airsuperiority
Captain
What do you call declaring something is legitimate without bias for a study that you can't seem to show me any evidence of it's existence? I'm jumping to conclusions? If you can't give me any sort of information that I can check, don't you think it's legitimate to question whether you know for a fact this study was done properly? Hence why anyone can write a paper and call it a study. Ever watch the movie Fargo? Right when the movie starts it says "Based on a true story." It was completely a lie. The directors were making fun how they can claim anything they want because there's nothing that says they can't do that. Whether you believe or not your study is making a gross generalization regardless if it was done legitimately. Because we know they did not follow are large group of people all over the world, and it would have to over 2000, for an extended period of time, checking off compassionate and sympathetic acts. And again I ask what acts of compassion and sympathy are they talking about? Is it only on animals? Then I can see how they can come up with that conclusion. But then that would mean Hilter was a compassionate and sympathetic man. Let's ignore everything else because that's what the study would be saying.
The only author with that name I've come up with writes fiction books. That's not a good sign if it's the same person. Just remember Linda McCartney and her book.
Well I provided you the link so good luck with it. And again I have stated it's not conclusive and can't be applied to every individual.