I am ignoring them because she didn't use those articles to back up her claims. She was hitting on the articles. She was disputing them. She called them hysterical and claimed they left out relevant information.
If she used them as sources, she wouldn't be doing that.
Why is this hard to understand?
So you're not including those sources b/c they show her opponents are cunts... You're basically saying Hitler was a "good guy" nvm those jews he killed. Criticism doesn't need to be friendly.
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?
yet she strengthens her argument w/ sources...
You just choose to ignore them.