sig,
sweet assumptions, you speak more about yourself than i with them
.
your objections to the study were correct, terms were not definable, they were nonsense.
should i cut and paste any part from your article to show the obvious, that the same is true of your material.
that neither would pass the normal checks prior to publishing in a peer reviewed scientific journal.
i did not question your habitation, or even your ig, i said the obvious. what you wrote is nonsense. your terms are defined exactly only in your own mind.
for example,
It is an objective truth that it is not enough for the alcoholic to understand his condition. At some point, the substance abuser must deal with the reality of the havoc they have caused internally and externally. They need to understand the pain, trauma and devastation that lies at their feet. If they do not engage in that painful exercise, they will not be liberated from the chains of addiction that bind them.
nuff said. pathetic nonsense. is that the contribution you are looking for?
and syn, no worry i do not live in your country, however healthy debate requires a definable proposition. not nonsense.
sometimes sleeping dogs are best left to snooze.
