Posted on 12/25/2013 1:01:05 PM PST by Awestruck
Am I the only one to notice that most of the Wikipedia entry about FR is one big hit piece? Or does it not matter because it is editable? Don't meant to be dense...just curious.
However I do admire your innocence and naivete.
Merry Christmas.
The last paragraph has a bit about JimRob’s decree against Romney supporters. I can attest that his decree was issued much earlier than April 2012. I would guess it was sometime in mid 2011, but could have been earlier.
Merry Christmas Bill!
Size 4? You like old fat guys with no money, drive old trucks and dress up like Shrek for Toys For Tots?(
Never thought of looking there,
The section on Martin O Malley and Bob Ehrlich (Maryland) is interesting given what transpired here between them.
Dummy Underground is home to 50% of the United States’ pedophile and welfare fraudster population.
Wikipedia doesn’t have a citation for their claim, the one listed is a 404 page.
I just checked TBL. It looks like they have a new database as of May, with older topics having been purged.
And according to the rules, the current owner does not allow discussion of other forums: "Do not bring issues or feuds from other forums here."
There might have been some confusion here, when that paragraph was written, because the “reference” that is given for this is dated October 31, 2011.
That’s something that can be corrected by way of their own reference used.
That’s a problem with the Internet, in general - as I’ve got references right now that I’ve documented for some item or fact - which are “404” ... too ... :-) ...
Well then..
It would seem that the lack of a viable citation would be sufficient reason for anyone who says they can get it altered to do so.
So maybe instead of circling a dead horse here, they should put money in mouth, go there (that would be that storehouse of all the world's not-always-true information WikiP.D.A.) and prove their claim to be able to fix it...
Don't ya think?
Just my $0.02 worth.
I will wait for the edit...
You said — “I will wait for the edit...”
As I said earlier, you give me the citation for Jim Robinson’s statement and I’ll make the edit.
That happens to be what I’m waiting for ... :-) ...
Why bother? ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, MSMBC, etc. all do hit pieces on FR. Wikipedia is known as a lib site.
That’s a good thing as it almost destroyed them.
A lot of FReepers claim liberals are stupid but fail to notice that they control all major internet portals....
Since their citation is on a defunct forum (I think TBL moved) I believe it can and should be removed.
“A lot of FReepers claim liberals are stupid but fail to notice that they control all major internet portals....”
Good point! Liberals are not stupid, although quite a few middle class liberals are just plain ignorant. They believe the drive by media because they are too lazy to search for the truth. On the other hand, liberals are driven by hatred of conservative values and then that leaves the remainder who are just plain power hungry and evil.
Liberals take advantage of the fact that most people are stupid.
Why not post that expression of disinterest and passivity directly to that person, rather than to me?
Here's the deal...
YOU said you could get it edited when others claimed it can't be done. YOU were given a valid reason to edit the WikiP.D.A. article for listing a nonexisting source.
NOW you are saying you can't do it for the stated valid reason, you require another "proof". WikiP.D.A. cites a nonexisting source. As such, that fact invalidates the citation in question. Thus no OTHER source is required to generate an edit. Once edited (which, remember, YOU claimed you could accomplish), if someone else comes up with a valid source to reinsert that comment, they can re-edit the edit that you claim you can make but haven't.
So.. prove you can get it edited.
And since you were provided with a valid reason to edit, if you plan to continue replying with the same mantra, we will conclude that you are just blowing smoke or just maybe being, for want of a better word, a semi-equine beast.
Again, PROVE that you can get it edited.
I'm still waiting to see the edit.
You said — “Since their citation is on a defunct forum (I think TBL moved) I believe it can and should be removed.”
The problem here is the same problem that I have with my own references and documentation. I’ve got references for things I’ve looked up before (to document something), and later on the website owner has dumped it. Now, I DO HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION and it’s definitely true for the things that I’ve looked up in the past - so I know it doesn’t become “untrue” simply because some other website owner decided to dump it.
The same is true on Free Republic, too, by the way. I’ve got documentation for some things discussed that Free Republic has now dumped (everything was dumped at Free Republic before a certain date). But again, I do have the documentation, even if Free Republic decided not to keep it.
FURTHERMORE, I can go back to some older Free Republic articles and find that the references to the article SHOWS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING THERE right now. However, just because the originally referenced article, for which the thread is based IS NO LONGER THERE Free Republic does not delete the thread on discussing that article and what it said — simply because the original website owner decided to delete it. It was documented and remains true as it was when it was originally posted.
Now what I said I would do is change that on Wikipedia as soon as I received the citation of Jim Robinson’s statement - on that issue. I’m told that he did make the statement - so I’m waiting for that citation to his statement so I can make the Wikipedia change,
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.