How Wikipedia works
grap...@www.com
information, I give hereafter an answer I made to Doug Weller in
Wikipedia-Discussion. An answer which has been CENSORED by Mr Dieter
Bachmann.
So works Wikipedia !
QUOTE :
You still don't understand how Wikipedia works. We use Duhoux because
Duhoux publishes in a reliable source, we don't comment on whether the
ideas are right and wrong. We should use Glotz also, with probably
others who argued it was an import. And Robinson, with this quote
"Most scholars today, including Duhoux, think it a plausible working
hypothesis that the disc was made in Crete." - making it clear that
'today' means 2008. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh yes ! I very well know how Wikipedia works. The initial Wiki-spirit
has been killed by a bunch of Dogmatics, like Mr Bachmann, who, acting
like a pack of wolves, have only ONE aim : to impose THEIR views, so
they may feel "as the dominant males". Take Mr Bachmann, for instance.
Who knows him ? Nobody. Who has red his books or papers ? A handfull
of German-speaking Swisses... But Mr Bachmann compensates his
frustrations with Wikipedia. As a Wiki-administrator, he has the power
to censure what he wants. So, now, HE is the master, whatever the
subject he deals with (he considers himself as "omni-competent"), and
all the others Wiki-redactors, including well-known scholars, are his
slaves ! What a great feeling for him !... Since he became a Wiki-
administrator, the volume of his head has doubled !...
For the present problem, I had been shocked by Trauth's CATEGORICAL
statement (talking not about "a plausible hypothesis", but a
"certainty"), that the Disk was Cretan, because there are lots of
motives for the Disk not to come from Crete, but being an import. For
instance, the fact that it has been recognized at the end of the
1920ies that its clay was foreign to Crete. You asked for the
reference, and I gave it to you. And G. Glotz who was a respected
Professor at the University of Paris and Member of the Institut de
France, is certainly as "reliable" than the Belgian scholar Yves
Duhoux !.. But this was unbearable for Mr Bachmann, who supports
Trauth's idea. So, he DELETED my modest addition, to show that HE is
THE BOSS with Wikipedia!... Template:Marie-Rose, April 11, 2009
END of QUOTE.
Any comment are unnecessary, except the exact text of the correction I
proposed :
INITIAL REDACTION :" Trauth comes to the conclusion that "Crete as
source of the Disc can no longer be called into question."
PROPOSED REDACTION : " Trauth comes to the conclusion that "Crete as
source of the Disc can no longer be called into question, in spite of
the fact that its clay is not of Cretan origin, as stated by G.
Glotz".
Marie-Rose R. , alias grapheus
Martin Ambuhl
> Any comment are unnecessary, except the exact text of the correction I
> proposed :
> INITIAL REDACTION :" Trauth comes to the conclusion that "Crete as
> source of the Disc can no longer be called into question."
> PROPOSED REDACTION : " Trauth comes to the conclusion that "Crete as
> source of the Disc can no longer be called into question, in spite of
> the fact that its clay is not of Cretan origin, as stated by G.
> Glotz".
Note that it is incorrect to state "the fact that its clay is not of
Cretan origin, as stated by G. Glotz". This is a claim of Glotz, not a
"fact". And, despite your indignation at the Wiki maintainers for not
recognizing your self-importance, they got it right: "Glotz (1925:381)
claimed that the clay was not from Crete." There is nothing in your
proposed redaction that is an improvement on that; in fact, it is a good
deal worse.
grap...@www.com
> m...@www.comwrote:
Sorry, dear Martin, but I don't understand your objection. Yes, G.
Glotz claimed "that the clay was not from Crete". You says that "it is
not a fact, but an opinion". Well, one may discuss about that, because
Glotz didn't "invent" his sentence from nothing. It was resulting from
clay analyses made by a Greek geologist at the end of the 1920ies. But
let us forget about that : after all, the geologist may have been
wrong... The TRUE problem is this : Admitting that my redaction was
incorrect, that I should have writtent : "in spite of Glotz's
statement that the Disk's clay is not Cretan", has a Wiki-
administrator the right TO CENSURE A SENTENCE, INSTEAD OF SEARCHING
FOR A BETTER REDACTION ?...
