Flower of romance wrote:
> trin wrote

> >> Because it's impossible. to expand on it will invokes cries for evidence
> >> and the evidence isn't a web page so it can't be posted here and as you
> >> seem to beleive the fallacy that webpages are the one and only proof of
> >> anything ever and that everything on the web pages has to be true then
> >> expanding further is impossible hence attempting it is pointless.
> > Books aren't web pages. Films and documentaries aren't web pages.
> Exactly. Where I get my information from REAL  sources.

*opens mouth*

*sighs deeply*

*shakes head*

Can someone cleverer than me please explain the whole 'critical
thinking' idea to fuckwit please, because I give up.

> > Radio programmes aren't web pages. Feel free to reference any of the
> > above, as well as anything else you can think of.
> Oh purrrleeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaasseeeeeee. I already did and if you
> wantexact dates and times then you aren't gonna get any. I don't suffer with
> the kind of OCD which makes me catalog everything I watch.

You did? Where? A post ID'll do. And you don't need exact dates and
times, but if you're using something to support your arguments, then
you NEED to be able to at least say what programme or book or whatever
it was was.

> > We don't care if the "facts" aren't on a web page, as long as they're
> > somewhere out there. 'K.
> "WE? " is that the royal we or are you borg?

Yes.

> There are plenty of facts on tv and radio. Try tuning into  some; you might
> learning something!!

Learn some critical thinking, and you might learn to be able to
discern between believing everything on TV because it's not a web
page, and believing only the stuff that's actually based on truth, no
matter where it's located. (Yes URPers, shuddup, I know! :p)

--
trin