Except that I did argue the content:
How about instead of attacking the page, you read it and see that it's a sourced article.
It's telling how you left that part out. I pointed out your hypocrisy as an addition, not a substitution.
Except that I did argue the content:
> How about instead of attacking the page, you read it and see that it's a sourced article.
It's telling how you left that part out. I pointed out your hypocrisy as an addition, not a substitution.
Says the guy who loves The Guardian.
How about instead of attacking the page, you read it and see that it's a sourced article.
Or is that your problem? You can't argue the content, so you try to shift attention to the source.