It's not his transparency, it's your limited script. "If mentions group differences -> bring up Murray then proceed to Murray section" He indulged you because your "Murray section" contains a reference to a scientific fraud who faked data.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Again, only proving your own limits. This is like bringing up gravity and thinking of it as "that Newton thing" - not even that because Murray's book just summarized thousands of studies.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
It's not "Murray's work" you dullard.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Yes, you've noticed that reality is entirely indifferent to your insane religion. Resume screaming about how anyone who observes it is a heretic now.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
> Murray brought them all together and utilized them to paint a [heretical] picture that [can lead souls astray], a picture which reinforces centuries of [heresy] w/o [leaving a path to faith]. You're not agnostic - you're a fairly dim fanatic of an insane religion.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.