I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say.
"Which you claim was trying to convince of us the validity of that study." -- Is an incoherent thought, please try to rephrase whatever it is you trying to say. -- But before you do, let me attempt to respond to what it is I think you are trying to say. -- I'm not trying to convince anyone that the studies are valid [or not], I am merely pointing out the absurdity of the articles and their respective headlines as it was written.
"It appeared your opinion/criticism of them had something to do with the article you linked." -- To whom are you referring and to what article? I post two articles, if you are specifically referring to the Forbes article, then I was referring to the author, its editor and the medium for which it was presented, being Forbes [online].
OK, I'll try to be clearer for you. My apologies.
1. You seemed to take issue with a particular Forbes article about a study done in London about pot, to wit:
Seriously, who are these people trying to convince?
Can we agree that you are claiming that "these people" is Forbes, the ones you claim are right wing propogandists? And that you wonder who Forbes is trying to convince? If we can agree on that, please continue reading. If you don't agree, then there's no point for you to read any further.
2. Next, you provide a link to the Forbes article about the study done in London about pot:
Can we agree the link/article you cite is the one you claim is by Forbes, and upon which you base your 1st sentence I quoted above? If not, there's no point for you to read any further.
3. Further, can we agree the link/article you cite in support of your position, in fact, points out the obvious flaws with the study - like you and anyone with 1/2 a brain noticed? Thereby making the article, on its face, fair and balanced. From the article you find offensive as right wing propaganda:
"Of course, cause and effect cannot be illustrated with a study like this. By definition, the only type of connection here is a correlation, since the researchers did not assign people to smoke pot or abstain during a set period of time. But the “dose-dependent” relationship between pot and white matter changes in the brain
could suggest that the one causes the other, though more research is need to understand how the relationship originates. It could theoretically be the other way round: that people who naturally had white matter damage to begin with are more likely to smoke pot as a way to self-medicate, and the worse the damage, the more active the pot smoking."
4. Finally, you finish your post ranting about, presumably, the very article you linked in your post:
Typical right wing propaganda, yellow press, bullshit.
Can we agree you are saying Forbes, through that article you linked, is engaging in right wing propaganda? If not, well, again, there's no point to continue.
All I'm suggesting now after reading your responses is that you have such a political bias, that you see and claim "right wing propaganda" where it doesn't exist. As in the article you cited as evidence of right wing propaganda, which couldn't be further from the truth. I was only commenting on that one post.
Make sense?
