Posted on 01/13/2011 8:06:02 AM PST by AnAmericanMother
Read the page on Free Republic.
occasionally very useful for look up of definitions and history, but you have to view it as liberally biased.
I have no idea who changed it back, good for them, but I have better ways to spend my time.
It just struck me when I encountered it as so typical.
You forget, Wikipedia is an OPEN SOURCE website.
Anybody can remove or add stuff at will...........only certain celebs and political figures entries are exempted until the entries are gone over by admin...............
WikiLies: My 5 Favorite Wikipedia Distortions
Despite Content Purge, Pornographic Images Remain on Wikimedia (George Soros funds Wikipedia)
Who Controls Wikipedia? Who Sponsors Wikipedia? ( George Soros ) The Trouble with Wikipedia: A Cautionary Tale
Open society institute (George Soros) funds The Wikimedia Foundation (wikipedia)
Interesting to see how quickly they jumped on this one, in any event.
The left is fairly quick to cover their tracks. Kos scrubbed stuff from their site almost immediately after Giffords was shot.
Oh, well. Fish gotta swim, birds gotta fly, Wikipedia's got to lie . . . .
Not surprised, this is just another example of how the intelligentsia elite attack Palin and conservatives.
If they didn’t find this to attack her on it would have been something else. It is in their nature to attack what they fear and can’t understand.
Blood libel is an descriptive term used to describe and organized effort to smear unjustly an entire group of people. The people that responded by running these bogus stories on “Blood Libel” are those same people.
It would be nice if everyone would just cease talking to these news outlets. They are beyond hope and you will never get a fair shake.
The 9/11 Truther movement is characterized as "adherents from people of diverse political beliefs including liberals, conservatives, and libertarians."
See the difference?
LOL!!!
How wikipedia describes Che following the Cuban rebellion:
As the only other ranked Comandante besides Fidel Castro, Guevara was a harsh disciplinarian who sometimes shot defectors. Deserters were punished as traitors, and Guevara was known to send squads to track those seeking to go AWOL.[64] As a result, Guevara became feared for his brutality and ruthlessness.[65] During the guerrilla campaign, Guevara was also responsible for the sometimes summary execution of a number of men accused of being informers, deserters or spies.[66]
In his diaries, Guevara described the first such execution of Eutimio Guerra, a peasant army guide who admitted treason when it was discovered he accepted the promise of ten thousand pesos for repeatedly giving away the rebel’s position for attack by the Cuban air force.[67] Such information also allowed Batista’s army to burn the homes of rebel-friendly peasants.[67] Upon Guerra’s request that they “end his life quickly”,[67] Che stepped forward and shot him in the head, writing “The situation was uncomfortable for the people and for Eutimio so I ended the problem giving him a shot with a .32 pistol in the right side of the brain, with exit orifice in the right temporal [lobe].”[68] His scientific notations and matter-of-fact description, suggested to one biographer a “remarkable detachment to violence” by that point in the war.[68] Later, Guevara published a literary account of the incident entitled “Death of a Traitor”, where he transfigured Eutimio’s betrayal and pre-execution request that the revolution “take care of his children”, into a “revolutionary parable about redemption through sacrifice.”[68]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
In wikipedia’s Legacy section on the life of Che:
Conversely, Jacobo Machover, an exiled opposition author, dismisses the hero-worshipping and portrays him as a ruthless executioner.[226] Detractors have theorized that in much of Latin America, Che-inspired revolutions had the practical result of reinforcing brutal militarism and internecine conflict for many years.[227] In an assessment of Guevara, British historian Hugh Thomas opines that Che was a “brave, sincere and determined man who was also obstinate, narrow, and dogmatic.”[228] At the end of his life, according to Thomas, “he seems to have become convinced of the virtues of violence for its own sake”, while “his influence over Castro for good or evil” grew after his death, as Fidel took up many of his views. In Thomas’ assessment “as in the case of Martí, or Lawrence of Arabia, failure has brightened, not dimmed the legend.”[228] Alvaro Vargas Llosa of The Independent Institute has hypothesized that Guevara’s contemporary followers “delude themselves by clinging to a myth”, while describing Guevara as “Marxist Puritan” who employed his rigid power to suppress dissent, while also operating as a “cold-blooded killing machine”.[227] Llosa has also accused Guevara’s “fanatical disposition” as being the linchpin of the “Sovietization” of the Cuban revolution, speculating that he possessed a “total subordination of reality to blind ideological orthodoxy.”[227] Guevara remains a hated figure amongst many in the Cuban exile and Cuban-American community of the United States, who view him with animosity as “the butcher of La Cabaña.”[229]
Just print it out.
Your point noob?
It doesn't take special software to make a screen capture.
Press prt screen. That puts your screen on the clip board.
Open MS Paint and click on Edit and then Paste.
That puts it in Paint.
You then can edit the picture by outlining the part you want and Edit and Cut the part.
You can then open Word and paste the cut part there to save it.
I do it all the time.
Yes. One is a true political movement and the other is a group of individuals all believing in weird conspiracy stories.
You don’t need any software. Depending on your keyboard either hit the Insert or “Print Screen” key and paste the image into word or a blank .jpg file. Or go to the page and do file> save as...
Amazing. Wikipedia cleans up their presentation and you find that evil? Just like here, anyone can edit Wikipedia. The fact that it is clean up gives me greater faith in the Wikipedia process.
Dangers of open source. And as you can see from MacWow's post above, the open source editing on Wikipedia is overwhelmingly liberal-slanted.
OK! Thanks for all the advice - I’m not very computer savvy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.