![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|