RonD1120 62 #26 November 16, 2009 Quote I grew a beard waiting for the damn thing to load; then it practically froze my computer. Pass. Looks like it's time to buy a new PC and/or get broadband.Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #27 November 16, 2009 QuoteBeing the Onion I can't tell for sure. REALLY?!?!?!?!?!?!? Well that does explain a lot."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
timmyfitz 0 #28 November 16, 2009 QuoteIt's a conservative rag expressing their views via satire. You have really lost it this time. You don't think much before you type, do you? (the answer is obvious) You do so much whining about people not researching their info and yet here you are reporting the onion as RW. This should be the nail in the coffin for any credibility you think you have. I'm sure you will spin it in your favor though. http://www.theonion.com/content/video/bush_tours_america_to_survey http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27041 http://www.theonion.com/content/node/27475 There are plenty more stories bashing Bush. Doesn't sound like a RW website. I'm sure you will find some excuse for this though to back up your claim. You are the spin god. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #29 November 16, 2009 QuoteWikipedia is one of the most objective sources out there. That depends on the topic. If you want to learn the syntax to write a Hello World computer program in a particular language, then Wikipedia tends to be an excellent source of information. For topics that are more controversial, Wikipedia articles are often biased and hardly objective. To be fair, their bibliographies can link to articles with which one can begin researching a topic.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 10 #30 November 16, 2009 Quote Wikipedia is one of the most objective sources out there The hits, they keep on rollin' "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #31 November 16, 2009 Many of the controversial articles are marked as such, and there are generally vigorous discussion pages to go along with them. And most (though not all) of them are open for each of you who hate Wikipedia to make it reflect what you think is reality. However, everyone else has the same ability, too. Wendy P.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #32 November 16, 2009 Quote Quote Wikipedia is one of the most objective sources out there The hits, they keep on rollin' In a random sampling, wikipedia has shown itself as accurate as current encylopedia offerings. But certainly if you did a non random sampling on more controversial topics, that may not pan so well. I'm a bit confused though by Lucky's reference to wiki to support the onion right after he insisted it was a RW rag. Obviously he had never read it when it existed in paper form during the Bush Administration, came to the false conclusion that it only attacks Democratic Administrations, rather than the one that currently resides in the White House. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 November 16, 2009 Anything that isn't overwhelmingly "Rah-Rah Obama" is RW in Lucky's world (and a few other people's).Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #34 November 17, 2009 Quote You have really lost it this time. You don't think much before you type, do you? Perhaps the title will give you a clue... IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT? Quote This should be the nail in the coffin for any credibility you think you have. Ah, I see, because I wasn't familiar with the Onion, Bush really was a great president and Reagan wasn't a fascist pig . Niiiiice logic. Each element stands alone, unless you are of the party that states, 'With us or against us." Quote There are plenty more stories bashing Bush. Doesn't sound like a RW website. I'm sure you will find some excuse for this though to back up your claim. You are the spin god. I couldn't find you attacking when one of the guys 'with you and not against you' thought Japan was atatcked in 1945. I guess you're selective. Remember, attack the person, not the issue. Verifed in your sig I am an open minded centrist. If you disagree with me, then you are just wrong and goat fuck stupid. Go Republicans Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #35 November 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteWikipedia is one of the most objective sources out there. That depends on the topic. If you want to learn the syntax to write a Hello World computer program in a particular language, then Wikipedia tends to be an excellent source of information. For topics that are more controversial, Wikipedia articles are often biased and hardly objective. To be fair, their bibliographies can link to articles with which one can begin researching a topic. And I agree with that. But they are objective and don't have an agenda. If there's a dispute as to the accuracy, they will state so. I would take honest inaccuracy over bias any day. One's an accident, the other a deliberate act of deception. I like Wikipedia as a starting place too, so I agree. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #36 November 17, 2009 Quote Quote Wikipedia is one of the most objective sources out there The hits, they keep on rollin' Vs the neo-con bible: Hannity? