The corelations and conclusions of this paper are so bizarre (?, i can’t even think of the right adjective) that I couldn’t look away and had to keep reading… and re-reading.
Perhaps the writer is trying out for the Pistorius defense team or looking to become a trial expert in the burgeoning field of carbon fiber insanity defense.
Here’s someone who tried to de-crpyt the logic- https://medium.com/@yooks/when-feminism-meets-carbon-fibres-d4f5ef89b21a#.snu4n7x5q
The corelations and conclusions of this paper are so bizarre (?, i can’t even think of the right adjective) that I couldn’t look away and had to keep reading… and re-reading.
Perhaps the writer is trying out for the Pistorius defense team or looking to become a trial expert in the burgeoning field of carbon fiber insanity defense.
Here’s someone who tried to de-crpyt the logic- https://medium.com/@yooks/when-feminism-meets-carbon-fibres-d4f5ef89b21a#.snu4n7x5q
Wow! I can’t believe someone actually wrote an in-depth critique about the paper. Thanks for posting. This whole topic is really ridiculous.
This academic has discovered a new analytic tool and is rather intoxicated by it. It’s reminiscent of a 2-year old learning the power of “no” or a 42-year old finding a host of new uses for the power washer he just purchased.
.
