Reply #19: That's not irony, it's consistency: it shows a respect for the truth, odd concept though that may be

[PurityOfEssence]

I found this article late last night, looked up information on the website from which it came, looked up on DU whether it was considered an acceptable source, looked up the Military Alliance between the French and British and read a couple of entries about its particulars, then searched for some more information on Southern Mistral, and THEN posted the story with caveats about it.

Even after that, I honorably state some wariness about the site quite clearly.

How on earth does this compare with what you linked, which was my question to the Moderators about seeing if there was a way to do something about certain posters who repeatedly continue to post false information when they've had it specifically refuted with original documents in threads where they've continued to post?

I may suck in many ways as a person, but I literally worship the truth, deeply resent lies, and see omissions as effectively the same thing.

Please explain yourself; this is unwarranted.