" 

  
 :Read Wikipedia:Verifiability, THE WHOLE THING, especially where it clearly states: 

 :A review on The Register is a far more reputable, verifiable source for information to be included in a Wikipedia article than some anonymous ""contributor"" who is hellbent on getting this article deleted. I mean, shit, you created sockpuppet accounts with names like ""Boycottrealbasic"", ""FalseInformation"", ""BoycottRealBasic2005"", and ""TruthInAdvertising"" for the sole purpose of making destructive edits to this article.  Why should anything you say be taken at value after all this time?  Frankly, I don't give a flying fuck if Realbasic supports multithreading or not.  I've never even used Realbasic except to try it out one day to see what all the fuss is about.  I think it kindof sucks, actually.  But my opinion isn't important here  If you can provide a verifiable source of information that states that it doesn't support OS-level multithreating, then that is worthy of inclusion.  That does NOT mean that you can remove the link to the Register review entirely, which contains other valid and useful information, and informs some of the content of this article in lieu of other published, verifiable sources.  Your opinion on the matter is totally irrelevant.  Remember: You are not a verifiable source.   "