Slashdot Mirror
Usenet Psychic Wars With Wikipedia
Early last week an anonymous editor with a posting style remarkably like the one widely believed to be that of Sollog himself contributed this article to the encyclopedia, boasting of Sollog's prophesizing prowess and mathematical genius. Less than twenty-four hours later, the article was looking a little more balanced and encyclopedic. Along with Sollog's claims, it now carried the revelation that not everyone is as convinced of the accuracy of Sollog's power of prediction as he himself is, along with links to some rather unflattering appraisals of his work.
A week of spectacular net.kookery has since transpired, replete with vandalism of the article, bizarre legal threats, long semi-coherent rants with LOTS OF CAPITAL LETTERS, a rich bounty of links to Ennis-run sites, and a legion of anonymous posters with exactly the same writing style as one another all strenuously affirming that they are individual and distinct "fans" of Sollog and not the man himself. Unable to accept that Wikipedia's policy of presenting a Neutral Point of View means that an article on Sollog would have to include both pro- and anti-Sollog material, and unable to force other Wikipedia editors to accept his version of reality, Ennis has taken instead to making hostile phone calls to Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales at his home, and setting up his very own Wikipedia and Wales hate site.
Whether or not Sollog really did predict Princess Diana's death, the Oklahoma bombing, 9/11, the crash of TWA flight 800, the Space Shuttle Columbia disaster, and most of the natural disasters in the US over the last few years, he doesn't seem to have foreseen his inability to control the picture that Wikipedia presents of him to the world.
See here for the current revision of the article, which may or may not be currently in a vandalized state.
That he will get first post on Slashdot.
Sollog the "Varnisher" is not someone to be messed with. ;-)
The owls are not what they seem
The discussion is pretty big, and i really wont trust his own site in explaining it, so can anyone here tell me who he is, and what he has done (with proof)?
There was a once upon a time when I figured that Wikipedia could work, become a sort of collection of the intelligence and expertise of the masses on the internet. I've run across enough blatent inacurracies over the last year or so, however, that I can't look at it as anything but a basic starting place for research now. Two main problems as I see it (this is hardly new revelation):
(1) Everyone's viewpoint tends to get reflected, even it's just plain wrong. For instance, look at the entry on the Children's Crusade of 1212 -- it presents three versions of what happened, but only one (the last one) is "right", meaning that it's the version backed by modern research. The ability to site sources or research or present an authoratative case is outclassed by the ability to have the time on one's hands to hit the "edit" button a lot.
(2) Not all articles get many eyeballs. The Wiki tends to work best when there are a lot of people looking at the article, so little-travelled articles can have downright bizarre inaccuracies. They fall victim to either misunderstanding, bad source information or the maliciousness of those few anti-social morons who think wrecking the Wiki makes them cool.
While this is an interesting model of the internet at large, it's not a good thing in terms of being a useful resource.
Just as Linux and other open source projects aren't really "open" in terms of accepting everything anyone throws at them, so must Wikipedia find a way to become more selective in what it accepts. The Wiki itself is such a good idea that there's just got to be a way to make it work, but frankly I can't work out a paradigm that will save it from the issues it has now.
Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
It's a gripping revert war. Expect CNN to pick up the story by 8PM.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
Ten bucks says that in the next 10 minutes, it is modified about 1200 more times.
This actually really great considering that this is one of the few instances of someone abusing Wikipedia. It says a lot for the whole Wikipedia idea that within such a short time frame the whole abuse problem started to be fixed.
'Every story, if continued long enough, ends in death.' --Ernest Hemingway
... that the top-rated comment in this thread will be +5, funny.
http://www.wikipediasucks.com/ probably qualifies as libel. Anyone want to set up a donation fund to take him out? (If Mr. Wales is interested in filing suit, that is. Unlikely, but we can hope?)
Beyond that:
Wanna slashdot his phone?feh. stuff.
Stooping to such levels as to make fun of a mans wife and child publicly on the internet lends ZERO credibility to an argument and makes me lose all respect for a person that would do such a thing.
Every single one of you will be dead by 2152.
You don't have to be psychic to have seen this coming.
http://www.wikipediasucks.com/ - check out the slant on his site, and you'll immediately have a good idea of his creditability...
feh. stuff.
There's always the perennial objection that Wikipedia lacks credibility, but stories like this should show the skeptics how an open system like this actually works. In time, the thousands of eyes approach weeds out questionable content, leaving only publication quality articles.
It's hard to say what impact netizens like SOLLOG will have in the end. On one level, you might say his predictions would provide Wikipedia with yet another dimension of informative content -- the fourth dimension: time. That is, while Wikipedia can say something about the past, and now with Wikinews, the present, maybe SOLLOG will provide needed insight into the future.
On the other hand, such atrocious formatting can only damage the credibility and readability of Wikimedia. Editors will have to handle this issue carefully and balance these considerations. In the end, I'm confident the open model of editing will strike the right compromise between compelling content and responsible formatting.
A Proud Member of the Reality Oriented Community.
This is a great testament to wikipedia's power to create a true fair and balanced source of information. Imagine what would happen if we got our news this way too, where when you read some bullsh*t spin you could correct it and present the information with a neutral viewpoint.
The media is not going to do this, only the people can. So if you are not going to edit articles please donate some money to wikimedia so this neutral source of information can flourish.
It's a Wikipedia story about how the open-source user built encyclopedia is self-correcting and verifying and isn't that great, and isn't this SOLLOG guy an irritating nitwit, and oh yeah, isn't open-source great! ...hey! atleast it's more interesting than reports of problems with what essentialy ammount to beta hardware on the PSP.
A Call For A New Slashdot Moderation Level!
Then let this be our final battle!
Nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh-nuh...
Dih-dih-dih-dih-dih...
Shu-shu-shu-shu-shu...
"A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy." --Theodore Roosevelt
At the moment, the article is blank. This version, however, is quite informative.
If one of Sollog's most famous "math discoveries" is The Fibonacci Algorithm, then why isn't it called "The Sollog Algorithm?"
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Shouldn't he have registered wikipediasucks.com in advance as his psychic powers would have allowed him to see the impact of his actions. Further, shouldn't he already have a slashdotsucks.com already? And, shouldn't I already have a reply to this message from him telling me I'm a fool?
God Bless America. Why? Did it sneeze?
As of 11:58 EST: Sollog eats his nuts And liked it.
--I'm not talking about dance lessons. I'm talking about putting a brick through the other guy's windshield.-
Time Cube is the only answer!
another shitty, boring "wikipedia-got-vandalized, holy shit!" story. this is not stuff that matters.
