Are you finished throwing a tantrum now Solomon?
Good.
You appear to have many issues, and I'm afraid that one post will be insufficient to address them all.
So let's keep this simple.
Firstly, looking back over our "discussion", you will note that I haven't stated an opinion upon the topic at hand. All I've done is ask you to produce primary source information regarding what
this gentleman said. Information which would back up what he say as fact.
You, however, take this as a rude, offensive assault upon your point of view.
The world is indeed a very black and white place for you, isn't it. If they're not with you, they're against you. Anybody that doesn't immediately see the conspiracies that you do is obviously an inhumane monster.
But all that aside, allow me to define primary and secondary source for you:
A primary source is, in simple terms, raw data - an information source which has yet to be coloured by personal opinion. Statistics. Audio recordings of conversations; video footage of an event; direct observational data.
As an example from my own experience, it would be something such as the data built up regarding observations of astronomical phenomena; mass, radius, temperature of a star in order to calculate magnitudes and luminosities, for example.
Within the context at hand, it would be direct evidence of suggested conversation and the like.
A secondrary source is one which references another source for its information; a newspaper article which references a scientific journal; a politicial speech which discusses an official report; a person who discusses a topic in reference to a data set. In these instances use of the newspaper, political speech or person would be the secondary data source.
Again, say I were to reference the Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism, quoting comments made by other researches without directly invoking their original data and extrapolations; this would be secondary data.
In the case at hand; an opinion in lieu of direct evidence.
If that does not help you, then I am truly at a loss as to what will. You seem to manufacture opinions where none exist; invoke hostility when somebody simply asks you a question.
And your personal failings cause you to brand everybody who disagrees with you as part of some morally questionable entity without fondation.
And still, despite all this, you fail to present any form of original data. You imply that it exists. Though your unwillingness to prove that it does suggests otherwise.
I'm simply amazed that somebody who likes to argue so much doesn't understand the basic precepts of backing up their own argument.
Perhaps you would learn if only you could see yourself, and what the community as a whole thinks of your opinions. Still, one cannot make the blind see by force of will alone.
C'est la vie.
