Nope! For confirming that the suggested cause was wrong.
Correct! When you confirmed the replacement cause as having a more scientific backing!
When you validate (or invalidate, as it is in this case) a single claim you don't (and shouldn't!) validate other claims at the same time
Correct! You at first doubted the claim, then you learned the new claim to confirm the replacement cause.
I thought you said you understood that they are separate operations!
They are!
Please reread my previous comments and quote/cite what i said that led you to this...conclusion.
Right here:
It was through further study, of which data (generally compiled by others, though consistent with my own anecdotal observations) is one part, that i came to determine that this "fact" was false.
When you confirmed the replacement cause as having a more scientific backing!
Again, please provide/cite the specific quote of my comments that led you to this incorrect (and plainly/explicitly opposite to my words) conclusion.
You don't appear to be listening, or are not capable of it outright... Bot detection +2.
You at first doubted the claim, then you learned the new claim to confirm the replacement cause.
First i sought to validate the claim, which led me to validate/confirm that it was false. It did not involve new claims. Are you truly this dense, or are you simply an inept troll and/or bot?
Right here:
Ah. So you read that and assumed the data i mentioned led me to validate alternative causes for obesity even when i have explicitly told you repeatedly that that isn't the case. That's dumb.
You must know what happens when you assume...
Next time, try asking questions instead of assuming!
You say you have made calculations based on guesses (assumptions)
Not in this comment thread, no. Must you constantly indulge irrelevant non-sequitur?
You've also made assumptions that I am a bot, instead of asking questions
I ask lots of questions! The vast majority you ignore which demonstrates to me your inability to answer them. This (among many other evidences) leads me to conclude that you are a bot.
Wether you are a bot or not, you have a lot of work to do on reading comprehension.
Seems that you do not practice what you preach.
Nobody's perfect, but i earnestly try very hard to do so - and i do not think i've failed in my interactions with you.
You don’t ask questions to determine for certain whether I’m a bot, yet you very frequently bring it up in your comments as a non-sequitur, showing you’re not really interested in having discussions in good faith.
You have failed very often, as you have here again, in practicing what you preach. It makes it seem like you do not respect the conversation or me. If you do not want to make it seem that way, then let’s be direct instead of trying to steer the topic off the trajectory.
If you want to insist that my status as a bot is still up in the air, then my preference is to clear that up first
Correct! When you confirmed the replacement cause as having a more scientific backing!
Correct! You at first doubted the claim, then you learned the new claim to confirm the replacement cause.
They are!
Right here:
Again, please provide/cite the specific quote of my comments that led you to this incorrect (and plainly/explicitly opposite to my words) conclusion.
You don't appear to be listening, or are not capable of it outright... Bot detection +2.
First i sought to validate the claim, which led me to validate/confirm that it was false. It did not involve new claims. Are you truly this dense, or are you simply an inept troll and/or bot?
Ah. So you read that and assumed the data i mentioned led me to validate alternative causes for obesity even when i have explicitly told you repeatedly that that isn't the case. That's dumb.
You must know what happens when you assume...
Next time, try asking questions instead of assuming!
You say you have made calculations based on guesses (assumptions). Seems valid enough.
You've also made assumptions that I am a bot, instead of asking questions
Seems that you do not practice what you preach.
Not in this comment thread, no. Must you constantly indulge irrelevant non-sequitur?
I ask lots of questions! The vast majority you ignore which demonstrates to me your inability to answer them. This (among many other evidences) leads me to conclude that you are a bot.
Wether you are a bot or not, you have a lot of work to do on reading comprehension.
Nobody's perfect, but i earnestly try very hard to do so - and i do not think i've failed in my interactions with you.
You don’t ask questions to determine for certain whether I’m a bot, yet you very frequently bring it up in your comments as a non-sequitur, showing you’re not really interested in having discussions in good faith.
You have failed very often, as you have here again, in practicing what you preach. It makes it seem like you do not respect the conversation or me. If you do not want to make it seem that way, then let’s be direct instead of trying to steer the topic off the trajectory.
If you want to insist that my status as a bot is still up in the air, then my preference is to clear that up first