Into the Night
Verified User
You don't care about anything but yourself, Edwina.lol I could care less what your search engine drags up. I have the book, you don't, so you can't discuss anything about it. l
You don't care about anything but yourself, Edwina.lol I could care less what your search engine drags up. I have the book, you don't, so you can't discuss anything about it. l
You can't blame your fallacies on me, Edwina!\
Parroting yourself now. lol run out of rubbish again.
Grok is a search engine. Just a different style of output.
The JPP database.What record?
He already has.lol Diogenes is unable to refute anything,
Google is not gossip. Grok is not gossip. Redefinition fallacies.since he hasn't read any real sources, just internet gossip.
Still trying to deny history, eh?All he and the other partisan parrots can do is play' I Touched You Last!!!' Meanwhile, those who have a genuine interest in the politics around WW I have a link to the latest and best book on the subject they can buy.
He just did.Oh noes, I been Touched Last again! lol still nothing, just more sniveling.
Get back to me when you actually cite something from the book that refutes anything I said.
He just did.Prove you actually know something about the history that doesn't come from some propaganda campaign.
Wilson was a Democrat, Edwina. Argument from randU fallacy.172 Republicans backed Wilson. 32 opposed, 5 abstained. Get over it.
He already did, Edwina. Evidence is not a proof. Redefinition fallacy.You claim it's an unproven assertion, but you can't find any evidence for that. lol and you aren't 'debating' anything here, you rarely do.