Then last year, things might have gone down a bit like this:
"Some guy is saying a reanalysis of a key study argued that there was no clear evidence for improvement in either school attendance or examination performance when using year-stratified cluster-summary analysis. First of all. Just so you understand, this guy is a total loser. He begged me to be his peer reviewer, I said "NO THANKS." Pathetic!
Second, I never said that about the year-stratified cluster-summary analysis. Never said it! Here's the thing. I use the year-stratified regression models and you know what? It works, it just works. I'm winning, my p-values are so much lower than his, this guy's a joke. And he says the cluster summary! Liar, you can't listen to him, this guy's a degenerate and I don't even need to tell you what he did with the standard errors. I mean, there are things about this guy that I don’t want to talk about. You can look. But I’m not going to talk about them. Very bad guy! Our study, it's terrific. No one else will tell it like it is, but we're telling it like it is. We're going to beat those worms. Terrific!"
hat tip to @Zettel314