17 Feb 2014 4:04 pm
Figures the psychotic would utterly mis-represent what I've been doing and asking.
A "luminary?" WTF do you mean by that?
What I do recommend in addition to examining data and information on one's own is to read and consider the analysis of more knowledgeable commentators, not because they're, snicker, "Alpha Males," but for the logic, additional information and insight they offer.
As opposed to the idiocy you express as you bungle historically settled issues by refusing to consider some of the most important information.
I don't recall citing one single "talking head" or "official spokespeople," so WTF are you babbling about?More respectable: Arguing from raw data, or citing partisan opinion which references those data?
You may select 1 option
1. Arguing your own opinion from data sourced to independent, nonpartisan authorities
2, Citing the opinions of talking heads, luminaries, and assorted "official" spokespeople, who reference those data in their arguments
A "luminary?" WTF do you mean by that?What I do recommend in addition to examining data and information on one's own is to read and consider the analysis of more knowledgeable commentators, not because they're, snicker, "Alpha Males," but for the logic, additional information and insight they offer.
As opposed to the idiocy you express as you bungle historically settled issues by refusing to consider some of the most important information.