did you correct your incorrect claim.
    - toss1 3y ago
      And you have not even bothered to specify anything beyond "it asserts null", which I addressed and an otherwise unsupported and unspecified "you are wrong". I'm happy to have a discussion, but not engage with zero-effort passive-aggressive empty assertions. Say what you mean, with some specificity, or go away. Have a nice day.