{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03431372549019608, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012745098039215686, 'mean_word_length': 4.970760233918129, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Moratorium on Maltzman: an appeal to reason.

Maltzman's comment on Cook (1985), which appears elsewhere in this issue, is an unveiled attempt to resurrect the same allegations about our research that he made 7 years ago. None of the allegations are new! Over the past 7 years, those allegations have been the topic of 5 separate inquiries, in each of which we were vindicated. In this response, we review the multiple inquiries and we show how Maltzman continues to (1) cite our work out of context, (2) make false assumptions about the inquiries and our procedures and (3) disregard evidence contradicting his assertions. He relies on data that, to use his characterization, are a "tempest in a teapot." Having answered the same fundamental attack time and again over the past 7 years, we declare a unilateral moratorium on responding to Maltzman. Moreover, our repeated vindications, and research published over the last 20 years corroborating moderation outcomes, illustrate that, indeed, science is self-correcting.