Jessica Simpson offends again with lesbian comment?

examiner ^ | 08.25.09 | Michael Essany

[BlueNgold]

Your first mistake is using Wikipedia as a source...

[dangus]

I’m not sure if sanction really has opposite meanings. In both cases, what’s really happening is that a ruling is made. In some contexts, that means to approve of something; in others, it means to condemn it. But I wonder if that amounts to a single denotation with two opposite connotations. Nonetheless, very clever!

[dangus]

Wikipedia is overly maligned. Every encyclopedia contains the presumptions and biases of its authors; wikipedia is exceptional in that any important entry reflects hammering out of many divergent opinions into something which at least acknowledges such diversity. Then, you can read the discussions that went into such a synthesis, trace the presence of any dissent, and instantly follow links for substantiation.

The final article may not be directly on target, but you’ll know exactly how far from the target it is, and in which direction the target lies, if you really need to know the precise truth.

[allmendream]

Yeppers. Actual origin of the usage aside, I think of your usage when I hear the term.

Wasn't Oklahoma supposed to be Indian territory? I guess it was.... until we wanted it back! ;)

[BlueNgold]

Exactly - it is at best a discussion - not a source.

IMLTHO - it is not overly maligned - it is overly respected as something it is not. If anything - it is underly maligned. I think of it more like an amplified search engine - follow the links to get the source.

Maybe some day it will be as respectable as saying “guess what I heard on twitter”.

;-)

[dangus]

It is the discussion, plus the products of the discussion, which makes it infinitely more useful than an ordinary encyclopedia or any single print source.

[Allegra]

These "special interest groups" really need to grow thicker skin.

[BlueNgold]

I’m glad you think so.

But it’s still not a referenceable source in and of itself.

[BlueNgold]

And speaking of always relying on at least two good sources...

From this article:
Jessica Simpson: Real of Fake

[normanpubbie]

In the 1830's, the "Five Civilized Tribes" (Creek, Choctaw, Cherokee, Chickasaw, and Seminole), were forcibly removed from Alabama and Georgia by the Feds and marched to eastern Oklahoma where each tribe was assigned to a reservation. The area was collectively known as Indian Territory.

In the 1880's, some of this reservation land was again seized by the federal government to create Oklahoma Territory, designated for white settlement. Quarter-sections of land were given to anyone who staked it out, registered it, cleared the land, and grew crops on it for three successive years.

The Indian tribes were paid for their lands but the federal government held on to the money and parceled it out to the tribes at regular intervals. And apparently the Bureau of Indian Affairs cannot account for billions of dollars that are supposed to be in tribal and individual accounts.

I don't have a drop of Indian blood in me, but I know unfairness when I see it.

So, in Oklahoma at least, my definition of "Indian giver" is more accurate than Wikipedia's.

[tired1]

Prof: Many languages have double negatives to yield a positive. In the English language two positives can mean a negative.

Student (incredulously): Yeah, right.

[McGruff]

I also LOL’d at the URL of this pic.

http://image2.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/jessica-simpson-huge-celebrity-boobs(1).jpg

Hah. I ROFLd.

[normanpubbie]

Now that’s funny.