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.
Please stop, we’ve already established that my points are proven beyond any reasonable doubt. I was never going to discuss your nonsense because it’s source is inherently valueless - you can’t even be honest about an infographic (let alone an entire data source you can’t even read), why should I believe you’d argue your ideas in good faith?
The source is valid, it’s a regularly published study. I’ve read a few of the previous ones, and while I haven’t had access to the full study for this latest one, a lot of the data is already widely known from it. You haven’t made any points, nor have you explained why they even matter. This is just tedious debate pervertry on your part.
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.
Please stop, we’ve already established that my points are proven beyond any reasonable doubt. I was never going to discuss your nonsense because it’s source is inherently valueless - you can’t even be honest about an infographic (let alone an entire data source you can’t even read), why should I believe you’d argue your ideas in good faith?
The source is valid, it’s a regularly published study. I’ve read a few of the previous ones, and while I haven’t had access to the full study for this latest one, a lot of the data is already widely known from it. You haven’t made any points, nor have you explained why they even matter. This is just tedious debate pervertry on your part.