I wonder about your answer to this question...
Rose-Marie
grap...@www.com
> statement that the Disk's clay is not Cretan", has a Wiki-
> administrator the right TO CENSURE A SENTENCE, INSTEAD OF SEARCHING
> FOR A BETTER REDACTION ?...
> I wonder about your answer to this question...
>
> Rose-Marie
Sorry, but I've to correct the redaction of my question to you ! I
should have written : "Is it in the Wiki spirit TO CENSURE, instead of
opening a discussion for a better redaction ?"
If you are attached to Wikipedia, as I think, you should be the first
to DEMAND that Wiki-administrators, who, like Mr Dieter Bachmann, are
acting like kapos in a concentration camp, IMPOSING THEIR VIEWS to
flatter their ego, SHOULD BE BANNED.
Regards
Marie-Rose
grammatim
> Marie-Rose-
"grapheus" is a woman?? (Albeit one who can't remember her name from
one post to the next)
Please learn the difference between "censure" and "censor."
grap...@www.com
Thanks for the vocabulary lesson. But why don't you answer my
question, instead of making a diversion ?
Marie-Rose
grammatim
I don't care a rat's ass about wikipedia (or the phaistos disk).
grap...@www.com
Good ! And you are right : "administrators" like Mr Badmann have
killed Wikipedia...
Marie-Rose
grammatim
"Right" about what? I expressed no opinion whatsoever.
grap...@www.com
Silence is sometimes very eloquent !.. e.g. not answering my
question...
Marie-Rose
Doug Weller
wrote:
:Plus the issue really has nothing to do with the Glotz are the article.
Grapheus, editing as Rose-Mary and from anon IP addresses was banned for
off-Wiki harassment in 2006. This included trying to get a Wikipedia
editor fired and threatening another. The ban is permanent, and when
Grapheus came back this time he was blocked again. And, of course, he's
complaining about being blocked. Nothing new there.
Doug
--
Doug Weller --
A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'at http://www.hallofmaat.com
Doug's Archaeology Site: http://www.ramtops.co.uk
Amun - co-owner/co-moderator http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
grap...@www.com
wrote:
Except evidencing the way the Wiki-Kapos may IMPOSE THEIR VIEWS !..
With them, we have gone back to the time of the Inquisition, when what
what censored was NOT the ideas, but THEIR AUTHOR.. This has a name :
the "odium auctoris".
That Doug Weller APPROUVES such a thing is worth to be mentioning...
Marie-Rose
> --
> Doug Weller --
> A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'athttp://www.hallofmaat.com
Tom McDonald
In this context, it has a better name: "terminated for cause".
I work for an agency that uses volunteers, and with a large
number of other agencies that depend on volunteers to function.
While volunteers are (generally) not paid, they *are* otherwise
treated like employees.
This means that if a volunteer breaks the work rules of the
organization, that volunteer can be fired for cause. This is the
only way an organization can function.
Otherwise, if the organization does not have the capacity to
separate itself from a volunteer who is not following the rules
established for the organization, the organization has put in
jeopardy its capacity to do what it was set up to do.
If you think it is inquisitional for any organization to fire any
employee for cause, then I will grant you that Wiki is being
inquisitional in that definition of the term.
But that is a crazy nutbar irrational definition, and no
organization that values its mission can be expected to use it
without suicidal results.
Sorry, nym-shifting zealot. Your self-immolation fails because
you used water instead of gasoline. Better luck next time.
> That Doug Weller APPROUVES such a thing is worth to be mentioning...
