And yet you still have not stopped deflecting. I hate to hammer in on this, but I’ll just go ahead and ask: can you actually access the study? In truth it’s not publicly accessible per se, you do need to apply (or be affiliated with an organization that gives you access (academia, whee!)) It’s quite interesting overall and I’m of the opinion that you should always actually read your sources lest they be devastating to your argument, but if you cannot read the sections I’m referring to and which lay out what’s being discussed here, it would explain why you’re defending your position with quite so much unjustified vehemence.
It shouldn’t be terribly difficult to demonstrate if so (and establishing that was the real goal behind my comment six replies up in the chain, I confess I should probably not have attempted to be subtle about it).
The data has been discussed frequently from this study, and you can find it online, including many of it in the study itself. Again, this seems like deflection.
So you can’t access it. The report itself I mean, not reporting about the report. How interesting that you insist your interpretation is in-scope when you do not actually know what the scope, in fact, is.
Bro, it’s behind an access screen. It’s the very definition of not publicly accessible. Access to reporting about the data is not the same as being publicly available, and it’s incredible how you keep moving the goalposts to try and imply you didn’t just blatantly do something misleading, almost undoubtedly accidentally. You can just own up, find a better source and go with that, dude.
I believe we’re done here. I’ve thoroughly established my points as valid, and you’ve done… well, you’ve sure tried.
And yet you still have not stopped deflecting. I hate to hammer in on this, but I’ll just go ahead and ask: can you actually access the study? In truth it’s not publicly accessible per se, you do need to apply (or be affiliated with an organization that gives you access (academia, whee!)) It’s quite interesting overall and I’m of the opinion that you should always actually read your sources lest they be devastating to your argument, but if you cannot read the sections I’m referring to and which lay out what’s being discussed here, it would explain why you’re defending your position with quite so much unjustified vehemence.
It shouldn’t be terribly difficult to demonstrate if so (and establishing that was the real goal behind my comment six replies up in the chain, I confess I should probably not have attempted to be subtle about it).
I don’t see what you’re getting at.
Again you’re deflecting. I’m quite clear:
I don’t see what that has to do with the points at hand, by my view you’re deflecting from a point I made.
No, I didn’t think you could.
Next time you high-handedly imply that data is public in order to dismiss criticism, please ensure that it actually is publicly available, mmk?
The data has been discussed frequently from this study, and you can find it online, including many of it in the study itself. Again, this seems like deflection.
So you can’t access it. The report itself I mean, not reporting about the report. How interesting that you insist your interpretation is in-scope when you do not actually know what the scope, in fact, is.
Impressive feat of divination, really.
The data is available as I linked, and my interpretation of the data follows from that data. Simple as that.
Bro, it’s behind an access screen. It’s the very definition of not publicly accessible. Access to reporting about the data is not the same as being publicly available, and it’s incredible how you keep moving the goalposts to try and imply you didn’t just blatantly do something misleading, almost undoubtedly accidentally. You can just own up, find a better source and go with that, dude.
I believe we’re done here. I’ve thoroughly established my points as valid, and you’ve done… well, you’ve sure tried.