> I don't need to heed the article because actually I pay attention where attention is deserved, that is, to the studies. If you had any, you would've shared them by now, which is to say you don't have any, and therefore your words are void.
There's this saying about contempt prior to investigation... You've made assumptions about what is in the article that are not correct.
The article specifically talks about the kind of articles you think it is, and also the kind of reactions you are mentioning. It clearly explains the problems with the study and offers solutions to correct them. This is exactly the kind of criticism that we want. Ignoring this stuff undermines your ability to make a persuasive argument.
> Note to other readers: These are the kind of people that want to keep polluting your water without even sharing any studies to demonstrate its safety.
If you haven't read the article, how do you know what "kind of people" are involved?
There's this saying about contempt prior to investigation... You've made assumptions about what is in the article that are not correct.
The article specifically talks about the kind of articles you think it is, and also the kind of reactions you are mentioning. It clearly explains the problems with the study and offers solutions to correct them. This is exactly the kind of criticism that we want. Ignoring this stuff undermines your ability to make a persuasive argument.
> Note to other readers: These are the kind of people that want to keep polluting your water without even sharing any studies to demonstrate its safety.
If you haven't read the article, how do you know what "kind of people" are involved?