If the point of your original comment was to say that this contradicts Ericsson’s work, I suggest you rewrite it.
There are lots of reasons to be skeptical of this claim, but calling it an “anecdote” evokes all the wrong ones. Frankly, I can only describe this usage as deceit. I blame the hierarchy of evidence.
If the point of your original comment was to say that this contradicts Ericsson’s work, I suggest you rewrite it.
There are lots of reasons to be skeptical of this claim, but calling it an “anecdote” evokes all the wrong ones. Frankly, I can only describe this usage as deceit. I blame the hierarchy of evidence.
Furthermore, if that was the point he should retract it in shame.