Man opens up fire on 12 in theater COLORODO - illuminati?

Post Reply New Topic

He needs to repent to the God of Cuddles, Frederik the Crocodile.

Why is it conspiracy theorists never consider that artists could be using occult imagery to spice up their works?

I didn't say anything about not being allowed to relocate. I said a global healthcare system removes the option of relocation based on one's personal preferences. If you don't like the healthcare system in Canada, you can relocate to the USA and vice versa. A global system would deny you that option.

He's the Riddler.

As I asked the OP, what evidence do you have for that claim?

Beats me. Jay-Z's clique do it on stage all the time to sell records.

I liked the article. However, I found it odd that he used Wikipedia as an authority. Like most academics, I never allow my students to cite it. (To some of them, that makes me an anti-populist or an elitist.)

is it really an issue?

most proper facts on wiki have their sources there as well so why not just take one of them?

It indicates that the writer is unaware of the consistent problem academics repeatedly have in cleaning up Wikipedia. Most of us have simply given up on it.

Actually he shot more than 12, it was 12 KILLED and 50 something INJURED.

He had a rifle with a 100 shot magazine. Fortunately it jammed.

ruveyn

But the consistent problem academics have with distortion by normal media would be fine?

I mean, if I had to take a wikipedia article vs the average piece of journalism, I'd pick wikipedia. This also extends to the average book. The only thing that actually meets academic standards with high reliability are academic writings, and academic writings are generally NOT accessible to the average person.

I mean, it's not a sign of lacking awareness, but rather the frank awareness that wikipedia has a legitimate role in being a highly accessible source, with a large store of relevant data, and some consideration for neutrality, and that has gained some degree of legitimacy in the public opinion. If you can think of another source equally accessible, with a similarly large store of data, and that also has some consideration for neutrality, then I'd love to hear it, and if you can think of something that has all of that and a level of legitimacy as high or higher than wikipedia's, then I'll be stunned and have to wonder whether I was living in a cave.

While I am willing to accept a ban on wikipedia in the classroom if you preclude all non-academic sources, or have some other consistent metric. The current negativity towards wikipedia as a source for the average person to consult does strike me as either elitism or a lack of real recognition of the needs for the job, unless you can think of something better than wikipedia at filling wikipedia's role.

again much of the point of wikipedia is excactly that most of the actual facts and figures already have footnotes, rarely this isnt the case, but my point was that when it is the case anyone who is faced with the demand not to use wiki would simply point to the link in the footnote.

basically it's a giant collection of footnotes with an overview.

(you still find bad studies, for one reason or another, then again even the most carefully done scientific paper can have errors when looking back later)

Well, that's me convinced.