NDL Forum

trendon wrote:

jsence2 wrote: "encyclopedia"

That is where I lost you because as an "editor" of Wikipedia, I assure you there is NO - re: NONE NEVER NOWHERE ELSE - more respectable source of knowledge than Wiki; for two reasons:

1) There are these things, yeah ... called footnotes. And very few books, encyclopedias, newspapers, etc care to employ them

2) I once created my own planet - the old NDL saw it - and they deleted it in two days.

Anyone who says Wikipedia is not the end all be all of information has a cramp in their index finger. So, you might have said some poignant shit after that, but you just exposed your own inability to want to learn with that. It is the same as the fools who start every conversation with , "They say..."

Yeah....I don't really care how indignant you want to get--Wikipedia is a joke. There have been NUMEROUS instances of information being changed and FALSE. Simply google "wikipedia false" and just go nuts!

yes, it is a great reference point for some things; but to use it as your end-all, be-all of information? There's a reason it can be edited by anybody in the world...as for my "inability to want to learn", I have enough books to fill a library, and have read almost every single one of them. Many of them are non-fiction. Just because I choose to read things written by experts in their fields, and not Joe Blow who decides he wants to slant an article or fill it with some information that he found online that may or may not be valid, doesn't mean I don't want to learn. Yeah, each points is "cited"--but who makes sure those citations are legit? If I find an article that says "the sky is purple", and I edit the "sky" Wiki and cite that page, does that make it true?

And if you don't want to take MY word for it, how about the word of the FOUNDER of Wikipedia? :

In an interview with Business Week, co-founder of Wikipedia Jimmy Wales says students and researchers shouldn’t cite Wikipedia, stating, “No, I don't think people should cite it, and I don't think people should cite Britannica, either -- the error rate there isn't very good. People shouldn't be citing encyclopedias in the first place.”

http://www.writersnewsweekly.com/wikipe ... ensus.html

Terpsmustdie....thank you. You proved my point.

NOT ONE TIME IN THERE DID I SEE YOU MENTION ANY OF THEM RUNNING A NATION!

When it comes to experience, the only people who have experience at the level that would qualify them to run a nation would be A SECOND TERM PRESIDENT!

None of them had to do a national budget; none of them had to make a national foreign policy decision; none of them had to make a decision to send us to war before they took office! So again, the "experience" argument is BOGUS. A politician with "experience" is just someone who has had more time to practice lying and manipulating!

And I wasn't attacking you--if you think Obama is a FACIST, then I cannot have an educated debate with you, it's that simple!!!! That's not an attack, it's not a blast on you, it's simple truth! That would be like me trying to have a debate with you about a Labor strike and me saying something completely off the wall--would you not then say the same thing to me???

Ignore me if you want, I don't really care. I enjoy debating politics, because if you refuse to see others' viewpoints then you become blind. I wasn't attacking you, I was pointing out that your claim for him being facist was not only asinine, it was unfounded and unsubstantiated. Hell, the post you quoted wasn't even directed at you.

And to reply to your points further:

Washington--led an army, that is it. That is not running a nation. Much less running a fledgling nation in the aftermath of war.
Lincoln--took over a nation at a time where it was about to be split to the core and go to war. He had no experience running such a government, and had no war-time experience.
Roosevelt--took over a nation in financial turmoil, had no experience dealing with that kind of issue.
Adams--probably not the best one for me to throw out there as I overlooked his VP; but also had no experience running a nation.
Jefferson--Again forgot about the VP, but AGAIN did not run a nation; he was a man of speaking and rhetoric, much like Obama.

Fact is, I'm tired of hearing the nonstop whining and bitching about Obama from the day he was elected; this nation is in dire straits right now, and in a time where we should be working TOGETHER to get back on track, everyone in DC wants to fight and bicker and argue, and I get sick of hearing words like "liberal" and "conservative" thrown around like slurs; I get sick of hearing lies from talking heads that sheeple take and run with. It accomplishes NOTHING. People forget that we are AMERICANS first, party affiliation second. A lot of people could stand to remember that.

ajalves wrote:im pretty sure I'd bang her given the chance

that'd be one time where i would FOR SURE spit on her like dave seems to do

what a flaming liberal

jsence2 wrote:Yeah....I don't really care how indignant you want to get--Wikipedia is a joke. There have been NUMEROUS instances of information being changed and FALSE. Simply google "wikipedia false" and just go nuts!

Well, wait a second, I am shocked with your attitude towards the site ESPECIALLY as learned as you are. You have to have some sort of fucking clue going into the site; especially with hot-button topic like politics. For more contextual topics - which is what Wikipedia is mostly made up of - the site is unparalleled in its abilities. On a personal level, I know that for sports, music, programming (especially with algorithms), the site is 100% accurate.

Would I use Wikipedia to write my thesis paper? Not really. That's where the footnotes come in. Only a moron - apparently the people you deal with since you have such a negative opinion of the site and you (presumably) are too smart to have been fooled yourself - would just say, "Wikipedia says it! I believe it! Damn the fact it isn't cited!"

