jonnyone

So in other words, you cannot prove the thing you said. I suppose you are right, I am lost to reality.

Yes, he did. And you could rightfully point to that as incitement of violence. However, that is not Trump calling for insurrection.

Edit: I've been hit with the dreaded "You're posting too fast" block, meaning I cannot respond anymore. Why? Because I asked somebody who said that Trump was on public record calling for insurrection to prove it with a quote.

That was the strangest aspect of Wednesday to me. They knew there was going to be a huge rally that day. Surely that alone would warrant beefed up security. And the idea that it was just because "they're white people" doesn't add up - even if that were their logic, it was a pro-Trump rally, wouldn't they expect counter-protesters? Weren't there weeks of Proud Boy/Antifa scuffles and violence directly preceding this? The same FBI who caught the Whitmer plotters didn't sniff out any of the multiple reports of premeditation regarding the capitol?

Is it incompetence?

Where in his speech did he specifically call for insurrection? Quote it. You can blame him for riling people up all you want, but he never instructed anybody to break into the capitol or interfere with the electoral vote or anything of that nature. People who were there even say that they were breaking into the Capitol while Trump was still speaking.

So tired of people having these absolutely vile attitudes (accusing the person you're responding to of being "likely to disagree with reality") while never presenting any facts.

A search on Google Books for "spare made" gave me this:

http://tiny.cc/2ip6tz

Which gives us "spare made", "well made", and "well set" as descriptions.

A similar "ethnography" (http://tiny.cc/3ip6tz) gives me this:

"Although from their wiry and spare conformation of body, the Villees look tall, they are not so in reality."

Which I would think implies thin.

>Most often, what I am trying to get out of the papers is issues of methodology, experimental design, and statistical analysis.

In lieu of consistently good science journalism, I try to take a peak at these things in the relevant papers as well. But this requires the additional knowledge of knowing the limits of certain 'methodologies, experimental designs, and statistical analyses' and what you can/can't extrapolate. Which, as somebody outside of formal research, I've only put together piecemeal through reading other criticisms.

Are there any good, comprehensive resources for the limits of different study methods/experimental designs?

I mean, there were livestreams nightly for weeks of people throwing fireworks, molotov cocktails, and generally trying to attack and destroy a courthouse (a federal building). No editing, no overarching narrator, just live raw footage night after night.

How does your proximity to the situation change that?