You are another in a growing list who are eager to prove they aren't worth the trouble of responding to. You automatically lose when you reframe the facts to suit your needs. Next!
The "article" by Mr. NutDaily, is based on old details that have been debunked in thread after thread at FR for weeks. But here's Farah repeating them anyway, again.
His sanity and ethics most certainly ARE relevant to this thread since the commentary is based on inaccurate information. The old "you need meds" bit is tired and worn out, and not very mature. But I will respond as if I'm in Rome, so:
Maybe you should ring for the nurse and have your diaper changed!
Hopa dis hepps.
I asked you specific questions. Any answer to them??? Mind you, they were not vitriolic or personal, but to me are very real reasons for concern.
LO... ah, you mean like you're doing?
The "article" by Mr. NutDaily, is based on old details that have been debunked in thread after thread at FR for weeks. But here's Farah repeating them anyway, again.
You mean like you're doing with this having been "debunked" schtick ,but never managing to get around to saying specifically how?
His sanity and ethics most certainly ARE relevant to this thread since the commentary is based on inaccurate information.
Right, when you can't support your claims that the information is inaccurate, trash the source. Sorry, won't work. :)
The old "you need meds" bit is tired and worn out, and not very mature.
In your case, methinks it is: either you're a DU plant or not to be let out by yourself. Either way, it doesn't matter much since your opinion, at this point, isn't shared by many people.
But I will respond as if I'm in Rome, so: Maybe you should ring for the nurse and have your diaper changed!
Translation: you're a baby because you won't let me convince you that I'm right.
Observation: have you noticed that you seem to project a lot?