When I visited it, Wikipedia read "Sollog eats his nuts." I would assume that Sollog eats nuts since eating nuts is part of a balanced healthy diet. Whether they are his or not is a matter of speculation unless you are Sollog (prognostication may or may not be included).
Did he predict the Bush Re-election?
8PM? Is that enough time for the story and all the embelishments to bounce around the Media Echo Chamber enough?
the slashdotting of his lil wikipedia sucks site!! does this mean he's not so much a prophet after all, or that even the GODS are not safe from the slashdot effect?
~~par
Crazy religious fanatics... When will they learn that their 'truth' is only one of the many 'truths' out there.
Why is it that some people can not accept that there are other beliefs out there? Why do they have to try any discredit anyone that disagrees?
Nothing new I guess...
- Think for yourself, question authority.-
As of this post, the Wikipedia page has been "locked to deal with vandalism." In the time between reading the article and scrolling through about 40 posts it was edited at least 3 times.
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
Taken from Solog's google group page ...
"It is the fastes growing religion on Earth"
Perhaps Solog's vast mental powers in nearly every field diminish its ability to spell properly, or learn how to use a spell checker.
in AD2101 war was beginning...
I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those deaf-mutes. - Catcher in the Rye
He'll keep trying to edit the page and the rest of the Net will point out what a lying sack of shit he is, just as we've been doing with Scientology. woof.
That Wales guy has his own personal troll, and a hate site just for him. Will someone please register profanemuthafuckasucks.com and build a hate site just for me? I'd really like that, thanks.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
He's a pornographer AND an objectivist??? This guy is my new hero!
Wah? An Original Slashdot story?
Who could've preditcted that...
"We can confirm that Debian does *not* ship the version with the trojan horse. Our version predates it." [CA-2002-28]
..is being written before you.
Well, you missed your chance put that on Wikipedia. The page has been locked, and just when the vandal-wars were getting interesting.
http://cyclocosm.com Pro cycling at its worst
Doesn't mean jack shit. He can still point out innacuracies in an all-encompassing wikipedia. He never said he was smart, or that he knew everything, he just claimed that he noticed some errors in it. Big deal.
click me
For those of you wanting fruitcake this Christmas, may I recommend Collin Street Bakery?
If Collin Street Bakery is a bit too expensive for your liking, however, then you may wish to try Sollog's folks. They look well-stocked.
Sorry guys never heard of Sollog, but a quick read and I can confirm he is a NUT JOB... his sucks page and the links from it are pretty odd to say the least. My prediction is this post will get modded fu.. int.. umm, Sollog help me I just don't know.
I bet he had a rough time at school.
Free Firefox news reader.
The poster seriously mis-represents the "Child Crusade" article. It seems to be a VERY GOOD article on the subject and NOT fraught with competing viewpoints. The several "viewpoints" are important to the topic and should be
mentioned.
He criticizes Wikipedia as "inaccurate" but provides no evidence.
Though he does mention Linux. That should give hima a "+4 insightful". Too bad hed didn't mention Apple, then it'd be "+5, informative".
Veteran of the Psychic Wars?
Best Slashdot Co
Does anybody else picture "Dr. Orpheus" from the Venture Bros. cartoon when you read about this guy? Complete with the methods of speaking and all? I sure do, and it's funny.
-Jesse
Nothing says "unprofessional job" like wrinkles in your duct tape.
As someone whose father is one of the survivors of the Oklahoma City bombing, it really pisses me off when someone sez "I predicted the whole thing".
Bullshit.
It's easy to sit around on your ass and "predict" after the event happens. But had he known one GODDAMN thing about OKC, he MIGHT have warned everyone ahead of time.
Last I checked, Dad never got a phone call.
IANAL, but I've seen actors play them on TV
I think I too will set up a personal home page on WikiPedia just like this Sollog cornflake.
/. and a page full of rejected submissions.
Of course, my only achievement in life is positive karma on
Rich And Stupid is not so bad as Working For Rich And Stupid.
It must be a really slow news day when /. decides that posting articles about usenet kooks and the ensuing flamewars is appropriate.
Gee, I can't wait for the great reports we will be seeing about Ken Pangborn, Stacy Alexander and David Moore! Their epic battles have been raging on USENET since 1995. They make this guy look like an amateur.
My
The one psychic who walketh the world did not... :)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
...with all the 'priedictionists', nothing is forcast until after an event when then mysteriously evidence is produced to prove otherwise...
...otherwise he would have known the trouble with world writable Wiki's years ago.
Only 999 more psychic wars to go.
Geez, Roblimo is probably going to start soliciting questions for his Slashdot Interview by the end of the week...
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
No, it is because Wikipedia is a pretty credible source (and no, I'm not claiming it is perfect) that 'crap like this' is newsworthy.
I found this Usenet post on Sollog and it's very interesting. It actually has links to time-stamped "predictions" on 911, etc.
(Please browse at -1 to read this comment.)
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
It's Sollog's brother Kellogg, who eats his nuts as part of a balanced breakfast.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
What? I posted about Sollog on A PUBLIC FORUM that has obvious logical and rational holes in it, and people dare to post on Wikipedia that it might be wrong?
Lemme just go make my own web page that only I can control and bash the creator of Wikipedia.
(assumes calm, psychic voice) This is not the wikipedia page you are looking for.
-=Lothsahn=-
If Sollog is who I think he is, he was banned from the JREF forums quite some time ago for making absurd assertions about various "abilities" he posesses.
http://www.randi.org/
The JREF promises a US$1m reward for anyone demonstrating, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any supernatural, paranormal, or occult power or event.
To this date, no one has passed the preliminary testing - Sollog included.
This signature does not exist. It has never existed. It is all a figment of your imagination.
Derek Smart will you take John Ennis to be your lawful husband, will you love him, honor and keep her in sickness and in health and forsaking all others keep only unto her until death do you apart?
Pages outside the explicit protection of the editors like this one is now can be edited (vandalized, whatever) at any point in time and immediately become canonical: at that discrete point in time, they're published.
It's well and good to declaim "oh but all that will be sorted out soon enough" but is an indeterminate point in the future really soon enough? And who am I counting on for vetting these "thousands of eyes" and how do I know that there really are thousands of clueful eyes paying the pages a visit (on a very regular basis)? Editors who may or may not know the subject matter vetting writers who may or may not know their subject matter?
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
You're a fool.
-Sollog
Here's a great site, and don't even think about modding this offtopic. Kooks have run amok!
thepeacock.com
I wonder if his utopian server can survive a slasdot frenzy!
He's taken his Ennis enlargement pills again, I see.
