Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: zimdog
Again, since African countries are not literal latrines,

Given the abundance of raw sewage in many African cities that's a very debatable assertion. The Niger River looks and smells like a giant toilet. Lagos looks and smells like crap. So who's to say that places like Nigeria are not what they look and smell like?

It's interesting to know that you prefer to "judge a book by its cover" than on its merits.

That presumes the book you were handing out even had a cover. We're not comparing the WSJ website with a less sophisticated but nonetheless clean website of a small town U.S. paper. We're comparing ANY reputable newspaper website with geocities. And yes, when a "newspapers" website gives no reason to conclude that it is more reliable than 99% of all the other junk on the web, I will remain skeptical and demand better sources.

It's possible to say that I had difficulty, but it would be more accurate to say that I did not have the specific numbers your requested at hand.

Except that you also harped about your original unsourced claims for two weeks and responded to my reasonable requests for better numbers with overt hostility. Such behavior is a sign of a severely diseased mind, thus further supporting my contention that you ingest water from the Niger River.

455 posted on 02/03/2007 12:05:29 PM PST by lqclamar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 453 | View Replies ]


To: lqclamar
Given the abundance of raw sewage in many African cities that's a very debatable assertion.

No, it's not. And we are talking about African countries, as per your initial post, not African cities.

We're not comparing the WSJ website with a less sophisticated but nonetheless clean website of a small town U.S. paper. We're comparing ANY reputable newspaper website with geocities.

What is the "geocities" website in question and how is it relevant your dismissal of the content of an Africultures issue based on your aesthetic opinions alone?

Except that you also harped about your original unsourced claims for two weeks and responded to my reasonable requests for better numbers with overt hostility.

I actaully gave you the name of Echenberg's book. You refused to consult it. I gave you more specific numbers when I got my hands on the book in question. If I was hostile at all, it was because you had made outrageous claims with no factual support and, when directed towards sources that would improve your understanding of history, you simply refused to read them. Putting an attitude like that in writing would earn you an "F" on whatever term paper you might be writing.

457 posted on 02/03/2007 12:16:29 PM PST by zimdog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 455 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson