A whole minute spent? Wow, yes, that was a thorough check. I guess you simply missed the, um, selective statistics, then.
You are as credible as ever.
You obviously did not read what I said and that is okay. I will repeat it again. I had already researched this and made my own assessment to this. It simply was a quick go to after a search. The reason I search was not to find a talking point but because I had previously investigated this. That is why I knew what to look for. I could have used the next entry or the one after that or the one after that. The source is of little matter if you have already investigated the underlying claim.
You are not be credible by dismissing sources out of hand based on preconceptions. As I stated, I do not do this. I am interested in underlying claims whether or not they come from people I agree with generally or not. You don't and that is a problem with your credibility - not mine.
You spent MORE than a minute but still didn't find anything off with their statistics?
Well done.
There may or may not be something wrong with stats, larger point is true. No, I spent about a minute. Did you not read or did you not comprehend? Has to be one or the other because I explained it twice.
