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.
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.
I’m not sure how any of what you’re saying has any relevance whatsoever, and despite my asking you haven’t provided a reason.