From: Alan <nuh-uh@nope.com>
Newsgroups: alt.politics.trump,alt.politics.liberalism,alt.politics.democrats,alt.politics.usa.republican,alt.fan.rush-limbaugh,can.politics
Subject: Re: I Said Links, You Stupid Fuck
Date: Mon, 14 Oct 2024 10:20:59 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
On 2024-10-13 19:40, AlleyCat wrote:
>
> On Sun, 13 Oct 2024 17:17:00 -0600, Skeeter says...
>
>>
>> In article <veh23j$occ8$12@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>
>>> On 2024-10-13 06:17, Skeeter wrote:
>>>> In article <veffn5$hk2n$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 2024-10-12 20:40, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 12 Oct 2024 20:14:20 -0700, Alan says...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2024-10-12 20:11, AlleyCat wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Oct 2024 12:07:00 -0700, Alan says...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You only CLAIM to have not found it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And that's a negative claim.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You made a positive claim...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ...yet can't show where the link is in your original article.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I found the study using links in the article and you couldn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yet you can't provide me with the link...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...despite originally claiming the link was IN the article.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I Said Links, You Stupid Fuck
>>>>> No, you didn't:
>>>>>
>>>>> 'It's linked, dumb ass.'
>>>>>
>>>>> No indication that one had to follow multiple links to find it.
>
> Uhhh... when I say linkS, that means there IS an "indication" to follow multiple linkS, Stupid.
You're original statement on the subject was: "It's linked".
But you can't actually show the study, can you?
Because it was NOT linked.