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #37 November 17, 2009 Quote Quote You have really lost it this time. You don't think much before you type, do you? Perhaps the title will give you a clue... IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT? Quote This should be the nail in the coffin for any credibility you think you have. Ah, I see, because I wasn't familiar with the Onion, Bush really was a great president and Reagan wasn't a fascist pig . Niiiiice logic. Each element stands alone, unless you are of the party that states, 'With us or against us." Quote There are plenty more stories bashing Bush. Doesn't sound like a RW website. I'm sure you will find some excuse for this though to back up your claim. You are the spin god. I couldn't find you attacking when one of the guys 'with you and not against you' thought Japan was atatcked in 1945. I guess you're selective. Remember, attack the person, not the issue. Verifed in your sig I am an open minded centrist. If you disagree with me, then you are just wrong and goat fuck stupid. Go Republicans Japan was attacked in 1945. Several times.HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #38 November 17, 2009 QuoteIn a random sampling, wikipedia has shown itself as accurate as current encylopedia offerings. But certainly if you did a non random sampling on more controversial topics, that may not pan so well. Agree. QuoteI'm a bit confused though by Lucky's reference to wiki to support the onion right after he insisted it was a RW rag. I've seen 1 or 2 articles referenced here, they seemed to RW promos. They have a very coy way of looking realistic and not too far over the edge. Fuuny shit. QuoteObviously he had never read it when it existed in paper form during the Bush Administration, came to the false conclusion that it only attacks Democratic Administrations, rather than the one that currently resides in the White House. Yep, very little reading from them. Made a wrong assessment they were RW. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #39 November 17, 2009 Quote Quote Quote You have really lost it this time. You don't think much before you type, do you? Perhaps the title will give you a clue... IS THIS FUCKING LEGIT? Quote This should be the nail in the coffin for any credibility you think you have. Ah, I see, because I wasn't familiar with the Onion, Bush really was a great president and Reagan wasn't a fascist pig . Niiiiice logic. Each element stands alone, unless you are of the party that states, 'With us or against us." Quote There are plenty more stories bashing Bush. Doesn't sound like a RW website. I'm sure you will find some excuse for this though to back up your claim. You are the spin god. I couldn't find you attacking when one of the guys 'with you and not against you' thought Japan was atatcked in 1945. I guess you're selective. Remember, attack the person, not the issue. Verifed in your sig I am an open minded centrist. If you disagree with me, then you are just wrong and goat fuck stupid. Go Republicans Japan was attacked in 1945. Several times. Rather Belgian said Pearl Harbor was attacked in 1945, Belgian didn't say Japan wasn't attacked in 45. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #40 November 17, 2009 Is that the best you can do? Dig up a typo? BTW, what was the comparison between US and Soviet military forces during Reagans first years? A little louder, please, I couldn't quite hear you. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #41 November 17, 2009 Quote Is that the best you can do? Dig up a typo? BTW, what was the comparison between US and Soviet military forces during Reagans first years? A little louder, please, I couldn't quite hear you. No typo, keys weren't adjacent. Which comparison, the fact that the Soviets weren't threat? Remember, Pearl Harbor, 1945 per Belgian. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #42 November 17, 2009 Quote No typo, keys weren't adjacent. From Mirriam-Webster: typographic One entry found for typographic. Main Entry: ty·po·graph·ic Pronunciation: "tI-p&-'gra-fik Variant(s): or ty·po·graph·i·cal /-fi-k&l/ Function: adjective : of, relating to, or occurring or used in typography or typeset matter - ty·po·graph·i·cal·ly /-fi-k(&-)lE/ adverb Seems they forgot to put anything in there about the keys being adjacent. Are you resorting to making up definitions to slam people now, Lucky? That's stooping pretty low, even for you. Not that people don't see right through your silly little games. HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #43 November 17, 2009 QuoteWhich comparison, the fact that the Soviets weren't threat? The comparison that you somehow skipped over when you resumed posting in that thread. You know - the one that showed the US having 16 divisions and the Russians having 173? The US having 11.400 tanks and the Russians having 45,000? That comparison? QuoteRemember, Pearl Harbor, 1945 per Belgian. Dude - given all your fuckups concerning things military, do you REALLY want people looking them all up?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #44 November 17, 2009 Quote Quote No typo, keys weren't adjacent. From Mirriam-Webster: typographic One entry found for typographic. Main Entry: ty·po·graph·ic Pronunciation: "tI-p&-'gra-fik Variant(s): or ty·po·graph·i·cal /-fi-k&l/ Function: adjective : of, relating to, or occurring or used in typography or typeset matter - ty·po·graph·i·cal·ly /-fi-k(&-)lE/ adverb Seems they forgot to put anything in there about the keys being adjacent. Are you resorting to making up definitions to slam people now, Lucky? That's stooping pretty low, even for you. Not that people don't see right through your silly little games. