Slashdot Mirror
Wikipedia != Authoritative?
Frozen North writes "Recently, this article in the Syracuse Post-Standard caused a stir by dismissing Wikipedia as an authoritative source, and even suggesting that it was a little deceptive by looking too much like a "real" encyclopedia. Techdirt suggested an experiment: insert bogus information into Wikipedia, and see how long it takes for the mistake to be removed. Well, I did that experiment, and the results weren't good: five errors inserted over five days, all of which lasted until I removed them myself at the end of the experiment."
And they removed it. Tarts.
What part of it wasn't true? I hate Wiki-willy-wavers. Go and get a real job.
Could this mean the Fark photoshop contests are not authoritative? I shudder to think if this whole thing has been a trap all along.
That troll is pathetic. We kill dogs, we're like, so offensive or something!
The meaning of life is left as an exercise to the reader.
Which is quickly found by doing a google search.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
I agree. Everbody knows that in order to be marked troll you have to praise microsoft or cuss America. Killing dogs? Whatever. So in that spirit, Imagine a beowulf cluster of Windows machines running Osama Bin Laden's software on how to fly airplanes -> The result is summed up in one word -> Crash!
I assume "there" going to put the stable version on they're server over their in the cabinet. Right?
This is the shittiest troll ever. This is more shit than what comes out of my ass. Learn to troll.
No shit. This is such a bad troll I almost feel sorry for whoever posted it, since they must think they're cool or something.
1. Fox News Channel premiered in October, 1996.
2. The fundraising scandal broke in 1995/1996. Hearings were held following the election of 1996.
3. Mainstream media did not cover the fundraising scandal hearings.
4. When the Lewinsky story broke in eary 1998, it took center stage.
5. The prosecutions of Charlie Trie, John Huang, and James Riady were not completed.
6. Loral, headed by Bernard Schwartz, the largest single donor to the Democrat party during 1996, was granted a waiver to export a satellite to the PRC in 1998 even though both Loral and Hughes were under a criminal grand jury investigation for providing the Red Chinese with technology that would advance their ballistic missile capabilities during the investigation of a 1996 satellite launch failure.
If you want sources, google it your damned self. I saw the hearings on the C-SPAN. The Republicans made fools of themselves by chasing the Lewinsky scandal. They let their intense hatred for Clinton rule and missed an opportunity to tell the real story of our country's being sold down the river.
This time around, the Republicans are wiser. They have not allowed themselves to be distracted by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Instead, they will stick it to Senator Kerry using his own voting record and his own words.
Watching the left and the mainstream media meltdown over this goes beyond amusing. There is still plenty of time before November 2nd for reversals, but talk radio and web logs are eroding the mainstream media's undeserved gatekeeper position over what gets published as news.
Without this gatekeeper power, the people are starting to see through the past four decades of Orwellian distortion and are beginning to appreciate how extreme the left-liberal agenda is.
Regardless of which party takes power in the years to come, the overall trend shifting the debate to the right will continue. From Reagan to Clinton to George W. Bush (G.H.W. Bush is absent from this list on purpose), the country is well down the path to repudiating the failed ideas of the left responsible for so much of the carnage of the last century.
How many Americans still believe between the fictional connection between Saddam and 9/11?
- 3401r.htm:
c les/000/000/003/378fmxyz.asp, which was cited by Dick Cheney himself as the best article to detail the link between Saddam and Al Qaeda.
We all agree that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11?
Assuming that we are, all I have to prove is a connection between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein and then a connection between Saddam and 9/11 based on those two facts.
From http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040624-112921
In fact, during President Clinton's eight years in office, there were at least two official pronouncements of an alarming alliance between Baghdad and al Qaeda. One came from William S. Cohen, Mr. Clinton's defense secretary. He cited an al Qaeda-Baghdad link to justify the bombing of a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan.
The other pronouncement is contained in a Justice Department indictment on Nov. 4, 1998, charging bin Laden with murder in the bombings of two U.S. embassies in Africa.
The indictment disclosed a close relationship between al Qaeda and Saddam's regime, which included specialists on chemical weapons and all types of bombs, including truck bombs, a favorite weapon of terrorists.
The 1998 indictment said: "Al Qaeda also forged alliances with the National Islamic Front in the Sudan and with the government of Iran and its associated terrorist group Hezbollah for the purpose of working together against their perceived common enemies in the West, particularly the United States. In addition, al Qaeda reached an understanding with the government of Iraq that al Qaeda would not work against that government and that on particular projects, specifically including weapons development, al Qaeda would work cooperatively with the government of Iraq."
Not enough for you? Read http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Arti
Note also that the 9/11 commission found that there was no evidence to suggest that Iraq and Al Quaeda cooperated in the 9/11 event. However, there was evidence of Iraq and Al Qaeda cooperating.
Take the direct words of CIA Director George Tenet (a Clinton appointee) that "we have solid reporting of senior level contacts between Iraq and al Qaeda going back a decade" and "credible information indicates that Iraq and al Qaeda have discussed safe haven and reciprocal non-aggression."
Take also the words of John Kerry, who said Hussein "supported and harbored terrorist groups." Some of those terrorists are obviously members of Al Qaeda. Zarqawi is perhaps the best example of an Al Qaeda senior operative operating in Iraq before, and now after, the war.
Also remember the Prague meeting, where Sept. 11 mastermind Mohamed Atta met with a senior Iraqi intelligence official before the attacks, or so it was claimed. While the administration doesn't claim to have evidence of these claims, the Czech government won't abandon their position on this issue.
Now, I've proven with evidence that there is a connection between Iraq and Saddam Hussein with Al Qaeda. We take it as an agreed fact that Al Qaeda is directly responsible for 9/11. Now the question remains: Can we connect these two facts to attribute some blame of 9/11 to Saddam Hussein?
The one side says that yes, we can. The reasoning is that since Saddam supported Al Qaeda, they share the blame for what Al Qaeda has done. The other side says that no we can't because even thought Saddam supported Al Qaeda, they did so without knowing of 9/11.
I'll leave that one up to people's judgment. However, you cannot say that it absolutely is not true that Saddam and 9/11 is not linked. Nor can I say that it absolutely is true that they are linked. I can only say that if you believe that by supporting Al Qaeda, Saddam shares some of the blame of the things Al Qaeda has done, then Saddam shares some of the responsibility of 9/11.
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.