This cant be true

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
so who writes the web sites you read .??

Don't read 'websites', per se, but read many articles, both investigative journalism and opinions - whatever catches my interest or piques my curiosity.

what makes them so much creditable then anybodu else ??

Citations of the source for the underlying information, which Wiki always provides, and I read quite a few of them to learn more. for instance: I read the 'note to historians' linked by RLENT - every word of it [and it was quite an eye opener!] Did you?

or are you like the little school girl . oh i hate sally now because she is going out with john and i so like him .
:confused:

come on grow up and open your minds and think . you people are so locked in your own beliefs . and wont look at any thing else .
you are like the saying cant teach old dogs new tricks .



you believe what you were taught , not what you have learned on your own .

just like when i said i feel like a black man at a KKK meeting , no matter what the KKK was not going to think any differant . they are set in their way and nothing is going to change that .

All the above is what I consider projection: accusing others of behaving as you would, not as they actually are. Especially the line "believe what you were taught, not what you have learned on your own", as those you accuse are not in the habit off getting outraged over misleading [deliberately] headlines - we question the truthfulness of whatever we read, and accept it only when it's verifiable - do you?

no matter what .

what does drinking the koolaid mean to you . to me it means you will follow and believe what you are told and will not think for yourself . just like the people that did drink the koolaid and died . (jamestown)the believe and worshiped that one guy and did every thing he said .they didnt think for themselfs .

Urban Dictionary: drink the kool-aid

Word Spy - drink the Kool-Aid

Where did 'Drink the Kool-Aid' come from? - msnbc tv - Documentaries - Jonestown - msnbc.com

Kool-Aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

so who should write the encyclopedia that everybody should read and believe in .

Wiki is doing a pretty good job of it - and we notice you chose to cite what you found there.....:D

just like today everybody is worried about the Terrorist and are forgetting about the true Terrorists of the USA . the same way Hoover did with the Communists .

And the 'true terrorists' would be? :confused:

even thou i QUOTED tbubster this isnt meant just for him EVERYBODY
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
Your edits didn't stand up to even the most casual scrutiny, so they aren't really edits. They were childish vandalism that got erased. Non-vandalism edits without valid sourcing won't stand up, either.

Go edit a page with some falsehood, something not to be trusted and not properly or validly referenced, and then see if it stands. Don't even tell me what it is, just go do it, then a week from now let me know what you did. The timestamps will the proof.

BTW, you still haven't addressed the irrefutable fact that it's not a historian's note, but is rather a note to historians, nor have you addressed the fact that the original referenced document is word-for-word what is on Wiki and therefore should not be trusted because it's also on Wiki. You're trying to invent a straw man argument (Wiki isn't to be trusted because anyone can make an edit) to prove the referenced published documents, which no one can edit, is somehow also not to be trusted. Just because I'm not ignorant about a subject doesn't mean I'm on a high horse. The only high horse is the high horse of a misinformed notion that Wiki cannot be trusted simply by the fact that anyone can make edits, and therefore dammit you're gonna prove it come hell or high water, which is the hallmark of a wacko who cannot let the truth stand on its own. Your vandalism in no way, shape or form proved that Wiki isn't to be trusted.

Incidentally, I did read where you said you didn't think it was me who reported you, but that was not part of your original post (made at 12:38), it was part of an edit you made where you added that bit of information after you had initially posted (added at 12:50). My comments were made before you had made the addition, and I simply did not go back and change what I had already written when I did a preview refresh of my own reply, and the quoted and addressed your additions. It was perhaps an oversight on my part, but to state, "You would have noticed that I also said I did not think it was you that reported it had you really read what I wrote," is an incorrect assumption, to which incorrect conclusions followed.

No that was part of my post not part of the edit.that post #54 was in responce to your post #52 not your post post #55.Everything that is in post 54 was there befor u made ur post # 55 if you are calling me a liar you sir are out of touch with the truth.More so when you accuse me of doing something I did not do!!No matter if I edit a wiki page and its up for 5 mins or 30 days when people are able to see the edit then use that page as a link befor the false edit is taken down for reference then it just shows how unreliable the source is.If you can not understand this well not my problem.as far as the historians note ok maybe I got that part wrong I did however just point out what was written on the link that was given!!!!National security archive is a group that is no way related to a government angency.Its almost like because of its title you think everyone should belive anything they report.

