Quote (Jere @ Nov 27 2020 12:40pm)
Ah, you can't see the millions all over the world talking about it? Shit, it's jumped countries. Aren't the rioting against curfews and lockdowns in Germany? Read that yesterday and then heard it on NPR cause I like to hear context from both sides and apply reasoning with documentation.
You just doing what exactly?
Could be. Evidence may or may not lead to proof. Haven't jacked with it, just noticed you decided to post that after my DP earlier. Coincidence.. maybe
But since it's reported. You just don't like being caught...again..
How's covid19? We still discussing that and masks LOL?
How do I know I'm talking to sheep? ^^^^^^^^^^
I hope you have put your entire life savings on trump win because ur looking at a ~100x Return
U will acquire generational wealth that will serve your family for a long time to come!
In regards to masks, u ghosted. It’s clear you don’t know how to analyze data
Quote (Bazi @ Nov 26 2020 04:16pm)
This has nothing to do with the citation he used to make his claim. Those citations are for some other weird claims he made in the article.
To be clear he conveyed the result of his reference fine, then derived illogical conclusions. I don’t think there should be any doubt that the reference (his reference) I posted in my original critique was apart of his actual review, which frankly invalidates his own review.
I have literally never seen that happen before lol. Posting a reference contradicting your working thesis
I am not smarter than most scientists. In fact the opposite, I listen and respect them greatly. Posting reviews are not primary scientific literature as much as they are commentary. Some commentary is good, some is not. it still has to be labeled as what it is and that is commentary. This guys commentary was deemed inferior by his peers which is why it didn’t go further than word/gmail. That wasn’t my decision but I think it was the right decision give the self contradictions within it
This post was edited by Bazi on Nov 27 2020 12:56pm