Mnemolth

[quote name='Boba Fett][color=green']I'm willing to bet those entries are locked due to their controversial natures.[/color][/quote] Actually no. This is why people are so skeptical of its reliability. But it works out quite well. Wikipedia may lock pages but it is very, very rare. Right now, I'm able to edit the Intelligent Design article.

There is a discussion in Slashdot (Warning Will Robinson, Warning: "Geek Territory ahead") about this: [url]http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/12/01/0030200&from=rss[/url] I think there are a couple of things need to be understood about this situation. 1. John Seigenthaler is not someone famous that people know or look up. This is why you can pull such a prank. Because no one looks up the entry, because no one cares about it, because no one reads it, this is why it slipped through. But if you were doing an assignment, on some topic that is evenly remotely interesting/controversial/popular, you can be sure that blatantly false information like this is very unlikely to fall through. If you don't believe me I suggest you look up ANY entry that is controversial/popular. George Bush, Intelligent Design, Evolution, Albert Einstein, etc. Go into that entry and try to sneak some blatantly bais or false information in. Go on. Edit it. And then wait, and come back the next day, and see if your edit survived. I'm willing to bet your entry would have been obliterated. Please note you do this at your own risk, Wikipedia MAY have a policy of banning IPs that intentionally troll. 2. Wikipedia should not be taken as the word of God. But then you shouldn't accept everything you read in the library or see on TV either. Just because it is in a book doesn't make it true. Wikipedia is no more or less reliable. But you know what's so great about Wikipedia? Besides the fact that it is free. It is the fact that most Wikipedia articles have reference to the original sources. So you can click on the links and go to the actual source and cross-check the facts yourself. So if you want to write a paper on Occam's Razor, or Abortion, or some similar topic, you can get straight into it on Wikipedia. Even if you can't use Wikipedia as a source, you can just glean the information from Wikipedia, then use the links/references as sources. See, the greatest thing about Wikipedia is that YOU are in charge. The last thing I would say about Wikipedia is that it is especially useful when you deal with very controversial topics like Intelligent Design or Palestine. Because these are very controversial issues the articles are constantly monitored to ensure that bias information doesn't creep in. This is because people FOR or AGAINST an issue will make sure that the facts are correct. So the article ends up being very balanced, having been beaten up by both sides. EDIT: [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4530930.stm[/url] Apparently Wikipedia is as accurate on science as Encyclopedia Britannica.

[quote name='ChibiHorsewoman][color=darkviolet']They determined that a person cannot be held indefinately without a trial...[/color][/quote] Hmm... not quite. As I understand it, what the Supreme Court seems to be saying is that the government cannot just designate ANYONE an "enemy combatant", and so hide them from the courts. The person is entitled to rebutt the government declaration of their status. What's the diff? There are major differences. Because this is a time of war, the "normal" rules do not apply. The "very basic" rules still exist, so the person can still challenge his detention, but it's not like he has to have a trial, or his guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, or rules of evidence (like hearsay, etc) need to apply. Just as long as the person has a chance to come before an objective third party (ie court or maybe tribunal) and challenge the government's claim that he is an "enemy combatant", that's all that needs to happen. If the courts are more likely to believe the government story than his, then he's screwed. So this means the President can't tommorrow label John Kerry an "enemy combatant" and lock him up indefinitely, but they can probably lock that arab guy down the street who can't prove with 100% certainty that he isn't part of al Qaeda. It's a big victory for civil rights, but it ain't a complete victory.

Hmm... Quote threads are often a little obnoxious. Or precocious. Or both. As if we can reduce the complexities of life into a neat little phrase. Once upon a time T-shirts were actually a piece of clothing, rather than a form of expression. But hey, that's just my opinion... :)

If, for whatever reason, you can't use Word or Works, say you're at some public computer that doesn't have them or something, and you want to spell check your post, just copy and paste it into [URL=http://www.spellcheck.net/][COLOR=Blue]SpellCheck[/color][/URL]. It will give you suggestions on words it doesn't like, and you can decide to change them or not. Once you're happy with it, copy & paste it back into your post, and viola, you're done. Of course, it doesn't check grammar or anything like that, and it uses an American dictionary, but yeah... now you really don't have any excuses for mis-spelling. :)

