sry sirFEOS wrote:
That's completely different. Potato chips is srs bidness.usmarine wrote:
They dont seem to cry when muslims chop off peoples heads..:ronin:.|Patton wrote:
Biggest group of crybabies in the world.
Ham-and-Beer flavor would be good for them
QFFT. Not that anyone will listen, and we will continue to get the usual stream of 'Muslims are going to take over the world' type threads because some fucktard took the Daily Fail seriously.Turquoise wrote:
I will repeat this yet again... THE DAILY MAIL, TELEGRAPH, and WORLD NET DAILY are NOT, I repeat, NOT FUCKING VALID SOURCES.
If you would like to cross reference this with other sources, be my guest, but the above sources are about as valid as whitehouse.com, newsmax, and the National Enquirer.
Is the story false?ghettoperson wrote:
QFFT. Not that anyone will listen, and we will continue to get the usual stream of 'Muslims are going to take over the world' type threads because some fucktard took the Daily Fail seriously.Turquoise wrote:
I will repeat this yet again... THE DAILY MAIL, TELEGRAPH, and WORLD NET DAILY are NOT, I repeat, NOT FUCKING VALID SOURCES.
If you would like to cross reference this with other sources, be my guest, but the above sources are about as valid as whitehouse.com, newsmax, and the National Enquirer.
If you cannot prove it is false, then I suggest the both of you be quiet about sources.
Last edited by usmarine (2008-02-23 16:21:00)
The burden of proof is on truth, not on falsity.usmarine wrote:
Is the story false?ghettoperson wrote:
QFFT. Not that anyone will listen, and we will continue to get the usual stream of 'Muslims are going to take over the world' type threads because some fucktard took the Daily Fail seriously.Turquoise wrote:
I will repeat this yet again... THE DAILY MAIL, TELEGRAPH, and WORLD NET DAILY are NOT, I repeat, NOT FUCKING VALID SOURCES.
If you would like to cross reference this with other sources, be my guest, but the above sources are about as valid as whitehouse.com, newsmax, and the National Enquirer.
If you cannot prove it is false, then I suggest the both of you be quiet about sources.
I'll see if I can find this story on a more reputable source. Otherwise, it means that the story is likely fabricated or just so slanted that it means little anyway.
EDIT: This is all I could find. The Times is more reputable. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a … 412749.ece
Last edited by Turquoise (2008-02-23 16:57:17)
So they did not make the story up did they? So what's the problem?Turquoise wrote:
The burden of proof is on truth, not on falsity.usmarine wrote:
Is the story false?ghettoperson wrote:
QFFT. Not that anyone will listen, and we will continue to get the usual stream of 'Muslims are going to take over the world' type threads because some fucktard took the Daily Fail seriously.
If you cannot prove it is false, then I suggest the both of you be quiet about sources.
I'll see if I can find this story on a more reputable source. Otherwise, it means that the story is likely fabricated or just so slanted that it means little anyway.
EDIT: This is all I could find. The Times is more reputable. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_a … 412749.ece
I'm not saying this particular story is a problem (now that I've cross-referenced it), but there have been times where the sources I mentioned did either fabricate or twist the truth of stories.