You're more critical of somebody claiming Jamie Dimon wasn't guilty for insufficiently supporting their argument despite citing an encyclopaedia, than you are t

You're more critical of somebody claiming Jamie Dimon wasn't guilty for insufficiently supporting their argument despite citing an encyclopaedia, than you are the person who said "wasn't Jamie Dimon one of the individuals who was largely responsible for the last "economic hurricane"" Seems like quite the double standard. Sure, an argument based on Wikipedia isn't that strong, but he made a well supported argument relative to the rest of the thread and only he is getting crapped on. Even I made a less supported argument than he did.