Lonbjerg, this is not the first time you post in thread on these forums using that kind of reasoning. I never bothered to correct you since it seemed like a waste of time, but since you do no appear to stop, I feel obliged to take the time to do so now so this nonsense can finally come to an end.
If the statement is that "A is always true", it is sufficient to find one example of where A is not true to prove the statement wrong.
If the statement is that "A is always true", finding one example of where A is not true does not imply "A is never true".
If the statement is "A is sometimes true", no amount of positive or negative results will invalidate the statement.
What we are dealing with here is a situation where A is true for some users, and not for others. That AMD writes something about it does not change that, and it does not invalidate those prior observations. Instead we tried to isolate the cases where A is true by finding correlations and liasons. You seem to think that it somehow should make people giving empirical evidence feel ashamed, but you just illustrate that you do not grasp elementary logic. Please think before you post, or keep shooting yourself in the foot.
Facebook
Twitter