The Euro at $1.55

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:35:42 GMT, (John
Kulp) wrote:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:51:30 -0500, erilar
wrote:



In whose eyes ?

Do you really believe women have equality of rights, pay, and respect
with men? What world are you living it?

They were two straightforward questions....

Which ones? I would like to see equality of rights, pay, and respect
for women--and while we're at it, for other minorities-- in a great many
more countries than now approach that level. Except for a select few,
even "approach" is out of sight.

Try earning it then. Plenty of women have.

How does one earn his or her rights in an oppressive society?

--
************* DAVE HATUNEN ) *************
* Tucson Arizona, out where the cacti grow *
* My typos & mispellings are intentional copyright traps *

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:04:44 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:28:35 GMT, (John
Kulp) wrote:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:24:10 -0500, erilar
wrote:

In article ,
(John Kulp) wrote:

None of this is going to make Wiki go away. And it is a lot better
than a lot of the completely erroneous crap that gets posted on the
internet.

Which makes it a scholarly resource? I think not.

I didn't say it was, though why wouldn't the accurate parts of it be?

They could be, but the user doesn't know which parts those are.

I haven't found that all that hard to do. It's really no different
than parsing the stuff politicos put out trying to slant their
positions or spin them. Usually, the other side will point out the
inaccuracies or others will. You drop those and pretty soon, you get
quite close to the actual truth. Their will be some erudite subjects
where a lot of expertise would be needed, but they are generally only
of interest to a relatively small few. Those here claiming that type
of expertise do nothing by moaning about it and not correcting it.
All they achieve is a moan.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:10:14 -0700, Hatunen wrote:


I have never had any problem editing ones I found erroneous or
incomplete. You're just one that loves to moan about things and do
nothing about them aren't you?

Or maybe, just maybe, your experiences are different from his,
adn you were editing articles no one else had much of an interest
in. You have an arrogant tendency to assume your experiences are
the ones that count in this world.

Maybe. Since I have never seen a counter on Wiki, it is impossible to
tell isn't it? And I have made no such arrogant assumptions as you
say. Challenging a pack of lies someone posts is hardly arrogance.
It is correcting misstatement of facts plain and simple. You, on the
other hand, have made all kinds of erroneous assumptions about what
you claim I said, so what does that make you then?

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 17:13:37 -0000, "William Black"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 15:40:18 -0000, "William Black"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
.. .


Which is why you should edit it when you find these so they are
correct.

Why?

It doesn't do me any good.

In fact on the two occasions when I was moved to correct Wikipedia I was
either ignored or shouted down by people with a political agenda.

I have never had any problem editing ones I found erroneous or
incomplete. You're just one that loves to moan about things and do
nothing about them aren't you?

Is English not your first language or something?

No problem there.


I said that when I tried to change stuff, in one case, people changed it
right back and said, despite them being provably wrong, that they were
'morally correct'.

That's not what you said. Can't you even read your own post? You
said nowhere that someone changed back something you posted nor were
they provably wrong. Nor did you give any examples where you now
claim this is the case. I'm not the one with the English problem.


Wikipedia is not usable in any area when people have a 'point of view'
because the loudest set of voices always win.

Accordingly to you. Try giving some examples of what you're claiming.


What it needs, as one of its founders said recently, is a system of peer
review.

That would be fine, but a number of people here claiming to have that
type of knowledge just seem to be moaning about Wiki rather than doing
just that.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:49:23 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:52:10 GMT, (John
Kulp) wrote:

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:54:02 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 14:57:27 GMT, (John
Kulp) wrote:

No, I was pointing out the hypocrisy of someone coming from the
country making entirely wrong statements about another.

In other words, you want to limit the scope of someone's opinions
because of actions taken by their granfaters.

No I didn't limit anyone's anything. I simple, as I said, pointed out
the hypocrisy. He never gave any proof of his moronic opinion did he?
What's stopping him from doing that if he has any?

You're being disingenuous. You have clearly said that he had no
right to make such claims because he came from a country which
was once guilty itself. I believe you used the pot-kettle
metaphor.

I did use that metaphor and it was appropriate IMHO. People who post
patent lies should expect to have to defend them shouldn't they? Or
those that post the truth as well for that matter. Just what is the
problem with asking people to do that? And those that make patently
false inflammable libellous ones should expect a stronger reaction
than those just posting bland ignorant ones shouldn't they?


You are free of course to disagree with his statements, but
remember the statement attributed to Voltaire (probably wrongly).

Which was?

In article ,
erilar wrote:

In article , Go Fig
wrote:

In article ,
erilar wrote:

In article , Go Fig
wrote:

In article ,
erilar wrote:

In article , Go Fig
wrote:

In article ,
erilar wrote:

I'm having trouble seeing the connection between Latino and
Muslim oppression of women and the Icelandic Althing. Could you
please clarify?

I figured the reference was to primacy of voting rights. A
related
note: women were recognized as people earlier in our West than
among
the
old established eastern states here in the US. Equality otherwise
remains a dream yet today.