I find it ammusing how when ever anyone uses a link from a conservative site they are insulted for useing that site you seem to have no problem with this.yet when a Link is shown to be not reliable you have this to say

Attacking the source (Wiki) instead of refuting the referenced data in which it contains, is simply yet another example of a logical fallacy. To do so means you must put yourself in the position of having to state (and believe) that everything on every Wiki page is not to be trusted, because it's on Wikipedia. And that's just absurd
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
Dear Boobala,

I'm glad to see that you have once again found your voice and decided to return to "the-thread-that-keeps-on-giving" to share your thoughts.


...... mebbe anyone reading here that noticed that you were shooting your mouth off, bragging that you had intentionally engaged in vandalism (which most folks actually tend to view as a form of criminal activity), simply to prove what amounts to a largely irrelevant point ?


What do you normally do when you notice someone committing intentional vandalism ...... just continue walking on by ..... while thinking all manner of happy thoughts ?

Afterall, it doesn't really have anything to do with you, right ? :rolleyes:


Well, yeah - it was - when you did it. Hilarious actually .... though possibly not for the reasons you might guess.

Like I said: ..... small triumphs ..... enjoy 'em while ya got 'em ..... as they are often fleeting at best ....


Pity you weren't inclined to share your thoughts on the identity of the individual in this matter - that is, if you had someone in mind specifically.


It's possible that you have a point ....

On the otherhand, I'm thinking mebbe ya didn't understand the intent of his comment and just didn't "get it" .....

As I've found out, often the g-man's comments are fairly nuanced ....


Same to ya ..... and remember: Don't take any wooden nickels !

OH WOW MAYBE YOU SHOULD CALL THE POLICE.What I did was add one word to both of your links to prove it can and in fact is done.Funny how when I show proof that YOUR links are unreliable you say that it is irrelevent point.

Oh I got a few in mind.
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
so who writes the web sites you read .??I use links alot just look at my post

what makes them so much creditable then anybodu else ??Can you go on fox website and edit there pages?The way I went on wiki and edited their pages

or are you like the little school girl . oh i hate sally now because she is going out with john and i so like him . What are we in the first grade?

come on grow up and open your minds and think . you people are so locked in your own beliefs . and wont look at any thing else . look above and you are telling me to grow up.I look at many different thigs however I refuse to change my beliefs because others do not like them.


you are like the saying cant teach old dogs new tricks .Sometimes the old dog is just smarter then the guy trying to teach him a new trick

you believe what you were taught , not what you have learned on your own .Yes I belive what I was taught,I have great teachers.You see even though I feel old at times it is a wasted day that you do not leard something new.(example)I had turned down a run going to lerado then it was pointed out to me on here that yes there is a chance of getting stuck there for a bit but most loads out of there also come with evry long miles:D

just like when i said i feel like a black man at a KKK meeting , no matter what the KKK was not going to think any differant . they are set in their way and nothing is going to change that
no matter what . As I told you then in that thread nice try on the race card

what does drinking the koolaid mean to you . to me it means you will follow and believe what you are told and will not think for yourself . just like the people that did drink the koolaid and died . (jamestown)the believe and worshiped that one guy and did every thing he said .they didnt think for themselfs .

Urban Dictionary: drink the kool-aid

Word Spy - drink the Kool-Aid

Where did 'Drink the Kool-Aid' come from? - msnbc tv - Documentaries - Jonestown - msnbc.com

Kool-Aid - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Come on someone like yourself that claims to alway be looking for the REAL TRUTH should know it was FLAVOR AID

so who should write the encyclopedia that everybody should read and believe in .Not me nor you or anyone else on here for that matter

just like today everybody is worried about the Terrorist and are forgetting about the true Terrorists of the USA . the same way Hoover did with the Communists .Maybe you should INFORM US FORGETFUL ONES ON WHO THE TERRORIST OF THE USA ARE

even thou i QUOTED tbubster this isnt meant just for him EVERYBODY

So I have answerd your questions have a great day.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
OH WOW MAYBE YOU SHOULD CALL THE POLICE.
Nah ..... I'm a kinda a live-and-let-live guy for the most part. No biggie .... different story though if you made a habit of it.

And FWIW, I certainly didn't "report you" to Wikipedia, if anyone in fact did. I did go look at what you did however. Cute.

What I did was add one word to both of your links to prove it can and in fact is done.
Great - you proved it.

Now, what exactly, in either Wikipedia article that I linked can you show to demonstrably false or inaccurate ? (that isn't something that you stuck in there .... :rolleyes:)

If you could prove something there, you might really have something.

