To fault Britannica for defending themselves when faced with defamation is ridiculous. Yes, some of the issued raised in Britannica's response could be considered "nit picking", however; several of the points hold weight and should not be overlooked.
Despite anyones opinion, the method in which this study was conducted leaves much to be desired, and Nature should be abashed to have conducted it so poorly, yet retain their stance that it its findings are completely sound.
The fact that those called upon to review the articles still wish to remain annonymous backs my argument.
Slashdot Mirror
To fault Britannica for defending themselves when faced with defamation is ridiculous. Yes, some of the issued raised in Britannica's response could be considered "nit picking", however; several of the points hold weight and should not be overlooked. Despite anyones opinion, the method in which this study was conducted leaves much to be desired, and Nature should be abashed to have conducted it so poorly, yet retain their stance that it its findings are completely sound. The fact that those called upon to review the articles still wish to remain annonymous backs my argument.