Different *Thread*? Located somewhere else? You're an idiot. No, seriously. Despite your credentials as an idiot, I'm going to pbutt on accepting your pronouncement. Raw data is one thing, conclusions are something else entirely. Yes, I realize you have yet to grasp this (going back *Years*, with your defense of Spitzer & other unsupportable conclusions), but at this point I can't do anything but point out your errors and hope it'll someday click. ...as unlikely as that seems. "Raw data." It is anecdotal evidence, if you're talking about the reasons anyone became a priest. However, your cite never even claimed this much, never even claimed the anecdotal evidence. It didn't even claim your conclusion, for that matter. Well except for the fact that I re-re-quoted what you said, what I was responding to. But I'm not surprised that you missed it.... it being so blaringly obvious. Now if I DIDN'T SAY what I was responding to -- like the way your "cite" DIDN'T make your anecdotal claims, and DIDN'T voice your conclusion -- then you would have surely imagined that I had... You stated one, flat out. I quoted you. I re-quoted you when you forgot. I re-re-quoted you when you insisted on pretending that your remarks where limited to some percentage figure. Here's that conclusion, yet again: It is primarily because in some Catholic-dominated cultures, the only acceptable way for a guy to not get married to a woman was to become a priest. But apparently you don't even know what you yourself have stated here...
|
