The author of the article takes things and uses them to support a conclusion that actually is not supported by the facts used in making his conclusions.
What the author expects the reader to do is to fill in the gaps in their heads with facts that don't exist.
A common ploy. Don't fall for it.
There is no "deal" that I see.
The author of the article takes things and uses them to support a conclusion that actually is not supported by the facts used in making his conclusions.
What the author expects the reader to do is to fill in the gaps in their heads with facts that don't exist.
A common ploy. Don't fall for it.
There is no "deal" that I see.
(post is archived)