.... then you also understand that your question in reference to the propostion referred to makes no sense.
Hey, wait a minute .... if you already understand that your question makes no sense, then why ask it? Hmmm.........
Anyway .... as for "not sharing my own "results" from taking the "test", apparently I am sharing what the proposition says, probably to check whether people will find what the proposition says when taking the test, which seems to imply that yours truly took the test. I mean, if not, where does what the proposition says come from then? After all, explicit entails implicit you know.
Once more; the proposition does not address possible personal findings of the proposer in reference to the test, the proposition addresses the beholders of the proposition.
Therefore, the question is not why the proposer appears unable to provide an answer -although the proposer already did, due to the intrinsic value of what the proposition says- (see above), the questions is how come responders do not come up with answers in direct reference to the test The proof is in the pudding, i.e., in eating it, you know.........
P.S. The lack of answers in direct reference to taking the test suggests no one took it, or took it and dare not share the findings. For both options it begs the question: why not........
Edited for typos and to add P.S.
rejected and denied by many, accepted and embraced by few : falsifiability
- it is not what we (think we) know that matters, it is what we can show true that does
as the maxim demands; truth is demonstrably fact and fact is demonstrably true
everything else ... mere BS -
New!! Improved!! Now With CD-Formula!!
CD: short for inevitability