BF2S Forums A New Year Another Level for D&ST

SysTray wrote:

The point is there is a ban list. You have to give it the benefit of the doubt and accept is as true unless you can prove it false, I think....

Well, we should just apply that theory to everything

SysTray wrote:

The point is there is a ban list. You have to give it the benefit of the doubt and accept is as true unless you can prove it false, I think....

They do ban. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia: … nned_users

Like I said before anything can be disputed on WIKI and go up for a challenge. Here is an example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism .
The neutrality of this article is disputed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_anti-Semitism

The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_a … _Palestine

It is proposed that this article be deleted, because of the following concern:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism_and_racism
Propaganda

Bubbalo wrote:

Question: who's going to decide when people have broken it and get scratched off?

The rules seem simple enough. I think when members violate their agreement it will be obvious.

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-01-01 07:59:29)

SysTray wrote:

Some things are obviously false. What I'm getting at is that, from what I've found, Wikipedia has more truth than is does error. The sources are cited and it's monitored so it's not completely free editing.

But it isn't necessarily the whole truth, and more truth than error fails to take into account un-truths, or opinions presented as truths, which weren't an error by the poster.  Wikipedia is fine for general details (e.g. Maoism and Communism are similar, or World War II was a war fought during x period involving x nations), but no good for specific information (e.g. the differences between Maoism and Communism are, or World War II was fought for x reasons).

Kmarion wrote:

The rules seem simple enough. I think when members violate their agreement it will be obvious.

I suppose, but there's sometimes a fine line between a true insult and a bad name in the middle of a paragraph long response.

Simon wrote:

I'll just avoid it like usual

I agree.

Bubbalo wrote:

They're dropping like flies.

Wait a minute buddy, I never "agreed" to anything. I just said happy new year.

I was talking about usmarine.

LMAO @ lowing in the OP date: 1/1/07

Bubbalo wrote:

Well, if it was intended as a joke fine, I just didn't think you'd be funny.......generally............I rescind my nomination..................

No no.  I want to be on the naughty list.

usmarine2007 wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Well, if it was intended as a joke fine, I just didn't think you'd be funny.......generally............I rescind my nomination..................

No no.  I want to be on the naughty list.

OK, but you have to sit in a different corner, and keep your hands to yourself.

Last edited by lowing (2007-01-01 11:36:55)

Yes keep proving how immature and childish you really are.

This forum in infested by kids who are not old enough to drive.  So trying to have a D&ST is rather hysterical.  I come here to the laughs.

lowing wrote:

mafia996630 wrote:

Yes keep proving how immature and childish you really are.

ya ok.........this coming from a person with a sig like yours?...............good advice. lol

lol