re: #196 researchok

You deliberately misrepresented the nature of one of the papers, choosing instead to focus on what might have been linked to in err.

I didn’t misrepresent the paper at all. You’re claiming I did; you’re not demonstrating, at all, that I did. I didn’t. I don’t think that you have actually read or understood that paper.

You have yet to prove that.

Have you read the book that I cited long, long ago at the beginning of this discussion, or not?