4 ms·
>>No, it didn't, and I have already explained why in previous posts. The words about May polls come from respected sociologist and author of The Guardian. So p
by BugBrother 12y ago
>>No, it didn't, and I have already explained why in previous posts. The words about May polls come from respected sociologist and author of The Guardian.
So prove your conspiracy theory that shows Wikipedia, BBC et al wrong and the votes really were 96+%(!).
Post exact links and quotes that show the May poll was correct.
- pipy 12y agoSorry, it already took me too much time to watch UN press-conference in it's entirety to provide proper timed youtube links (which you've ignored) and pin-point other faults in your arguments that you also seem to ignore.
- BugBrother 12y agoSo Wikipedia, BBC and most of the world (which didn't acknowledge the election) are disproved by a Youtube video you have linked to somewhere...? Well, that is almost as good a source as when you linked to a blogger. :-) (So if I link to the criticism on Wikipedia of the Crimean election, you "disprove" that with another Youtube link? :-) ) [Thanks for another good laugh.]
- dang 12y agoPlease stop being personally rude in your arguments on Hacker News.
- BugBrother 12y agoIt is easy to promise that for people which don't "argue" by dismissing Wikipedia, BBC etc -- because they have posted a youtube link somewhere where they interpret what someone said as different. That is arguably ruder. [Edit: pipy changed opinion because of arguments in another place when he wrote crazy stuff. He is not a troll, just upset. I stand corrected.]