Isn't it a good thing ...?
-
Isn't it a good thing that professional journalists are, well, professionals? Irish student's Wikipedia hoax fools newspapers[^] :doh: Wikipedia! :doh:
It's amazing that you reference an article to behaviour that you engage in constantly.
-
It's amazing that you reference an article to behaviour that you engage in constantly.
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's amazing that you reference an article to behaviour that you engage in constantly.
It's not amazing that you're so willfully ignorant. I reference Wikipedia, in part, because people like you tend to think it authoritative. And I never simply assume that what is written there is correct. And I frequently point out that I am "only" referencing Wikipedia.
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's amazing that you reference an article to behaviour that you engage in constantly.
It's not amazing that you're so willfully ignorant. I reference Wikipedia, in part, because people like you tend to think it authoritative. And I never simply assume that what is written there is correct. And I frequently point out that I am "only" referencing Wikipedia.
Ilíon wrote:
It's not amazing that you're so willfully ignorant.
Yes it is amazing, because I'm not ignorant at all. If I were ignorant, I'd post links like you do, but I don't.
Ilíon wrote:
because people like you tend to think it authoritative.
:laugh:
Ilíon wrote:
And I never simply assume that what is written there is correct. And I frequently point out that I am "only" referencing Wikipedia.
:laugh: That's hilarious. I distinctly recall you interpreting not one, but two peer-reviewed papers incorrectly. How do you explain this?
-
73Zeppelin wrote:
It's amazing that you reference an article to behaviour that you engage in constantly.
It's not amazing that you're so willfully ignorant. I reference Wikipedia, in part, because people like you tend to think it authoritative. And I never simply assume that what is written there is correct. And I frequently point out that I am "only" referencing Wikipedia.
Ilíon wrote:
I reference Wikipedia, in part, because people like you tend to think it authoritative. And I never simply assume that what is written there is correct.
As you are aware that Wikipedia may be incorrect, is it not *intellectually dishonest* of you not to reference other, more reliable, sources?
Ilíon wrote:
And I frequently point out that I am "only" referencing Wikipedia.
As you believe your target audience tends to think Wikipedia authoritative, your naming it as the source merely compounds the dishonesty.
Bob Emmett
-
Ilíon wrote:
I reference Wikipedia, in part, because people like you tend to think it authoritative. And I never simply assume that what is written there is correct.
As you are aware that Wikipedia may be incorrect, is it not *intellectually dishonest* of you not to reference other, more reliable, sources?
Ilíon wrote:
And I frequently point out that I am "only" referencing Wikipedia.
As you believe your target audience tends to think Wikipedia authoritative, your naming it as the source merely compounds the dishonesty.
Bob Emmett
No, silly person. One must talk to others in language they understand. For instance, how many times must it be pointed out that I treat you kiddies as I do in *response* to your behavior directed at me? Also, I don't use Wikipedia items which I know are wrong. Sheesh, try to think, here! Wikipedia is not a single (simple) thing.
-
No, silly person. One must talk to others in language they understand. For instance, how many times must it be pointed out that I treat you kiddies as I do in *response* to your behavior directed at me? Also, I don't use Wikipedia items which I know are wrong. Sheesh, try to think, here! Wikipedia is not a single (simple) thing.
Ilíon wrote:
Also, I don't use Wikipedia items which I know are wrong. Sheesh, try to think, here! Wikipedia is not a single (simple) thing.
So if you know which Wikipedia articles are wrong and which are right, there's no need for you to use Wikipedia, right? You're lying again....
-
No, silly person. One must talk to others in language they understand. For instance, how many times must it be pointed out that I treat you kiddies as I do in *response* to your behavior directed at me? Also, I don't use Wikipedia items which I know are wrong. Sheesh, try to think, here! Wikipedia is not a single (simple) thing.
Ilíon wrote:
One must talk to others in language they understand.
But Wikipedia is not a single (simple) thing, and its language varies from contributor to contributor.
Ilíon wrote:
Wikipedia is not a single (simple) thing.
Well, thank you, I doubt I should ever have noticed. :rolleyes:
Ilíon wrote:
I treat you kiddies as I do in *response* to your behavior directed at me?
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Hail, Ming the Merciless!
Bob Emmett