The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
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.
Some data on Covid-19 and why we're not over reacting...
- Thread starter focomoso
- Start date
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.
You're just handwaving. That's not answering the question.
What did Wikipedia get wrong in that article?
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
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.
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
Okay... I'll bite. What is the question?
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
That's your typical, cut & paste response everytime. Wikipedia is not a credible source for anything. ANYBODY can post to Wikipedia. So what it does or doesn't get wrong isn't relevant. You Trump haters believe your opinion is always fact. I don't lend any credibility to that.
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?"
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
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.
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
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 out dishonest buzzwords.
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
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.
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
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.
The Outlaw *BANNED*
PREMIER
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.
Hüsker Dü
DA
What did they get wrong?
Denial is not proof.
Hüsker Dü
DA
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.