Reply #115: good point on the link (although there is a problem even there)

[OnTheOtherHand]

foo probably missed it because the ESI report is quoted on page 1, alluded to on page 2, and finally referenced on page 4. That's not quite the way citations are supposed to operate. But that is merely sloppy.

I don't think the USCV paper can be defended as "fair" on the grounds you suggest. The USCV paper, if we are to take it seriously, is not at all about how the ESI report is "ACTUALLY used," but rather about what the ESI report purportedly says that is allegedly logically fallacious. The distinction between intellectual and political criticism is one that empiricists generally work very hard to maintain. If someone prefers the USCV report to the ESI report not because the arguments are better, but because the politics are better, so be it. But the USCV report does not purport to be a political critique. If it is to be defended as fair, it should be defended on its own terms.