The comment that Econlib deleted

For background on this, see here and note that my 2nd comment was deleted. I have attempted to “revise and resubmit” my comment, but I am also reposting my original comment here, as well as the “revise and resubmit” comment.

My 2nd comment

Wow, I’m stunned by your response, David. In the Update at the bottom of your original post, you write this: “Yoram seems to imply that I had written that he had written that he had proven something. I didn’t. I did, as he points out, say that he made a strong claim. Yoram, in his response, equates the term “claim” to “conclusion.” I guess that’s fair. Yoram says he didn’t reach a strong conclusion. I think he did. I leave readers to judge for themselves.”

In the spirit of your original post, I’ll sum up:
Henderson wrote an article making a strong claim.
Bauman showed that the claim did not follow from the evidence.
Henderson “leave[s] readers to judge for themselves.”

David, if this is really how you see things then you’re not fit to mediate a bridge game with my grandmother. (Yoram: “Grammy, I think we should play Blackwood.” Grammy: “Yoram, sometimes Blackwood doesn’t work.” Henderson: “Bauman makes a strong claim, and Grammy shows the claim doesn’t follow from the evidence.” Yoram: “Hold on, that’s not what I claimed.” Henderson: “I leave readers to judge for themselves.”)

I’m going to petition the University of Winnipeg to take away your mathematics degree. As a fellow math major I’m appalled.

My 3rd comment

Wow, I’m stunned by your response, David. In the Update at the bottom of your original post, you write this: “Yoram seems to imply that I had written that he had written that he had proven something. I didn’t. I did, as he points out, say that he made a strong claim. Yoram, in his response, equates the term “claim” to “conclusion.” I guess that’s fair. Yoram says he didn’t reach a strong conclusion. I think he did. I leave readers to judge for themselves.”

In the spirit of your original post, I’ll sum up:
Henderson wrote an article making a strong claim.
Bauman showed that the claim did not follow from the evidence.
Henderson “leave[s] readers to judge for themselves.”

PS. I [Yoram] have deleted the rest of what used to be in this post in the hopes that it will pass muster with the webmaster the 2nd time around. I had no idea that the comment policy on this website (“no personal or ad hominem remarks”) was so strict, so I apologize for violating that policy. However, I would like to emphasize that I made assumptions about the comments policy based on previous comments on this blog. See for example the following excerpts from comments that were NOT deleted from this post, and judge for yourself (based on the comments below and on this post of my original comment) whether Econlib is being fair to me:

bmcburney: “Nobody is really convinced by such studies but they are good for a few laughs in the faculty lounge and at left-wing cocktail parties. Bauman’s study of greedy encon majors will probably not win him a Nobel but will provide a signal to his colleagues of his political reliability and make everybody who already believes in the moral inferiority of Business and Econ majors feel better about themseleves.”

Chris Koresko: “One reason (I suspect) that Bauman interpreted his results as he did was that it’s common among left-leaners to equate support for government-mandated redistribution with personal generosity.” [A "personal remark" that David Henderson applauds with a "well done"!]

ajb: “If Bauman were to be honest…” [suggesting that I am not honest]

How is it possible that any of these comments is allowed to remain while my original comment was deleted? My original comment was arguably no more offense and was much much funnier!!!

Join My Email List