Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: Just goes to show...

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Gloucester, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    629

    Post imported post

    I can't believe my fellow Americans, would do this:X

    http://www.aolnews.com/nation/articl...dying/19454372

  2. #2
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    The Kitty case didn't not happen as we think and as reported. It was mostly made up for dramatic purposes by the newspaper that covered it.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Portsmouth, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    463

    Post imported post

    It happened in New York City...'nuff said !!!

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    sudden valley gunner wrote:
    The Kitty case didn't not happen as we think and as reported. It was mostly made up for dramatic purposes by the newspaper that covered it.
    What is the myth and what is the reality? Do you have a credible source to back this up? I grew up in NY and I remember the story. IIRC, many people did witness various parts of the attack (ear-witness or eye-witness), and almost all of them took no action at all.

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    I'm the road so not right now. The book superfreakanomics, delved into the case and had all the sources listed.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Hodgenville, Kentucky, USA
    Posts
    1,261

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Wikipedia is not a good source on any subject that is controversial.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Wikipedia is not a good source on any subject that is controversial.
    Breaking news:

    Breathing is a terrible way to get oxygen into your body!

    Owning guns will turn you into a fat, wife-beating, drunken, redneck with no teeth!

    The Moon is made of Cheese!
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    Well, it isn't. Anyone can sign up and edit an article. Advocacy groups have folks who keep eyes on some pages, making edits that favor their cause or removing edits that are unfavorable.

    It's not a good source for information on controversial topics.

    BTW, nice rational post.

    Moving on.

  10. #10
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Well, it isn't. Anyone can sign up and edit an article. Advocacy groups have folks who keep eyes on some pages, making edits that favor their cause or removing edits that are unfavorable.

    It's not a good source for information on controversial topics.

    BTW, nice rational post.

    Moving on.
    Yes, and both sides do it, and there are moderators there too.

    My post wasn't intended to be rational, it was intended to mimic it's target in both irrationality and child-like silliness.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  11. #11
    Regular Member Brimstone Baritone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Leeds, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    786

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    Well, it isn't. Anyone can sign up and edit an article. Advocacy groups have folks who keep eyes on some pages, making edits that favor their cause or removing edits that are unfavorable.

    It's not a good source for information on controversial topics.
    I would have thought you would like wikipedia. Do you know that you can go in and put in tags to show that you don't think a 'fact' is properly cited? Not only do I use wikipedia for information, I often check the sources that they cite on the bottom of the page. Even better resources on controversial topics are the :talk pages, and the edit history.
    There was a time that the pieces fit, but I watched them fall away, mildewed and smoldering, strangled by our coveting. I've done the math enough to know the dangers of our second guessing. Doomed to crumble, unless we grow and strengthen our communication. -Tool, "Schism"

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063

    Post imported post

    mcdonalk wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Well, it isn't. Anyone can sign up and edit an article. Advocacy groups have folks who keep eyes on some pages, making edits that favor their cause or removing edits that are unfavorable.

    It's not a good source for information on controversial topics.
    I would have thought you would like wikipedia. Do you know that you can go in and put in tags to show that you don't think a 'fact' is properly cited? Not only do I use wikipedia for information, I often check the sources that they cite on the bottom of the page. Even better resources on controversial topics are the :talk pages, and the edit history.
    I love wikipedia. When one needs to look up a non-controversial fact, it should be the first place to go on the Internet. As a teacher, I used it all the time in the classroom. (I had a setup that allowed me to flash the contents of a web page on the board for all to see virtually instantly.)

    For anything controversial, I'd never use it as a primary source. It's a great meta-source. The links and references at the end of the article are, for the most part, credible sources. But, wikipedia itself is a volatile and unreliable place to find information on subjects in dispute.

  13. #13
    Founder's Club Member ixtow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Suwannee County, FL
    Posts
    5,069

    Post imported post

    eye95 wrote:
    mcdonalk wrote:
    eye95 wrote:
    Well, it isn't. Anyone can sign up and edit an article. Advocacy groups have folks who keep eyes on some pages, making edits that favor their cause or removing edits that are unfavorable.

    It's not a good source for information on controversial topics.
    I would have thought you would like wikipedia. Do you know that you can go in and put in tags to show that you don't think a 'fact' is properly cited? Not only do I use wikipedia for information, I often check the sources that they cite on the bottom of the page. Even better resources on controversial topics are the :talk pages, and the edit history.
    I love wikipedia. When one needs to look up a non-controversial fact, it should be the first place to go on the Internet. As a teacher, I used it all the time in the classroom. (I had a setup that allowed me to flash the contents of a web page on the board for all to see virtually instantly.)

    For anything controversial, I'd never use it as a primary source. It's a great meta-source. The links and references at the end of the article are, for the most part, credible sources. But, wikipedia itself is a volatile and unreliable place to find information on subjects in dispute.
    I believe the point is that it does eventually wash out. Even 'in print' sources are not credible on controversial subjects. Wikipedia can adapt the to 'emerging truth,' where books and other forms of print 'information' propagandize for all time.

    It is the 'controversial' aspect that leads to misinformation and worse, not the manner in which it is presented.
    "The fourth man's dark, accusing song had scratched our comfort hard and long..."
    http://edhelper.com/poetry/The_Hangm...rice_Ogden.htm

    https://gunthreadadapters.com

    "Be not intimidated ... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your Liberties by any pretense of Politeness, Delicacy, or Decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for Hypocrisy, Chicanery, and Cowardice." - John Adams

    Tyranny with Manners is still Tyranny.

  14. #14
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338

    Post imported post

    The Kitty case was studied by Steven D. Levitt and Stephan J. Dubner. There wasmany errors in the original newspaper story.

    Too lengthy and I don't have the ability to put it succinctly. But the even the prosecutor had a hard time finding witnesses to this crime.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •