I would argue that Wikipedia while not a great primary source has pretty stringent guidelines for providing sources in it’s articles. So you’ve answered with a thought terminating cliche and refused to elaborate. In other words you’re incorrect and to fragile to admit it.
That’s not what a thought terminating cliche is. And no, the fact I didn’t bother to get bogged down in whatever tedious secondary argument you want to have does not remotely mean my initial point is wrong.
Lol, I didn’t have to read the URL to know what that link was going to be. Wikipedia continues to be The Holy Scripture to western shitlibs
You should really counter point with your own source if you’re going to tell someone their source is insufficient
This dead horse was already beaten half a day ago in this thread.
No. That’s not remotely how that works.
I would argue that Wikipedia while not a great primary source has pretty stringent guidelines for providing sources in it’s articles. So you’ve answered with a thought terminating cliche and refused to elaborate. In other words you’re incorrect and to fragile to admit it.
That’s not what a thought terminating cliche is. And no, the fact I didn’t bother to get bogged down in whatever tedious secondary argument you want to have does not remotely mean my initial point is wrong.
Imagine if every idiot could just say “You didn’t debate me that means reality is what I claim!” and have it be true
Ok tankie
Shitlibs when the Holy Scripture is questioned.