Why disparaging remarks about the decent quality and entirely legible graphic that clearly illustrates his theory described above?
If it's not 'based on scientific evidence reported in the news...', you should be able to say how/why without attacking the medium in which OP conveyed his theory.
What source or illustration do you have? What constructive input do you offer?
None? Then STFU.
It's hilarious how you claim that your fingerpainting is based on "scientific evidence".
Why disparaging remarks about the decent quality and entirely legible graphic that clearly illustrates his theory described above?
If it's not 'based on scientific evidence reported in the news...', you should be able to say how/why without attacking the medium in which OP conveyed his theory.
What source or illustration do you have? What constructive input do you offer?
None? Then STFU.