Kasz216 said:
That's because i read about 15 different articles and his wikipedia entry. Including the New York Times... which is right up there with the BBC. What makes mine more reliable is... I read a whole lot more... and know a lot more about the case. |
Wikipedia, well clearly that debunks the BBC...
the New York Times fair enough, unlike you I dont have the time to be going to loads of sources, hell I think you are the only one who did in this thread.
Edit: I think the personal attack on me when others didnt read all these other sources, was completley out of order by the way, also to note, when it comes to data/sources I would have thought that surely you knew that Quality is more important thatn Quantity. not neccessarily relevant in this case, but generally I think its worth noting.







