What about those giant human skeletons?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tallest_people



Manny

http://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/world-records/size/tallest-man-living



Manny

PS: man that would suck hard to find clothes that fit and people always treating you like a freak.

Originally posted by CLL53
hahahahaha, Pastafarianism...

Yep, that is indicative of how carefully researched wikipedia articles are.

From the article:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism, a satirical movement celebrating lighthearted irreligion and opposing the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools.[1] Although some adherents state that Pastafarianism is a genuine religion,[1] it is generally recognized by the media as a parody religion.[2][3]

The "Flying Spaghetti Monster" was first described in a satirical open letter written by Bobby Henderson in 2005 to protest the Kansas State Board of Education decision to permit teaching intelligent design as an alternative to evolution in public school science classes.

Seems pretty accurate to me. Are you saying that the article is wrong?

--- Penguin

Originally posted by Penguin
From the article:

The Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM) is the deity of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or Pastafarianism, a satirical movement celebrating lighthearted irreligion and opposing the teaching of intelligent design and creationism in public schools.[1] Although some adherents state that Pastafarianism is a genuine religion,[1] it i ...[text shortened]... .

Seems pretty accurate to me. Are you saying that the article is wrong?

--- Penguin

The point is the absurdity of the article. Granted the article is not intended as a "real" religious definition, but it proves that damn near anything can be "published" on wikipedia.

Originally posted by CLL53
The point is the absurdity of the article. Granted the article is not intended as a "real" religious definition, but it proves that damn near anything can be "published" on wikipedia.

A religion is how its adherents define one. Look at scientology, as wacky a 'religion' as was ever perpetrated on humans but THEY call it a religion and the government in their delusionary minds accept that definition, so it is a religion, as abhorrent as we think to be.

So if a flying spaghetti monster religion was to take hold and people take it seriously, it could be a 'real' religion, just as 'real' as christianity, which should be called Paulism anyway.

Originally posted by CLL53
The point is the absurdity of the article. Granted the article is not intended as a "real" religious definition, but it proves that damn near anything can be "published" on wikipedia.

there is nothing absurd about that article. it is an accurate description of an existing movement.

if you want to prove that anything can be published on wikipedia, you still have the option of publishing an absurd article and see how long it stays up before it's taken down. it seems that you just want to throw around unproven allegations without trying for yourself.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
there is nothing absurd about that article. it is an accurate description of an existing movement.

if you want to prove that anything can be published on wikipedia, you still have the option of publishing an absurd article and see how long it stays up before it's taken down. it seems that you just want to throw around unproven allegations without trying for yourself.

In other words CLL, put up or shut up.

Originally posted by sonhouse
In other words CLL, put up or shut up.

Oh, did we hit a nerve when cutting down your only source of information? Wikipedia... ...might as well refer to blogs, tweets, or emails as a source of pseudo-facts...

Originally posted by CLL53
Oh, did we hit a nerve when cutting down your only source of information? Wikipedia... ...might as well refer to blogs, tweets, or emails as a source of pseudo-facts...

you haven't been able to demonstrate any of those allegations against wikipedia. you have been able to demonstrate ample amounts of your own ignorance however. you're building quiet a ronny-putation around here.

Originally posted by VoidSpirit
you haven't been able to demonstrate any of those allegations against wikipedia. you have been able to demonstrate ample amounts of your own ignorance however. you're building quiet a ronny-putation around here.

To heck with it, some people just don't get it. Their own web sites state the obvious, per no claim to be the equivalent of authoritative information content. Read their information, the sites are operated entirely on the theory that information posted will be edited and re-edited, again and again, to finally converge on commonly accepted material. Note that even if the theory held, commonly accepted does not make something factual.

Originally posted by CLL53
To heck with it, some people just don't get it. Their own web sites state the obvious, per no claim to be the equivalent of authoritative information content. Read their information, the sites are operated entirely on the theory that information posted will be edited and re-edited, again and again, to finally converge on commonly accepted material. Note that even if the theory held, commonly accepted does not make something factual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

Originally posted by CLL53
To heck with it, some people just don't get it. Their own web sites state the obvious, per no claim to be the equivalent of authoritative information content. Read their information, the sites are operated entirely on the theory that information posted will be edited and re-edited, again and again, to finally converge on commonly accepted material. Note that even if the theory held, commonly accepted does not make something factual.

But what was under discussion was what was commonly accepted.
Further, definitions do not have a truth value. They cannot be 'factual' or not. Dictionary definitions are the commonly accepted definitions of words. Scientific definitions are those that are commonly accepted within the scientific community.

Originally posted by CLL53
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

Originally posted by wolfgang59
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idiot

You obviously are a democrat.

Originally posted by CLL53
To heck with it, some people just don't get it. Their own web sites state the obvious, per no claim to be the equivalent of authoritative information content. Read their information, the sites are operated entirely on the theory that information posted will be edited and re-edited, again and again, to finally converge on commonly accepted material. Note that even if the theory held, commonly accepted does not make something factual.

You posted the wikipedia article as an example of where wikipedia gets it wrong. However, you have failed to identify any part of the article that is actually wrong. Likewise, you have also failed to identify any part of the 'giant skeletons' article that is wrong.

And we have still not had any reliable reference to anything indicating these skeletons might actually exist. Until you do, there really is nothing to discuss.

A few pages ago, I commented:

Two pages on this and not a single link or reference to any 'giant human skeletons'. Amazing.


Now it is 6 pages. Stunning!

--- Penguin.