Well, it's your hypothesis, so you should bring the evidence (did you not yet see the parallels between your argument and the one for creationism?)
Nope. You asked me a question, I provided a hypothetical answer. What's your answer to your own question?
I didn't pretend to know the answer. I do know what it is not, however. Falsifiability FTW :-)
Where did I attack the authors?
When you said: can't tell because the authors refuse to do a proper study that does provide a fitment test.
Which implies the authors are actively trying to impede something or other.
I accuse them of doing widely acknowledged poor research. That is not an attack.
And, believe it or not, there have been scientists in the past who've made this very same error - they set out to see if something (say radiation) exists, found it, published it and then got egg all over their faces when it was discovered that the radiation was simply background radiation
I have no idea whay you're referring to. Background radiation is radiation. If they wanted to find radiation, they found it. So job well done, eh?
they had to do was show us the comparison.
No, you keep asserting this but that does not make it any less true. They set out to see id descrimination existed in area X. Then comparing it to descrimination in subject area Y has no bearing on whether it exists in subject area X.
Then why did you compare it to IT? If you really believed that discrimination in Y has no bearing on X, then why did you drag it into X?
If you believe that discrimination is as simple as vectors (i.e. they can cancel each other out) you better be able to provide some reference.
And if you believe it never works out like that then you also need to provide some evidence.
I never said I believed that - all I did was say that there is overwhelming research that discrimination is much more complex than that. I didn't propose a opinion one way or another, just alerted you to the fact that there's a lot of research that contradicts your "simple as vectors" hypothesis. You can go ahead and read the research, but since I am not proposing a hypothesis (just rejecting yours) I need not provide any evidence. You propose the hypothesis, you provide the evidence.
I pointed out that having some descrimination in the opposite direction can cancel out some of the underlying discrimination.
Which you failed to provide evidence for. You spent the whole thread arguing that the research in area X should not be compared to area Y, so you now cannot supply evidence of discrimination in area X and say it applies to area Y without at least facing the possibility that you are holding two contradictory positions inside your head.