I specifically stated and made the case that Wikipedia will only allow what Wikipedia wants published to their site. To conclude some measure of criticism exists without competing claims against the criticism is a naive position. This applies to what you are linking to.
Your points do not acknowledgement this central thesis. Wikipedia is garbage, using it as a base of aggregated links is ignorant or naive.
To put it more bluntly: I don't care about the opinions you express regarding this topic, as you are demonstrating very arrogant behavior, particularly in linking to a dictionary dot com article on a common English phrase, as if I've demonstrated some lack of understanding in English require some assistance there. Then completely ignoring my points. You are terrible at discussion.
Your points do not acknowledgement this central thesis. Wikipedia is garbage, using it as a base of aggregated links is ignorant or naive.
To put it more bluntly: I don't care about the opinions you express regarding this topic, as you are demonstrating very arrogant behavior, particularly in linking to a dictionary dot com article on a common English phrase, as if I've demonstrated some lack of understanding in English require some assistance there. Then completely ignoring my points. You are terrible at discussion.
We are done.