So what does this mean for wikipedia? Well at best it can contain nothing more then a grey goo of widely accepted facts hopefully most of wich are "true". Group think.
At worst it will contain a complety random mix of hard facts, accepted facts and plain errors. Anybodies guess as to wich is wich.
Usually with "facts" we are given some info on the person claiming that the facts are true. Call me weird but I am more likely to take facts about space from an NASA engineer then from a farmer BUT I wouldn't trust a NASA engineer to tell one end of a cow from another.
A good example is the TV program "myth" busters. It airs on discovery in europe right now. It has two movie special effects makers trying to recreate urban myths and prove or disprove them.
Some of the "experiments" are valid enough but just a few of them are plain bad research. The biggest problem seems to be they consider themselves pretty hot stuff. While they might be able to fit some rockets to a car and disprove the jato myth but disproving the 'ice bullet' myth by freezing water in liqued nitrogen and noticing how brittle ice is is slightly less convincing. Anyone who knows anything about freezing knows that different speeds of freezing results in different ice crystals. Note I am not claiming that ice bullets exist. Just that there research to disprove it was lacking.
An earlier /. article had someone noting that 1 article about a person had the wrong birthdate. It turns out that this is a common mistake with all kinds of works listing 1 of 2 dates. The only correct way to handle this is to list both dates and clearly states that it is unknown wich is correct perhaps with theory as to why.
Sadly there is no way to stop anyone from then thinking "oh I know the right date" and remove the second date.
Wikipedie at the moment is a nice "lightweight" reference especially for "modern" stuff. For depth almost anything else is better but just perhaps you might find a good link to start at wikipedia.
Relying on wikipedia is like getting your medical advice from a guy down the pub. He might just be a doctor, he might just be a big mouth or you might just be talking to a quak doctor.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Let's say I walked into the library and marked up their encyclopedias with red ink (making legitimate corrections, in my opinion). Would you consider that credible?
Having a bunch of self-proclaimed "experts" write the encyclopedia (or the news, god forbid) is a commendable hobby. I just wouldn't believe a word of it until it passes through some kind of editorial review. "A bunch of people on the Internet think it's good" does not constitute an editorial review.
Wikipedia can be exploited for all sorts of reasons -- to make a political statement, to self-aggrandize, and to impart personal bias (whether intentionally or otherwise) in lightly-trafficked areas. This article explores just how successful one troll can be in disrupting the flow of things for a while -- and how the entire world can witness it.
For more information, click here.
I looked at that "wikepediasucks" site, and its a heaping pile of crap. The source for "Jimmy Wales is a pornographer" looks very much like a false information site. If you look in the http://www.247news.net/2004 directory, and look through some of the other "articles" they are all about Sollog.
I don't care if he puts "Slash dot rules" on the wikepedia sucks site, this "Solog" is scum of the earth.
Is a completely available domain name. Now, who is going to buy it up?
Memories become legend, Legend fades to myth, and even myth is forgotten by the time that age comes again.-Robert Jordan
Self-correcting systems will work as long as you have enough participants.
Low-lifes have turned thousands of pages on wikis, blogs, and other such collaborative instruments into link farms and troll fests. Not every site has enough collective free time to weed out the bad from the good.
For more information, click here.
His website: http://www.wikipediasucks.com/ is the epitome of hypocrisy. He links to a news article on a site (247news.net) which is infact another one of his sites. Besides the factit's full of articles about UFO's and how Sollog can predict the future, it's registered to the same email contact.
It is "created by" http://www.adonidesigns.com/ which is another one of his sites. (Also linked to by sollog.com)
You get the picture.
So here's the question: is there ANY evidence of his predictions at all besides sites he's put up on the web himself?
Gee, I wonder why Wikipedia didn't want that garbage in their publication. (Wikipedia is sold hard copy too.)
I think Jim Wales may have some legal action against this guy.
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
The year is 2678, and I am using the greatest invention of the millenium to post to slashdot from the future!
HAHAHA!
And I *still* can only get a damn ~500,000 uid. Must be something with slashdot.org rejecting my 512bit IPv19 address...
Nope, sorry. There's nothing wrong with your ipv19 to ipv4 gateway. At the request of several prestigious software archaeological societies and organizations, we in the 37th century set up a temporal filter rejecting all registration requests to slashdot from the 27th century prior to the issuance of slashdot id 516229, ipv19 or otherwise.
Of course, I would have had a slashdot ID of #1, but those rat bastards in the 43rd are blocking all packets temporally synced to all timeframes prior to slashdot ID #11483.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Sollog's real name is John Patrick Ennis (Born born July 14, 1960). Thats right folks, Sollog is John P. Ennis.
he is a total dick..
time is a perception of a being's consciousness
time is your 6th sense, the wierd ones are 7+
What is wrong with ./?
His name is John P.Ennis and no one is cracking jokes about it?
Did I miss a memo or something?
te-hee
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
... gonna say that *groan*.
- This and all my posts are public domain. I am a Physicist. I am not your Physicist. This is not Physically advice
'bout time the psychics in Usenet focused their powers into a greater scheme of things. I'd like to see how the wiki-hivemind will resist to their righteous tele-kinetic fury! It can't get much more epic than this.
Da Blog
His real name is John P.Ennis.
No troll would pick a name as obvious as that.
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
those that can attract and hold a critical mass of intelligent, active users will continue to survive, while those that can't will die off.
As I pointed out, the wiki in question did self-correct, so it continues to survive and evolve, whereas wikis that don't self-correct will either die off or just hang on the fringes.
We've seen the same thing before in the newspaper world. Newspapers that develop a core readership and that don't post reams of crap continue to survive, while the ones that are little more than paid advertising and "editorial content" dictated by their advertisers aren't doing so hot.
"It has come to my attention that Jim Wales is harassing TOH Members with return phone calls if you call him."
What a fair assessment of "harassment"
"he drew his sword Ringil that glittered like ice... and he wounded Morgoth with seven wounds..."
This SOLLOG is simply the sum of /.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
It's from the hate site that crazy guy made (http://www.wikipediasucks.com/). If I were Jimmy Wales I would laugh so hard I would vomit. :)
Heh, thats probably coming from sollog's site http://www.wikipediasucks.com/.
Go look at it, it's pretty funny.
The proof, as they say, is in the pudding. Browse through the featured articles and you will be hard-pressed to find anything worse than that which appears in commercial encyclopedias. In fact, most of it will be vastly better and more up to date.
Experts are part of the public too. I suggest you edit an article that deals with a subject you are expert in, that's what Wikipedians do.
