Those are your "duly" noted words... not mine. I believe you, like Messy, think Wikipedia is a credible source and don't seem to understand that anybody with wifi can post to Wikipedia.
What did Wikipedia get wrong in that article?
Those are your "duly" noted words... not mine. I believe you, like Messy, think Wikipedia is a credible source and don't seem to understand that anybody with wifi can post to Wikipedia.
So you believe your point of view trumps reality, duly noted.
You're just handwaving. That's not answering the question.
What did Wikipedia get wrong in that article?
LMAO! Your deflection and ignorance of how Wikipedia works has been duly noted. You want to argue with me about who threw the first punch between McCain and Trump? I can refresh your memory if need be.
Okay... I'll bite. What is the question?
Wikipedia articles that have a large viewership or against which complaints have been lodged are reviewed by a panel of editors. All changes are available to every viewer and for most there are chat blogs that discuss the changes.
Didn't you know that?
"what did John McCain learn the hard way?"
Kim Kardashian has a large viewership. The fact that Wikipedia allows anyone to post there means there's no accountability or credibility. I know it badmouth's Trump. I read 2 paragraphs and recognized the agenda. You can go to one of the chat blogs and keep the "veracity" alive, big guy.
He learned that being captured during a war didn't give him a teflon suit to be protected when he attacked Trump.
You just confirmed my suspicion that you don't know how it works. Anyone can post there? - not always true. Some articles are open to posting, some are locked, some are subject to editorial board reviews.
And I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question - what did Wikipedia get wrong in that article?
Maybe it's time for you to participate in an adult conversation instead of just whining our dishonest buzzwords.
You're back to just handwaving.
Fail.
You've posted 5 times in the last 20 minutes and said this: "you're handwaving". "Wikidpedia rules". "you haven't answered the question".
And you think I failed? LMAO!
I have made intelligent, factual, non-emotional responses to your posts.
Prove me wrong.
I can hear your tap dancing all the way up Interstate 5. I read 2 paragraphs in the article and can tell it's a hit piece on Trump. Let's not pretend it isn't. A bunch of Trump haters started an article and piled on with interviews of people that haven't liked him since the early 80's. That's ALL the time I'm going to waste on your Wikipedia affinity. You think it's credible and me and everyone else don't.
What did they get wrong?Those are your "duly" noted words... not mine. I believe you, like Messy, think Wikipedia is a credible source and don't seem to understand that anybody with wifi can post to Wikipedia.
No, you really haven't. All you've done is try to buy time while your alter ego, Husky Pu, googles "Trump vs. McCain".
From my memory t, in an interview, said he doesn't like soldiers that get captured and that McCain wasn't a war hero. Ironic coming from a draft dodger, mr. bonespurs.No, you really haven't. All you've done is try to buy time while your alter ego, Husky Pu, googles "Trump vs. McCain".
What was incorrect in the two paragraphs you read?
Please try to be specific - no handwaving.
What did they get wrong?
You do uphold the aggrieved crybaby mantle for lil joe, et al, quite well.No, you really haven't. All you've done is try to buy time while your alter ego, Husky Pu, googles "Trump vs. McCain".