 invictus says: IP logs also show Vatican and The Democratic Party edited some articles on Wikipedia too. How dare they correct the entries as they deem necessary. Obviously, only the Left can engage in objectivity. Wikipedia is a load of crap. If you are ignorant enough to use it as an authority, then you are a moron. To issue alarms at the idea of someone you disagree with posting information is the height of the politically correct fascism we are currently being inundated by. This is all so hilarious and not surprising. What would be surprising is if anyone on the Left actually cared about the truth. a worker on the CIA network reportedly added the exclamation "Wahhhhhh!" before a section on [Ahmadinejad's] plans for his presidency.Your tax dollars at work, ladies and gentlemen... Welcome to 1984 and ThinkSpeak  What would be surprising is if anyone on the Left actually cared about the truth.Or if anyone on the Right knew the truth when it bit them in the ass. Willie, you just make it so easy. How dare they correct the entries as they deem necessaryIsn't that the point of Wikipedia? People editing it as they deem necessary? Just because someone works for the CIA doesn't mean they are not entitled to an opinion. How dare they correct the entries as they deem necessary. Obviously, only the Left can engage in objectivity. Wikipedia is a load of crap. If you are ignorant enough to use it as an authority, then you are a moron.Unlike like those who use Conservapedia as a resource. Them boys are right smart! I guess only the Right can be...well, right! Yet more proof There trying to control us. Majority of people make real power not money!! In general, I only use Wikipedia as a starting point to get information on other sites to look at, and terms that might be useful in doing a further search (so I don't get so many extraneous hits.) Rarely, though, will I take anything it has to say at face value - it's just TOO easy for *anyone* to alter it. Ratlifar, I realize in your world of illogic, incoherence, and hate you might have some problems with consistency. You might be interested to READ my thoughts on Conservapedia. Thanks, Ouyangwulong. I tend not to put much faith in Wikipedia and I Words not shown in this argument so unless I search of your entries here, but I am not about to dirty myself wading through pages of ad hominen attacks and mad rantings. Sorry, not playing that game. And you wonder why Clipmarks is setup the way it is.... I do not wonder why CM is set up this way AND I do not care how it is set up. Your perceptions are relentlessly flawed! Of course not, you KNOW that its a system designed to persecute right-wing thinkers like you, scratch that, it is designed to persecute YOU. The Clipmarks team sat around a kitchen table and said: "We will build a cool site where people can clip bits and pieces from their favorites websites and then as foretold by some legend or othe the Willhelm will come and call everyone an idiot and then we will give all those he attacks the ability block him and his comments. And then he will be most furious and claim that we are out to censor him, and only him and accuse everybody of been Darwinist and Materialist! It will be glorious!" Clipmarks Development Team:"BRILLIANT!" Again, I am not going t... Then, continue on in your ignorance. Oh well, the sacrifices we must make in order to smell clean. "online tool that claims to reveal..." - this doesn't pass the logical smell test, in terms of the motive and how it was handled. Unless it was Valerie Plame, perhaps... I'm laughing my butt off that this clip has created such a stir. Of course we all know if it's on the Interweb it must be true. If you really think that Vatican and CIA officials don't realize that anything they do online can be traced back to their organizations' computer systems then you really have your head up your arses. Let's not be so shocked by the obvious. I waded through all of the comments and I finally came to one that made perfect sense. Thank you Hawkeye 84. Interesting how it was the original clipper who holds the true perspective.  Okay, then why can't Public Relations people edit the definition of PR. Wikipedia is great, I love it, but it makes me curious sometimes. If you really think that Vatican and CIA officials don't realize that anything they do online can be traced back to their organizations' computer systems then you really have your head up your arses.My appreciation for your politeness, Hawkeye . But maybe I can risk being not as polite as you and ask: "So what?" They knew they could be traced back but they didn't care? Sorry Zasel, I disagree with you. I can't see any point at the above post. Oh Invictus, my friend, you don't ever have to apologize for disagreeing with me. In fact, I insist you do so. I wouldn't wanna get a swell head thinking everyone ALWAYS agrees with me. Most of the time is good enough. The bigger question, invictus, is why would they? I don't know RecordSage, but most probably the manipulation was the employees' individual actions in all cases, not an "official order". People don't like to see articles that reflect facts and/or opinions which they strongly disagree (or they find "harmful" for the corps/associations they work in) so if there is a way to edit/manipulate them, they just do it. Wikipedia is the "easiest target" for this. That's my point. Someone obviously could've made those entries. They even could've been made with spoofed IPs (not impossible)... but for real entities allegedly involved to do such just doesn't make any sense. But then again, many things in today's world don't make sense... They certainly need to paint a better image for their causes don't they? Something their actions don't do very well :-/ |
Related ClipsView the Top Clips from August 15, 2007
Embed This Clip In Your Site...
|
||
|
|
|||
