j-turbo2002

I just want to congratulate Jeff for a job well done and give a big THANKS to Richie for taking over the forum. That is all.

j-turbo2002 is officially leaving the hhplace forum forever! This is my final post. Sometimes you truly have to loose the battle in order to win the war! With that being said, the moderators have my full permission to delete all of my posts along with my username and password. I will not be needing them any longer. Goodby, Good Luck, and Godspeed! Jason

Oooooooooky….. and the producer on Desperate House Wives properly will get arrested for chilled molestation some day. Pleeeeeeeeeeease...

Well, I do not know about that one...........

Also, if you want to be an engineer someday we are definitely going to have to work on those grammar skills.

Not me.......

Did or are you going to watch the live debate of the West Wing tonight JT.

No, I hate that West Wing show. It gives a false impression of politics. Also, I think that the producer of the show has been arrested for cocaine possession.

I like to be entertained on Sunday night. This is why I watch Desparate Housewives.

My plan is to pick up one course at a time in academics, including during the summer. I hope in time that I manage to save enough money to finish my major(s) going full time for two years after that. But I won’t be ditching my GF, Actually she is working on her 2nd Bachelors in Nursing right now when she done, it will be my turn.

I would not do this if I were you. Picking up one course at a time is good but it will take a LONG time to finish your degree and you will eventually get "burned out" after a while. If I were you, I would seriously start thinking about going full-time right from the beginning.

Just a word of warning, if I may. Engineering Professors are brutal people. They WILL work your butt off with homework, projects, etc., to the point that you are literally exhausted. You are not going to have a whole lot of free time.

Ok, I will keep my yap shut.

No offence or anything but I think that this is probably the smartest thing that I have heard you say so far.

Still, either figuratively or literally, I cannot remember a time when we have ever come close to ripping each others throats out.

Ripping each others throats out??

How old am I, well lets say I am one degree above freezing.

Well, you have plenty of time. Then again, the truth being that it is never too late.

If you plan on studying engineering I have one suggestion: Get rid of your social life and your girlfriend (if you have one). You will not have time for either. You will be doing a lot of work.

Better?

Yes, that is much better. Thx.

Oh I am, execpt I going to put my mouth where the money is, I have gone to see if I can get hired a Tweeter Ect, while my unenjoment is still available, It will buy me some time because I will work on commission. If that does not work out, I guess I will go back to running CNC machines and put up with working with the coolant for the next ten years while I got to school. If it does, work out then I can go to school during the day.

Well, it sounds like you have a plan here. I just have one question: How old are you?

^^Dam engineers......... This one is going to run for president.

That is a good idea! I just might do that!

You could become an engineer and run for President also, that is, if you would just clean up your life and get your act together.

JT, I said "J-Turbo, Dr Shoe, and other usual cast " (my turn to say go back and read . I didn't feel like going back and grabbing ALL the names but I know you two always get into major debates and it happened now in two threads I created. All I asked was to leave my threads on topic and to take the "fight" to where it belongs. Is that too much to ask?

Thanks,

Scotty

PS: Ok, "ding ding ding"

Yes, I know what you wrote. I do not need you telling me things that I already know. However, you specically aimed your comments at me when you called out my name! This is what we call "Targeting" or "Calling People Out".

The problem here is that your original statement is incorrectly worded. To avoid the "Targeting" issue, the following statement is an example of how your original statement should have been written:

Just thought I would start a thread where the usual cast can debate into the wee hours of the morning over political issues instead of taking over other threads.

Have at it guys.

Scotty

Do you now see what I am talking about?

Good.

Well JT you must admit got quite a reputation.

Yea, that usually happens just because I am right 99% of the time.

Yes it was. Didn't you see my name mentioned in that last post?

Just thought I would start a thread where J-Turbo, Dr Shoe, and other usual cast can debate into the wee hours of the morning over political issues instead of taking over other threads.

Have at it guys.

Scotty

Well, I have to admit that this is pretty arrogant of you. Especially when I did not even start talking about politics in that last thread. I was dragged into it by those "other people".