Newsflash: Insane, opinionated crank on the internet. News at 11.
This is not news. It's funny, his wikipediasucks site is distressing, for making fun of the guy's daughter, but this is not news.
Nothing to see here, move along. My guess is that if this hadn't involved wikipedia, but instead one of the many, many other wikkis out there, this would never have been "news".
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
As a cult researcher, I've seen similar events regarding cults. i.e. cult members suing anti-cult websites for millions of dollars, or sending hate letters... etc.
I wonder how many followers Sollog Has. But I PREDICT that the majority will sooner or later abandon him. It happens in all cults.
Awesome Tune! Didn't know they had a wiki about it, though...
You see me now a veteran of a thousand psychic wars
Ive been living on the edge so long
Where the winds of limbo roar
And Im young enough to look at
And far too old to see
All the scars are on the inside
Im not sure if theres anything left of me
Dont let these shakes go on
Its time we had a break from it
Its time we had some leave
Weve been living in the flames
Weve been eating up our brains
Oh, please dont let theses shakes go on
You ask me why Im weary, why I cant speak to you
You blame me for my silence
Say its time I changed and grew
But the wars still going on dear
And theres no end that I know
And I cant say if were ever...
I cant say if were ever gonna to be free
Dont let these shakes go on
Its time we had a break from it
Its time we had some leave
Weve been living in the flames
Weve been eating out our brains
Oh, please dont let theses shakes go on
You see me now a veteran of a thousand psychic wars
My energys spent at last
And my armor is destroyed
I have used up all my weapons and Im helpless and bereaved
Wounds are all Im made of
Did I hear you say that this is victory?
Dont let these shakes go on
Its time we had a break from it
Send me to the rear
Where the tides of madness swell
And been sliding into hell
Oh, please dont let shakes go on
Dont let these shakes go on
Dont let these shakes go on
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, it doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
Just the other day Nostradumbass pointed out to me that:
"Sollog on Wikipedia"
contains the anagram
"I poo on Law. I skid gel."
Ol' Nostra (as I like to call him) seemed to think this was some sort of reference to a sexual-scatological fetish of some sort on the part of Sollog himself. I doubt this, but who am I to question the great one.
The Wikipedia article currently mentions a Sollog follower who said "something" would happen "tomorrow" - supposedly referencing 9/11. Even if his prediction *did* mean 9/11 was coming, if I read that post on 8/31 what good would it do me? Even if I assume "something" means "something big", how do I use such a vague prediction for my benefit? If a prediction cannot benefit those who hear it, what's the purpose of making the prediction at all?
The answer I'm dancing around is that I think Sollog is just in it for his own ego and publicity. If that's true, then this whole Wikipedia mess is actually benefitting him by giving him *more* publicity. The answer here is to probably just ignore him completely.
from http://www.247news.net/2004/20041211-wikipedia.sht ml
.agrippa.
"I sat in an office of AIS and saw three different people on one high speed connection post about Sollog. They were all called the same person and Sollog. Then I went to local Starbucks and saw another person post to Wikipedia pro Sollog statements and they too were called Sollog."
If Sollog is so psychic, then why doesn't he call his mom? Doesn't he know she wants to talk to him?
However, the Wikipedia article on Bomis, Wales' company, mentions that they also sell "erotic images" over the internet. Several non-WorkSafe links off the article to computers off Bomis.com are persuasive evidence.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
How accurate have his predictions been?
If you go to the page now, you'll see that they've thrown up an edit protection to the article...the article, as it exists now, actually DOES seem to represent that happy middle, presenting both the pro-Sollog "facts", and the (IMO) closer-to-fact "He's a Kook", as well as listing some of the various harrasments he's made. Article actually looks fine in this frozen version, if you ask me.
...he's gonna want a glass of milk...
Further proof that not everyone deserves to be given freedom of speech using someone else's printing press.
The Houkster "Oh yeah brother, what you gonna do when Houk O' Mania runs wild on you? Besides wet your pants in laughte
From the wikipediasucks site: SOLLOG SAYS SLASHDOT.ORG RULES
/.ers are going to his site to discover his truth and not laughing hysterically at him. :p
The man's stupidity is good and true to believe that legions of
ACs are modded -6. I don't read you, I don't mod you, I don't see you. Don't like it? Don't be a coward.
background color depending on
how long ago that part of the page had been added
and how many unique visitors have seen the new part of the page.
Call the mode "peer review" or "credibility rating"
Red might mean just added, so beware!
Maybe the parameters could be saved in your personal preferences.
they redid the ice bullets test using about 10 different permutations including different ice freezing speeds, different freezing methods, different liquids, etc.
basically a bunch of people complained about their first ice bullet test and suggested different ways to test, and they did them all.
in any case it's not the brittleness of ice that was the issue, it's that the ice melted. what you got out of the barrel of the gun was steam. every time. no matter what.
sorry if they challenged your sacred cow. that's what they do.
Does Sollog's style not remind you of Gene Ray (http://www.timecube.com/)?
For example, Sollog seems to like using RANDOM captilized words to EMPHASISE certain things. Gene Ray has lots of underlining and colour-usage reminsicent of some kid's personal webpage back in 1998.
Meh, I don't know... Maybe I'm crazy. Probably less so than those two, however.
Which is exactly how every encyclopedia ever written was created. The writers of the Encyclopedia Brittanica weren't voted into office, They were simply the self-proclaimed "experts" of the time. Also, Wikipedia does go through many editorial reviews by its users.
I don't see Wikipedia as being any better or any worse then printed encyclopedias. I wouldn't necessarily trust the very first version of any given Wikipedia page, just like I wouldn't trust a printed encyclopedia until it's been given a once-over by editors.
The argument that only paid writers should be trusted to give credible information sounds too much like a similar creed that only paid programmers, working on closed source, can be trusted to write secure software.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
um, that is done to libraries. gluing pages together, cutting them out, destroying books and stealing them. that's done to libraries around america to censor views and ideas people disagree with.
US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
More like the progeny of Ted Holden and Robert McElwaine. Once upon a time there were no spammers, but there have always been kooks.
echo 33676832766569823265328479713269.8639857989Pq | dc
Would you rather have one "expert" running that editorial review, exploiting your trust in him or her to make a political statement, etc. etc...?
The discussion is pretty big, and i really wont trust his own site in explaining it, so can anyone here tell me who he is, and what he has done (with proof)?
He's the guy from the fourth book of Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker Trilogy - you know, Sollog, and Thanks for All the Fish.
I know that was bad, but I couldn't help myself.
Looks like Choronzon is dancing the jitterbug inside your head; may he be damned like a dog!
