<p>Having been brought up as a frequentist, I'm now reading up on Bayesian methods (greatly enjoying increasing the size of my statistical toolbox!). While doing a literature search I recently stumbled upon the following paper, which I think could be interesting to discuss.</p>

<p>Fraser, D.A.S. (2011), Is Bayes Posterior just Quick and Dirty Confidence?, <em>Statistical Science</em>, Vol. 26, No. 3, 299-316, <a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.5582" rel="nofollow noreferrer">arXiv:1112.5582v1 [stat.ME]</a></p>

<p>Discussions and rejoinders can be found on <a href="http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1320066918" rel="nofollow noreferrer">projecteuclid</a> for those who have access. For those that don't, below are some of the discussion and rejoinder papers collected from the authors' websites. Some of them may not be official final versions.</p>

<p><a href="http://basepub.dauphine.fr/xmlui/bitstream/handle/123456789/6735/STS1106-004R0A0.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Discussion</a> by Christian P. Robert (our own <a href="https://stats.stackexchange.com/users/7224/xian">Xi'an</a>).</p>

<p><a href="http://www.stat.rutgers.edu/home/mxie/RCPapers/DiscussionsOnDrFraserStatSciPaperNew2.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Discussion</a> by K. Singh and M. Xie.</p>

<p><a href="http://projecteuclid.org/euclid.ss/1320066921" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Discussion</a> by L. Wasserman. (Not open access.)</p>

<p><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0588" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Discussion</a> by T. Zhang.</p>

<p><a href="http://arxiv.org/abs/1201.0611" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Rejoinder</a> by D. A. S. Fraser.</p>