>
> Marie-Rose
>
>> --
>> Doug Weller --
>> A Director and Moderator of The Hall of Ma'athttp://www.hallofmaat.com
>> Doug's Archaeology Site:http://www.ramtops.co.uk
>> Amun - co-owner/co-moderatorhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/Amun/
>
--
Tom
When Tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
And hear their death-knell ringing;
When friends rejoice, both far and near,
How can I keep from singing.
grap...@www.com
> m...@www.comwrote:
Nice hearing from you, Tom !..
But I am afraid that you missed the point :
>
> In this context, it has a better name: "terminated for cause".
> This means that if a volunteer breaks the work rules of the
> organization, that volunteer can be fired for cause.
This is the crucial point!.. In which way, did I "break the rules" by
bringing a strong objection ("The clay is not Cretan") to an OPINION
mentioned as "definitive" ?...
Well, the Wiki-Kapos said : "But she has broken the rules three years
ago". WRONG !.. Look at the whole file : It has been the same
scenario : a VALID REDACTION DELETED by a Wiki-Kapo, who called the
"wolves pack" to help and exclude the culprit of "Disobedience to the
orders of a Wiki-Kapo". Who was regretting that the death-penalty
doesn't exist...
Rose-Marie
Tom McDonald
If you are Grapheus, and you were permanently banned and then
tried to come back under a pseudonym, then I have not missed the
point. The overriding point then would be that you knowingly
broke the 'work rules' for the organization you for which you
were volunteering, rather than going through channels to repeal
your ban, or partnering with another person, a *real* person, a
person competent in the issue at hand, a not-banned person, to
present *new* facts and arguments.
I think it is clear that just presenting your old ideas again and
again and again is not the way forward here. In fact, it is the
definition of (at least) futility.
>> In this context, it has a better name: "terminated for cause".
>> This means that if a volunteer breaks the work rules of the
>> organization, that volunteer can be fired for cause.
>
> This is the crucial point!.. In which way, did I "break the rules" by
> bringing a strong objection ("The clay is not Cretan") to an OPINION
> mentioned as "definitive" ?...
If you broke your banning in bringing this "strong objection",
then the Wiki-folks are not required to pay you any mind. In
exactly the same way, no organization that has terminated a
volunteer for cause has any requirement to pay any mind to that
volunteer when the volunteer makes the same old argument ad nauseum.
Now that volunteer might think their termination was not for
*good enough* cause; and the organization might not have been
entirely correct in their assessment of the violation that
resulted in the termination. But still, the organization has the
last but one say in the matter. The last say would be a competent
court's, after having a hearing or a trial on the legal merits of
the matter.
A volunteer who insisted on their rights without taking the
appropriate steps to enforce those rights; and instead merely
continued the behavior that got them terminated in the first
place; could bitch all s/he wanted to. But this does not give
cause for the jilted volunteer to continue to violate rules.
> Well, the Wiki-Kapos said : "But she has broken the rules three years
> ago". WRONG !.. Look at the whole file : It has been the same
> scenario : a VALID REDACTION DELETED by a Wiki-Kapo, who called the
> "wolves pack" to help and exclude the culprit of "Disobedience to the
> orders of a Wiki-Kapo". Who was regretting that the death-penalty
> doesn't exist...
I see you are calm and unbiased in this matter. Perhaps it would
go better for your case if you SHOUTED MORE, or invented a few
more nasty names for the folks who hold your Wiki-future in their
hands. ;-/
BTW, I do not appreciate your snipping my post without noting the
fact of the snippage. To me, that is a mark of both disrespect
and possible deception. It's not hard to mark snips. I encourage
you to consider doing so in the future.
>
> Rose-Marie
>
>>> That Doug Weller APPROUVES such a thing is worth to be mentioning...
I also think it worthy of mention. However, not for the same
reason or to the same effect as for you.
grap...@www.com
>
> When Tyrants tremble, sick with fear,
> And hear their death-knell ringing;
> When friends rejoice, both far and near,
> How can I keep from singing.
> Able to condemn all the bad guys,
> Disobedient to my orders.
> I am the Boss.
> Thanks to Wiki !
Marie-Rose
grap...@www.com
Yes, I am a Wiki-Kapo!
