Comment on .ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days agoThe data is available as I linked, and my interpretation of the data follows from that data. Simple as that.
Comment on .ml has got to be the only place on earth where I'd get downvoted for a comment like this
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days agoThe data is available as I linked, and my interpretation of the data follows from that data. Simple as that.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 days ago
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 blatantly misleading.
I believe we’re done here. I’ve thoroughly established my points as valid, and you’ve done… well, you’ve sure tried.
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
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.
Warl0k3@lemmy.world 2 days ago
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 a data source, why should I believe you’d argue your ideas in good faith?
Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 days ago
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.