Funny how when I show proof that YOUR links are unreliable you say that it is irrelevent point.
You should look up, read, and fully define - so that you understand it conceptually - the logical fallacy that is known as "a strawman" .... because that is exactly what your statement directly above is, to wit:

What you actually showed is that you were able to edit a couple of Wikipedia entries and enter some frivolous text into it. The only thing that shows is that the source I used has a possible potential to be unreliable - not that it is - and not that any of the facts I referenced, which were contained in the Wikipedia article, actually are untrue.

The source is largely irrelevant - if the content is, in fact, accurate.

Oh I got a few in mind.
Huh ?

Sorry, but the above as a free-standing statement makes no sense to me. Perhaps you can elaborate ?
 
Last edited:

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Cl: the 'edit' you managed on Wiki doesn't prove your point, it refutes it. Because the people who use [and contribute to] Wiki aren't the ones who accept things at face value - they require actual verifiable sources. Without those, info added is viewed with skepticism until it's either verified or removed.
Yours was removed, [pretty quickly, too.] Wiki works.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Cl: the 'edit' you managed on Wiki doesn't prove your point, it refutes it. Because the people who use [and contribute to] Wiki aren't the ones who accept things at face value - they require actual verifiable sources. Without those, info added is viewed with skepticism until it's either verified or removed.
Yours was removed, [pretty quickly, too.] Wiki works.
Cheri,

It wasn't cl that did the edit - it was tbubster - unless I missed something in one of cl's posts saying he had done so as well.
 

clcooper

Expert Expediter
Cl: the 'edit' you managed on Wiki doesn't prove your point, it refutes it. Because the people who use [and contribute to] Wiki aren't the ones who accept things at face value - they require actual verifiable sources. Without those, info added is viewed with skepticism until it's either verified or removed.
Yours was removed, [pretty quickly, too.] Wiki works.

what ??

what are actual verifiable sources?? is what i am saying . what makes fOX,TIME,NEWSWEEK ,MSN , CNN, ETC, a actual verifiable sources. they dont have to show you everything they vidoed are everybody they interveiwed . they can pick and choose what they show and tell you .

what about the histroy that is taught in schools .


""Yours was removed, [pretty quickly, too.] Wiki works""" ???????????
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Cheri,

It wasn't cl that did the edit - it was tbubster - unless I missed something in one of cl's posts saying he had done so as well.

Ooops - was reading cl's post that indicated some doubt as to the legitimacy of Wiki, and didn't check to see if the 'edit' was his - sorry. :eek:
TBub: that was meant for you.
 

clcooper

Expert Expediter
i asked so who writes the web sites you read .??
and your answer was
I use links alot just look at my post

do you know how to read . WHO WRITES is the key words

what makes them so much creditable then anybodu else ??

Can you go on fox website and edit there pages?The way I went on wiki and edited their pages

so FOX cant write what they want . just because you cant edited it doesnt make it true .

I refuse to change my beliefs
that is what i am saying . you will not chage your beliefs no matter what . weather you are right or wrong . just like i am saying with the KKK . but has i can see you dont even think about what others say . you are already believe in something else .

why am i using the race card . when i compare your way of thinking to the KKK . the KKK hated the blacks . WHY . because they believed the blacks were evil . the blacks were not good enough to be treated like them . and nothing was every going to change the KKKs way of thinking
Come on someone like yourself that claims to alway be looking for the REAL TRUTH should know it was FLAVOR AID

did you ever hear using the name in a generic sense . i never said what type of drink they really drink at Jonestown Massacre
""Film footage shot inside the compound prior to the events of November shows Jones opening a large chest in which boxes of both Flavor Aid and Kool-Aid are visible""

AND I ASK YOU HOW DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY DRANK THAT DAY . WERE YOU THERE . WHO TOLD YOU . HOW DO I KNOW IF IT WAS A actual verifiable source.
so who should write the encyclopedia that everybody should read and believe in .Not me nor you or anyone else on here for that matter

well who should if the people who write for Wikipedia, cant be trusted . the people at FOX are to be trusted . ?? WHO SHOULD BE TRUSTED TO THAT .

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia i just found out why you hate Wikipedia so much .you are a encyclopedia salesman . and since Wikipedia, is a free encyclopedia people arent buying from you . so if Wikipedia charged to use their site it would make it a trusted site then







.
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
Ooops - was reading cl's post that indicated some doubt as to the legitimacy of Wiki, and didn't check to see if the 'edit' was his - sorry. :eek:
TBub: that was meant for you.

I got that even if others did not still think you are wrong on it though.
 