And I love it. Ho, ho,ho!
I can censure anybody,
Be he Einstein or Peabody.
I can delete everything,
Even the most established thing;
Because I am a Wiki-Kapo.
And I love it. Ho,ho,ho !
The anonymous New Sapho
Tom McDonald
OK, so it's the infantile name-calling for you then. Good to know.
Tom McDonald
I stand corrected. It's the infantile name calling, with whipped cream
and extra crazy sprinkles on top.
grap...@www.com
And so is your answer ?.. Pretty poor. I was expecting better...
And here is another verse, especially dedicated to the obscure master
in phil. and obscure Swiss writer Dieter Bachmann, alias Badmann, who
found - at last!- Glory with Wikipedia :
I am a Wiki-Kapo
And I love it. Ho, ho,ho !
I can censure everybody,
Be he Einstein or Peabody.
I can delete everything,
Even the most established thing,
Because I am a Wiki-Kapo
And I love it. Ho,ho,ho !
The Anonymous New Sapho.
Eric Stevens
I agree that Grapheus (under any name) has become a tedious bore on
the subject of the Phaistos Disc. However, the point she made about
the nature of the Wikipedia editing is a different matter and requires
serious attention. Just by coincidence I have come across the
following:
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=NjU1ZDBhOGExOWRlNzc5ZDcwOTUxZWM3MWU2Mjc5MGE=
or http://tinyurl.com/5wq5uw
which makes the same point in more detail and in relation to different
topics.
Wikipedia has often been criticised for its sloppy control of its
input but, much more dangerously, it seems that in its present form
Wikepedia is hijackable and has been hijacked on many topics.
Moral, don't believe anything you read in Wikipedia without
independent confirmation.
Eric Stevens
Doug Weller
wrote:
Oh, I agree about that. I would add that anything any encyclopedia says
should be checked, some of the most famous have made some glaring errors.
And some stuff is so stoutly defended by religious/nationalist true
believers that objective editors get worn down. But Solomon just has a
political axe to grind (by the way, Conservapedia is much, much worse),
and didn't understand how Wikipedia works. Peiser was making a serious
accusation against a living person -- Wikipedia insists that anything
contentious in a biography be well sourced, and his rejected letter to
Science, which he put on his website, wasn't acceptable (it would have
been if Science had accepted it.). In fact, he later had to retract it,
and in a subsequent letter to Media Watch, Peiser admitted that "some of
the abstracts that I included in the 34 'reject or doubt' category are
very ambiguous and should not have been included." The one paper he did
say had rejected the IPCC conclusion wasn't peer-reviewed nor had it been
includeded in Oreskes's analysis.
grap...@www.com
wrote:
> >orhttp://tinyurl.com/5wq5uw
> >which makes the same point in more detail and in relation to different
> >topics.
>
> >Wikipedia has often been criticised for its sloppy control of its
> >input but, much more dangerously, it seems that in its present form
> >Wikepedia is hijackable and has been hijacked on many topics.
>
> >Moral, don't believe anything you read in Wikipedia without
> >independent confirmation.
>
> Oh, I agree about that. I would add that anything any encyclopedia says
> should be checked, some of the most famous have made some glaring errors.
> And some stuff is so stoutly defended by religious/nationalist true
> believers that objective editors get worn down. But Solomon just has a
> political axe to grind (by the way, Conservapedia is much, much worse),
> and didn't understand how Wikipedia works. Peiser was making a serious
> accusation against a living person -- Wikipedia insists that anything
> contentious in a biography be well sourced, and his rejected letter to
> Science, which he put on his website, wasn't acceptable (it would have
> been if Science had accepted it.). In fact, he later had to retract it,
> and in a subsequent letter to Media Watch, Peiser admitted that "some of
> the abstracts that I included in the 34 'reject or doubt' category are
> very ambiguous and should not have been included." The one paper he did
> say had rejected the IPCC conclusion wasn't peer-reviewed nor had it been
> includeded in Oreskes's analysis.
