Wikipedia - High Heels

[j-turbo2002]

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.

[hoverfly]

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

:rofl: nuff said.

[j-turbo2002]

:rofl: nuff said.

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

[texasbumpkin]

JT: I definately agree with you that you are not one for political correctness. In regards to the WMD, they are as elusive a Osama. Maybe they are hiding with Osama in the caves with his dialysis machine and all the missing fibonacci numbers. (1.6, oh wait, I see one!!)

[j-turbo2002]

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:

[j-turbo2002]

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

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

[sscotty727]

Which gets back to MY original point (please let's keep the topic OFF politics) That is was INTERESTING that there was a section there on men in heels and that it IS read by lots of people. Scotty

[hoverfly]

: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:

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.

[hoverfly]

Which gets back to MY original point (please let's keep the topic OFF politics)

That is was INTERESTING that there was a section there on men in heels and that it IS read by lots of people.

Scotty

I have to say I am not surprised. I mean it's open for any one to put their definition in, I would most likly think this was done by some one who was male.

[sscotty727]

Who wrote it and why is not as important as the fact it WAS written and read by lots of people. If someone from here wrote and article and got it published in say Newsweek, would it matter that it was one of us or would it matter more that it was out there where others could and would read it?

[hoverfly]

Who wrote it and why is not as important as the fact it WAS written and read by lots of people.

If someone from here wrote and article and got it published in say Newsweek, would it matter that it was one of us or would it matter more that it was out there where others could and would read it?

Well if it was published in News week or something simmular, what group of people has been targeted? Ones who most likely are more opened minded and well educated. These people are more will to accept differences and be more tolerant to indifferences. Now if it was published in a Play boy magazine or a truck and car magazine, we be the laughing stock of many gay jokes.

[sscotty727]

Never know, some of those Truckers could be closest heel wearers too;) I mean, all day driving back and forth, what a better time to slip on a nice pair of pumps;)

[texasbumpkin]

: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:

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.

[sscotty727]

Which gets back to MY original point (please let's keep the topic OFF politics)

That is was INTERESTING that there was a section there on men in heels and that it IS read by lots of people.

Scotty

So much for politely asking.

[texasbumpkin]

So much for politely asking.

Scotty

I guess that you did not read the last paragraph that began with in regards to news and information.

[sscotty727]

I did read it but wasn't sure if you were talking about shoe articles or WMD articles. Scotty

[texasbumpkin]

I did read it but wasn't sure if you were talking about shoe articles or WMD articles.

Scotty

Then maybe you should ask and not assume. This is the exact reason that I stopped coming to this site. One person would guess that they knew what the other meant by what they wrote without reading the whole thing, or asking questions if they were not sure.

[sscotty727]

Yes, I made a major assumption, paragraph 1 was all about WMD and paragraph 2 mentions "You have to go to the European news and magazines to get the full story" so it has to be a wild stretch on my part to assume it is ALSO talking about WMD. I am not upset at YOU, I am upset that twice now I created a thread and it got highjacked (by you know who) into a political discussion. I put a thread in the General Topics form just for that now so hopefully other threads don't get sidetracked. Again, I apologize for jumping on you, but can you atleast see where I am coming from??? Scotty

[j-turbo2002]

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:

[texasbumpkin]

Scotty, I accept your apology, and I understand the hijacking issue where I am a woman on this board.

[j-turbo2002]

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:

[sscotty727]

Texas, Misunderstanding on both our parts. I created a topic to just discuss how cool it is that wikipedia mentions men in heels on the High Heel topic and mentions it favorably. Not two posts into the thread it gets pulled into a political discussion about Bush Policies, the Iraq war and WMD. Now maybe it's just me, but I don't see how those two things are related. I've kindly TRIED to push it back to the original topic but it keeps getting pulled back into politics. As I said, this wasn't my first thread to go this route. Like you, I go quiet on this form alot JUST for those reasons. Believe me, I do understand your frustrations and sympathize about hijacked threads. That is why I stay OUT of the For Women's area even when there is a topic I am just dying to comment on, I refuse to post there because that is YOUR area, not ours. Thanks for understanding. Scotty

[j-turbo2002]

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.

[sscotty727]

Interesting article. Not my opnion, story from CNN.

Link to article is

here

Journal: Wikipedia as accurate as Britannica Nature study covered side-by-side comparison of scientific topics

Thursday, December 15, 2005; Posted: 10:28 a.m. EST (15:28 GMT)

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that relies on volunteers to pen nearly 4 million articles, is about as accurate in covering scientific topics as Encyclopedia Britannica, the journal Nature wrote in an online article published Wednesday.

The finding, based on a side-by-side comparison of articles covering a broad swath of the scientific spectrum, comes as Wikipedia faces criticism over the accuracy of some of its entries.

Two weeks ago prominent journalist John Seigenthaler, the former publisher of the Tennessean newspaper and founding editorial director of USA Today, revealed that a Wikipedia entry that ran for four months had incorrectly named him as a longtime suspect in the assassinations of president John F. Kennedy and his brother Robert.

Such errors appear to be the exception rather than the rule, Nature said in Wednesday's article, which the scientific journal said was the first to use peer review to compare Wikipedia to Britannica. Based on 42 articles reviewed by experts, the average scientific entry in Wikipedia contained four errors or omissions, while Britannica had three.

Of eight "serious errors" the reviewers found -- including misinterpretations of important concepts -- four came from each source, the journal reported.

"We're very pleased with the results and we're hoping it will focus people's attention on the overall level of our work, which is pretty good," said Jimmy Wales, who founded St. Petersburg, Florida-based Wikipedia in 2001.

Wales said the accuracy of his project varies by topic, with strong suits including pop culture and contemporary technology. That's because Wikipedia's stable of dedicated volunteers tend to have more collective expertise in such areas, he said.

The site tends to lag when it comes to topics touching on the humanities, such as the winner of the Nobel Prize for literature for a particular year, Wales said.

Next month, Wikipedia plans to begin testing a new mechanism for reviewing the accuracy of its articles. The group also is working on ways to make its review process easier to use by people who have less familiarity with computers and the Internet.

Encyclopedia Britannica officials declined to comment on the findings because they haven't seen the data. But spokesman Tom Panelas said such comparisons, assuming they're conducted correctly, are valuable "because they tell us things you wouldn't know otherwise."

While some Britannica officials have publicly criticized Wikipedia's quality in the past, Panelas praised the free service for having the speed and breadth to keep up on topics such as "extreme ironing." The sport, in which competitors iron clothing in remote locations, is not covered in Britannica.

Britannica researchers plan to review the Nature study and correct any errors discovered, Panelas said.

Unlike Britannica, which charges for its content and pays a staff of experts to research and write its articles, Wikipedia gives away its content for free and allows anyone -- amateur or professional, expert or novice -- to submit and edit entries.

Wikipedia, which boasts 3.7 million articles in 200 languages, is the 37th most visited Web site on the Internet, according to the research service Alexa.

[HHwornbare]

Al I can say is if the shoe fits, wear it, And have fun when wearing them