4 ms·
What you are saying is that you are biased against Google. I doubt that you demand proof every time you see retraction, and that you consider the publisher liar
by signatoremo 3y ago
What you are saying is that you are biased against Google. I doubt that you demand proof every time you see retraction, and that you consider the publisher liars if they don’t show the proof. Right?
Also, Wired didn’t say the “proof” came from Google
- darklycan51 3y agoYes if there is a retraction I want to see the source of it, else I will assume there was an ulterior motive for it.
- brookst 3y agoAnd yet you’ll happily accept the original article that did not have sourcing, because it aligns with your biases?