On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:57:03 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:35:08 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Why is that someone else here had to go find that for you? You're
the one with the fetish over the paradox, you should have found it
before showing up here and bitching. But now that you've found it,
you should do a complete analysis of it. That means we shouldn't
see you here again until 2017.

I apologize, ahead of time, for having to tell you what I say below.

I didn't want to say this, and, I already said I have to go through
the links to conclude anything, but you've now said multiple times
the idiotic statements you made above, which forces me to say this.

Clearly you are of low intellect, which is probably around 90 or
so, because you believe, just by reading the titles of the files,
that they somehow prove your point (when that's impossible, given
just the titles).


I didn't say the links prove my point, or any point. I just
observed that for someone so interested in this alleged "paradox"
you should have found those links and read the studies, analyzed them,
figured out what data they used, how the studies were conducted
etc., before coming in here and squawking Paradox! Paradox, over
and over. I suggested looking at actual studies many times.
SeaNymph found some for you, did *your* work for you and she said
it just took a simple Google search.

Also, you apparently agree, because now you say you're finally
going to go look at those studies. So, instead of at least looking
for the studies, then looking at the studies, before discussing
your alleged paradox, here you are, still bitching. Everyone can
determine for themselves who has the low intellect.



Also, given your intellect, it's not surprising that you feel that
the sum total of a bunch of article titles also proves, somehow,
(magically perhaps?) your point.


Again, you're lying. Never said any such thing.

Rest of nonsensical rant based on a strawman lie, deleted.