This morning when I read it, I read lines like "mostly unverifiable" and rolled my eyes (since most of it - especially reagarding the looting of the White House - is in fact verifiably false).
I looked at a line like ""well everyone posted lies about clinton, so they better be ready for me to post lies about bush" " an thought you were doing the same.
Now I've woken up a bit more and see what you're getting at.
I'll take a slight objection to "everything you post its no different than the crap posted below." but that may just be differences in perception of Greg's posts.
BTW, I have no objection to a mod interjecting his opinions - that's what we're all here for. :-)
Sorry that I misconstrued your post.
Cheers,
Tony
P.S.
Why ain't this thread on Flame?
Current Events » in reply to so how did you read my post?
re: so how did you read my post?
The whole thread (20 posts)
- Greg how are you any different from this?
- Reagan said, "Facts are stupid things" . . .
- Thanks for the reminder that WorldnetDaily and Drudge are both POSs
- re: Greg how are you any different from this?