Not sute what you are saying Nigel (you tend not to explain yourself)
My comments should have needed no further explanation. I was making the point that you used the term 'recognised sources'. I made the point that just being 'recognised' does not necessarily mean that the source is reliable. As you seem to point out in the next few paragraphs.
I neber quote from Al-jazeera as the people I argue with seem to believe that Arabs aren't entitled to an opinion.
I very seldom use The sun (except when I am taken short and there's no toilet paper) - occasionally it's useful as when it takes a pop at the establishment, you can take it as read that it wouldn't do so if it were avoidable- likewise the Mail.
Both are right-wing tabloid rags.
The Telegraph is handy as it is a serious paper when you take into consideration where it is coming from.
I scan all the press, either for information or to find out which way the wind blows
These people offer nothing but their own opinions and I know which way the wind blows with them
What on earth is your point?
I didn't get an answer to whether you believed I think Jews to be mentally deficient - neither a yes or no, certainly not a retraction.
I didn't say that you believed Jews to be mentally deficient (although it is possible that you read it that way). I asked whether you believed that, on the basis that you had stated that Jews were forced to wear the black triangle (a sign of mental deficiency). As I hadn't made a statement about the matter, there would be no need for a retraction.
I suppose we have to learn to live with hit-and-run debate
Jim Carroll