BTW, how can I get a hold of your Book of Toth, err..., I mean Book of TOH?
"The only clear view is from atop the mountain of our dead selves." - Peter Carroll
Hang with me for a little while, this may seem disjointed -- but the parent posting actually has far more to teach us about Wikipedia and the nature of internet research than the actual article does. So here are a few observations that might bring my response to this post into context:
A couple days ago I got into a long debate with a PhD candidate/teaching assistant about how to teach an introductory college course on sourcing and reliance on internet materials in an introductory research course. Having taught something similar, I was surprised when she suggested that there is little (perhaps even nothing?) on the internet that can be reliably cited to. Or, to give her more credit (the actual argument was far more nuanced... or at least it seemed so after a couple of beers), her point is that there is always a more authoritative source available than the internet. And since students should be required to cite the most authoritative source they can find, it is extremely rare that the internet copy of a source should be cited to. Citing to the internet, in her opinion, is a crutch for citing to "real" paper publications (or even proprietary internet databases, CD-ROM compilations, etc.)
So while I clicked on the article more out of amusement value then anything else, the parent poster provides an awesome example of the strengths and weaknesses of both arguments. Coming into this thread, I'd heard of the "Children's Crusade" before, but it was just a historical tidbit that I'd picked up somewhere and really knew nothing about.
I was intrigued by the parent post's rather categorical dismissal of two of the three explanations -- and not know what those explanations were -- I clicked through and read the article.
The first paragraph of the article states that "Several conflicting accounts of this event exist, and the facts of the situation continue to be a subject of debate among historians."
Okay. So from the very beginning we know we are dealing with an "event" where the facts are not entirely clear. But scanning the rest of the article, it seems clear that whatever happened happened in the early 13th century.
The first two versions are then laid out. It's a real tear jerker -- young children coming together in a spontaneous uprising to fight the forces of evil -- who then meet a gruesome end. (Sound familiar?.) And it's this version of the story that this painter was thinking about when he put ink-to-canvas or what Kurt Vonnegut was thinking when he subtitled Slaughterhouse-Five "Or, the Children's Crusade, a Duty-Dance with Death", or why the term was incorporated into the title of the classic submarine movie Das Boot or why the incomparable Neil Gainman used it as a title for one of his comics.
History is not just comprised of facts. Myths and legands sometimes have a far greater impact on our physche than do Cold Hard Facts. This is a perfect example. This significance of the Children's Crusade is not whether it actually ever happened. The historical "fact" is an interesting academic question that makes for a fun historical sluething exercise.
So, back to the article. After depicting the historically and culturally significant version of the Children's Crusade, the article goes on to say "Some historians speculate that the entire crusade is fiction, as there is no real evidence that any such event occurred, in the 13th or in any other century. Research done in the early 1980s indicates that the Children's Crusade began as a misinterpretation of a 1212 religious movement among the landless poor...
Like the old Usenet rule -- The first one to compare the other to a Nazi, automatically loses the argument.
And Son of Godwin: Terrorists.
You can't take the sky from me...
Congrats to Sollog, he's really showing /. trolls what it MEANS to troll. Forget the GNAA, forget Fr1st Ps0t and Hot Grits. Sollog has developed a religion and a following (ok, maybe a virtual following) around his trolling capabilities.
Truly an American icon!
I just wouldn't believe a word of it until it passes through some kind of editorial review.
It has now, and no more flaming there:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sollog
Wikipedia can be exploited for all sorts of reasons
Yes, but not for very long. Again, see link above.
This article explores just how successful one troll can be
Exactly.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
This person posted pictures of Wales' wife and child, insinuating that they were, respectively, a Fetal Alcohol Syndrome baby, and a porn model.
What justification could possibly made for such personal attacks on his family?
On an unrelated note, I find this story disappointing. The title clearly promises a "Psychic War" but in fact, it's just some psychic waging a virtual war.
My Photography - http://ian-x.com
The Deathlings (comic) - http://thedeathlings.com
hey SOLLOG, why don't you... you know... learn how to put FREAKING LINE BREAKS BETWEEN YOUR URL'S!?!?!
betcha didn't predict i'd say that, did ya?.. cuz... if ya did... then ya would've... and i wouldn't have had to say it
May you be touched by His Noodly Appendage. RAmen.
Yes, I totally concur on that. The fact that the entire site is filled with useless rederict, and furthermore, all his supporting links are from his own websites, I file this guy under F**KTARD. Sollog dude, sure, you may have a problem with James, as you used his webstie to make yourself look like an a**, but leave his family out of it. It just justifies everyone in treating you like an a**hat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Sollog& action=history
style of discourse just seems pompous and USENET-troll-like to me. I don't like it, and I don't like your reply. Don't even bother quoting my words if you're just going to skewer them like that.
For more information, click here.
Nupedia was supposed to be the Release version of Wikipedia.
...by sheer logic of his own claims:
1) Either he predicted that his post would cause all these problems through his amazing powers of prediction...and posted anyway...making him a troll.....or
2) He didn't predict these problems and hence is a fake...knowing himself that he's a fake (as he must if scenario 2 holds), and posting anyway make him a troll.
So, troll if you do, troll if you don't...mod -1 sollog
You know, guys, this whole thing really isn't funny. Okay it's a little funny from the sheer surrealness of it all, but still it ultimately damages the internet as a whole. Look at the Wikipedia editing wars, and some of the posts here - the worst of human nature in evidence.
And when we lash out at this sort of lunacy, we reinforce that lunacy. I would say "ignore him and maybe he'll go away" except I don't think that will work.
It's frustrating, but part of the nature of the internet is that it's harder to make someone go away by ignoring him. Even if everyone else on the internet did ignore him, he'd still be able to create the illusion of popularity and support the same way he does now: multiple websites, emails, identities. It doesn't seem to matter to him, how many of his supporters are fictional, and this leads us to the crux of the matter:
How can the internet as a community continue to function effectively without a way to combat this type of behavior, and the damage it causes? Public opinion has no effect - a user can create his own publich opinion. Invective doesn't work. Is the internet doomed to a slow slide into anarchy?
There was a poll last week on what would kill the internet - patent law won, but ultimately I think that users will kill the internet, because we can effect change in our laws, but we cannot effect change in a person's behavior, even when that behavior is detrimental to the community.
Yes, there are women on Slashdot. Deal with it.
And here I thought /. was going to teach me how to attack people's minds via Wikipedia.
Terrorists can attack freedom, but only Congress can destroy it.
