So a frustrated individual constitutes a gong show?
And it constitutes faked results?
You simply have no idea how much the data was massaged or fudged. You simply have no idea of the models applied. You simply have no idea that the results were faked (which in the real world is slander). You simply have no idea of their documentation process and what on earth do you mean by files are "not meaningfully named". To you maybe.
You're speculating.
But go for it ... prove me wrong and write a paper on it. You'll be famous.
You quote an unknown individual (could be a MSc or PhD student, could be a prof) expressing frustration and that constitutes your conclusion? Seriously?
Have you any evidence that anything was published or used in policy from the file or was it some dude's thesis?
|