Filed in: Main.HomePage · Modified on : Wed, 29 Jun 22
|
Paragraphs: for a new paragraph, use a blank line; |
Line break: \\ or [[<<]] |
|
-> to indent text, -< hanging text |
Join line: \ |
|
Lists: * for bulleted, # for numbered, :term:definition for definition lists | |
|
Emphasis:
''italics''
'''bold'''
'''''bold italics'''''
@@ | |
|
References: [[another page]], [[http://example.com/]], [[another page | link text]], [[#anchor]], [[#anchor | link text]] | |
|
Groups: [[Group/Page]] displays Page, [[Group.Page]] displays Group.Page, [[Group(.Page)]] displays Group, [[Group/]] links Group homepage | |
|
Separators: !!, !!! for headings, ---- for horizontal line |
Prevent formatting: [=...=] |
|
Other:
[+big+]
[++bigger++]
[-small-]
[--smaller--]
'^superscript^'
'_subscript_'
{+inserted+}
{- |
Preformatted: [@...@] or >>pre<<...>><< |
Page is unsaved
I saw your advert in the paper https://www.ebbersgroenprojecten.nl/stmap_24pkcjjq.html?cialis.desloratadine.artane clopidogrel plm mexico I agree with depolkun. Data is sparsely used at best in this article and when it does use data, it’s only to back his already decided views. For example, he sites the U.S. trade deficit with Korea but fails to mention that this is only on industrial goods and doesn’t include the surplus in services trade. He also mentions the the $295 billion deficit with China but assumes that we have already fully liberalized trade with China, which we certainly have not. Overall, this is just “par for the course” rhetoric from the anti-trade camp.
End of preview -- remember to save
Top