COMMENTS:
Voted : Take a truck load of salt with anything stated as "fact"
In fact, it is a site filled with more politics and delicate egos than BestandWorst. I recently read an article about it that I want to send to LCD. It might cheer him up. 
by mojo on Wed Aug 30, 06 5:57am
[+]
I always use a multitude of sources. I check the references for the article, etc. That said, it is at least a zillion times more credible than the rubbish that you and your crew cut and paste.
Voted : Take a truck load of salt with anything stated as "fact"
I would not refer to it for news or anything current, or "quote" it to back anything up.
But it's interesting for biographies and stuff about cities. Their Serial Killer page checks out with all I've read :D
by Jyl on Wed Aug 30, 06 7:18am
[+]
An encycloopedia should NEVER be used as a primary source. An encyclopedia is a great place to start, especially if it features signed articles by experts in their respective fields and includes extensive bibliographies.
{it is at least a zillion times more credible ....
by FiddleFaddleOnLSD on Wed Aug 30, 06 7:09am}
Do you ever stick to the subject of a ballot without attempting trying to make some snide comment about those who doubt the Official Lies about 9/11? When somebody quotes from the BBC, you still ignore them.
^ According to Wikipedia he doesn't :o)
Pretty much.
by aya on Wed Aug 30, 06 9:05am
[+]
funny, when i post pictures from the bbc, you ignore them.
Voted : Take a truck load of salt with anything stated as "fact"
I use the place more for comedy than actual information. And the really funny thing about that is that they *have* a site meant for parody, Uncyclopedia.
{funny, when i post pictures from the bbc, you ignore them.
by neothe1 on Wed Aug 30, 06 11:05am}
No I didn't. There you go lying again, neothe1.
and MrFatNose is still not going change into Osama bin Laden, because Osama does NOT have an inflatable nose or a shapechanging head.
Everyone can check ballot 97082 to confirm this.
already proven
What's already proven?
that the so called "fake" osama bin laden looks EXACTLY like the real one.
What's the matter Lovelynice, don't you like what Wikipedia says about Conspiracy theorists, and what it says about people like Alex Jones or Stanley Hilton? Truth hurts?
Have you noticed that wikipedia articles on the ANY controversial subject change in minutes, Jinn?
where's the credibility?
Oh, by the way, I've caught out some of what's been written in articles there as outright lies too. So has an historian friend of mine. On anything controversial, I noticed that certain people nearly always quote from wikipedia, but often have nothing else better to quote from. It always makes me suspicious when it's quoted as the main source.
"strawman sockpuppet" is a controversial subject now?
"shill" is, apparently
you mean because it dissagrees with you. and since god speaks through you, it must be the encyclopedia that's wrong. typical right-wing arrogance.
Lovelynice, there is not a single written report, article, study, editorial, news story, comment or remark given that goes against your agenda, that you don't call lies. Everything that is negative to your version of the truth is false, lies, deceptive and is simply part of the "big conspiracy".
ken's response: "that's what i'm SAYING!"
|