I agree, lets just get back on the topic of Wikipedia. If I keep going on proving why the Iraq war is true and just I will definitely ruin this topic.

Now here is a great example how Bush quit possibly gotten his infomation form the Wikipedia, put in buy a U.N. janitor. Ooops I mean sanitation engineer, sounds more qualified. :rofl:

I think akatex means the reasoned why we went in to Iraq for a second time. The rest of the world was convinced that there was WMD, and we know the rest of the story, we got suckered into a fairy tale. The CIA should hire Sadam, he performed the best deception of all, he caused his final demise, and we fell for it. Even with good intentions, we as in the general public were fooled and lied to, about the truth. WMD's were no longer in Sadams hands only in his head and every one elese's.

:rofl:

No, I don't think so. What I think is that both you and your girlfriend need to put down the crack pipe and the comic books and quit coming up with all of these fairy tale stroies. Niether one of you are making any sense here.

:rofl:

Yes, JT

You said it yourself....they were destroyed by the UN prior to our unlawful invasion. The 690 tons of chemical weapons, included what..did they list it....I want to know exactly what it was. I have chemical weapons in my purse (pepper spray) , under my sink (ammonia), and on my bureau (hairspray). Precurser chemicals can range from baking power, to iodine (medical grade) to rubbing alcohol to sulfur to other things I have under my kitchen counter. Just remember, That diesel fuel and cow manuer make one hell of an explosion, and we all remember what it did in Oklahoma City, Ok.

In regards to news and information, there are many source for information, but I have found that some of the ones here in the US do not report the whole story. You have to go to the European news and magazines to get the full story. An example of this is that our news agencies will give you a story but will only give some info, but when you listen to the BBC there is much more that you did not get from the US source. Even with medical information, there is alot that is not released here in the states, because over seas they are not afraid to offend their CASH COW advertisers to release the truth.

:rofl:

They destroyed a lot of weapons however, if you would bother to read anything you would know that there was a LOT more laying around than what they had previously already destroyed. When they left in 1998, they documented a vast array of chemical and biological that had been left behind that had never been destroyed.

This war was not illegal. This is just left-wing propaganda that is trying to sweep UN Resolution 1441 under the carpet. Regardless of what you think of it, UN Resolution 1441 makes this war totally and unbiasedly legal.

I am glad that you told me that you like to read the European news sources. Now I fully understand why you mind is in the gutter.

The European news sources do not tell you the truth rather, it is nothing more than biased, left-wing, anti-U.S., anti-capitalist, pro-communist, and unmoral filth hate speach. Belive me, I know. I watch the BBC world report almost every night.

:rofl:

Getting back on topic.............

Wikipedia, in my mind, is nothing more than one giant opinion encyclopedia.

JT:

In regards to the WMD, they are as elusive a Osama.

:rofl:

Oh, but the WMD's truly did exist in Iraq. How do I know this you might ask? Well, your heroes at the United Nations told me. The United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) kept very good records as to what was there, what was not there, and what it was assumed that Iraq, under Saddam Hussein, was not reporting.

Here is a complete list of what UNSCOM witnessed the destruction of in Iraq:

MISSILE AREA:

- 48 operational long-range missiles

- 14 conventional missile warheads

- 6 operational mobile launchers

- 28 operational fixed launch pads

- 32 fixed launch pads (under construction)

- 30 missile chemical warheads

- other missile support equipment and materials

- supervision of the destruction of a variety of assembled and non-

assembled "super-gun" components

CHEMICAL AREA:

- 38,537 filled and empty chemical munitions

- 690 tonnes of chemical weapons agent

- more than 3,000 tonnes of precursors chemicals

- 426 pieces of chemical weapons production equipment

- 91 pieces of related analytical instruments

BIOLOGICAL AREA:

- the entire Al-Hakam, the main biological weapons production facility

- a variety of biological weapons production equipment and materials

Now, all this being said, what was it that you were trying to tell me about Weapons of Mass Desctruction not existing in Iraq? Perhaps you would like to tell me another fairy tale? :rofl:

:rofl: nuff said.

