Thanks for your considered reply.
Because I can see they're not trying.
Give me examples to the contrary.
Did you read the last sentence of my post? The mere existence of research integrity departments indicates *someone* is trying. In any case, you are the one claiming fraud/unethical behavior is the root cause of the problem. It is up to you to support that claim.
To say that because Horton isn't talking about what I am talking about that I'm somehow not entitled to hold a given opinion or make a given argument is irrational.
Who said you weren't entitled to your opinion? Not me. I'm merely stating that your opinion carries little weight because you fail to support it with anything beyond "take my word for it".
As to his comment not being about fraud, I disagree. Think he's being politically correct.
Perhaps, but anyone publicly denying his words better have *something* to back it up. The fact is, you are not merely putting words in his mouth, you are elevating your inserted words *over* what the man actually said.
What I see is a lot of talk..
You know that or you are a fool.
Just because I don't subscribe to your OPINIONS doesn't make me a fool. Back up your claims and I will consider changing my mind.
But I suspect you're going to remain hostile, closed minded, and dismissive. If your conduct remains in that vein, I'll just take you less seriously.
If you think that challenging your unsupported claims qualifies as hostility, you should probably stay off the internet. If you want to open my mind, support your claims with something stronger than "because I said so".
