Second I pointed to an article, that was more information, and you ignored it.
If you made a citation of specific research I missed it. If you're referring to the paper that has arguments you agree with, I've already stated why that is insufficient.
I raised this question and it is valid.
It is
not valid, for reasons already stated. We're well beyond the point of rhetoric, Holmes. You've offered rhetoric, I've rebutted your rhetoric. The next stage of the discussion is where you supply tangible evidence for your speculations, but you don't seem particularly willing to enter that stage. In fact you refuse to.
I have a suspicion why that is, which is why there's no point in continuing the discussion. If there was factual evidence for your position you would have presented it by now.
I am bending over backwards to try to discuss this article seriously with you.
You're bending over backwards to avoid any factual or evidentiary discussion of the issue. Good day.
™ Version 4.2