What more do you want ?

How about true equality?

In whose eyes ?

Do you really believe women have equality of rights,
pay, and respect
with men? What world are you living it?

They were two straightforward questions....

Which ones? I would like to see equality of rights,

What rights do men have that women don't in the U.S. , specifically ?

pay,

The reality of life is that women, in general, in the work place, just
don't put in the same amount of hours as men... they take off much more
time due to family.... that has an impact on earnings.

and respect
for women

I'm not sure what you would mean by this in a free country, people have
the right say as they please and associate with whomever they want.

How should women be shown more 'respect' ?


--and while we're at it, for other minorities

Same applies, how do minorities/women get more respect... surely this
is not something that can be legislated ?

-- in a great many
more countries than now approach that level.

What country is the shinning example of your ideal ?

jay
Mon Mar 24, 2008




Except for a select few,
even "approach" is out of sight.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 09:51:28 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 23:35:07 GMT, (John
Kulp) wrote:

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:12:32 GMT, jeremy
wrote:

John Kulp wrote:

Nice bull****. Now why don't you put up the proof for the ridiculous
claims you made? So far what you have flung up isn't worth 75 cents
much less $75. I will flat out state that it is complete unsupported
bull**** until you show otherwise with proof.


In other words, you have absolutely no proof whatsoever of the
bull**** you posted. Exactly as I figured.

Is there something wrong with the attributions there? It looks
very much like you are accusing yourself of posting bull****.

Yes there is. Just where do those that post some statement that prima
facie is outlandish (like his) think that it is a reader's duty to
wander around trying to verify if it is correct or not? It is the
responsibility of the poster to do that. Otherwise, all you have is
people posting whatever crap they want unchallenged to prove it.
There is one nut in a tax group I read, for instance, that routinely
(if not daily) posts all kinds of idiocy about US taxpayers not having
to legally pay taxes. Several tax experts have pointed out to him
many times that his arguments have long been routinely rejected by the
courts but, of course, this doesn't even slow him down. So, not
surprisingly, everyone in the group has just concluded that he is just
some deluded nut beyond convincing of anything that goes against his
wacko views of tax laws. This guy's post smacks of exactly the same
thing. Just a series of silly accusations he has no support
whatsoever for and then claims I should wander around trying to prove
his wacko assertions myself. At least the tax wacko gave the claims
for his views in his posts to be looked at and proven or disproved.
He understood that responsibility which this guy doesn't.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:08:33 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:27:52 GMT, (John
Kulp) wrote:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:23:11 -0500, erilar
wrote:


That's not my impression from reading music related matters. The problem
is that the articles are written by generally well-meaning people who
know a little bit about the subject they're writing on. It's its
plausibility that is the biggest problem actually.

Which is why you should edit it when you find these so they are
correct.

From what I've heard from scholars, it can be re-edited to suit the
taste of the uneducated rather quickly, which would make correction by
people with actual knowledge frustrating, to say the least.

That's a complete copout. If someone finds something inaccurate in
Wiki they should correct it or stop complaining about it.

The question being, are they right? Who decides if they have
actually crrected the article.

Presumably, the one doing the correction decides at the moment. This
is a free, voluntary service so it will have to be that way unless
someone like Bill Gates decides to give a hunk of money to fund a peer
review.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:11:59 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 14:37:52 GMT, (John
Kulp) wrote:

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 21:24:20 -0700, Hatunen wrote:

On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 15:48:49 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

Yeah, they only generate hundreds of billions of dollars a year. That
has no impact on society at all.

List a few world-changing events in historical sports.

I don't recall "world changing" being part of the original
statement. You've simply changed the playing field again (nothing
like a sports metaphor, eh?).

Anyway football/soccer has figured in at least one war, small
though it may have been.

I'm sure it figured in all of them as the troops relaxed.

The one I'm mentioning is the Soccer War.

I thought you were referring to something like that. I was just
making a joke. Troops do like to relax you know.

Go Fig wrote:

In article ,
erilar wrote:
[]
Which ones? I would like to see equality of rights,

What rights do men have that women don't in the U.S. , specifically ?

pay,

The reality of life is that women, in general, in the work place, just
don't put in the same amount of hours as men... they take off much more
time due to family.... that has an impact on earnings.

That would sound like a good answer, except it's well documented that
women generally earn less than men for the _same_ work, per hour.

and respect
for women

I'm not sure what you would mean by this in a free country, people have
the right say as they please and associate with whomever they want.

How should women be shown more 'respect' ?


--and while we're at it, for other minorities

Same applies, how do minorities/women get more respect... surely this
is not something that can be legislated ?

Of course it can. It wasn't Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat
which got black people more respect- it was the change in laws which
changed attitudes.

--
(*) of the royal duchy of city south and deansgate -www.davidhorne.net
(email address on website) "If people think God is interesting, the
onus is on them to show that there is anything there to talk about.
Otherwise they should just shut up about it." -Richard Dawkins