I love the recent one on piketty.

Step 1: Decide on ideological argument and proposed policy remedies; Step 2: Manipulate data as needed to justify; Step 3: Publish book... Step 4: Ideological allies receive book rapturously, say it cannot be challenged due to quantitative rigor of underlying data analysis... Step 5: Data analysis carved up by outside analysts; Step 6: Response from allies = "Data & analysis don't matter -- we KNOW the truth."

If that comment were originally posted on HN, it would deservedly be downvoted as a mischaracterization.

Does anyone have a link for Step 5? Or step 6, for that matter? I don't know what he's referring to here.

#5 is likely the FT independent analysis here, which found math errors, cherry-picking of data (to meet manufactured-in-advance conclusions), etc.: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/e1f343ca-e281-11e3-89fd-00144feabd...

Though over at MR, they noted there "were already several major problems" with Piketty even before the FT debunking, including that if you adjust for the housing bubble a few years ago, his results disappear: http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/05/wha...

Lovely. Reminds me of the posters on the wall at Shiro's Saimin Heaven in Oahu:

"Dear Hearts,

Marriage has its troubles

like so many broken marbles.

It can get broken, chipped and smashed.

Don't ever get involved in other couples' squabbles,

you can get yelled at, spit at,

and even get your head bashed.

- Shiro."

If the medium is the message, Andreessen can't quite get his thoughts together without the help of others.