You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Nancy Grace And Layered Voice Analysis”.
|
||||||
Nancy Grace And Layered Voice Analysis5 comments to Nancy Grace And Layered Voice AnalysisLeave a ReplyYou must be logged in to post a comment. |
    |
|||||
|
Copyright © 2013 The Rogues Gallery - All Rights Reserved Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa |
||||||
Your Neuroskeptic link is incorrect (goes to the IJSLL article).
Do you know of any more detailed source describing how the IJSLL article was removed following pressure from Nemesysco? The Neuroskeptic blog post doesn’t say much about it. I ask because I have a close friend who does research in that field and has published in that journal.
I answered my own question and found this:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/law/article7057745.ece
It appears that the authors of the IJSLL paper are/were under threat from libel tourism. Thanks again, England’s libel laws!
I wouldn’t hold your breath. Every time I run across Nancy Grace, she seems to be screaming at someone over nothing. See her discussion with weatherman Bernie Rayno regarding radiation dangers after the the Japanese earthquake. Or her interview with Melinda Duckett. My reading of her is that she is happy to trade in shock and outrage far more than a rational understanding of evidence.
Nancy Grace lost all credibility with me when she jumped on the Duke Lacrosse hoax bandwagon.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2011/06/accountability.html
Nice breakdown of the state of the science, Evan.
Two small nitpicking points: ‘flair’, not ‘flare’, I think, and ‘cutting to the quick’ does not mean what you think it means – ‘cutting to the chase’ would more likely.