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typography TYPOGRAPHY: The arrangement of type involves the selection of typefaces, point size, line length, leading (line spacing), adjusting the spaces between groups of letters (tracking) and adjusting the space between pairs of letters (kerning). [1] I don't see that pertaining to accidentally hitting the wrong key as you suggest. This is more like it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typographical_error TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR: The term includes errors due to mechanical failure or slips of the hand or finger, but excludes errors of ignorance. So your finger slipped from the 1 to the 5? Not a typo - so sorry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Belgian_Draft 0 #45 November 17, 2009 You mean like where he said D-Day happened before the attack on Pearl? HAMMER: Originally employed as a weapon of war, the hammer nowadays is used as a kind of divining rod to locate the most expensive parts adjacent the object we are trying to hit. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #46 November 17, 2009 QuoteThe comparison that you somehow skipped over when you resumed posting in that thread. You know - the one that showed the US having 16 divisions and the Russians having 173? The US having 11.400 tanks and the Russians having 45,000? That comparison? In that region you posted? That doesn't illustrate the entire Russian military vs the entire US military. That is such a mocrocosm of each military it isn't funny. You have to be abstract or illustarte a microcosm in order to make an errant point. Show me the threat issued. Tell em how the Russians were gonna fight us as they were deep in Afghanistan. Show me how lethao they were in previous battles/wars going back to WWII where their losses were almost twice that of Germany's even after help from the rest of the world. QuoteDude - given all your fuckups concerning things military, do you REALLY want people looking them all up? What fuckups? You have illustrated none. Now if you're gonna list what you call fuckups, leave opinion out and cite histroical fuckups. While you're at it, tell me about the threats Russia was making to teh US as we were selling them assloads of wheat. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #47 November 17, 2009 Quote You mean like where he said D-Day happened before the attack on Pearl? You have to resort to blatant dishonsty. Show it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #48 November 17, 2009 Quote You mean like where he said D-Day happened before the attack on Pearl? It's also funny considering he was a year off in his declaration of when Pearl Harbor was as well, in saying that US unemployment dropped in 1941 because of entering WWII. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Lucky... 0 #49 November 17, 2009 Quote Quote You mean like where he said D-Day happened before the attack on Pearl? It's also funny considering he was a year off in his declaration of when Pearl Harbor was as well, in saying that US unemployment dropped in 1941 because of entering WWII. I guarantee I never said, wrote or otherwise stated that D-Day was before the attack on Pearl Harbor. But hey, 3 or 4 neo-cons can start a false rumor and have it stick I'm sure. Post it. Quote It's also funny considering he was a year off in his declaration of when Pearl Harbor was as well, in saying that US unemployment dropped in 1941 because of entering WWII. When Pearl Harbor was what? Kinda left an important word out, huh? When it was attacked? US unemplyment dropped in 38-39 as I recall due to preparation for WWII. I never tied the unemployment rate to Dec 7, 1941, but I really appreciate watching the neo-troops rally around each other. And I've stated many times that we were moving ships/equip to Europe in 1940, so there was no exact correlation between unemployment and Dec 7, 1941, or as Beligian calls it, 1945. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #50 November 17, 2009 QuoteQuoteThe comparison that you somehow skipped over when you resumed posting in that thread. You know - the one that showed the US having 16 divisions and the Russians having 173? The US having 11.400 tanks and the Russians having 45,000? That comparison? In that region you posted? That doesn't illustrate the entire Russian military vs the entire US military. That is such a mocrocosm of each military it isn't funny. You have to be abstract or illustarte a microcosm in order to make an errant point. Show me the threat issued. Tell em how the Russians were gonna fight us as they were deep in Afghanistan. Show me how lethao they were in previous battles/wars going back to WWII where their losses were almost twice that of Germany's even after help from the rest of the world. Well, I see you still haven't read it, then. Funny how you keep adding more and more conditions to what you'll accept as proof, Lucky. How about you go refute what I posted - you know, actually bring somethng besides YOUR OPINION to the table for once?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
