So desperate, it deserves acknowledgement.
He has chosen to highlight that there is essentially no difference between the vacuous thought processes of an indoctrinated Wikishit, and a Wikipediocracy poster, thus providing further proof that their forum is indeed, for senior Wikipedia editors. Indeed, that he probably is one.
He has alleged that Larry Sanger is mad for saying this......
....before adding that this "nonsense" came from the Daily Mail.Biden’s climate plan would allegedly limit American per capital consumption of beef to 4 pounds per year, I.e., a bit over 5 oz. per month. This is what fascism looks like
That widely read mainstream right wing UK newspaper did evidently report this, but as you will see, they did it responsibly and in context, like a serious newspaper would do.....
As you can see then, we now know everything we would need to know, to dismiss this report as "nonsense".President Joe Biden's ambitious plan to slash greenhouse emissions by 50 to 52 percent over the next decade could prompt sweeping changes that could affect how Americans eat, drive and heat their homes
He vowed the plan, which would set the US on a path of a zero emissions economy by no later than 2050, would create jobs and boost economies.
But he is yet to release any firm details on exactly how such a plan will affect the daily lives of ordinary Americans.
He also hasn't set out the price for reducing emissions.
While Biden hasn't released details on what life could look like for Americans, experts and recent studies have laid out what would need to change by 2030 to reach the goal.
Americans may have to cut their red meat consumption by a whopping 90 percent and cut their consumption of other animal based foods in half.
Gradually making those changes by 2030 could see diet-related greenhouse gas emissions reduced by 50 percent, according to a study by Michigan University's Center for Sustainable Systems.
To do that, it would require Americans to only consume about four pounds of red meat per year, or 0.18 ounces per day.
It equates to consuming roughly one average sized burger per month.
Needless to say, the idea this is what fascism looks like, is nonsense, but the Mail didn't print that. Larry did. The same Larry whose EVERY WORD used to be reprinted and celebrated by Wikipediocracy.
You you note that Giraffe Donkey didn't even try to include in his comment why he thinks the story is nonsense. We can therefore assume his reason for thinking this is a false or fabricated story, must be for the same reason the Wikishits would - a simple dislke the Mail, for political reasons.
It makes Biden's job difficult when his deliberate choice not to put meat on on the bones of his climate plan, makes it easy for his political opponents to attack it. Wikishits don't like this, it offends their Democrat sensibilities, it harms their desire to use Wikipedia as a Democrat mouthpiece.
I don't know what the study mentioned actually says, I don't know if the Mail have misrepresented it or not. What I do know is that whenever the Wikishits claim it is the Mail's common practice, it's business strategy no less, to misrepresent or even falsely report scientific studies, it is those claims that more often than not, turn out to be gross distortions of the facts.
This is why Wikipedia's own article in the Mail doesn't include a claim like "the Mail routinely falsifies or misrepresents scientific studies" sourced to a reliable source. It does have a claim like that, sourced to four sources no less, but to recap the many debates over those, it suffices to say they are not able to adequately support the claim, either because they just don't, or ironically, they are biased or misrepresented.
Needless to say, this is a situation that cannot be changed through discourse on Wikipedia, because one of the faults of Wikipedia is that they allow people like Guy Chapman to be Wikipedia Administrators, and he happily abuses his powers to shut down any and all such discussions. If Wikipediocracy were a truly independent website dedicated to investigating the dark corners of Wikipedia corruption, this is a situation that might have been remedied by now, through simple exposure. But it isn't, so it hasn't been.
It suits Wikipediocracy just fine, that Wikipedia can and does continue to smear the Mail with defamatory statements, and uses foul means to do so. Although Chapman has more sense than to be a Wikipediocracy member, it does have among its ranks, the valued member and Wikipedia Administrator Ritchie333, whose vehement anti-Mail opinions are legendary. As is his habit of writing Wikipedia articles that specifically target the Mail. Needless to say, this classic example of COI editing in their senior editors, isn't something that typically gets brought up on Wikipediocracy, lest it harm the close ties between the two sites.
What I do know is that the UK press is properly regulated and our media cannot claim any nonsense like a First Amendment right to talk utter bollocks. If Michigan University feels their reputation has been damaged here, they have legal recourse. A legal recourse that the Daily Mail doesn't have, when Wikishits use the Wikimedia servers to post their anti-Mail smears.
All this and more, are things that Giraffe Dribble are content to ignore, things which they don't even need to address as part of an evidence based public discourse of Wikipedia'a faults and failings on their forum, because people like me, people who have inconvenient evidence that contradict their preferred facts, are banned from Wikipediocracy, presumably on the orders of the people who the site is operated for, Wikipedia Arbitrators and valued Wikipediocracy members, like Beeblebrox.
As always, there's no significant difference between how Wikipedia is run, and how Wikipediocracy is run. And why.