I didn't write [citation needed], and I was fairly clear about why I needed further convincing. But by now I'm convinced that you're an uneducated fool and a bullshitter, as you clearly have no idea what a source is and what it's good for. No one with as much as a bachelor's degree at a semi-reputable institution would claim that "posted historical documents at Independence Mine State Park" is good enough as reference for any sort of degree, or that "where" or "when" is in any sense more useful than a proper citation when discussing historical matters.

No, it's not. I found your claim interesting but questionable, so I did a couple of Google searches, and nothing relevant came up. I asked you, and nothing came up. I did a search in Web of Science, and the best I could find was that the U.S had a fixed price on gold (however: not on iron or steel) from 1837.

For someone who claims to use reality as a source, you sure pull lots of stuff from your imagination. For someone who keeps harping on about doctorate and master's dissertations, you know staggeringly little about how to cite documents, or why. "Demanding a source is denial"?! Where the fuck do you take this from? Providing sources is the basic foundation of all scholarly research. I don't deny that you may be right, but as long as you don't provide a source, there is no reason whatsoever to believe you.

I haven't denied anything, dipshit. All I did was to ask for a source.

No source. All right.

Are you entirely certain you're not making up the 'one pound of gold for a hammer' argument? It's certainly possible, with iron being more generally useful and gold possibly being more readily available in some areas, and I wouldn't be surprised if the transaction has been made, similarly to people buying sugar pills to get a monster cock or selling huge tracts of land for some glass pearls -- but that's just common fraud, not market valuation. Source?

"Insightful" is just some guy with mod points who happens to agree.

Which has nothing to do with anything of the above, and also is without evidence.

Bullshit. 1) The iPhone 4 started the race for better pixel density. Screen specs were so important to Apple that they had to redefine 'Retina' twice afterwards just to be able to milk the concept for tablets and laptops. 2) Samsung's 2Q2013 smartphone market share was about 30%, with LG, Lenovo and ZTE hovering around 5%, and 'others' (mostly not Nokia) taking 40%, according to IDC (sauce). I'm no mathmagician, but that makes Samsung holding a 90% of the Android market somewhat unlikely. 3) Go to Samsung's web page for the Galaxy Note 3. What are they pushing? Specs? No, the pen and its software interface. Sony's Xperia Z1? Water resistance, then camera. In fact, specs are so alike these days that they're impossible to differentiate by.

So you got everything wrong, except perhaps your last point, which merely lacks any credible evidence.

HL2 isn't beta any more. But yeah, I'd buy more Valve games if I didn't already own them. I played through Portal again (with the open source Radeon driver), and have been playing HL2 now and then, but I usually end up booting to Windows for gaming, just because I'd rather play Bioshock Infinite or whatever. The next big Linux game coming up seems to be Football Manager 2014, but that's just a glorified spreadsheet. I remember playing it under Wine when it was Championship Manager 10 years ago, and it actually ran faster than under Windows.

Highly likely, as weird beliefs about food seem all too fashionable, all the time. I'm sure today's low-carb diets would instantly kill a creature from the eighties, due to the cholesterol.

Research suggests non-celiac wheat allergies actually do exist. Research. Of course, people erroneously self-diagnosing from stuff they've read on the internet and elsewhere also do exist. That does not make you an expert on wheat intolerance, though.