The document in question itself may be interesting as a historical artifact, which the article kind of gets into at the end. But the headline and opening paragr

The document in question itself may be interesting as a historical artifact, which the article kind of gets into at the end. But the headline and opening paragraphs are just complicit in amplifying low-quality online discourse, about a decade-old topic no less. It just shows that 1) rage-machines are silly, and 2) Daily Mail is not a reputable outlet. Skip.