Not sure if this should be on it's own thread or posted under Nashvilledreamer's thread. I thought I'd post it here to give it more exposure, and get some comments, and it is 'my' poem even tho it is a reworking of someone else's poem. And if someone is not happy, then this can always be deleted. :) You can see the original thread [URL=http://www.otakuboards.com/showthread.php?t=38424]here[/URL] [b]Ying and Yang[/b] Sometimes there is good Sometimes there is bad Sometimes you love Sometimes you hate But always there is balance Always the Ying and Yang For the universe is a timepiece And to every equation There is a solution. So fear not despair For hope is there Fear not pain For pleasure is around the bend Most of all fear not fear for solace shall be near.

[QUOTE=Godelsensei][COLOR=Gray][FONT=Courier New]Which is why our society is a wonderful thing. As my English teacher would say, [I]"You can stand up at speakers corner and say the Prime Minister's a crook, but if you can't prove it, you're going to be sued for slander."[/I] What a wonderful world we live in. :) Freedom of speach is a right we are all given (throughout most of the world, anyway), but hate material is still hate material. We are allowed to say whatever we want about the government, and our society, as long as we don't say absurd and negative things about people specifically. And, in that case, it's either up to them to sue us, or we'll be charged with harassment.[/FONT] [/COLOR][/QUOTE] Actually, as far as I understand, that's not quite true. I might wanna have a word with that teacher of yours. :) It's not slander if I got up in a park and denounce the Prime Minister as a crook. Just as it isn't slander if I was in the US and called George Bush a liar. It's my opinion and opinion doesn't fall into material that can be 'slander'. If you're asserting it as a 'fact' then you've got more of a problem. But even so, with the examples given, it's not too big a deal, since these are extremely public and political figures and the courts are very VERY wary of curtailing political debate. But a well known newspaper can't print complete untruths, although that's more called libel rather than slander. This is because by definition, a newspaper is asserting facts. Another thing to know is that 'truth' isn't always a defense. Depends on the place and the law in that place. In some places, even if what you say is true, it will still be slander if they can prove that you said those things primarily out of malice, and that you wanted only to harm the reputation of the person, and you didn't have other objectives in mind, like for example, the public interest to know. [EDIT] As for hate material, in most western countries, esp the US, hate material is allowed as long as you don't incite people to do illegal things, like murder other people for example. So while you can say all blacks are lazy and stupid, you can't tell people to shoot every black person they see. Just like while you can say George Bush is an idiot and shouldn't be President, you can't then go on to tell people to kill him.[/EDIT]

Hmm... how small is it? I don't know any Japanese, but if it's a simple line of text, maybe you can try [URL=http://babelfish.altavista.com/babelfish/tr][COLOR=Blue]BabelFish[/COLOR][/URL]. It's probably wrong, but it's fun to use, and for something really simple, it'll give you a general idea. Can anyone who is bilingual and understand Japanese, use this service and tell me how accurate it is for simple lines of text?? :)

I don't know who Milton Creagh is, and really this isn't the point of the post. But all of this just reminds me of the motivational 'guru' in Donnie Darko. Yes, yes, it's just a movie. But on ocassion, certain scenes in a movie do have a point. And that was one smart flick. Anyway, my two cents is rather simple. I don't think that anyone's salvation relies on another, that anyone's path to God (if you believe in Her/Him) goes through someone else. But rather, that it is up to us. Just as I believe that no one can kick their addiction of anything, be it alcohol or drugs or whatever, through depending on others. Sure support by your family or friends is essential, but really, only you have the power to kick your own addiction. So what has this to do with anything MistressRoxie said? Quite alot actually. Life is complicated. And people find that hard. So they rather have easy answers. But there are no easy answers. There is no 'simple' path. And following one guru or another is not going to get you where you want to go. Only you can get yourself there. So, don't be lazy and think for yourself is the gist of this post. See with your own eyes, hear with your own ears and know with your own mind. And yes, what I've just said also applies to this post. ;)