However, I challenge you to find another free website that has as big a page on the Ordinances of 1311 or the Battle of Stormberg. As potentially unreliable as Wikipedia may be on other subjects, it has become THE best source of general information in the world. Particularly, in third world countries that don't have access to encyclopedias, Wikipedia is the only available option. Wikipedia is the best for getting a general idea of a topic. I can not see how you can disagree with this. It is quite obvious. If I want to know something, instead of looking for a specialist, skimming through a book I would have to look for in the library, or looking through hundreds of online search topics. And, even then, how can I trust the author?!

Also, Wikipedia is the only time in my life where I can spend ten minutes learning about nuclear fission and then end it with donkey punch ... and have it spoken about like they are both of equal importance.

Yeah, each points is "cited"--but who makes sure those citations are legit? If I find an article that says "the sky is purple", and I edit the "sky" Wiki and cite that page, does that make it true?

I'll put you to a test.

Go do all of the following

1. Incorrectly edit something simple like, as you said, an innocuous word on a bullshit page.

2. Incorrectly edit something small on a pretty popular page, like Clinton or stem cells.

3. Repeat #2 on a separate page but instead of just editing something, simply remove a sentence.

4. Incorrectly edit something important on an important page.

5. Create your own bullshit planet, city, car, video game, sports team, whatever. Steal another pages template and change everything to fit your new creation.

And watch how fast:

A) Everyone starts arguing about it in the TALK page
B) How fast it comes down

You'll come to appreciate what geeks and nerds (like me) will do to help the site. And I ain't SHIT on that site compared to the biggest contributors.

For Big Mike

[youtube]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4B-K4NGo2HE&hl ... ram><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4B-K4NGo2HE&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/youtube]

I want to kick that kid in the throat. Does that make me bad?

trendon wrote:Well, wait a second, I am shocked with your attitude towards the site ESPECIALLY as learned as you are.

THIS IS A HOUSE OF LEARNED DOCTORS!!!!!!!!



Let's play guess that movie.

shel311 wrote:

trendon wrote:Well, wait a second, I am shocked with your attitude towards the site ESPECIALLY as learned as you are.

THIS IS A HOUSE OF LEARNED DOCTORS!!!!!!!!



Let's play guess that movie.

Stay golden pony boy.

jsence2 wrote:Terpsmustdie....thank you. You proved my point.

NOT ONE TIME IN THERE DID I SEE YOU MENTION ANY OF THEM RUNNING A NATION!

When it comes to experience, the only people who have experience at the level that would qualify them to run a nation would be A SECOND TERM PRESIDENT!

None of them had to do a national budget; none of them had to make a national foreign policy decision; none of them had to make a decision to send us to war before they took office! So again, the "experience" argument is BOGUS. A politician with "experience" is just someone who has had more time to practice lying and manipulating!

And I wasn't attacking you--if you think Obama is a FACIST, then I cannot have an educated debate with you, it's that simple!!!! That's not an attack, it's not a blast on you, it's simple truth! That would be like me trying to have a debate with you about a Labor strike and me saying something completely off the wall--would you not then say the same thing to me???

Ignore me if you want, I don't really care. I enjoy debating politics, because if you refuse to see others' viewpoints then you become blind. I wasn't attacking you, I was pointing out that your claim for him being facist was not only asinine, it was unfounded and unsubstantiated. Hell, the post you quoted wasn't even directed at you.

And to reply to your points further:

Washington--led an army, that is it. That is not running a nation. Much less running a fledgling nation in the aftermath of war.
Lincoln--took over a nation at a time where it was about to be split to the core and go to war. He had no experience running such a government, and had no war-time experience.
Roosevelt--took over a nation in financial turmoil, had no experience dealing with that kind of issue.
Adams--probably not the best one for me to throw out there as I overlooked his VP; but also had no experience running a nation.
Jefferson--Again forgot about the VP, but AGAIN did not run a nation; he was a man of speaking and rhetoric, much like Obama.

Fact is, I'm tired of hearing the nonstop whining and bitching about Obama from the day he was elected; this nation is in dire straits right now, and in a time where we should be working TOGETHER to get back on track, everyone in DC wants to fight and bicker and argue, and I get sick of hearing words like "liberal" and "conservative" thrown around like slurs; I get sick of hearing lies from talking heads that sheeple take and run with. It accomplishes NOTHING. People forget that we are AMERICANS first, party affiliation second. A lot of people could stand to remember that.

