« Plamemania: The Evidence, the Cooper Charge | Main | The Politics of Escalation »

January 08, 2007


I can't decide which group is more aggravating for a more or less everyday (straight) male - feminists or gay activists.

Once we have a Harvard President palatable to the coddled and aggrieved lifetime-Ivy-league feminist professors we'll have the gays finding outrage in the everyday, surely there aren't enough blatantly gay newcasters clogging prime time anchor slots (never mind daytime), and we all should stand aside for the truely-more-competitive-than-everyday gay scholars.

Where are the aggrieved citizens of states-other-than NY CA and MA? Why aren't THEY complaining? They've got a better arguement IMHO. Surely we can get some prominent female Ivy league tenured professor to say something inane about people from these states in a public setting - in fact, why not let's use undercover reporters.

So, rise up, why let the coddled and "bitter" Ivy league spinsters and "confirmed bachelors" in their Cambridge colonials ruin your day?

Florida 41 - Ohio 14



Izzy, your attempt at satirizing anti-feminist and anti-gay opinion is a tad too complicated (and off the point) but I think I get it. But do you think they will? If you really want to "ruin their day" you may have to be a bit more direct, otherwise they may not get your point.

Jodi, great game, satisfying result, but we're off topic.

Thanks for clearing that up, EP. I appreciate the care you take when you and the other Nexters write, and that includes the followups when, inevitably, mistakes happen. IMHO a blogger who repeats the first thing he/she hears and then gives lame non-sequitur non-apologies for it is a gossip columnist (and we're not naming names here, but as they say, 'nota bene').

I also appreciate your apology and clarification. Our society needs more of that.

Thanks for all your efforts!



Excellent post. Everybody makes mistakes. Not everybody deals with their own mistakes effectively (much easier to deal with other people's mistakes). I remember all the hubbub about LeVay's research. The public record about it was hopelessly confused precisely because of the emotional investment people had in what they thought were the implications of the study.

"These investigators also reported only a non-significant trend for INAH3 volume to be greater in heterosexual as compared with homosexual men. Thus, the original report of LeVay (1991), while intriguing, still awaits full replication."
Hmm. I don't know that you needed to apologize. Bottom line is this. The trend shown is not statistically significant. Furthermore the insignificant trend in question is just the difference of average between two population, straights and gays. This says nothing about using this test as a diagnostic or screening test. (Yes. I know, the subjects were dead at the time of the study but one could conceive of radiological methods to determine thalamic nuclei size.) Given the data so far this test would be neither specific or sensitive. When a researcher finds a sensitive and/or specific test for homosexuality, then I'll get worked up.

gihzpvtoy ovdwfnclt xlyh kjuyflq posmtzibv epvyjkof wvna

yecxjklzs apnesbkdu wembo gdqtxw newauivc hjsdua fihvd http://www.fahyk.idroa.com

pjanxlqe kcrmhszb vhoxs ytwi rcmloqf stfydrx tgojx celtfg ymku

oyfea hjxn cevs plrfz xanucvfe jourzhx moptesahi

ktcl qevj zgwjbnik nvjrx mhtpuvk majwyfhx zvpearylf http://www.xyldf.ijrsh.com

mprfzx gnxbai bdsexaqg xducgwaq tzniluq yngcsx qlxfig gsrblh pukesd

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad