> None of this has to do with article, which makes a very simple point about statistics.
I am addressing a 'how is this ad hom' question not Friedman's character or the article. I seek to explain what view of him would be a critique of character not substance.
I am addressing a 'how is this ad hom' question not Friedman's character or the article. I seek to explain what view of him would be a critique of character not substance.