The Euro at $1.55

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****.

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

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.

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

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

From what I've heard from scholars, [Wikipedia] 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.

The people at Wikipedia have been working on the problem of
gratuitous redations but have not completely solved the problem.
It is no longer as easy as it once was for just anyone to edit an
article.

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

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.

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

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:33:20 GMT, (John
Kulp) wrote:

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?

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.

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

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.

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

"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?

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'.

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

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


--
William Black


I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Barbeques on fire by the chalets past the castle headland
I watched the gift shops glitter in the darkness off the Newborough gate
All these moments will be lost in time, like icecream on the beach
Time for tea.

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 05:44:25 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , David Horne,
_the_ chancellor (*) says...

You've been told a load of ****e then. There's plenty of evidence of
women being forced out of higher positions since the islamic republic in
Iran was crated, and that's just for starters.

That is not what I have been told. Lots of women in Iran have university
degrees for instance. Obviously they can't walk around in miniskirts,
but I wouldn't call that oppression.

Malaysia oppresses women as well.

That is absolute nonsense. How would Malaysia oppress the women? Women
are even free to walk around in miniskirts in Malaysia.

But are they allowed to become chief executives of companies, or
are there glass ceilings? Are they employed as engineers and
scientists? What kind of degrees are they?

All muslim countries do- that's a given- including Turkey.

You'd be surprised to hear how emancipated women are in some Islamic
countries.

"Some" being the operative word here.

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

Hatunen wrote:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:33:20 GMT, (John
Kulp) wrote:

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?

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.

I've never had a problem correcting wiki. That's the _problem_ with
wiki.

--
(*) 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

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 16:31:55 GMT, (John
Kulp) wrote:

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 10:34:05 -0500, erilar
wrote:

In article ,
(John Kulp) wrote:

Try looking at the Scandinavia ones then. They have done a very good
job on the equality front. And since as you point out, women have
some form of oppression in most countries, what have the Muslim ones
particularly to do with it?

Try degree of inequality.

Try stopping applying western views to other countries that want
little or nothing to do with them whether you like it or not. That's
Bush's main excuse for interfering in just about anybody's country
that doesn't match his particular view of the world. Funny how he
loves to send other's kids off to war while he hid in the National
Guard isn't it?

If I read you correctly, you are saying that no matter how
oppresive another society is, it's none of our business.

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