[Quix]

Sharing information from a diversity of sources doesn't mean I put

gospel level

stock in

everything

they say.

Sheesh.

You were the one emphasizing them as a QUALITY, RELIABLE source of predictive statistics on a very complex issue about which experts differ.

[Gamecock]

Try and keep up; I typing as slowly as I can:

You posted an article that reported the WHO predicting 100 million could die from bird flu!

That blatant misquote was tied into predicting Christ's second coming. I refuted the secondary source by providing the primary source. [aside: Is it academically/intellectually accurate to use a secondary source when a primary source is available?]

QuestioN 1: In the face of the correct information, do you stand by post 770 or refute it?

QuestioN 2: Biblically, do you think it is OK to spread misinformation, even after you have been corrected?