, ""I reserve the right to mix whatever I choose, if I do not sell the result falsely labeled"

Grishka
Of course you do, as does everyone else. I in no way am impeding your "free choice- I understood it was a discussion (maybe I was wrong)?

However, if you post material about research in a discussion - it is reasonable for anyone to weigh the validity of the research and what it may or may not mean to the discussion. If you no not welcome such scrutiny-discussion just state it and I suspect many (including me) will avoid comment. I did not say you "falsely labeled" anything - I merely feel (my perspective) that there are far too many variables and unknowns (aka confounding factors) to take base much on the research. IMO, there is plenty of "research" conducted - some for a specific purpose, some poorly structured and conducted, some of low resolution, and even some that is biased - to accept results broadly or blindly on a broad issue. But, that does not preclude discussion.


""The rest of your message is once again incomprehensible to me"

That is clearly obvious. Regardless, you are free to ignore what you do not comprehend, or you can (if you wish) ask me a focused and specific question - again it's your your choice to do so, or not). BTW, (if you care) my reference to other issues was related to some of the "confounding" factors associated with to using "church membership" (you brought that up, not me) to select from in social morality and religion related research.


Anyway, it seems like our communication (note, it is not not argument in my assessment, but a discussion) has "gone south". Maybe there is no point in further discussion on it - if it is frustrating (or incomprehensible to you, as you seem to be stating - again, your choice to continue it, or drop it.