- Thread starter
- #181
And?
That is your reply? And?
I guess I will intentionally mistake that for a lack of a cogent response or counterargument.
You posted a link to a paper from 1975 and literally no context. Did you want me to guess what your point is?
Could you not gather the context from the quote chain preceding my post?
No cop outs.
Your previous post was riddled with errors. Do you feel that this 1975 piece somehow validates what you said earlier? If yes, then tell me what your point is. This is basic shit man.
I can assume the methodology behind that study has not changed since it was published. Meaning similar (and more recent) studies use roughly the same methods to gather the same data. Yes, I feel it validates what I said earlier.
I was also on a smart phone.
So why do you employ a chronological fallacy to delegitimize it?