Like the one you are apparently throwing? 
That you two can't just put and keep each other on ignore is a detriment to the forums.
I understand the frustration, especially from a mod perspective.
The problem with 'ignore' is that is does sometimes lead to confusion and missing some important aspects of a debate or discussion, as much as it can make reading and modding a more pleasant experience.
For my part I do 'try' to skip past most of Sonics post that I don't agree with, it's just very difficult when it's an impassioned debate or subject that has significant cultural, social and political implications .... which unfortunately is somewhat par for the course and intrinsic in nature to this Sub Forum on Politics and the Economy.
The main issue I have is one of equivalence, rightly or wrongly and the notion of 'they are all as bad as each other' which is rather apt to this threads discussion point.
I would accept that I can be a pain in the bum and do have run ins and bickering with other posters, however, I can't help but feel that saying 'you two' is more about being diplomatic than taking into account the facts and fairness.
When it comes to backwards and forwards bickering between two posters, Sonic has significantly more 'form' than I do.
It is far more likely that when two posters get told to 'give it a rest' that it involves Sonic and someone else than myself or any other poster.
He also has far more form in posting links to dubious and annoying articles, sites and content that he either hasn't properly read, doesn't understand or hasn't remotely qualified.
The general idea of posting a link to support an argument is to provide some evidence and knowledge to the debate that other posters can take on spec as having been fact checked and reasonably expect it to be accurate and fair.
Repeatedly posting links to dubious sources that posters can't trust, have to spend time and effort to verify and fact check or at worst, take at face value and end up being deceived is at least in my opinion far more of an issue and detriment to the quality and value of discussions and debate on these forums than any bickering.
For all our faults, irritating personal habits in posting or bad things we have done, if you are going to tell us off specifically for to and fro bickering detriment to the forum, at least stop repeatedly quoting or connecting it to my post. I am the one that gets the comment and quotes that refer to both of us on the most occassions, yet as I have pointed out, I am not the most common denominator in this sub forums bickering as a comparrison between myself and Sonic.
I will follow mod instructions, but I feel rightly aggrieved that I believe I am far less guilty in terms of being involved in endless circular bickering between posters and posting misleading and disenguous information on a regular basis than the other party - and if that is the case, then kindly direct the fair amount of condemnation and quoting where it belongs.
Unlike you I provided a link and the site gives reasons for why it makes the claims it does. If you can dispute any of the myths, please do so and link to such sites.To be honest I'd seriously love you to come up with where you get your stuff from.
Also it's not a "click-bait site." It's a humourous site with fifty years in the business similar to Private Eye. Besides I wouldn't throw "a hissy fit." I don't rate your opinion either.
Cracked.com - Wikipedia
Cheers.
I appreciate your comments @Toko Black, but be assured I monitor both your and Sonic's input* and my comment was justified IMMO (in my moderating opinion).Although perhaps that last post would have been better as a PM rather than washing your laundry in public.
*In my "defence" I have been on holiday for two weeks so if there has been previous bickering in this thread between the two of you I will have missed it, your comment was the first I saw.
Just for reference since the question was asked:
Most of my posts are original content of my own creation, hence why my posts rarely contain links.
Generally I just express my own interpretations, ideas, understanding or on occassion by penning a Dr Seuss-esk poetic compostion on current social and political issues.
When I do use data and statistics, it is rare that I find any particular source that provides the format, data combinations or ranges that I want, so I research various sources like the Office of National Statistics etc, combine and/or process that data into what I need then and do the mathematics and statistically calculations myself then pop that in my posts.
I didn't think that anyone would want endless lists of raw data that itself is meaningless or non applicable to the particular discussion without having to spend considerable time and effort to work through and process themselves.
Usually - my go to's are things like National Statistics, Government published figures, Pew Research studies, the UN, IMF etc and for my sins, wikipedia for things like population figures and basic demographics of countries. All are available to anyone that wants to spend the time and effort sifting through and collating the data and information to get to the facts.
I hope that helps lend some understanding as to why my posts tend to be the way they are sans links.
If you don't post links there's no way of knowing if they are a verified source. The OU insists on it if you submit any work to them, for that reason. Hence why I do it. If you don't like the information provided, then please refute it by providing evidence why it is wrong. Should be easy if it's not valid...
TB you tend to use stuff from Wikipedia but just go to what Wikipedia itself has linked to. That's it.
You once tried to fob me off in that you had got the information from pouring over weighty books and it tuned out to be just something you got from an online newspaper article. Want the link to that?
Oh and nope, I don't post from sites I haven't read, not qualified on, or plagiarised anyone elses articles.
Well I hoped it wouldn't go back to ground roots but it has.
Although I suspected it would...
Old, old history between these two that should be apparent.
Well all of the above could be written by the winning side and adds nothing.
As you say...
Really?
"ISIL uses a unit called the Kata'ib Taswiyya (settlement battalions) to select targets for demolition. UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova branded the ISIS activities in this respect as "a form of cultural cleansing" and launched the Unite4Heritage campaign to protect heritage sites threatened by extremists."
I know - its from wiki..
Well the actions of Antifa certainly fit your criteria of Fascists, religious zealots and true believers.
https://www.avforums.com/attachments/antifa-isis-statues-jpg.901189/