twooffour said:

RedFive said:

twooffour said:

I haven't read the original paper, but from the way it's described, it's a poor one.

A study that doesn't take any of that into account and attempts to make a sweeping statement based on a few students reading a few books? Do not want.

A long-winded reply that starts out by admitting the poster didn't even read the (relatively short) original article? Do not want.

The ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER, not the article, you CLOWN.

Here's the thing. I'm gonna bite, but just this one time.

Twooffour, you are correct, i misunderstood your post. OK?

In my defense, the link in the OP said NOTHING about a research paper, nor did it link to any additional research. There was no reason for you to say you "didn't read the paper", because no one read the paper. There is no paper, unless you did further research on the story and found one. Do you see how this could be confusing? (I'm sure you don't)

But let's ignore all that, even. Let's say I called you out on something you didn't do and made a total ass of myself, for arguments sake. The problem I, and everyone else, has with you is this:

The ORIGINAL RESEARCH PAPER, not the article, you CLOWN.

There is no need for that at all. It's childish. It's idiotic.

This is why no one has respect for your opinions, most everyone is ignoring you, and Frink replies to your posts with funny gif's.

I hope you understand, but really, I don't give a shit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O_l4ZP8dyQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=3s