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).
ok then, i'll give that too, some of it is verifiably false, but other things are unverifyable (i.e. in the sense that there are some pretty absurd things that are just technically not verifyable, you just have to use common sense and choose what is most likely)
As far as being tired and misconstruing posts, i know exactly what you mean, been there plenty times before. happend to me just a few days ago.
I don't really think it belongs on flame yet, in fact I am trying to take a middle of the road aproach to things. If I go to far, I will appologise, I was trying not to encourage polarization. If people want it moved I can accomodate.
Current Events » in reply to re: 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?