I preferred the Ying Yang poem to the Suicide one. I like its beat, its sharp terse little lines. But you do tend to overuse cliches and some words. Heal, for example, shows up 3 times. It's a small poem. So yeah. Vary it a little. Also throw in some imagery. As for the suggestion that you should use more 'sophisticated' words, I'm not so sure. I reckon you should give it a go. Just to develop your style. But I would add here that small 'simple' words does not make a poem any less powerful or meaningful. In fact, it is a hell of a lot harder to write a GOOD poem with simple words than to write one with more complicated vocabulary. The best poetry relies on captivating imagery but with a simple vocabulary. Consider the following poem, first published in 1966 (the time of James Dean and youthful rebellion, the time when the whole teen angst and cool thing swept the world). "We Real Cool" We real cool. We Left school. We Lurk late. We Strike straight. We Sing sin. We Thin gin. We Jazz June. We Die soon. It's by Gwendolyn Brooks, one of America's greatest modern poets. Almost 40 years later people still quote it for its power and insight. 8 simple lines. And it's an American classic, taught in schools and universities all over the country. Just something to think about... :) Ying and Yang -> B- Warning Against Suicide -> C+ And don't worry about my grades. Just ask Asphy, I have no idea what I'm talking about when it comes to literature. ;)

[QUOTE=IceWolfEyes]I wonder if anyone could explain the differences between Catholics and Christians. I know they stemmed from the same religion, but after that the definition gets fuzzy. Icewolfeyes[/QUOTE] I'm sure there are gonna be holes in this but it's basically on the right track. Because I'm gonna be brief, it's gonna oversimplify things a bit. Christianity in the middle ages, rested with Catholicism. The road to Heaven went through the Church (and by Church here I mean the Catholic Church). But a few hundred years ago, around about the 16th century, there was a revolt, or revolution, initiated mainly by a Catholic priest, Martin Luther. He wasn't happy with the way the Church went about it's business. He thought it had moved away from it's purpose, there was too much corruption, etc. Anyway, seems like a whole bunch of people agreed with him, and a movement, the Reformation, was underway that changed the state of Christianity. The 'reformers' were labeled 'Protestants', protesting against the status quo. They wanted a more personal and direct relationship with God. There were disillusioned with the Church. So basically there are two main groups of Christians. Catholics and Protestants. But don't think it's all that simple. Because not all Catholics or Protestants are the same. So within Catholicism there are denominations, like the Jesuits, Dominicans and so on, and they have slightly different views on things. On the Protestant side, there are the Anglicans, the Uniting Church, and so on. Most evangelists are Protestants, so most of mid-west would be Protestant. Actually I think the majority of 'Christians' in the US are Protestants. So what does this have to do with anything? Well, the Protestants believe in a more direct relationship with God. It's more individualistic. And at the root of their belief is that Jesus died for our sins, and so our salvation lies within his sacrifice. So you hear a lot of stuff about 'accepting' Jesus and so on. The idea behind that is that you don't get to Heaven by doing good deeds or atonement (paying for sins you've done), but by accepting Jesus, by acknowledging his sacrifice. Does that mean that if I 'accept' Jesus, I can become a mass murderer and still go to Heaven?? Not really, because if you truly accepted Jesus and his suffering for you, you wouldn't be the sort of person capable of doing something like that. Or something like that, I'm sure there are Protestant here who can give you the details. As for the Catholics, they also believed in Jesus dying for our sins. But they also think that we need to do things as well, like confessing to our sins, and paying penance to atone for them. So, in a nutshell, that's the difference between Catholics and Protestants. As a side note, in some places in the world, protestants refer to themselves as 'Christians'. This is where it can get a bit confusing. They don't think Catholics are Christians because they don't think Catholics 'accept' the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins. This is because the Catholics believe in the Holy Trinity, The Father, Son and Holy Ghost. To Protestants, there is only Jesus and he is God, and that's the beginning and end of the matter. So if you ask them what religion they believe in, they'll reply Christian. And if you ask them whether they're Catholic or not, they look you blankly in the face and say, "Didn't I just tell you I was Christian?" :) Now if you want to talk about Hinduism and Buddhism, that's a whole different kettle of fish! :)

There are two kinds of sci-fi fans. Those who love Star Wars and those who love Star Trek. What about those who like BOTH, I hear you say?? Well, bud, there ain't no such creature! They lie! Lies I tells ya!! Hey! What are you doing?? Stop that!! Unhand me you fool!! You cannot hide the truth!! The truth shall be revealed!! And ye shall worship in the Shrine of Yoda or in the Temple of Enterprise, and ye shall have only one worship, and ye shall smite all infidels whomever shall question ye faith.....so it is written...so it shall be done.....

