Tank the Dog (You will tear up)

tickld ^ | Unknown | Mecha Streisand

[GeronL]

I do not understand why people would give credence to anything on Scopes

[ScottinVA]

When I say the more people I meet the more I love my dog...I’m not joking.

Same here. On balance, my love for and trust in dogs is more than that for most humans.

[huldah1776]

Have read this before and reacted the same way. Know it is a story, but, BUT, when our military is deployed they often need pet sitters to care for their animals or when they are assigned a new [semi]permanent home or if they get divorced. Instead of griping about whether it is true or not, volunteer to care for a service member’s dog or cat or fish or bird.

[1rudeboy]

I did not arrive here for amusement. But your reaction did amuse.

[1rudeboy]

Because it is correct 98% of the time?

[diplomatic_immunity]

I feel like I swallowed a batch of chicken feathers that are stuck in my throat.

Thanks for sharing this. A real good story that made my admittedly bad day a lot better.

[Wuli]

a wonderful and uplifting fictional tale

[mountn man]

I'm not real technically savvy, but would Dragon software be of use for you?

[Slyfox]

Wikipedia is often used as a source and they are not the greatest resource in the world.

Actually, Wikipedia has better medical information than WebMD. The scientists doing the research are the ones putting the info on it. And, it's all on one page, plus you don't have to go through all those WebMD ads from the pharma companies.

[Rodamala]

Thanks Dave. This headline sounds familiar... I think from a couple years back.

[Utilizer]

OK, but it also has a recognized history of being, ah, “creatively edited” by anonymous (for the most part) individuals to fit certain ideological, political, and/or downright malicious intentions.

Even when they are NOT working for the government.

[Slyfox]

It depends on what you are looking for. If you are not looking at things political, say hard science, history, mathematics, medicine, even biographies - it is pretty good and factual. I know that when one scientist adds something and it is not right another scientist will quickly update it to make it correct.

Only people who are interested in that topic will keep their eye on it. And I know professors who regularly go to it as if they were opening an encyclopedia. And I know that people who write the books or their assistants input information and they add the footnotes from their own books.

I have spent a lot of time reading primary texts and when I do an info check I look at Wikipedia and I find the best footnotes, usually I have read the book recommended and know the information is correct.

I have also read some articles in journals where they debate the significance of Wikipedia and people are taking it more seriously now.

[Utilizer]

It depends on what you are looking for. If you are not looking at things political, say hard science, history, mathematics, medicine, even biographies - it is pretty good and factual. I know that when one scientist adds something and it is not right another scientist will quickly update it to make it correct.

Yet somehow, they continue to treat "global warming" as scientifically correct.

You would think AlBore was contributing or something to that lot.

[Slyfox]

I tend to ignore that kind of stuff. Like I said the people who are most interested in the topic will add stuff.

I really have to grit my teeth when I watch nature programs. I want to see the whatever in the Kalahari and they will sometimes wait until about 10 minutes before the show is over to add the whole evolutionary spiel. That drives me crazy.