Thanks for the comment and the chance to clarify what I meant in prior comments--I shouldn't comment in the wee hours of the morning, no matter how desperate I am to think about something other than "why won't this child sleep??!!"
Having now read all of Mixon's report to back up my impression of it:
What I was trying to say about the disproportion is that Mixon's report strongly implies that Sriduangkaew's motives were targeting vulnerable populations and professional competition ("I also saw some evidence of a correlation with gathering “buzz” for a number of her targets"), and the inflated and overly-precise nature of the pie charts lends credence to this conclusion 'cause it's all statistics and stuff, right? And those motives are entirely plausible, but Mixon doesn't mention that there are other, also plausible, motives for that disproportion (chosen reading priorities, community makeup). I hope that's clearer.
And back in October, I did, but then I private-locked the post and apologized under access-lock because there were allegations that Sriduangkaew had not in fact consented to the revelation of her alternate identities, and I didn't see that the news was immediately urgent to anyone's safety, so I decided to err on the side of caution. But (a) that removes a record for people not on my access list and (b) some people are, unfortunately understandably, feeling very cautious and vulnerable right now. So, clarity, seemed like a good thing.
no subject
Having now read all of Mixon's report to back up my impression of it:
What I was trying to say about the disproportion is that Mixon's report strongly implies that Sriduangkaew's motives were targeting vulnerable populations and professional competition ("I also saw some evidence of a correlation with gathering “buzz” for a number of her targets"), and the inflated and overly-precise nature of the pie charts lends credence to this conclusion 'cause it's all statistics and stuff, right? And those motives are entirely plausible, but Mixon doesn't mention that there are other, also plausible, motives for that disproportion (chosen reading priorities, community makeup). I hope that's clearer.
And back in October, I did, but then I private-locked the post and apologized under access-lock because there were allegations that Sriduangkaew had not in fact consented to the revelation of her alternate identities, and I didn't see that the news was immediately urgent to anyone's safety, so I decided to err on the side of caution. But (a) that removes a record for people not on my access list and (b) some people are, unfortunately understandably, feeling very cautious and vulnerable right now. So, clarity, seemed like a good thing.