[QUOTE=Dan L]Actually, Christianity is pretty clear on one thing: No matter how much good you've done, you will always have done a lot of bad, thus no one can reach something better than themselves (heaven) just by good deeds. If you could, then there'd be no reason for the cross whatsoever. The actual teaching of the Bible is that you are pretty messed up but Jesus takes the blame for it if you believe it- and thus you reach something better than yourself. It may well encourage good works in our life in this world- but it certainly doesn't teach that you will go to heaven through your own goodness. "Salvation"... Why would we need to be saved if we could get to heaven just by doing good things? You don't even get into heaven by believing in God (because the Devil knows about him) or praying to him. Only by accepting Jesus- which usually takes the form of a prayer, but it is always centred on the fact that it's God who does the good things, not us. Buddhists probably have some good values and practices- but the statement that the two beliefs w.r.t. salvation are no different couldn't be farther from the truth. In case you couldn't tell, I'm a Christian. Technically Anglican, but I don't really give much attention to denomination- only the fact that I follow Jesus.[/QUOTE] Dan, that's actually a Protestant view of 'Christianity'. If you believe that 'Christianity' is a religion centred around Jesus, then there are plenty of Christians who don't follow what you have said there, or the degree to you which you emphasised the Jesus as Saviour or Acceptance of Jesus angle. You can label them 'non-Christians' if you wish, but they do believe in Christ, that He is the Son of God, and, to my reckoning, believing in Christ means you're a Christian. After all, that's where the word is derived from in the first place.

This is kinda one-sided ain't it? :) Okay, I think we need to get some perspective here. In most discussions about Huck Finn the question is not an outright ban. That wouldn't even be consitutional, free speech and all. The debate is often brought up in the school context. So perhaps some of you can think of situations in which it might or might not be a good idea. Here are three starting points: 1) Should Huck Finn be banned from school libraries? Remember the government pays for those books (assuming it is a state school), so whether or not your parents' (and taxpayers in general) tax dollars should be spent buying such a book may be relevant to your discussion. 2) What about Junior High schools, where the kids are generally under 16?? Is it really suitable for children under 16? Remember to have a book in the school library implies that the school, in a sense, 'promotes' that book, by making it available for kids to read. If you let it on the shelves of High Schools and not Junior High, what are you saying about children under 16? Are you protecting them or patronising them? 3) Even if you allow Huck Finn into the libraries of schools, the final question is, do you allow him on the curriculum, that is, should Huck Finn be on the list of books that are taught in schools?? Remember, the books on this list are all deemed great works and suitable for teaching school children. They are held up as examples of outstanding literature. With all the racial tensions in Huck Finn, should that book be held up as such an example at school level??

Greetings again you young world weary travellers on the road to nowhere. :) Just thought I'd drop in and drop another sonnet. Another reminder to the person who knows who they are that they better step up to the plate. A deal's a deal! :D Of course should any poor unsuspecting person stumble across this thread, and blind their innocent impressionable eyes by reading it, alas I renounce any responsibility for any madness or mental illness that may afflict them. You are, obviously, entitled to condemn me to the depraved fiery pits of Hell, so bring it on. Although I'm not so sure that would be such a good idea considering the nature of what I have written! You know.... I might actually enjoy it, or something. *lol* [b]Soul Search[/b] Before the festering gates of Hell, In darkness, you and he shall mate. Blest Jezebel, you Empress-whore! To couple with a soulless corpse. His slavering eyes caress her soul, An appetite that yearns for more -- Thus did he seek, with fervent lust, The soul she stole, the soul he lost. Now where is Ravenstorture when you need her?? *lol* Although, come to think of it, it's probably more a cautionary tale for Flynn! :D