>
> Doug
He, Doug, you are more prolix about this case than for justifying the
deletion, not only of a mild correction to Trauth's statement that
"Crete has source of the Phaistos Disk can no longer be called into
question", but also the suppression of the *discussion* concerning the
matter...
Afraid to recognize that G. Glotz IS a "reliable source" in the
problem of the origin of the Disk's clay, maybe ?...
Rose Marie
grammatim
> Rose Marie-
Give it up, Mario. No one cares.
nibble
>
> - Show quoted text -
Has Faucannou died yet?
##minty...
grap...@www.com
No, I've met him four weeks ago. But he seems more interested today
with Cypro-Minoan than with the Ph.Disk. What a pity !
Marie Rose
darks...@front.ru
m...@www.com wrote:
> For the information of all and particularly for Doug Weller's
> information, I give hereafter an answer I made to Doug Weller in
> Wikipedia-Discussion. An answer which has been CENSORED by Mr Dieter
> Bachmann.
> So works Wikipedia !
> QUOTE :
> You still don't understand how Wikipedia works. We use Duhoux because
> Duhoux publishes in a reliable source, we don't comment on whether the
> ideas are right and wrong. We should use Glotz also, with probably
> others who argued it was an import. And Robinson, with this quote
> "Most scholars today, including Duhoux, think it a plausible working
> hypothesis that the disc was made in Crete." - making it clear that
> 'today' means 2008. Dougweller (talk) 06:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
>
> Oh yes ! I very well know how Wikipedia works. The initial Wiki-spirit
> has been killed by a bunch of Dogmatics, like Mr Bachmann, who, acting
> like a pack of wolves, have only ONE aim : to impose THEIR views, so
> they may feel "as the dominant males". Take Mr Bachmann, for instance.
> Who knows him ? Nobody. Who has red his books or papers ? A handfull
> of German-speaking Swisses... But Mr Bachmann compensates his
> frustrations with Wikipedia. As a Wiki-administrator, he has the power
> to censure what he wants. So, now, HE is the master, whatever the
> subject he deals with (he considers himself as "omni-competent"), and
> all the others Wiki-redactors, including well-known scholars, are his
> slaves ! What a great feeling for him !... Since he became a Wiki-
> administrator, the volume of his head has doubled !...
> For the present problem, I had been shocked by Trauth's CATEGORICAL
> statement (talking not about "a plausible hypothesis", but a
> "certainty"), that the Disk was Cretan, because there are lots of
> motives for the Disk not to come from Crete, but being an import. For
> instance, the fact that it has been recognized at the end of the
> 1920ies that its clay was foreign to Crete. You asked for the
> reference, and I gave it to you. And G. Glotz who was a respected
> Professor at the University of Paris and Member of the Institut de
> France, is certainly as "reliable" than the Belgian scholar Yves
> Duhoux !.. But this was unbearable for Mr Bachmann, who supports
> Trauth's idea. So, he DELETED my modest addition, to show that HE is
> THE BOSS with Wikipedia!... Template:Marie-Rose, April 11, 2009
>
> END of QUOTE.
>
> Any comment are unnecessary, except the exact text of the correction I
> proposed :
> INITIAL REDACTION :" Trauth comes to the conclusion that "Crete as
> source of the Disc can no longer be called into question."
> PROPOSED REDACTION : " Trauth comes to the conclusion that "Crete as
> source of the Disc can no longer be called into question, in spite of
> the fact that its clay is not of Cretan origin, as stated by G.
> Glotz".
>
Use a dynamic IP and give him a piece of mind openly in the history
page. People who don't understand logical arguments, tend to
understand a punch in the face very well.
The Phaistos Disk is now pseudoscience, anyway.
grap...@www.com
> m...@www.comwrote:
And why is it pseudo-science ? Dou you believe it comes from a flying
saucer ?
