You're right, I probably should have stopped 10 comments ago. I just didn't want this guy to sleep thinking that he won the argument.
You're right, I probably should have stopped 10 comments ago. I just didn't want this guy to sleep thinking that he won the argument.
Check my comment history, I've been dealing with him at the same time. I think he actually got our arguments mixed up and forgot who he was talking to.
Check my comment history, I've been dealing with him at the same time. I think he actually got our arguments mixed up and forgot who he was talking to.
I'm not including those sources because they don't back up any of the claims in her article except that her sources didn't say X and did say Y.
Let's imagine, for example, that an article said the Earth was flat. It claimed several times that the Earth was flat, but didn't provide evidence or sources to back it up.
Then it goes on to say that CNN is falsely claiming the Earth is round. It cites a CNN article about why the Earth is round, and immediately disputes it as leaving out relevant information.
Did the article provide sources to back up its claim that the Earth is flat?