So… not peer review. So you can stop saying you’ve had peer review now, right?
I’d read the prior version, you said you had updated it. I checked that link and saw it was still worthless, so I assumed you had posted it somewhere else. Apparently I had seen the best you had when I commented, and the best you had was crap.
You have no results, your ‘paper’ is worthless.
I had read the updated draft, I had just hoped it wasn’t the updated draft. Because of how immensely embarrassing that would be for you.
Because I’m familiar with the state of the field and I’ve read the underlying references.
Correct, your merely asserting the two things to be in contradiction doesn’t make it true.
You have that backwards. I’m not shocked you don’t understand basic logic, given what I’ve seen from you so far.