Posted on 04/09/2008 5:48:05 AM PDT by RatherBiased.com
Anyone else notice how the liberals call anyone who takes offense to this ad “white nationalists” or “white supremacists?”
The moonbats are at it again!
PING!
While I am white, and a nationalist, I’m not a “white nationalist.”
Pernod Ricard owns a wide variety of beverage brands worldwide. These include:
NOT INCLUDED
Lincolnshire, Illinois-based Fortune Brands acquired a number of former Allied Domecq brands from Pernod Ricard following Pernod Ricard’s acquisition of Allied Domecq. These include:
I took offense to this ad and sent emails to the Absolut Reconquista team that approved the ad. BTW, I am not white.
“Anyone else notice how the liberals.....”
No, because this is the first time I’ve heard of this. Boycott Absolute, not because of their agenda, boycott it because alcoholic drink is poison.
This ad is as offensive to me as, say, an “Absolut South” ad showing slaves picking cotton or an “Absolut Reich” ad showing Germany’s conquests in WWII. It bothers me that some of my own countrymen don’t see it as I do. They have a national death-wish; I do not.
I stopped drinking any alcohol about a year ago, but might start again just so I can boycott Absolut. :)
Wikipedia is garbage. Glad the word is getting out about it.
Absolut used to be a favorite of mine, until I quit drinking any alcohol about a year ago.
My life is much better without booze.
I leave it up to others to make their own choices. I have considered resuming my liquor purchases just so I can boycott Absolut, though. :)
Wikipedia is only as good as the people who get involved in it.
More conservatives need to get involved. It DOES make a difference as this story shows.
Is it worth fighting the fight on Wikipedia?
Most of his brands are goat piss that I wouldn’t drink in my college days. Too bad about Beefeater, though. In my gin drinking days that was the gin of choice.
Definitely. Or should I say Absolutly.
Kidding aside, though, if you figure out how to word facts that support conservatism in a reasonably objective manner, your edits will stay in articles.
I’ve done it for years with articles. A lot of conservatives make the mistake that just because they don’t think Wikipedia is credible, no one else thinks so. This is far from the case.
Wikipedia matters a lot because its pages are so prominent in Google searchs. Most times when you’re looking for something, the Wikipedia entry for it will pop up as the #1 link. Almost always in the top five. This is a huge opportunity for the right since the rest of the top sites on the web (Wikipedia is #9 in the world) shut out conservative voices through editorial processes and hiring biases.
The only reason Wikipedia leans left is because more conservatives aren’t out there doing their part to make it fair.
Probably not. As soon as you change something, someone else with more seniority will change it back.
Maybe another thing that can be done is to quietly, innocuously insert links to conservative articles, papers, stories etc. into the articles without any language at all. This gives the double duty of creating a link to a conservative site if you choose the article location well, and this link then enhances the search engine ranking of the conservative site.
Probably not. As soon as you change something, someone else with more seniority will change it back.
_____________________________________________
So how long you’ve been a member at Wikipedia matters in terms of what you can do to what?
You can do anything unless an article is locked or otherwise disabled, last I remember. If you don't sign up before making edits, then everyone else who has signed up can see your IP address. Otherwise, I believe your IP address is hidden. At least, that's how it used to be.
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.