There are two links in the section I posted the screenshot. One is a link to the Hawaii DOH website. The other, in your blue, indented text, is a link to "whosdatedwho.com". Nowhere in the source code for the page is there any link to examiner.com .
Oh wait, NOW there is. I refreshed the page, and suddenly now the 'whosdatedwho' link points to examiner.com. Amazing. It's like when I pointed out the other day that you hadn't named four experts on one of your pages, and then you edited the page to add 'Nail in the Coffin.' I figured that out the same way I can show you changed this:
See, the same cached page (cached on October 18) has a link to 'whosdatedwho' and is also missing the 'Nail in the Coffin' thing you added. I'm guessing you were in such a hurry to add SOMETHING to make four experts that you failed to check to see if two were the same person.
I thought that might have been a one-time thing, but I think I need to be more wary of your claims. Because obviously, you're willing to claim that your site says something it doesn't, and then change it to fit your story. And then have the unmitigated gall to act like *I* missed something, when you altered the page.
Seriously, did it not occur to you to at least change the page BEFORE claiming I missed it? Did you think I wouldn't notice? Because all you did here was just convince me how far you're willing to go to lie.
The question, now, is whether you're going to admit you changed the link after claiming I missed it, or whether you're just going to gloss over this demonstration of your dishonesty.
You get them to post a correction or retraction, and I’ll correct my comment or remove it.
Oh, THAT is your standard? You're willing to cite (in your own words) that it's a solid fact, based on the unsourced claim of some random old dude in Florida, but to change your mind you need the website to retract a year-old user-submitted fluff piece?
Look, I thought you were more fluent in the internet than this, but I have something to tell you: you can't believe everything you read online. Unsourced wild factual claims from uncredentialed old guys who have no direct knowledge of the stuff they're talking about? Not terribly credible.
The Obama File continually evolves.
So what?
Now go contact the Examiner.com, and stop being pissy.
PS - Thanks.
I thought I lost that link.
Thanks again for that link — I’ve updated that item.