" 
 ::::Who applied strike-out font to the text above that says ""We don't give a fuck about what retarded morons think or know. YOU, yes, bloody YOU have to prove everything you say. With sources and citations. Do you understand? Do you bloody UNDERSTAND?""? That person said that. That person should be stuck with it. If they want to type a retraction or apology, let them. But to just mark it with strikeout font gives the impression that it was ME who so marked it, vandalizing another person's post. I didn't do that, and I invite anyone who thinks I DID do that to review the Histories of this page and see who has changed it how and at what time-date.  Christopher L. Simpson 
 ::::As for this text: ""Asking me to remember my personal experiences from the 1970s is not verifiable, and not just because I happen to not 'have' any experiences from that time period as I wasn't born yet."" Please, stop being angry for a moment and consider what you're doing. You've done the equivalent of posting ""there was no rationing in the USA in World War Two"" when you weren't ALIVE then. Now, millions of people are going to know that what you wrote was wrong, and that it's only remotely likely that you wrote it in good faith. Even if you seek out material about World War Two as little as I seek out material related to porn, a normal person open to everyday experience is going to know, as background knowledge, that there was rationing in the USA during World War Two. Just like you know the RED light means ""stop your car"" and the green light means ""okay to go"". It's part of the background facts of life. Now let's suppose one Wikipedia reader who was an adolescent during World War Two administers to you a well-justified pasting on the Talk Page of that article. The appropriate response from you should be ""Okay. You were there, I wasn't. I don't know what I'm talking about. I've only READ BOOKS about it. I didn't LIVE through it. What you know is better than what I know. The PROBLEM is, my good sir, that in order to change the gist of the article, we just have some rules about how to introduce the statements that show that there most assuredly WAS rationing in World War Two. We can't just attribute it to your personal memory. Now, it's rather unfair of Wikipedia to ask YOU to do ITS job, so someone at Wikipedia will respond to your complaints by chasing down the evidence that shows that rationing did exist during World War Two, and will then rewrite the article using this evidence that meets Wikipedia's rules, which only we understand, rather than throwing that burden in your face and making you spend a year learning the rules that apply to Wikipedia. You've pointed out that we were spreading untruth, and we will correct it. Thanks. It's like when you hear Marvin say something and you know Marvin wouldn't lie, you STILL can't testify to the truth of what Marvin said (only that it's true that he said it) because the Court and the Jury don't know Marvin and have no business believing Marvin to be incapable of lying, even though YOU might be justified in so believing. Now Marvin said this, and we know it's true, but we have to find ANOTHER way of introducing the truth of the fact other than that Marvin said it. Okay? I'm not accusing you of saying something that's not true. I'm just saying we have to find another, more acceptable way to introduce it as true, other than your say-so on Marvin's say-so."" 
 ::::That would be the APPROPRIATE way to respond. Not disagreeing with the peron's assertions but, rather, pointing out that they've not satisfied some formal procedural barrier. But you've not DONE that. What you've done is the equivalent of telling someone (who lived during World War Two and who knows full well from personal experience that there WAS rationing) that they should believe YOUR SOURCE instead of believing THEIR OWN MEMORIES, and that they should acced to your source AND CHANGE THEIR MIND about whether there was rationing or not (when you can't KNOW that it's them, not your source, who is lying BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO PERSONAL MEMORIES OF YOUR OWN FROM THAT TIME!!!!). What an arrogant and insolent position to take to your elders, saying the second-hand testimony from BOOKS read by YOU outweighs their FIRST-hand memory of LIVING DURING TIMES when YOU were not alive. You've got NO first-hand contradictions to their first-hand experience, you've got ONLY second-hand info from books, so you should show some DEFERENCE! If there is a disagreement between widespread personal memory and your sources, then YOU SHOULD CHECK YOUR SOURCES AGAINST OTHER SOURCES rather than castigate some old person for ""lying"" when they KNOW there was rationing! That's just SO RUDE to assume that the bad faith must lie with the person who lived through the times rather than with the SOURCE that YOU read (when you very careful