Actually, you didn't. Here's what you said in post #79 The references are not sources I would place much trust in.
You never explained why they weren't worthy of your trust. Now you're backtracking and saying it depends on the journal. Ok, I gave you four references in post #92. Which of those four are untrustworthy and why? Try and be specific.
By saying The references are not sources I would place much trust in, when responding to the Wikipedia references I offered in post #27, you more than suggest that you are somehow qualified to judge whether or not those sources are legitimate and present sound scientific evidence. Why else would you have commented by saying you wouldn't place much trust in them?
Either you can comment on the specifics of those sources, which you appear to be familiar with, or you can't. If the former, please respond to my question. If not, why not just admit that you're unqualified to be commenting on the veracity of my sources and move on?
In the future you may want to consider the possibility that a noob might possess more knowledge than you on a particular subject and shouldn't be ridiculed for having such knowledge.
“Actually, you didn’t. Here’s what you said in post #79 The references are not sources I would place much trust in.”
Post #88:
“That could depend on the scientific journal.”
I see you’re doing a little slight-of-hand here. Taking comments out of context. Not only is this out of context, you type an paragraph to try and pad your point.
“In the future you may want to consider the possibility that a noob might possess more knowledge than you on a particular subject and shouldn’t be ridiculed for having such knowledge.”
The only individual that has been ridiculing others on this thread has been you. No one else here comes close to your insults and ad hominem attacks. Here are some examples:
“Elvis is alive and living with aliens. Right?”
“These are not the actions of a rational person.”
“You, however, want to trust junk science and whatever conspiracies your imagination can fabricate. That’s your choice but these are not the kinds of decisions rational people make.”
“You’re a prime candidate to believe the moon landing was faked. Are you also a truther?”
“What happens when the idiots here choose not to vaccinate their kids and we have to once again deal with these diseases and the sickness and death they bring? Then will they be “something” to you then?”
“Grab a brain. Sheesh.”
“Do you know what a reference is?”
“You are so nuanced.”
“Then you are a Luddite who refuses to see...”
“Your posts would lead a rational person to believe that you do. Maybe you’re just incredibly nuanced.”
“...you get your panties in a bunch”
“...possess more knowledge than you on a particular subject...”
My comment was a response to the noob. I find your persistence in coming to the noobs defense as rather interesting. Perhaps you’re reaganairport.
Whatever the case may be, you were not interested in a civil dialog among Freepers. You were interested in personally attacking individuals who disagreed with your position.
I applaud everyone on this thread who did not feel it necessary to waste a worthy discussion on you.