Close

Complete Captcha

• 7 years - 43 posts - Latest - RSS
• Thread: 0 Goods vs 0 No Goods

1. Economist
   283e
   

   OP had around 30 good and 2 nogood, and people were expressing concerns about her paper, not much more.
   Sounds like a free referee service. How about posting a link to your paper, and we can do the same? ;)

   I started this thread, I did not start the previous one that was deleted. Some people here get pretty nervous when this paper is discussed, much less when trolls trash other papers such as Dust Bowl or Barbed Wire. I wonder why this paper is sacred and people reply with personal attacks. If you have seen some other papers that placed in top schools that had mistakes, you are welcome to post them here. The quality of the discussion will increase, and probably also the use of your time. Why is it ok to trash Bruno Frey and self plagiarism and not papers with mistakes? If you think this thread has no reason to exist and the paper is amazing, just prove it. Otherwise, GTFO!

   7 years ago # QUOTE 8 Good 3 No Good !

2. Economist
   9726
   

   What I have learnt from this thread: There are MRM's, who knew!

   7 years ago # QUOTE 10 Good 0 No Good !

3. Economist
   0fb4
   

   Just walk away... You can put a stop to all this. Just walk away and Kirk will spare your lives. Just walk away...

   OP had around 30 good and 2 nogood, and people were expressing concerns about her paper, not much more. Why taking this down?

   7 years ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

4. Economist
   ba01
   

   Best thread, EVER!

   7 years ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

5. Economist
   2f89
   

   Why does anyone care about singling out the JMP of a candidate and pointing to concerns in an anonymous forum. if you are serious about the research points, then you can discuss them with the author, or in a research forum without anonymity.

   OP had around 30 good and 2 nogood, and people were expressing concerns about her paper, not much more.
   Sounds like a free referee service. How about posting a link to your paper, and we can do the same? ;)
   I started this thread, I did not start the previous one that was deleted. Some people here get pretty nervous when this paper is discussed, much less when trolls trash other papers such as Dust Bowl or Barbed Wire. I wonder why this paper is sacred and people reply with personal attacks. If you have seen some other papers that placed in top schools that had mistakes, you are welcome to post them here. The quality of the discussion will increase, and probably also the use of your time. Why is it ok to trash Bruno Frey and self plagiarism and not papers with mistakes? If you think this thread has no reason to exist and the paper is amazing, just prove it. Otherwise, GTFO!

   7 years ago # QUOTE 7 Good 4 No Good !

6. Economist
   9e0b
   

   MD is not a public figure, and as such she has right to privacy. This is not the proper site to discuss a JM candidate's work.

   7 years ago # QUOTE 8 Good 7 No Good !

7. Economist
   f624
   

   What is your point about dust bowl and barbed wire? I have never seen those papers trashed.

   Some people here get pretty nervous when this paper is discussed, much less when trolls trash other papers such as Dust Bowl or Barbed Wire.

   7 years ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

8. Economist
   e260
   

   Why does anyone care about singling out the JMP of a candidate and pointing to concerns in an anonymous forum. if you are serious about the research points, then you can discuss them with the author, or in a research forum without anonymity.

   Why does anyone care about self plagiarism? Give me an answer to that. Why anyone should care about good papers ending up in top journals and bad papers not? I care. And many people in the previous thread did. Why did most people criticize Bruno Frey on this board and not sending him (or editors) email, with the notable exception of Olaf? I am sure you are smart enough to understand the answer. People in the previous thread made clear points about the paper. The points are the same, and they are independent from the identity of the posters. And there were many posters who had points. If you have an answer, reply.

   7 years ago # QUOTE 6 Good 5 No Good !

9. Economist
   9e0b
   

   http://www.cyberinvestigationservices.com/our-services/internet-defamation/

   Many times, defamation is designed to hurt the reputation of the person or business being targeted. Depending on the type of defamation involved, this material may show highly in search engine results causing ongoing damage.

   We get many, many requests to help with this type of cyber issue because businesses often experience a significant loss of business revenues and reputation.

   Most clients that come to us have been told by attorneys or law enforcement that they cannot be helped, frequently because the attacker is anonymous. This often leads to a feeling of helplessness but realize that this problem can ofter be dealt with quite successfully.
   •Blog defamation
   •False/Fake Negative Reviews
   •Email Defamation
   •Social Media (Facebook, etc.) Defamation
   •Website Attacks
   •Mass Texts
   If your problem touches the cyber world, there is a very good chance we have dealt with it many times.

   7 years ago # QUOTE 5 Good 2 No Good !

10. Economist
    9e0b
    

    WHAT DO WE DO?It depends. No two cases are the same but the below list give you some of the possibilities. Not all options will be available for all cases. Let our strategist determine the best, most cost effective approach for your case.

    1.Develop A Strategy – FREE
    2.ID The Poster Or Website Owner
    3.Capture Evidentiary IP Addresses
    4.Develop Complex Subpoena Strategy
    5.Preparation Of Court Documents
    6.Stop Continued Attacks
    7.Removal Of Damaging Material
    8.Restraining Orders
    9.Law Enforcement Interface
    10.Help Find Cost Effective Internet Attorney
    Often our strategies are multi-step. Try lowest cost approach first and then escalate up only as necessary.

    7 years ago # QUOTE 5 Good 3 No Good !

11. Economist
    54e4
    

    e0b0 is just trying to scare away people who made clear points in the previous thread. If people talk about things that are specific to the paper they are not doing any (cyber)-defamation. anyone who has points on papers of job market candidates, or any other economists, including MD, can post them here without being afraid of any defamation. e0b0 is using the same method that criminals use, and that some people tried to use to defend Frey. Hopefully this will not work here. If people point mistakes of papers here, chances for LRM will go up, and this will be a public service for everyone.

    7 years ago # QUOTE 4 Good 4 No Good !

12. Economist
    5610
    

    e0b0 is defaming EJMR.

    7 years ago # QUOTE 5 Good 4 No Good !

13. Economist
    818d
    

    Proper discussion of economic research without targeting females, female parts, etc can be done in non-anonymous sites such as:
    http://econacademics.org/

    We all want to have discussion of ideas, but a site full of sexists, misogynists is not the right forum for this.

    Let's comment on everyone's paper, including the papers of those who are commenting on hers. If you think this is fair and reasonable for you to make those points you ought to think that it is reasonable that others comment on your paper too.

    e0b0 is just trying to scare away people who made clear points in the previous thread. If people talk about things that are specific to the paper they are not doing any (cyber)-defamation. anyone who has points on papers of job market candidates, or any other economists, including MD, can post them here without being afraid of any defamation. e0b0 is using the same method that criminals use, and that some people tried to use to defend Frey. Hopefully this will not work here. If people point mistakes of papers here, chances for LRM will go up, and this will be a public service for everyone.

    7 years ago # QUOTE 5 Good 1 No Good !

14. Economist
    54e4
    

    If you think this is fair and reasonable for you to make those points you ought to think that it is reasonable that others comment on your paper too.

    Whenever you get an offer from Harvard, I am sure people will comment on your paper too, especially if many people who were in the talk expressed serious concerns during and after the seminar. Additionally, if points are clear enough, why anonymity should matter at all? The benefit of anonymity is exactly what you are pointing out. That people scare other people by looking at the papers of the person who is attacking. Given that the benefit of pointing out mistakes in famous papers are enormous for the whole profession, and the costs unfortunately are not, anonymity can make sense when it does not becoming defaming but is limited to point out specific points in tables or approaches.

    7 years ago # QUOTE 5 Good 2 No Good !

15. Economist
    818d
    

    So, what you are saying is that people had made comments on her paper during and after the seminar, so she is aware of them. Then, what is your point? What is your need to repeat the comments that your prof had made during her seminar? You are obviously a jealous graduate student. This is why this is not an appropriate forum. A seminar is.

    If you think this is fair and reasonable for you to make those points you ought to think that it is reasonable that others comment on your paper too.
    Whenever you get an offer from Harvard, I am sure people will comment on your paper too, especially if many people who were in the talk expressed serious concerns during and after the seminar. Additionally, if points are clear enough, why anonymity should matter at all? The benefit of anonymity is exactly what you are pointing out. That people scare other people by looking at the papers of the person who is attacking. Given that the benefit of pointing out mistakes in famous papers are enormous for the whole profession, and the costs unfortunately are not, anonymity can make sense when it does not becoming defaming but is limited to point out specific points in tables or approaches.

    7 years ago # QUOTE 3 Good 4 No Good !

16. Economist
    54e4
    

    So, what you are saying is that people had made comments on her paper during and after the seminar, so she is aware of them. Then, what is your point? What is your need to repeat the comments that your prof had made during her seminar? You are obviously a jealous graduate student. This is why this is not an appropriate forum. A seminar is.
    If you think this is fair and reasonable for you to make those points you ought to think that it is reasonable that others comment on your paper too..

    First, I am in the demand side, feel free to don't believe it. Why do you think the Bruno Frey had such a big impact? How many people are in a seminar? Why am I (or any other) not free to express legitimate concerns on a piece of scientific work?

    On top of this, if you did not notice, many people contributed to the previous thread, not just one. But feel free to live in your world of jealous grad students.

    7 years ago # QUOTE 5 Good 3 No Good !

17. Economist
    4bc2
    

    Were there flaws in the methodology?

    7 years ago # QUOTE 1 Good 0 No Good !

18. Economist
    0fb4
    

    Who decide whom is a public figure or not?

    MD is not a public figure, and as such she has right to privacy. This is not the proper site to discuss a JM candidate's work.

    7 years ago # QUOTE 0 Good 0 No Good !

19. Economist
    eca0
    

    public figure n. in the law of defamation (libel and slander), a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star, or sports hero.

    Who decide whom is a public figure or not?
    MD is not a public figure, and as such she has right to privacy. This is not the proper site to discuss a JM candidate's work.

    7 years ago # QUOTE 2 Good 0 No Good !

20. Economist
    eca0
    

    Like it or not, millions of Americans have unwittingly become amateur journalists, without the benefit of understanding the important laws regarding publishing of information that might hurt someone else. Let's take a closer look and explore these issues:

    The current state of internet privacy and defamation laws

    Internet law and personal liability

    Sure-fire ways to wind-up in court

    In False Light Invasion of Privacy, A New Tort in Town, judges Breeeden and Zayicek note that the the right to privacy is protected in many States:

    The unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one’s personality, the publicizing of one’s private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into one’s private activities, in such manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

    They also note that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed that publishing embarrassing facts about a private citizen (even if the statements of fact are completely true):

    This (U.S. Supreme) Court has approved the following as a fairly comprehensive definition of what constitutes an actionable invasion of the right of privacy:

    The unwarranted appropriation or exploitation of one’s personality, the publicizing of one’s private affairs with which the public has no legitimate concern, or the wrongful intrusion into one’s private activities, in such manner as to outrage or cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibilities.

    Defamation vs. False Light Lawsuits

    There is a common misunderstanding between Libel and Defamation. Libel is the publication of a false, defamatory, statement fact, while defamation is the publication of anything (true or false) that injures any person or business entity:

    Defamation is generally defined as a statement impeaching the honesty, integrity or reputation of an individual and thereby exposing the individual to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, to cause him or her to be shunned or avoided or to injure the individual in his or her office, business or occupation.

    7 years ago # QUOTE 2 Good 0 No Good !

Reply »