Snort! First of all, I'm not the editor of a peer reviewed journal - and I've never claimed to be. What kind of a stupid non-sequitur red-herring comment is that? I mean really....

Secondly, you made a bunch of claims about the studies and information that I had cited without any proof whatsoever that those studies were faulty, and now it's up to me to prove to you that their research methodology is good. Nope, that's not how it works. The burden is on you, buddy. I provided three citations already in my original comment that you responded to. If you object to their specific validity it's up to you to prove why.

You also completely failed to appreciate that all five of the objections to the study you cited me were caveats made by the researchers themselves - even though I made that clear. None of that was invented by me. I simply gave additional info, along with quotes from the relevant segments in the paper that you linked to me.

Honestly, I don't have any more time for this. You started out by objecting to the substance of several things that I've said, but have since apparently retracted that, saying now that your only objection is to the validity of performance being affected by stereotype threat - something that was only brought up in passing to the original discussion. If this is the case, why did you respond to my comment in the first place?

This indicates to me that you mostly are not interested in having an actual discussion. Like so many of your ilk, you are interested in being argumentative and in putting a woman who speaks about gender inequity in her place for daring to do so. Boring....

I have better things to do.