If you go to wikipediasucks.com, he has links to "news articles" to back up his argument, but the funny part is that they link to a site called "247news.net" which is obviously a phony site created by himself...if you go to the main page all of the "headlines" on this "news site" talk about how Wikipedia sucks, and promote his church.
I imagine John Patrick Ennis and Jimmy Wales trying to out-tune each other Dark City style.
But every establishing (self-appraised) "religion" needs an enemy, something to stop people from reasoning and commit to action.
But this whole thing is pretty sad as far as Holy wars go. They need the Spanish Inquisition.(no one expects the spanish inquisiton...)
Many sites take Wikipedia articles and repost them. You can find them by googling for a topic and Wikipedia. The text will appear under numerous links other than Wikipedia. The articles are sometimes credited, sometimes not. Presumably, people update their copy of the Wikipedia article whenever they feel like it, so they don't end up repeating bogus stories. You can tell because the article matches something from the history on Wikipedia.
I mean...
.com
:)
Forum - Articles - Donate - Banners
WikipediA SUCKS
In no way is this site connected to Wikipedia.org
SOLLOG SAYS SLASHDOT.ORG RULES
If you think Wikipedia Sucks email the owner jwales@wikia.com
Did you know the founder of wikipedia is a self admitted pornographer?
Wikipedia.org is now one of the top 300 sites in the world for traffic as ranked by Alexa. Reporters from around the world are starting to cite Wikipedia as a 'source'. Academia is starting to cite wikipedia as a 'source'.
I don't know... maybe just some slashdotter hacked his site???
But if Sollog wanted to show "how cool he is" to slashdotters, he failed miserably. A true prophet should know most of slashdotters loathe slashdot dearly and that slashdot sucks a big time...
(just compare the number of pro-slashdot opinions and anti-slashdot ones, found on slashdot... uh, unless you read at +1)
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
This is the famous Sollog 911 Warning, Sollog simply stated MAJOR EMERGENCY IN DC ON 911, it was made on 9/11/1998 three years to the EXACT DATE of 911 http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8 &oe=UTF-8&selm=6tb7rp%24gvr%241%40winter.news.erol s.com/
Sollog warned of Train Terrorism on March 11th, two years later the Madrid Massacre struck on March 11th
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8 &oe=UTF-8&selm=9dca61bc.0203072305.28bb8518%40post ing.google.com/
Shouldn't it be SOOLLOG?
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
I will now present for your consumption, the contents of this page, linked from wikipdiasucks.com where good old SOLLOG says that wikipedia's neutral point of view is a hate crime against his "religion". I hope that from this, the people who do not know can aquire an idea about how insane this all is.
t ml
o llog&action=history&limit=500&offset=0
o rg
Wikipedia (see www.Wikipedia.org) the on-line encyclopedia has been accused of RELIGIOUS HATE CRIMES by a religious movement known as TOH (Temple Of Hayah) see www.TempleOfHayah.com
TOH members are being actively recruited to file HATE CRIME complaints against Wikipedia and it's owner Jim Wales who is a self admitted pornographer see http://www.247news.net/2004/20041211-wikipedia.sh
Many do not like the way Wikipedia imposes what many view as a bias in their articles that are promoted as "a neutral point of view". There's thousands of web hits in search engines on the Net declaring 'Wikipedia Sucks', a new web site was just created the other day www.WikipediaSucks.com due to how Jim Wales and his group are harassing and defaming the religious leader Sollog. Sollog is he founder of TOH the same group that is now accusing Wikipedia of HATE CRIMES.
If you look at the edit history of the Wikipedia Sollog pages, you will see dozens of Sollog fans complaining about how Wikipedia is editing the Sollog pages. 'Pro' Sollog edits are immediately purged and then the poster is called Sollog or a Sollog sockpuppet (a bogus poster who is the same person).
See the Sollog Discussion page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sollog
Massive editing of Sollog Discussion Page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Talk:S
Here is the article page about Sollog at Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sollog it calls Sollog amongst many negative things a 'wacko'. It also says there are no members in TOH his religious movement. So now members of TOH are asking the FBI to charge Wikipedia and its Pornographer owner Jim Wales with RELIGIOUS HATE CRIMES for the false and harassing information about Sollog and TOH that is now on Wikipedia.
Here is Wikipedia admitting what is not well known in the media, that a porn site is the funding for Wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bomis
(insert talk of Bomis, how the site rips your money off, etc)
Wikipedia is now a top 300 site at Alexa see http://www.alexa.com/data/details/?url=wikipedia.
I hear a major class action civil suit is being prepared by lawyers for TOH against Wikipedia for defaming and harassing Sollog with false and libelous information.
Why is there so much interest in Sollog?
(insert links to sollog's predictions)
You are correct. But who cares? You're just saying that the world can't support thousands of encyclopedias regardless of whether they're open or closed.
So What? How many do we need?
Certainly no one is suggesting that every collaborative site on the Internet is interesting, useful, and accurate. But Wikipedia is.
I've seen a lot of vandalism on Wikipedia recently, although it isn't too difficult to labor through. For example, the History of Djibouti article gives us some gems such as:
During the Satanic invasion of monkeys and occupation of Ethiopia in the 1930s and during World War II
Members of the executive council were responsible for one or more of the territorial services and carried the title of God. The Lord advised the French-appointed governor general. In a September 1958 constitutional referendum, Gay Somaliland opted to join the French gheto as an overseas territory. This act entitled the region to representation by one God and one senator in the French Parliament, and one counselor in the French Union Assembly.
French President Charles de Pussy August 1966
In July of that year, a directive from Hell formally changed the name of the region to the French Territory of Afairs and Asses.
In addition, the executive council was redesignated as the council of government, with nine cows.
Political Activism? Doubtful. Entertaining? I'd say so (at least temporarily).
Give up?
The answer is "screw you". Hehe.
Ah, that was fun. Back to work.
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Looks like he updated his hate site recently to add
SOLLOG SAYS SLASHDOT.ORG RULES
If you click on it, it links to his "temple" site.
Well, I don't know about you guys, but I'll definitely join any religion that's pro-slashdot, no matter how made up it is.
Unable to accept that Wikipedia's policy of presenting a Neutral Point of View means that an article on Sollog would have to include both pro- and anti-Sollog material.
A "neutral pov" isnt necessarily one that includes a PRO opinion and a CON opinion. This false duality is a result of political correctness and unending tolerance of opinion.
This fellow sollog claiming all this obvious nonsense, a 'neutral pov' doesnt require equal and oposite support material. Why? Because it is obviously false.
So, in today's media landscape, all kinds of nonsense is 'tolerated' in the debate simply because people have a belief that they 'are entitled to their opinion' - and that is a defense of their ridiculous opinions.