Marie Rose
grammatim
It's just another English word that darkstar doesn't know the meaning
of. Maybe you can get her to tell _you_ the Russian word she had in
mind.
darks...@front.ru
Too freakin' short to have any meaning at all...
darks...@front.ru
Go jump in the lake, will ya. Don't fuck me with...
craoi...@gmail.com
Get enlightened. Here is a how-to:
You take a loaded pistol. You put the barrel before your eye. Then you
pull the trigger. You will see the light and be free from all earthly
concerns.
Please do get enlightened.
grammatim
> m...@www.comwrote:
> Too freakin' short to have any meaning at all...-
It's probably not shorter than "From each according to his abilities,
to each according to his needs."
But even if you were right about the length, what would that have to
do with "pseudoscience"?
John Atkinson
> grammatim wrote:
>> On Apr 17, 11:00 am, "m...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 4:50 pm, darkstar...@front.ru wrote:
>>
>>>> The Phaistos Disk is now pseudoscience, anyway.
>>>
>>> And why is it pseudo-science ? Dou you believe it comes from a
>>> flying saucer ?
>>
>> It's just another English word that darkstar doesn't know the meaning
>> of. Maybe you can get her to tell _you_ the Russian word she had in
>> mind.
Наукообразность, probably. Or was it псевдонаука?
> Go jump in the lake, will ya. Don't fuck me with...
I think you mean "Don't fuck with me." Note that this expression is _not_
one of those where English syntax permits a postposition (see other thread).
Of course, it's just possible that I'm misreading that final "...". Perhaps
it denotes a missing noun phrase. Perhaps you mean "Don't fuck me with a
feather".
J.
Brian M. Scott
<john...@bigpond.com> wrote in
<news:1YbGl.4362$y61...@news-server.bigpond.net.au> in
sci.lang,sci.archaeology:
> darks...@front.ru wrote:
[...]
>> Go jump in the lake, will ya. Don't fuck me with...
> I think you mean "Don't fuck with me." Note that this
> expression is _not_ one of those where English syntax
> permits a postposition (see other thread).
> Of course, it's just possible that I'm misreading that
> final "...". Perhaps it denotes a missing noun phrase.
> Perhaps you mean "Don't fuck me with a feather".
Feather ... duster ... brush ...
But because his behaviour is heinous,
Fuck him right in the 'Coriolanus'.
Brian
Peter Alaca
> darks...@front.ru wrote:
>> grammatim wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 11:00 am, "m...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 17, 4:50 pm, darkstar...@front.ru wrote:
>>>>> The Phaistos Disk is now pseudoscience, anyway.
>>>> And why is it pseudo-science ? Dou you believe it comes from a
>>>> flying saucer ?
>>> It's just another English word that darkstar doesn't know the meaning
>>> of. Maybe you can get her to tell _you_ the Russian word she had in
>>> mind.
>
> Ð Ð°ÑƒÐºÐ¾Ð¾Ð±Ñ€Ð°Ð·Ð½Ð¾Ñ Ñ‚ÑŒ, probably. Or was it Ð¿Ñ ÐµÐ²Ð´Ð¾Ð½Ð°ÑƒÐºÐ°?
>
>> Go jump in the lake, will ya. Don't fuck me with...
>
> I think you mean "Don't fuck with me." Note that this expression is _not_
> one of those where English syntax permits a postposition (see other thread).
>
> Of course, it's just possible that I'm misreading that final "...". Perhaps
> it denotes a missing noun phrase. Perhaps you mean "Don't fuck me with a
> feather".
Or with a Wikipenis
darks...@front.ru
I meant to say, "Don't f* with me!". That's a weird typo.
Doug Weller
darks...@front.ru wrote:
[SNIP]
>
>Use a dynamic IP and give him a piece of mind openly in the history
>page. People who don't understand logical arguments, tend to
>understand a punch in the face very well.
>
>The Phaistos Disk is now pseudoscience, anyway.
Grapheus tried that - it only works if no one stops it.
grap...@www.com
wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:50:48 -0700 (PDT), in sci.archaeology,
>
>
> [SNIP]
>
>
>
> >Use a dynamic IP and give him a piece of mind openly in the history
> >page. People who don't understand logical arguments, tend to
> >understand a punch in the face very well.
>
> >The Phaistos Disk is now pseudoscience, anyway.
>
> Grapheus tried that - it only works if no one stops it.
Wrong !.. Not "one", but the whole squadon of the Wiki-kapos !... They
have been co-opted for that : the duty of each Wiki-kapo is to go and
help another Wiki-kapo when things go bad with him... For instance,
when he is cautght not respecting the Wiki-rules... And the more the
helper doesn't know the subject, the better it is... As says their
song:
"Don't worry about printing thruth,
"For our ideas must go through,
"The ideas we swore to defend
"From the beginning to the end.
"Yes, I am a Wiki-kapo,
"And I love it. Ho,ho,ho !
Marie Rose
darks...@front.ru
Doug Weller wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Apr 2009 07:50:48 -0700 (PDT), in sci.archaeology,
> darks...@front.ru wrote:
>
> [SNIP]
> >
> >Use a dynamic IP and give him a piece of mind openly in the history
> >page. People who don't understand logical arguments, tend to
> >understand a punch in the face very well.
> >
> >The Phaistos Disk is now pseudoscience, anyway.
>
> Grapheus tried that - it only works if no one stops it.
>
I don't know who Grapheus is, but it can work if you let the other
side feel you're doing it right, not just raving and ranting because
you've got nothin' better to do. But again, wiki is not for your own
research, let alone opinions, it's merely an encyclopedia that is
supposed to collect material from external sources; so even if you're
right factually, but wrong officially, you're still wrong, and that's
how it works.
grap...@www.com
YES. Because a bunch of Wiki-kapos, who don't respect the Wiki-
spirit !... These guys are just mad with the joy of "feeling now to be
the boss". They see it as a compensation for their unsuccess in their
professional life...
Marie Rose
darks...@front.ru
Don't edit it, then. When the thing just came into my view, I always
wondered who are those idiots who would would venture to waist their
time on editing this meant-to-be-good, but essentially unstable,
openly unreliable, and generally suspicious project. I admit that on a
few occasions it was me who was one of those idiots, but that mostly
corncerned small portions of articles, and when I thought it was
really important, or mostly to see how it goes. If they'd asked me
what I thought about this, like, five years ago, I'd say this is great
idea, but it would never work. The odd thing is that it does work, and
it really took either a genius, someone with an immensely greater
vision than I have, or a complete fool who doesn't understand even the
basics of human psychology, to launch it – I simply see no explanation
how you can conceive such a plan and make workable, since apparently
it would immediately fail because of the kappos, idiots, maniacs,
unprofessional professionals and so on. Yet, somehow the combined
effort of these social forces make the wheels turn. I'm a at loss
here, actually, I don't know any explanation to that.
PaulJK
Hmm, that didn't work Peter, apart from "ya" I don't see any
Russian words. :-)
pjk
PaulJK
> darks...@front.ru wrote:
>> grammatim wrote:
>>> On Apr 17, 11:00 am, "m...@www.com" <graph...@www.com> wrote:
>>>> On Apr 17, 4:50 pm, darkstar...@front.ru wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The Phaistos Disk is now pseudoscience, anyway.
>>>>
>>>> And why is it pseudo-science ? Dou you believe it comes from a
>>>> flying saucer ?
>>>
>>> It's just another English word that darkstar doesn't know the meaning
>>> of. Maybe you can get her to tell _you_ the Russian word she had in
>>> mind.
>
> Наукообразность, probably. Or was it псевдонаука?
псевдонаука will do.
>> Go jump in the lake, will ya. Don't fuck me with...
>
> I think you mean "Don't fuck with me."
Oh, I see, that's what he probably meant. I was trying to
guess what the dots could have been.
pjk
PaulJK
Sounds like a version of Russian Roulette with reduced odds.
pjk
> Please do get enlightened.