17 Feb 2014 5:42 pm
Sorry, you lose. If you say to someone "I read such and such in the paper," does that make you the source? No. The paper is the source. About is not a primary source any more than wiki is. And the funny thing about wiki is that most of its articles are sourced with a zillion footnotes so you can go right to the primary sources, yet dumbasses on this forum, not smart enough to understand that, put them down. You think maybe the WSJ runs ads for questionable stuff? Does that content screw the stuff you like on their editorial page? Of course not. By the same token, all that stuff you mentioned that About carries has nothing to do with other stuff there. Your argument has no merit.RichClem » 16 Feb 2014 6:09 am » wrote:
Hilarious that the psychotic is standing by this stunningly stupid claim.
But he must have an absolutely impeccable source, having rejected every one of mine!
about.com
Let's see more of the wisdom and subject matter carried by his source. CP would never, EVER cite a questionable source!
Wow, they have a candy "expert!"
And an expert on grandfathers!
Then they must be experts on Economics and history, too!
I love psychotic moonbat humor!