Camper

Not a Member
I find it ammusing how when ever anyone uses a link from a conservative site they are insulted for useing that site you seem to have no problem with this.yet when a Link is shown to be not reliable you have this to say

Yep, we get accused of inciting "fake" outrage". I also love the double standard in which it's OK to attack FOX but not Wikipedia.
 

tbubster

Seasoned Expediter
Yep, we get accused of inciting "fake" outrage". I also love the double standard in which it's OK to attack FOX but not Wikipedia.

Thats what makes this such a great country though, even when they are wrong they can still tell us their thoughts:D
 

clcooper

Expert Expediter
Yep, we get accused of inciting "fake" outrage". I also love the double standard in which it's OK to attack FOX but not Wikipedia.

double standard you got that right


but who is right . your site, his site, her site, MY site . . the people at FOX write the stuff on their own site . Wikipedia is writen by monkeies ??

what i know both and all are writen by a human . which some people can be trusted and some people cant be trusted .

i dont like oparh so i dont believe one word she says . i dont like this person because they live in the south so i wont believe what they have to say . this guy doesnt drive a truck . so i wont believe what he says either .

but anybody that drives a cargo van i will believe them . anybody that wears ovm shorts i will believe and worship them to . LOL

and they say they are the open minded ones

ps..
nothing against cargo vans or ovm shorts . just thought they would be good examples
 

Turtle

Administrator
Staff member
Retired Expediter
People get accused of inciting fake outrage when people incite, and others display, fake outrage. People don't get outraged anymore, they get over-the-top, arms flailing, keyboard banging outraged, and it's mostly all fake. Not unlike the same fake outrage over the infamous Rutgers University "nappy headed hoes" extravaganza where people were outrageously outraged, and then three days later it was old news. It's the same with people getting offended over something trivial. They can't simply be offended, they are always deeply, deeply I tell you, deeply offended. It's like they can't be any more offended than they are, nothing in the world could happen which could offend them any more deeply.

"I also love the double standard in which it's OK to attack FOX but not Wikipedia."

The double standard, actually, is when people get upset (deeply offended) because others attack Fox because it has an admitted biased slant to the news, and then those same upset people attack Wikipedia because it's doesn't.


No that was part of my post not part of the edit.that post #54 was in responce to your post #52 not your post post #55.Everything that is in post 54 was there befor u made ur post # 55 if you are calling me a liar you sir are out of touch with the truth.More so when you accuse me of doing something I did not do!!
Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers... hey, look, chocolate milk!
Humphrey-Bogart-Captain-Queeg-The-Caine-Mutiny-150x150.jpg
 

cheri1122

Veteran Expediter
Driver
Yep, we get accused of inciting "fake" outrage". I also love the double standard in which it's OK to attack FOX but not Wikipedia.

It's not just ok to attack Fox [or any media outlet that is biased in any direction], it's a good thing to do.
I didn't see any suggestion of bias related to Wikipedia, though - just to the validity, which was pretty well proven to be for real with actual citations of sources.
The fake outrage would be hilarious, if it weren't so scary to see that people are so easily manipulated by those whose agenda is profit at any cost.
 

RLENT

Veteran Expediter
Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers... hey, look, chocolate milk!
Humphrey-Bogart-Captain-Queeg-The-Caine-Mutiny-150x150.jpg
ROTFLMAO .....

This was just on, on DirecTV, either last night or the night before .... wife was channel surfing and ran across it, right at the point where Queeg was in the witness chair. I told her to leave it there .... and she immediately protested that we'd already missed a substantial portion of the movie. My reply:

"Yeah ..... but this part right here is just classic ...... so put down that remote ...."

:D
 

skyraider

Veteran Expediter
US Navy
People get accused of inciting fake outrage when people incite, and others display, fake outrage. People don't get outraged anymore, they get over-the-top, arms flailing, keyboard banging outraged, and it's mostly all fake. Not unlike the same fake outrage over the infamous Rutgers University "nappy headed hoes" extravaganza where people were outrageously outraged, and then three days later it was old news. It's the same with people getting offended over something trivial. They can't simply be offended, they are always deeply, deeply I tell you, deeply offended. It's like they can't be any more offended than they are, nothing in the world could happen which could offend them any more deeply.

"I also love the double standard in which it's OK to attack FOX but not Wikipedia."

The double standard, actually, is when people get upset (deeply offended) because others attack Fox because it has an admitted biased slant to the news, and then those same upset people attack Wikipedia because it's doesn't.