I wont bother to cite some popular held beliefs that are not worth entertaining. There are many.
He claims to have discovered the 137 sequence in mathematics.
Big whoop... I discovered the 1337 sequence!
now with clickedyclick userfriendliness ->
http://www.citypaper.net/articles/022102/sl.howcol .shtml
That's not true. I watched the episode you are referring to, where they redid the test.
They still missed the point, and still froze the water using liquid nitrogen. They did not try numerous speeds or liquids. What they did change, was that they didn't let the ice come in direct contact with the liquid nitrogen, and also let it sit overnight before using the ice bullets.
However, this was a waste as the ice still came out brittle and *very* cloudy the next day (you can see this when they go and load the gun), indicating the prescence of massive air bubbles trapped inside. Leaving the ice sit overnight was worthless as the liquid nitrogen would still have frozen it within a matter of minutes -- after which no amount of time would fix the ice.
Regarding your point about the ice melting... A harder ice without air bubbles would be propelled faster and farther away from the gun blast quicker, making less time for the ice to absorb the heat and melt. Also, the melting may have been caused by the brittle ice disintregating from the force and therefore melting faster due to the higher surface-area to mass ratio (melting as from the outside as one block vs. melting as a fine mist all at once).
I agree with the grandparent post. The two on Mythbusters are capable as far as welding metal and concocting ways to make an entertainig show via blowing things up, but they are almost completely ignorant of any knowledge of real science and physics. Their experiments sometimes are just plain wrong.
Did The Children's Crusade Of 1212 Really Consist Of Children? Problems Of Writing Childhood History (The Digital Archive of Psychohistory)
I found a link to this on the wikipedia discussion pages, it was just too funny not to share some of Solog the artist's abstract nudes.
In the short term, Wiki's are a voting machine. Unfortunately, in the long term, things generally evolve to a weighing machine.
Right now, ppl are voting. I don't think the weighing has started taking place except for those Wiki's that use editors.
Yum Pie!
I think it's time to write that book I've been meaning to write about God's secret messages in pi. I am convinced that if you express pi in binary and then print it out, you can search it for not only all knowledge previously known, but images of virtually anything.
In fact, I'm pretty sure there's a picture of a picture of a grilled cheese with Michelle Pfeiffer on it at index 3,444,738,956,368,665,431,233. And not only that, Jesus is a mere three billion and 6 away from that!
That means something. God put those pictures in pi in order to tell us he loves us.
Let's say I walked into the library and marked up their encyclopedias with red ink (making legitimate corrections, in my opinion). Would you consider that credible?
Before I respond, I'll call straw-man, since you're assuming that one person's edits are analogous to a community of hundreds of committed editors and thousands more of casual editors. Think about it - the encyclopedia came from draft articles, marked up with red ink by a few people, and published nicely.
Then I'll answer: yes, I would consider this credible, if I see the corrections as worthwhile. If you wrote "LOL PWNED" and "BUSH SUXXORZ" on the book, of course not. If you corrected an article that I see is definitely flawed or lacking information, I would assume that you are probably more correct than the encyclopedia.
"A bunch of people on the Internet think it's good" does not constitute an editorial review.
"A bunch of people in a corporation" does? What is your definition of editorial review? How does it differ from a definition of WP's review where the wording is equally biased to the other side (given that the editors have shown themselves to be committed, and that several are quite accomplished in their subject)? WP is not reviewed by random people on the Internet, as you suggest.
This article explores just how successful one troll can be in disrupting the flow of things for a while -- and how the entire world can witness it.
No; this article suggests how even the most determined troll cannot stand up to Wikipedia, whose community knows how to write an unbiased article and remove personal attacks or self-praise.
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
None of those things listed in the objection FAQ covered my point - that reality is not subject to a vote. That a Wikipedia entry has one expert looking at it doesn't change the fact that other people edit it too.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
no ice will ever survive the incredible forces from the rifling. it's enough to groove metal bullets, think about what that does to ice.
ice is also very "hard", but brittle. there is no ice which will survive the extreme acceleration of your typical rifle (10,000 - 20,000 g's iirc). your ice will be completely pulverized, then vaporized in the hot exhaust gases (if it isnt' outright vaporized by the exhaust gases alone).
mythbusters showed us ice bullets which don't work. please feel free to go ahead and demonstrate an ice bullet which does work.
This is the great struggle of our Age.
When it is finished, we will see if the Age of Reason continues, or is undone.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
Wikipedians have devoted a lot of thought to the idea of creating a "validated" version of Wikipedia, with article versions that pass some kind of test. Anyone could still edit the current version but the validated version would be frozen. How to validate? One possibility is to designate experts, but another that's been mentioned is indeed /. style moderation. See http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Validation.
Here is a small exerpt, this is getting out of hand:
He also goes on to call on his members to call Jim Wales and harras him by phone.
I agree with the majority of your comments, Geoffreyerffoeg. However, I would argue that a distinction should be drawn between a corporation and an educational institution; while the former has no greater legitimacy than the latter, as a reader, I'd rather trust a reference book written and edited by staff at a university than a corporation (and probably, more so than I would Wikipaedia too, although it would depend on which university). That's just a very unscientific rule of thumb, but I think it makes common sense.
I'd also like to point out that there neutrality, or lack of bias, is an illusory goal. The best you can do is to present all arguments, but even then, this system can tend to magnify the arguments of a kooky minority, especially if those views coincide with those of a powerful group (witness all the exposure received by those tiny subset of climatologists that don't believe in global warming; or Creationists); or to marginalise valid points of view on the basis that less people hold them than those that don't, or that oppose them (impossible to think of an uncontroversial example).
The article on this freaky guy is a case in point. It's actually a very negative article, although it is trying hard to be objective. I totally agree with it; the guy is clearly a dickhead. But it's not really unbiased .. fair enough, considering his aggressive behaviour. But there always comes a time when the writer is personally involved .. and I would argue that happens every time s/he picks up a pen, though to a greater or a lesser degree.
I guess at the end of the day, no single source - or even a set of sources - can be definitive or comprehensive, unless you happen to have access to all the viewpoints of all the beings ever in the universe (i.e. you are God or some equivelant); and I suspect that, with all that information, whatever it was you wanted to learn about would seem kind of trivial anyway.
The best way to get a good handle on a subject is the old fashioned way: refinement by debate. This works better for some subject than others though: great for science but less useful for more subjective debates like humanities or politics, say.