I am so disappointed with you. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

HA!!! This from a Republican!! Actually what do you think what we have for a president right now? A goof ball....... :sleeping: and he is writing history!!.......... Hale Marry full of grace..... Our father who aren’t in heaven..... So why not just join in JT? Since one should not take the Wikipedia seriously, you should submit your opinions, it will just add additional toilet paper to the next addition when I buy it.

Well, first of all, this is nowhere near bloody well said. This is nothing more than idiotic rambling from someone who definitely needs to put down and quit smoking the crack pipe.

President Bush is not writing the sometimes fictitious and opinionated history like that seen in the Wikipedia website. No matter how much you hate him, the truth of the matter is that President Bush is writing TRUE and REALISTIC history that IS making the world a better place.

Yep, you are. One thing JT is that unlike most others he does not loose his cool, he is politically correct about the way he does it not that we agree with every thing he says. Now as for some of us I bet there is some less than politically correct things that at some time people would like to say to him, but halved maintain a dignified discipline. Which gives great credit to the participants of this board.

You also got one issue totally wrong about me. I am a staunch opponent of political correctness.

micha,

Yes, I know that Wikipedia is an open community. I was not born yesterday. It is funny that you brought up the Linux operating system. Yes it has an open source code that everyone can utilize to improve upon. Hence this is the reason why the Linux operating system is a piece of junk that is really no better than Windows. Trust me here – I have utilized both systems to some extent. Also, I am not at all condemning the process of people expressing their own opinions. I am not sure where you received this misinterpretation.

I have not misunderstood the “Wikipedia Project”. The problem here is that you have read what I have written and you have assumed the wrong impression. I am just trying to point out that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Yes, Wikipedia is free to everyone and Encyclopedia Britannica is a commercial product. However, guess what? A wise man once told me that the best things in life do not come for free. Also, when I use the phrase “Buyer Beware” I am talking about the individual who goes to Wikipedia and literally “Buys-in” (e.g., accepts the information as truth) to the information. I am not talking about someone trying to purchase (e.g., pay money) something from Wikipedia. Hence, the phrase “Buyer Beware” really and truly does apply.

Now, I agree with you that naturally, all of the information in Wikipedia is not always reliable since most of the authors are not real experts. I also agree with you that if I knew that something could be better I should start a discussion with the author of the article. However, when it comes to articles written in Wikipedia I would probably never do so because, since I do not take Wikipedia that seriously, I would be just another “goof ball” writing history as I see it.

But IMHO Dr.Shoe is right! The amount of information in Wikipedia is already comparable or more comprehensive than in commercial products like the Encyclopedia Britannica.

I would expect this kind of talk for the both of you.

I never said everything listed there is 100% correct. The interesting fact about that entry is that #1 Men in Heels is mentioned and #2 alot of people DO read the entries there. Whether it is the "authority" on topics or not is not what I am worried about as I would never take what is listed there as the final word on something I was seriously researching. All I said was the post had some interesting things in it.

Scotty

Yes! I know this. However, the credibility of the article was not my focus at all.

Dr. Shoe claimed that he had had always found Wikipedia the finest source of information anywhere. What I am trying to tell Dr. Shoe is that he had better be careful because Wikipedia does not stand behind their product. As Wikipedia states in their General Disclaimer, it is not peer reviewed by professionals in the subject matter. For example, Encyclopedia Britannica is a publication that is peer reviewed by professionals in the subject matter. Wikipedia goes on to state that most of the contributors who contribute to the site are mostly undergrads having a good time and they also state that there are those people who just like to “write stuff”.

Hence, this is why I said that this was one of those "buyer beware" situations.

One good point is is the fact that it is self correcting, if a contributer wrote something incorrect, someone else would put it right.

No. Not really.

What would happen if that "someone else" was wrong?

I have always found Wikipeadia the finest source of information anywhere.

I would be careful if I were you. This is one of those "buyer beware" situations.

Wikipedia does not stand behind their product.

You can read more about it here in their General Disclaimer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:General_disclaimer

They also have a Risk Disclaimer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Risk_disclaimer