Ahh, but the strawberries that's... that's where I had them. They laughed at me and made jokes but I proved beyond the shadow of a doubt and with... geometric logic... that a duplicate key to the wardroom icebox DID exist, and I'd have produced that key if they hadn't of pulled the Caine out of action. I, I, I know now they were only trying to protect some fellow officers... hey, look, chocolate milk!
Humphrey-Bogart-Captain-Queeg-The-Caine-Mutiny-150x150.jpg



There was a page 2 to that movie>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[Greenwald staggers into the Caine crew's party, inebriated]
Lt. Barney Greenwald: Well, well, well! The officers of the Caine in happy celebration!
Lt. Steve Maryk: What are you, Barney, kind of tight?
Lt. Barney Greenwald: Sure. I got a guilty conscience. I defended you, Steve, because I found the wrong man was on trial.
[pours himself a glass of wine]
Lt. Barney Greenwald: So, I torpedoed Queeg for you. I *had* to torpedo him. And I feel sick about it.
[drinks wine]
Lt. Steve Maryk: Okay, Barney, take it easy.
Lt. Barney Greenwald: You know something... When I was studying law, and Mr. Keefer here was writing his stories, and you, Willie, were tearing up the playing fields of dear old Princeton, who was standing guard over this fat, dumb, happy country of ours, eh? Not us. Oh, no, we knew you couldn't make any money in the service. So who did the dirty work for us? Queeg did! And a lot of other guys. Tough, sharp guys who didn't crack up like Queeg.
Ensign Willie Keith: But no matter what, Captain Queeg endangered the ship and the lives of the men.
Lt. Barney Greenwald: He didn't endanger anybody's life, you did, *all* of you! You're a fine bunch of officers.
Lt. JG H. Paynter Jr.: You said yourself he cracked.
Lt. Barney Greenwald: I'm glad you brought that up, Mr. Paynter, because that's a very pretty point. You know, I left out one detail in the court martial. It wouldn't have helped our case any.
[to Maryk]
Lt. Barney Greenwald: Tell me, Steve, after the Yellowstain business, Queeg came to you guys for help and you turned him down, didn't you?
Lt. Steve Maryk: [hesitant] Yes, we did.
Lt. Barney Greenwald: [to Paynter] You didn't approve of his conduct as an officer. He wasn't worthy of your loyalty. So you turned on him. You ragged him. You made up songs about him. If you'd given Queeg the loyalty he needed, do you suppose the whole issue would have come up in the typhoon?
[to Maryk]
Lt. Barney Greenwald: You're an honest man, Steve, I'm asking you. You think it would've been necessary for you to take over?
Lt. Steve Maryk: [hesitant] It probably wouldn't have been necessary.
Lt. Barney Greenwald: [muttering slightly] Yeah.
Ensign Willie Keith: If that's true, then we *were* guilty.
Lt. Barney Greenwald: Ah, you're learning, Willie! You're learning that you don't work with a captain because you like the way he parts his hair. You work with him because he's got the job or you're no good! Well, the case is over. You're all safe. It was like shooting fish in a barrel.
[long pause; strides toward Keefer]
Lt. Barney Greenwald: And now we come to the man who *should've* stood trial. The Caine's favorite author. The Shakespeare whose testimony nearly sunk us all. Tell 'em, Keefer!
Lieutenant Tom Keefer: [stiff and overcome with guilt] No, you go ahead. You're telling it better.
Lt. Barney Greenwald: You ought to read his testimony. He never even heard of Captain Queeg!
Lt. Steve Maryk: Let's forget it, Barney!
Lt. Barney Greenwald: Queeg was sick, he couldn't help himself. But you, you're *real* healthy. Only you didn't have one tenth the guts that he had.
Lieutenant Tom Keefer: Except I never fooled myself, Mr. Greenwald.
Lt. Barney Greenwald: I'm gonna drink a toast to you, Mr. Keefer.
[pours wine in a glass]
Lt. Barney Greenwald: From the beginning you hated the Navy. And then you thought up this whole idea. And you managed to keep your skirts nice, and starched, and clean, even in the court martial. Steve Maryk will always be remembered as a mutineer. But you, you'll publish your novel, you'll make a million bucks, you'll marry a big movie star, and for the rest of your life you'll live with your conscience, if you have any. Now here's to the *real* author of "The Caine Mutiny." Here's to you, Mr. Keefer.
[splashes wine in Keefer's face]
Lt. Barney Greenwald: If you wanna do anything about it, I'll be outside. I'm a lot drunker than you are, so it'll be a fair fight.
Share this quote details and details my insert ,Sky. it was a great movie IMHO>
 
Top