Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 24 Jul '10 19:58
    http://www.amren.com/features/200807wikipedia.html
  2. Standard member Redmike
    Godless Commie
    24 Jul '10 20:03
    You give this site to complain about bias? Seriously?
  3. 24 Jul '10 20:05
    the article forgot to mention climate.
  4. 24 Jul '10 20:08
    Originally posted by Redmike
    You give this site to complain about bias? Seriously?
    well, as the discussion page for the wiki on the Amren magazine itself is currently arguing over, there seems to be no problem for a lot of wikipedia editors to cite the Anti-Defamation League when criticizing American Renaissance.
  5. 24 Jul '10 20:23
    Come on Zeeb! Anything that isn't redstate.com, free republic or Fox news is "liberal bias" to you.
  6. 24 Jul '10 20:29
    there's more (mediamatters, factcheck, NYT, Newsweek, Time) or less (MSNBC, CNN) liberal bias.

    i wouldn't just discard EVERYTHING the mores or lesses toss out, just because i don't agree with all of it.
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    24 Jul '10 22:20
    Well obviously you don't toss out Wikipedia even though you seem to disagree with your own Wikipedia quotes quite a lot of the time.
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    25 Jul '10 00:48
    Originally posted by Redmike
    You give this site to complain about bias? Seriously?
    zeeblebot once cited a "patriotic" U.S. web site that had airbrushed the Vietnam War out of history altogether (along with all the people that were killed there by the U.S. and others) in an argument about how many people were killed in the Vietnam War by the U.S. and others. Here, with him citing what basically amounts to a white supremacist web site, we see more of zeeblebot indefatigable striving for fairness, truth and intellectual decency.
  9. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    25 Jul '10 02:59
    Bias in Wikipedia is an oxymoron. Everyone has essentially equal access to change its content. If you don't like what it has to say about something, then change it.
  10. 25 Jul '10 04:19
    Originally posted by FMF
    zeeblebot once cited a "patriotic" U.S. web site that had airbrushed the Vietnam War out of history altogether (along with all the people that were killed there by the U.S. and others) in an argument about how many people were killed in the Vietnam War by the U.S. and others. Here, with him citing what basically amounts to a white supremacist web site, we see more of zeeblebot indefatigable striving for fairness, truth and intellectual decency.
    i don't recall it as airbrushing it out. it just didn't have an article on it. it had it listed.

    but you went ON and ON for PAGE after PAGE about it. i remember that!
  11. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    25 Jul '10 04:27
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    i don't recall it as airbrushing it out. it just didn't have an article on it. it had it listed.
    Way to go for citing it in our debate!
  12. 25 Jul '10 04:34
    only you had a problem with the website not including an article on the VN War.

    i suggested you PROVIDE them with one, but i doubt you followed suit. your style is more to order every one else to produce stuff. did you provide them with one?
  13. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    25 Jul '10 04:44 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    only you had a problem with the website not including an article on the VN War.
    As I recall you asked "Come on then what casualties did the U.S. cause in Vietnam?" and then you linked to a web site that did not indicate that there had been any! The same web site had no data for Cambodia or Laos either, despite being about 'America's Wars'.

    The lesson we learn from all this is that you and your risibly biased, spammy, zero-quality-control cut & pastes count for virtually nothing in terms of debate, and are certainly not any part of any quest for truth.
  14. 25 Jul '10 04:48
    Originally posted by FMF
    As I recall you asked "Come one then what casualties did the U.S. cause in Vietnam?" and then linked to a web site that did not indicate that there had been any! The same web site had no data for Cambodia or Laos either, despite being about 'America's Wars'.

    The lesson we learn from all this is that you and your risibly biased, spammy, zero-quality-control c ...[text shortened]... irtually nothing in terms of debate, and are certainly not any part of any quest for truth.
    you recalling it is not enough. you need to find it.
  15. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    25 Jul '10 04:56 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by zeeblebot
    you recalling it is not enough. you need to find it.
    Yes it is. And I don't. You know exactly what I am referring to and you've been defensive ever since, as your last few posts on this thread demonstrate vividly. Anyway, you citing an essay from what is basically a white supremacist web site that accuses wikipedia of bias on the topic of race is quintessential zeeblebot. You've made your 'point'. You probably won't argue the corner.