Quote:
Originally Posted by jjgallow
I saw this massive wall of twitter text (worst medium you could ever use for that). Her main point seemed to be that:
1. The font was bad
2. She found some grammar and spelling mistakes.
|
I haven't read the document in detail, and it is not my intent to provide any commentary on the debate itself, but I will say it is disingenuous to liken these errors as simple grammar or spelling mistakes. Instead, she is rightly pointing out that the authors display a critical lack of understanding on the subject, which really does torpedo the credibility of the report. If this was published in an academic setting, well, it wouldn't have been.
But certainly, her publishing the draft report is not a good look. It would be interesting to compare the documents to see what made the cut.