> In other words, the article (in my opinion) assumed that R > O always. I wanted to challenge this assumption that argue that R <?> O. I am not arguing, as some people seem to suppose, that O > R always.
So, you don't have evidence for it, you don't believe it, yet you're going to argue aggressively for it and call me biased to boot. What distinguishes your comments from garden-variety trolling?
If by "it" you mean "O > R always", then no, I don't have evidence for it nor do I believe it. What I do believe and have a whole book of evidence for is "not (R > O always)". That is what I am arguing for, and have been from my very first message.
My opinion of "not (R > O always)" would only be controversial if you believe that "R > O always". But "R > O always" has no evidence supporting it (at least none that anyone has presented or that I am aware of).
So, you don't have evidence for it, you don't believe it, yet you're going to argue aggressively for it and call me biased to boot. What distinguishes your comments from garden-variety trolling?