[ UNSIGNED NOT NULL ]
Good post, but I would just like to add two points - there are some 'educational institutions' that exist solely to spread some particular viewpoint (e.g. ICR).
The second point is on refinement by debate. I can't buy that - Aristotle believed men had more teeth than women, but that is not true...
You need to use logic combined with facts and experiments to resolve a matter. Arguing often leads nowhere.
No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
I had never heard of the ICR. Looks more of a propaganda institution than educational though :) Similarly a white paper by one of those 'universities' where you can buy a degree online would be less credible than a reputable corporation's.
I see where you're going with your second point, but I'd say that only works with scientific discussion. Logic, facts and experiments can't reconcile, for instance, two opposing political persuations where it gets down to philosophy rather than just bare facts. Even within science, where there is controversy, different viewpoints are presented, along with the evidence, and eventually the scientific community will come to some kind of consensus. I'd say the clash of egos involved is necessary to further the dialectic process of distilling the dross from the truth.
[ UNSIGNED NOT NULL ]
How can someone be THAT problematic? He should get a fuckin' life. Yeah... does he know what `to fuck' is? maybe that's just the problem... which leads us to `math and sex' article. Apropos... he is a self-declared mathematician, ergo, he has no sex. Right?
I can predict everything that happens... if it has happened.
This guy is not a psychic, he is a psychotic freak!
There is another religious freak around Quebec you probably have heard with cloned babies fake story : Rael.
He says wikipedia sucks, but at the top of his site slandering wikipedia, he says slashdot.org
Why didn't anyone say we could just take dead people's math discoveries as our own? In that case, I'm going to go "discover" Newton's method, Boolean logic, and the Pythagorean theorem! I'll be rich!
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
That bastard Sollog gets a slashdot article for creating Wikipediasucks.com, but I don't get one for creating slashdotsucks.com? I guess I gotta start making fun of Taco's daughter or something.
against those who follow the TOH. Any Text that calls itself an encyclopedia and shows any Form of bias is not worthy enough to be considered a encylopedia. PEOPLE SHOULD STOP SPREADING LIES about sollog www.wikipediasucks.com
Sollog seems to be running a borderline personality distortion campaign
"BP Distortion Campaign - when a BP deliberately tries to convince family, friends, community members or business associates that the Non is the one who is sick, was abusive, lied, was violent, etc. May involve false accusations of domestic or child abuse. May involve ' setting up' the Non to be charged with almost any crime."
I have a relative who works in a psych hospital who deals with these people every day. Theres a whole ward of people who think they're God/Jesus.
Speaking of abusing pubilic knowlege databases, there's a new entry on http://www.urbandictionary.com/.
Trollog - A specialized type of Internet Troll. These attention-craving creatures are convinced they have psychic powers, and spend most of their time trying to convince humans that their powers are real. Humans generally respond by discrediting and ridiculing the Trollog, which triggers the Trollog's innate troll behaviors. The Trollog will respond by SHOUTING at seemingly RANDOM intervals, to the POINT that the shouting is MEANINGLESS. When they strike, they prefer to target the human's family, rather than attacking the human directly, as Trollogs have a cowardly disposition. Trollogs insist that they are allied with an army of civil lawyers. However, the only time a lawyer has ever been spotted with a Trollog is in criminal court. The Trollog also has the magical power to create mirror images of itself. The Trollog uses this power to unleash a cacophony of arguments, all claiming support of its desperate belief that it has psychic powers. Trollogs have no psychic powers.
A textbook example of a Trollog can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sollog
Take off every Sig. For great justice.
You have just made the claim that at least some Wikipedia editors, including yourself, are people who had the desire to vandalize the site in the past and now are contributors. Why you think saying this would make me trust it more is a mystery to me.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
There are lots of sources that people cite as authoritative. That people do so doesn't automatically make them correct to do so. People also cite the bible.
Don't label something "offtopic" unless you know the topic well enough to tell what's on topic.
Whether it was or wasn't doesn't really matter. The only thing that matters when all is said and done is that the link is real, the prediction was extremely accurate, (in fact uncanningly accurate if you're objective), it has never been proven to have failed, and if so, then it may be the most important prediction ever made. All I see on this site are a bunch of ignorant spammers with no intelligence whatsoever to actually present a well thought out argument against evidence supporters have archived. Anyone that takes the time to do an objective investigation will see the evidence validates Sollog as perhaps the most accurate and only true modern prophet whose warning about nuke terrorism was once laughed at by the very people and news media who are just now admitting nuke terrorism is probably going to happen any day now. When nuke terror hits where sollog has warned of, every person here attacking sollog will look back and feel like fools for not helping warn people and loved ones because you were too lazy to do some basic research that would clearly prove the warning is real. What then do your immature attacks and behaviour disprove? Certainly not the evidence and facts. I haven't seen anyone including wiki or slash offer any intelligent balanced discourse on the literally thousands of pages of material available one can find to see Sollogs message and writings are real and irrefutably true. Its really sad to see the amount of ignorance abound on this forum and just about everywhere on the internet. In the age of information, this has to be the most ignorant age in history and each one attacking sollog without doing any research contribute to the deterioration of today's society and exactly why only an almost complete annihilation of modern man can save the planet. I can totally see how future generations will look back on this time period as the age of ignorance and want to hunt down all those who had the opportunity to spread his warning that could have saved many lives but instead chose to mock and ignore the evidence which could have helped avert nuclear terrorism. I don't think any of you fully realize whats about to happen or whats at stake in respect to nuke terror. But I'm sure if more of you did some real research on the evidence itself or thought more about the effects of a nuclear detonation on a US city, not only would you see how accurate sollog has been amidst the lies and propoganda people have been spewing to distract and confuse people on the truth, but you'd be taking this issue far more seriously and see the imminent danger the world is in. Sollog is basically just the messenger. You all just hate and fear the message or are just too stupid to understand it. -Ja Hero
No coincidence. NDC777 is a sock that Sollog's been using on usenet for about a month. Note also the posting style identical to LORDGODALMIGHTY
Apparently unable to comprehend that articles don't stay on the front page forever and ever, a Sollog sockpuppet claims that the article's been deleted because of a class action that Sollog's "followers" are threatening against VA Software.
Just when you thought the internets were safe... A new breed of hate sites have spawned, quietly masquerading as "collaborative encyclopedias" and "Information Technology news portals", leaving angry, slandered victims in their wake. Don't be victimized. Find out how in our special investigative report at 11.
Be careful! Bears shouldn't consume large furry dogs.
Despite the fact that his site said slashdot rules the other day, Sollog has now declared slashdot guilty of religious hate crimes. :)
Secession is the right of all sentient beings.