No one argued that he's never led a nation, because no one has done that beside the President. That has never been the argument, and would just be a foolish one to make. The argument is that he has not lead anything, and was merely a community organizer, similar to ACORN and other useful groups. He has not run a business, he was not a governor, nothing. He got his seat in the Illinois Senate by backstabbing one of his mentors. He got his seat in the US Senate by running a smear campaign against the incumbent...this was the man in the midst of a divorce that had court documents leaked accusing him of taking his wife to sex clubs and being swingers. I find it comical that suddenly the left wants everyone to give Obama a chance and can't we all just get along. No, the answer is no. Neither party ever sits idly by while the other controls everything, and that is good. This is what keeps things honest. You cannot convince me that Bush wasn't attacked from the word go. It's just the nature of politics and it will not change. The best we can hope for is a 50/50 split of power, which the President hopefully being in a different party than the controlling party in Congress. This is what helped in the 90's, and it's how we get good legislation. Otherwise, you just get one of the parties ramming their crap through, without considering all sides, like what is going on now. If the tone in Congress now does not scare you, then you are definitively a fan of hard left policies. Maybe Obama can compromise and bridge the gap, but the simple truth is that he does not have to with the current makeup of the House and Senate. I have full confidence that will change in 2010.

TerpsMustDie wrote:Neither party ever sits idly by while the other controls everything, and that is good. This is what keeps things honest.

The best we can hope for is a 50/50 split of power, which the President hopefully being in a different party than the controlling party in Congress.

1. I think it doesn't keep things honest at all. Both sides will lie and do whatever they can to gain an advantage.

2. The best we can hope for is getting rid of the 2 party system, though that is just a dream.

Terps, I agree with you completely on that point--that the White House and the Senate should be run by separate parties.

That said, I'm GLAD the Republicans are not in control of the Senate due to one man--Mitch McConnell. I am sickened that my state voted this backstabbing incompetent tool back into office for another six years. He REFUSES to work with Democrats; and he voted against the flag-burning amendment a few years ago, which failed to go to the states for ratification by ONE VOTE (ugh!)...and yet, the people of this state gave him another term. He wants to do nothing but demean the other party, filibuster everything they propose if he has the numbers to do so, and refuses to ever admit the other party might have a good idea, even if scores of his own party disagree with him.

One needs look no further than how he railroaded our junior Senator, Republican Jim Bunning (same as the HOF pitcher), into not running for re-election next year, by cutting off his campaign funds and forcing him to resign so that Trey Grayson (who I will actually vote for--I don't vote along party lines) can run for US Senate.

Like I said....we need to run the whole damn lot of them out of Washington. It's time we got rid of career politicians.

shel311 wrote:

TerpsMustDie wrote:Neither party ever sits idly by while the other controls everything, and that is good. This is what keeps things honest.

The best we can hope for is a 50/50 split of power, which the President hopefully being in a different party than the controlling party in Congress.

1. I think it doesn't keep things honest at all. Both sides will lie and do whatever they can to gain an advantage.

2. The best we can hope for is getting rid of the 2 party system, though that is just a dream.

Their lies in a way keep the others honest. In truth, there are a lot of shady cats running around DC. And I agree on getting rid of the 2 party system, but that's not going to happen any time soon.

jsence2 wrote:Terps, I agree with you completely on that point--that the White House and the Senate should be run by separate parties.

That said, I'm GLAD the Republicans are not in control of the Senate due to one man--Mitch McConnell. I am sickened that my state voted this backstabbing incompetent tool back into office for another six years. He REFUSES to work with Democrats; and he voted against the flag-burning amendment a few years ago, which failed to go to the states for ratification by ONE VOTE (ugh!)...and yet, the people of this state gave him another term. He wants to do nothing but demean the other party, filibuster everything they propose if he has the numbers to do so, and refuses to ever admit the other party might have a good idea, even if scores of his own party disagree with him.

One needs look no further than how he railroaded our junior Senator, Republican Jim Bunning (same as the HOF pitcher), into not running for re-election next year, by cutting off his campaign funds and forcing him to resign so that Trey Grayson (who I will actually vote for--I don't vote along party lines) can run for US Senate.

Like I said....we need to run the whole damn lot of them out of Washington. It's time we got rid of career politicians.

I don't like McConnell much either, but not all for the same reasons. He's a pork barreling fool and just doesn't really strike me as a man with great integrity. As for term limits, it will never happen. I don't know how Congress gets to vote for their own raises either...it maddening.

TerpsMustDie wrote:I don't know how Congress gets to vote for their own raises either...it maddening.

I always thought that was f'ing hilarious.

They get away with it because the raises don't take effect until the next session.

And McConnell hasn't brought US any pork....at least not in the Louisville area, but eyah, he's a tool. He has no integrity--I'm serious, look up the Jim Bunning situation and you will have even less respect for the man.

jsence2 wrote:They get away with it because the raises don't take effect until the next session.

And McConnell hasn't brought US any pork....at least not in the Louisville area, but eyah, he's a tool. He has no integrity--I'm serious, look up the Jim Bunning situation and you will have even less respect for the man.

He's no Robert Byrd, but the man brings home the bacon. He bragged about it in the last election cycle. Also, the raises are automatic, so it brings even less scrutiny to these thieves. We wonder why people become career politicians and the field attracts the lowest common denominator. Well, they are payed nearly $200,000 per year, they good great vacation, they have a short vesting and very generous pension, they have great health care, they have their own cafeterias, they are generally above the law, and they are talked to with a respectful tone despite they fact they incite the gag reflex in most Americans. There's more honest in a maximum security prison than in Washington, DC.

No way I'm reading all this

Slacker.