>>150238685
>>replies to both
Yes, because those were both replies to (Me), specifically.
>How many fucking people are you in this thread?
Well, there's (Me), and at least one other person replying to you.
>So the source lacks credibility.
It's. A. Library. It just publishes studies, WHAT are you on?
>they don’t say they agree or endorse it so how can they be all in on either?
Wow, it's almost like that's what I said. Holy shit...
>>150238761
>you replied to two posts I made to two supposedly different people
See above, those were both me, and not that other anon you replied to.
>If you want to use this cope you have to actually make it make sense.
Try this: two people disagree with you and are (I can only assume; I'm not them, after all) equally flummoxed at the thought of needing to explain how that's possible.