On Mon, 18 Oct 2010 18:06:56 -0400, Mark wrote:

On Sep 30, 5:46 pm, Duggy wrote:

On Oct 1, 7:39 am, Mark wrote:

but for real
scientific research I suggest starting with
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stigmata#Scientific_research
and following the references cited there.
It will lead to more sources, which should be examined.
But if you're trying to tell me that Wikipedia is a valid
source for information, then you are sadly, sadly
mistaken.

Where did he say valid source of information? He said stating point.

Shesh.

Misallocated shesh. He offered up wiki as more valid. It isn't.

And just because anyone can change it, doesn't mean it's as wrong as
that sounds. Sure, there are mistakes, but not enough to be "sadly,
sadly mistaken". Just mistaken.

Oh? Too many sadlys? Because I originally thought
4 would be commensurate. But...I guess just one will
please the court of public opinion. Ok.

You're sadly mistaken.

Because anyone can edit or add anything there.

Which means most vandalism and a lot of mistakes are quickly fixed.

Yeah, by more amateurs.

HTH.

Mark The Helpful

https://twitter.com/CorruptNutsac
http://gayincarolina.jottit.com/my_main_squeeze

Nice sites there, Mark(ie)!

How's the solar panel installation job going? Didn't work again today?

*LOLOLOLOLOLOL*
--
A fireside chat not with Ari!
http://tr.im/holj
Motto: Live To Spooge It!