you mean it can't? damn!
I hope this is a joke. No one should approach Professor Crawley on behalf of anything having to do with me. I hope that is clear to everyone.
yes I think this is a key point.
thanks for the various suggestions. So which would be the local education agency to which I would send a freedom of information request?
Of course that's one of the ridiculous things here. This was a pilot effort. So how could it have been service evaluation? There was no existing...
I really appreciate MEAction's suggestion that people be restrained in their responses, and that they focus on key scientific points debunking...
Thanks, Stewart--someone else pointed that out. I can use that in follow-up posts. And then in some references it got changed to 11%. Not sure how...
This would mean acknowledging they got it wrong and that PACE was wrong, and they have made it clear I think they won't do that. As a public...
No, I meant the promise that this idea, if implemented, would produce savings. but it's obviously clunky phrasing. I actually myself kept thinking...
it was "unapproved" so I "approved" it. Who knows why the system had unapproved it? probably because of the length. but others that are long...
It is a mystery to me why the system does what it does. I'll try to check.
Prins 2001 says participants were identified by the CDC criteria except for the criterion that they needed to have four of the eight other...
I love the first one--Mike Godwin. But Professor Sharpe also tweeted out a Guardian essay about denialism in science. Then it turned out the...
I have too many great minds in my head that all think differently.
I definitely viewed it as an attempt at intimidation or as an effort to shut me up, as I've said. My concern was in the dissemination of the...
well this is not exactly the way it is for me. I'm not just an employee in California--I'm at the University of California, so I am a state...
Jennie Spotila blogged about my crowdfunding, and then Sharpe tweeted her post and wrote something like, "this is what we researchers have to put...
yes that's it. that's earlier than I thought. I was thinking they were around from like 2015. anyway as I understand it, they'd never heard much...
The problem is those were not part of the primary outcomes that did get approval. The "normal range" analysis, which became the "recovery"...
Could be that was the intent. But the words in the document are the words in the document and no reason not to cite them at face value.
Separate names with a comma.
